[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 23]
[Issue]
[Pages 32000-32266]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 32000]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Monday, December 8, 2003
The House met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore (Mr. Boozman).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
December 8, 2003.
I hereby appoint the Honorable John Boozman to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Represenatives.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Monahan, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate has passed bills of the following titles in
which the concurrence of the House is requested:
S. 99. An act for the relief of Jaya Gulab Tolani and
Hitesh Gulab Tolani.
S. 103. An act for the relief of Lindita Idrizi Heath.
S. 460. An act to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act
to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2004 through
2010 to carry out the State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program.
S. 541. An act for the relief of Ilko Vasilev Ivanov,
Anelia Marinova Peneva, Marina Ilkova Ivanova, and Julia
Ilkova Ivanova.
S. 573. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act to
promote organ donation, and for other purposes.
S. 648. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act with
respect to health professions programs regarding the practice
of pharmacy.
S. 848. An act for the relief of Daniel King Cairo.
S. 854. An act to authorize a comprehensive program of
support for victims of torture, and for other purposes.
S. 1130. An act for the relief of Esidronio Arreola-
Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola,
and Cindy Jael Arreola.
S. 1402. An act to authorize appropriations for activities
under the Federal railroad safety laws for fiscal years 2004
through 2008, and for other purposes.
S. 1683. An act to provide for a report on the parity of
pay and benefits among Federal law enforcement officers and
to establish an exchange program between Federal law
enforcement employees and State and local law enforcement
employees.
S. 1881. An act to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to make technical corrections relating to the
amendments made by the Medical Device User Fee and
Modernization Act of 2002, and for other purposes.
S. 1920. An act to extend for 6 months the period for which
chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code is
reenacted.
The message also announced that the Senate has agreed to the House
amendment with an amendment.
S. 877. An act to regulate interstate commerce by imposing
limitations and penalties on the transmission of unsolicited
commercial electronic mail via the Internet.
____________________
MORNING HOUR DEBATES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 7, 2003, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour
debates. The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with
each party limited to not to exceed 30 minutes, and each Member, except
the majority leader, the minority leader, or the minority whip, limited
to not to exceed 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5
minutes.
____________________
PLENTY IS WRONG WITH THE WAL-MART PICTURE
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, a drama is taking place about the
future, not just of America's economy, but the global marketplace. A
metaphor for this drama is the role that Wal-Mart, the world's largest
retailer, plays. Since its founding by Sam Walton in 1962, it has grown
to be larger than the economies of 170 nations.
By rigorous cost containment and careful attention to detail, it has
forced suppliers to be competitive and more effective. It has given
Americans lower prices, and some experts even say has held down
inflation. What could be wrong with this picture? Well, plenty.
First of all, there are the costs to communities. It appears that
communities lose far more jobs with Wal-Mart than they gain. Depending
upon that community and whether or not those jobs lost are unionized,
the jobs that they do get are $2 to $10 an hour less than those
destroyed. Much of the opposition is to the impact that Wal-Mart has on
the fabric of the communities it operates in, often at the outskirts of
town, drawing away from the vitality of the main street where
businesses, slowly, are strangled.
The impact can even be devastating for its suppliers, as detailed in
a cover story in this month's Fast Company magazine, discussing the
impact on Huffy Bikes and Vlasic Pickles, where companies end up being
squeezed and often cannibalizing themselves. Finally, there are grave
questions about the treatment of workers in the factories around the
world that supply Wal-Mart.
There appears to be a corrosive impact on Wal-Mart itself: It is not
just anti-union, but blatantly so, firing workers who are sympathetic
to unions. There is illegal coercion of their own employees who may be
interested in unions, and illegal roadblocks to people who would
organize.
Last June in the Wall Street Journal, there was a story about Wal-
Mart firing workers earning $9.50/hour just because they were at the
upper end of Wal-Mart's already low pay scale.
There is strong evidence that the corporate culture that knows every
detail of its supply chain refuses to correct abuses that have been
widely reported in its own operation.
Last year in Oregon, a jury found that company managers had coerced
hundreds of employees to work overtime without compensation, as Wal-
Mart managers were tampering with time cards, and forcing employees to
work off the clock. This appears not to be an isolated example. Already
Wal-Mart has settled overtime suits in Colorado and New Mexico, and
there are more than 40 other cases pending across the country.
Equally as distressing was the raid this fall of 61 Wal-Mart stores
where it appears they were contracting with companies to clean their
stores who systematically used illegal immigrants. These employees were
cheated out of overtime by these companies that often failed to pay
their taxes. A systemic pattern by a company known for insisting on
detailed, private financial information from its suppliers, but unable
or unwilling to make sure that its own contractors follow the law. This
raises huge questions about their 10,000 overseas contractors and
subcontractors, about whether or not Wal-Mart has complied with its own
vague code of conduct, especially since Wal-Mart is the only major
retailer that refuses to allow independent auditing of its factories
overseas.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Wal-Mart to open up to independent
monitoring abroad, to stop cheating its employees at home, and to
become a force to lift standards, to make our world a better place.
To help them, Congress ought to start now investigating the practices
of America's largest retailer, particularly as it relates to labor and
employment. Communities should help Wal-Mart by
[[Page 32001]]
not cutting corners and cutting their own throats in competition for
another store, and instead establish reasonable land use and planning
regulations for Wal-Mart developments.
Most important, consumers should begin to consider whether the lowest
price is worth any cost: to the poor of the world, to suppliers here at
home, to the health of our main streets, and the abuse of Wal-Mart
workers, and Americans denied basic organizing rights. There is a Wal-
Mart Day of Action planned next month for January 14. This will give us
all an opportunity to consider whether the lowest price, regardless of
its cost, is worth it.
____________________
HONORING JUDGE HERBERT CHOY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) is recognized
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, today, in San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals is going to honor one of its most distinguished judges
by hanging his portrait in historic Courtroom One in the courthouse on
7th Street in San Francisco. That jurist is Herbert Y.C. Choy. I am
very privileged to have worked for him in my first job upon graduation
from law school as his law clerk.
Today, some 31 generations of Choy law clerks will honor him, along
with Chief Judge Mary Schroeder of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals;
Richard Clifton, the successor to Judge Choy in the Ninth Circuit
courthouse in Honolulu; and also one of his law clerks, John McCuckin,
who is now executive vice president of Union Bank, and many, many
others from around the country who honor and treasure and respect Judge
Choy and his wife, Helen.
Judge Choy is the first Asian American ever appointed to the Federal
bench. He is the first Asian American not only on an article 3 court,
but on any court. He is the first Korean American to be appointed to
the Federal bench, and he is the first Hawaiian ever to be appointed to
serve representing the State of Hawaii on the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Judge Choy is the son of immigrants who came to Hawaii, came to the
United States from Korea, as part of a great wave to work on Hawaii's
sugar plantations. The Hawaiians of Korean ancestry are celebrating
their centennial of that great immigration wave this year. As someone
who was part of the immigration experience, Judge Choy always paid
particular attention, he said, to immigration cases to make sure they
were decided fairly, and on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
immigration cases are a significant portion of the total caseload.
When he graduated from the University of Hawaii, Judge Choy blazed
another trail. He went back East to Boston to attend Harvard Law School
where he distinguished himself as a scholar. When he graduated in 1941,
as a Hawaiian on the East Coast of the United States of America, he was
horrified, as were all Americans, when 6 months later, an anniversary
that we recognized last week, on December 7, 1941 saw the attack on
Pearl Harbor. Judge Choy, who had just graduated from law school,
joined the United States Army, and served this country with
distinction. He joined the Judge Advocate General Corps, prefiguring
his work in private practice, beginning in 1946 at the end of World War
II, as a lawyer. He became the Nation's first Korean American attorney,
and practiced with the firm of Fong & Miho, later known as Fong, Miho,
Choy & Robertson. Hiriam Robertson, a distinguished Member of this
Congress, was his law partner.
He went on to serve Hawaii as attorney general, beginning in 1957,
and he was nominated by the President of the United States in 1971,
elevated to the Federal bench, to the United States Court of Appeals,
the largest and busiest of the Nation's appellate courts.
When he became the first Asian American on the Federal bench, it was
not remarked upon in that way. Rather, people recognized that this was
a first of another sort, this was one of the most remarkable people
from any background nominated to the Federal bench, and as his law
clerk and as so many of his law clerks gathering to honor him can
attest, he was unique, and remains unique, in his capacity to inspire
others through a quiet dignity, through leadership, scholarship that is
not intimidating, but compassionate. He is scrupulously honest. I have
known honest people in my life who have been examples for me, certainly
my own parents, but never have I seen someone who is so scrupulously
honest as Judge Choy.
Mr. Speaker, we honor today a man whose life in the United States of
America symbolizes the importance of the rule of law and that vital
pillar of our American republic depends upon people of character. There
is no finer example of honesty, integrity, impartiality, and equality
before the law than this man, Judge Choy, whom we honor today here in
this Congress and in the courthouse in San Francisco. To Judge Choy, to
his wife, Helen, and all of the Federal family, as he is want to call
them, congratulations. This is a wonderful occasion to honor a
wonderful man.
____________________
CONGRESS BORROWS TO FUND PROJECTS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today Congress will take up one of the
largest single aggregate spending bills in the history of our Nation.
There are billions more for foreign aide, there are many questionable
projects and priorities; but what is most glaring about this
legislation is what is not in it.
The interesting thing is that much of the money that funds the
agencies and the projects under this bill will be borrowed. And
Americans, working Americans, for the next 30 years, will be paying
that bill. But there is one glaring oversight, one thing that is left
out where we would not have had to borrow money, and that is to take
care of the long-term unemployed here in the United States of America.
{time} 0945
Why would we not have to borrow money to take care of them? Because
there is $20 billion in the unemployment trust fund, taxes that were
paid in by employers and employees, that were set aside to take care of
Americans in a time of need when they have lost their job and they
cannot find another job through no fault of their own. $20 billion is
there. So out of the hundreds of billions of dollars in this bill that
will be borrowed and spent elsewhere, including foreign aid, we could
have taken care of the unemployed in the United States at no additional
cost.
So why is it that they have been omitted for the second year in a
row? Last year we notified the Republican leadership and the President
that unemployment is a problem outside the Beltway of Washington, D.C.
People are exhausting their benefits and they need help. That fell on
deaf ears here in the House. The Republican leaders refused to bring
forward legislation to help the long-term unemployed. Finally, sometime
between Christmas and New Year's, when these people were receiving
notices that their benefits would no longer be coming, Merry Christmas,
the President woke up and asked the Congress when it reconvened in
January to extend benefits further.
Unfortunately, the leaders, again, here in the Congress, the
Republican leaders, chose to bury deep in that reauthorization of
extended unemployment benefits something called a look-back provision.
What it says is if half the people in your State are unemployed today,
you can get extended benefits. But if a year from today, you still only
have half the people in your State unemployed, those benefits will
expire. The look-back provision says your unemployment has to get worse
before we will extend benefits again. Oregon and many other States are
falling into this trap now. Our economy has not gotten significantly
better. There are still many thousands of Oregonians unemployed who
cannot find
[[Page 32002]]
work. Many of them fall into this category of long-term unemployed.
Thousands of them are going to see their benefits expire this month and
tens of thousands more over the next couple of months. But because of
this so-called look-back provision, they are no longer eligible to get
unemployment benefits.
This is just extraordinary that this Congress would again think about
leaving town for the Christmas and New Year's holidays and into the
next year without authorizing extended unemployment benefits for tens
of thousands of Oregonians and other Americans at no additional cost to
taxpayers, just spending down those reserves in the unemployment trust
fund.
But Congress, the Republican leaders, do not want to do that because
that would make the obscene deficit look just a tiny bit bigger. We
would not have to borrow that money to pay those benefits; but it would
make their $300 billion or $500 billion, however you want to calculate
it, if you calculate the fact that they are borrowing and spending
every penny that is flowing into Social Security this year, no more
lockbox around here, that money will be spent and borrowed and spent
and borrowed and spent. But if you exclude that, we are in the $300
billion range, the largest deficit in the history of the United States
and spending down the unemployment trust fund would, on paper, make it
look bigger; but it would not be anything that would be borrowing to
obligate future generations of Americans, unlike the hundreds of
billions of other spending in this bill.
So Congress wants to do one thing for this country and one thing for
some of the people who have the most merit and are hurting through no
fault of their own in this so-called jobless recovery, people whose
jobs have been exported, in the case of my district to Canada, Mexico
and China, under the trade policies of this administration and, yes,
the past administration, which I opposed. These people want to work.
They are productive people. They are hardworking people. They are
willing to work. They just cannot find a job in the jobless recovery.
So let us just give them a little bit of help in the interim so they do
not lose their home, so they can feed their kids, so they can keep the
lights on.
Do not go home, Congress, until you extend unemployment benefits for
all Americans.
____________________
HOUSE CONTINUES LATE-NIGHT VOTING TRADITION IN PASSING MEDICARE BILL
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). Pursuant to the order of the
House of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this is the people's House,
conducting the public's business openly, or at least it used to be the
people's House. At 2:54 a.m. on a Friday in March, the House cut
veterans benefits by three votes. At 2:39 a.m. on a Friday in April,
House Republicans slashed education and health benefits by five votes.
At 1:56 a.m. on a Friday in May, the House passed the Leave No
Millionaire Behind tax cut bill by a handful of votes. At 2:33 a.m. on
a Friday in June, the House GOP passed a Medicare privatization and
prescription drug bill by one vote. At 12:57 a.m. on a Friday in July,
the House eviscerated Head Start by one vote. And then after returning
from summer recess at 12:12 a.m. on a Friday in October, the House
voted $87 billion for Iraq. Always in the middle of the night, always
after the press had passed their deadlines, always after the American
people had turned off the news and gone to bed.
With that track record, Mr. Speaker, we should not be terribly
surprised that when the House passed legislation privatizing Medicare
and forcing the most sweeping changes to Medicare in its 38-year
history, we should not be terribly surprised that this Republican House
of Representatives passed that bill at 5:55 in the early morning,
Saturday morning, hours. The Republican leadership delivered this
1,100-page Medicare bill to House Members on Friday morning at 1:46
a.m. We voted on it 25 hours later.
But I do not really blame my Republican colleagues. If I had produced
this bill, I would not want to give people much time to look at it
either. When Republican leaders sit down behind closed doors with the
insurance industry and with the drug industry and write a bill to
privatize Medicare, of course they do not want the public to know much
about it.
This bill is not a prescription drug bill. We could have agreed
bipartisanly to deliver a $400 billion drug benefit to our Nation's
seniors. This bill is a Medicare privatization bill, written by the
drug industry, written by the insurance industry, for the drug industry
and for the insurance industry. This bill forces seniors to join an HMO
or pay more for the coverage they have now. And we know how HMOs have
treated seniors in county after county after county in this country.
This bill creates a $20 billion, that is with a B, $20 billion slush
fund for HMOs and stacks the deck so resolutely against the core
Medicare program that privatization is inevitable. This bill
jeopardizes employer-sponsored retiree coverage for the 12 million-plus
seniors who have this coverage. Several million seniors who now have
prescription drug coverage as retirees are going to lose that coverage
when their employers drop it. That is a certainty.
This bill leaves such huge coverage gaps in coverage that the average
senior will run out of drug benefits by August each year, but will be
required to pay premiums through December. So they will not get a
benefit in July, but they will pay the $35, $45, $50, $60 premium. They
will not get a benefit in August, but they will be paying the $35, $45,
$50, $60 premium. They will not get a benefit in September, but they
will pay the premium. They will not get the benefit in October, but
they will pay the premium. That is what the Republican privatization
Medicare bill is all about, written by the drug companies for the drug
companies, written by the insurance industry for the insurance
industry.
Mr. Speaker, most of these damaging provisions do not go into effect
until after the 2004 elections, but this is the people's House. We
should conduct our business openly. We should be honest with people
whom we serve. We should throw the drug companies and insurance
companies out of our offices so they are not writing this privatization
legislation. The American people deserve better.
____________________
MEDICARE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on what my colleague
from Ohio said with regard to this Medicare bill that was passed in the
middle of the night after the board was held open for 3 hours, even
though most Members had voted. I want to say I was back in my district,
of course, during the last 2 weeks during the Thanksgiving recess, and
my constituents in New Jersey and throughout the State are outraged
over this Medicare bill. They see it as nothing more than an effort to
privatize Medicare, to change the traditional Medicare program and not
to provide them with any kind of meaningful drug benefit. But what is
the most amazing, Mr. Speaker, is what we have learned in the 2 weeks
since that vote was taken, what we have learned about the arm-twisting
that took place to try to influence Members on the Republican side to
vote for the bill as opposed to against the bill, and what we have
learned about provisions in the bill that many Members were not even
aware of that make the legislation even worse.
I just wanted to talk about those two things this morning. First of
all, there is now an investigation by the Justice Department into the
bribery, alleged bribery or undue influence that was placed on
Congressman Smith in an effort by the Republican leadership to get him
to change his vote against the Medicare bill and in favor of the bill.
He ended up voting against the bill, refused to switch; but supposedly
he was
[[Page 32003]]
told that if he did not switch that $100,000 would not be available
from the Republican campaign war chest for his son who was running as a
successor for him to Congress. He was told that there would not be
support for his son running as a Member of Congress if he did not
change his vote.
Statements were made to that effect on the floor of the House of
Representatives that suggest that somehow votes are for sale by the
Republican Party on the House floor, here in the House of
Representatives in these halls, in this Congress that we so dearly
value. Bribery, allegations of bribery, and now the Justice Department
is investigating it, in an effort to try to twist arms and get
Republicans who wanted to vote against this bill because they knew that
was the right thing to do and they were trying to convince them to vote
the other way.
In addition, those of you who may have read the New York Times
yesterday, front-page article talking about how the bill does not allow
for seniors to buy MediGap coverage, I knew that this bill was bad and
there are a lot of bad provisions in this bill and my colleague from
Ohio has pointed out many of them; but many of us were not aware of the
fact that the bill precluded MediGap insurance.
Do you know why it precludes MediGap insurance? Because it does not
want seniors who are in traditional Medicare, the Republican
leadership, the President, the Republican President, do not want
seniors who are in traditional Medicare to be able to supplement and
buy MediGap insurance. Why would that be? That is because they do not
want them in traditional Medicare. They want to force them to go into
an HMO to get their drug benefit or force them to buy some kind of
drug-only policy which is going to be tremendously prohibitive. So
seniors who traditionally have purchased MediGap coverage, supplemental
insurance to cover the things that are not provided for in Medicare,
are now going to be told, you cannot do that anymore. Imagine, you are
a senior citizen, you do not want to join an HMO, you are very
concerned about the cost of a drug-only policy which may not even be
available in your area, but you cannot supplement your traditional
Medicare by buying a MediGap policy, perhaps, that would provide for a
nice drug benefit or would make it easier for you in the long run not
to expend a lot of money out of pocket. They are now precluding you
from doing this.
It is amazing to me. The Republicans talk about choice, that the
reason that they wanted to privatize Medicare and do what they are
doing with this bill is because they wanted seniors to have choices;
but in effect, what they have done is limit seniors' choices. If
seniors cannot even buy supplemental MediGap coverage, what kind of
choice is that? No choice of a doctor because in order to get the drug
benefit you have to join an HMO; but even if you want to supplement
your insurance in traditional Medicare, you cannot do it anymore. They
are not going to allow Medigap policies anymore.
It is amazing to me when you look at this legislation what went on. A
middle-of-the-night vote, twisting arms, bribing Members of Congress,
it looks like, allegations are being made at this point, and no choices
at all because you are forced essentially into an HMO. And for what? A
Medicare prescription drug benefit that is almost completely useless
because, as we have said before, you would have to spend so much money
out of pocket, probably over $4,000 out of pocket in order to get
$5,000 worth of coverage.
We do not even know what the premium is going to be. The premium for
the drug benefit could be $85, $100 a month for all we know. And you
are going to have a $275 deductible or perhaps a higher deductible. You
are only going to get coverage up to something like $2,000 or so and
after that you are going to have to pay out of pocket even though you
are continuing to pay the premiums, up to $5,000. It does not even go
into effect until 2006. No cost containment whatsoever. It is just
amazing. We have got to continue to point out the bad aspects of this
bill.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until 11 a.m. today.
Accordingly (at 10 a.m.), the House stood in recess until 11 a.m.
____________________
{time} 1100
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) at 11 a.m.
____________________
PRAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
In this season of expectation and winter surprises, the words of the
prophet Baruch cut through the ages and blanket the earth:
``My people, take off your robe of mourning and lament; put on the
splendor of glory from God forever: Wrapped in the cloak of justice
from God, show forth the glory of the Lord's eternal name: For God will
show all the earth your splendor.''
Lord our God, be with the Congress of the United States today. May
its work prove to all, You guide Your people always and are present to
their deepest needs. By the lasting effects of decisions made here,
Your splendor, as our judge, will be revealed.
For You, the Lord, will lead this Nation in joy and fulfillment. By
the light of Your glory, You will befriend us with mercy and justice
now and forever. Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot)
come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. CHABOT led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 3633
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name
removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3633.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, November 26, 2003.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
The Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in
Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Clerk received the following message
from the Secretary of the Senate on November 26, 2003 at
10:22 a.m.:
That the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 1437.
That the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 1813.
That the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 3287.
That the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 3348.
That the Senate passed without amendment H.J. Res. 80.
That the Senate agreed to House amendment to S. 459.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Jeff Trandahl,
Clerk.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 4 of rule 1, Speaker pro
[[Page 32004]]
tempore Thornberry signed the following enrolled bills and joint
resolution on Monday, December 1, 2003:
H.R. 1437, to improve the United States Code;
H.R. 1813, to amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to
authorize appropriations to provide assistance for domestic and foreign
centers and programs for the treatment of victims of torture, and for
other purposes;
H.R. 2622, to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act, to prevent
identity theft, improve resolution of consumer disputes, improve the
accuracy of consumer records, make improvements in the use of, and
consumer access to, credit information, and for other purposes;
H.R. 3287, to award Congressional Gold Medals posthumously on behalf
of Reverend Joseph A. DeLaine, Harry and Eliza Briggs, and Levi Pearson
in recognition of their contributions to the Nation as pioneers in the
effort to desegregate public schools that led directly to the landmark
desegregation case of Brown et al. v. The Board of Education of Topeka
et al;
H.R. 3348, to reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms;
H.J. Res. 80, appointing the day for the convening of the second
session of the One Hundred Eighth Congress;
S. 459, to ensure that a public safety officer who suffers a fatal
heart attack or stroke while on duty shall be presumed to have died in
the line of duty for purposes of public safety officer survivor
benefits;
and the following enrolled bill and joint resolution on Wednesday,
December 3, 2003:
H.R. 2297, to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve benefits
under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for
other purposes;
H.J. Res. 63, to approve the Compact of Free Association, as amended,
between the Government of the United States of America and the
Government of the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Compact of
Free Association, as amended, between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of the Republic of the Marshall
Islands, and to appropriate funds to carry out the amended compacts;
and the Speaker signed the following enrolled bill on Saturday,
December 6, 2003:
H.R. 1, to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide
for a voluntary program for prescription drug coverage under the
Medicare program, to modernize the Medicare program, to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction to individuals for
amounts contributed to health savings security accounts and health
savings accounts, to provide for the disposition of unused health
benefits in cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements, and for
other purposes.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE ELDER FOOTBALL TEAM
(Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, on the blustery evening of November 29,
2003, the Elder High School football team won their second consecutive
Ohio State championship under the guidance of Coach Doug Ramsey,
becoming just the fourth school ever to win back-to-back Division I
championships.
While last year's championship run was epitomized by hard-fought,
closely-contested victories, this year's Panther team dominated the
playoffs, except for the very close one-point win over a very tough
Coleraw High School team. The dynamic leadership of quarterback Rob
Florian and the sensational running of Bradley Glatthaar spearheaded
the offense, while Elder's swarming defense held opposing teams to just
seven points in four of the five playoff games. As always, thousands of
Elder faithful traveled across the State, braving the cold, to support
the Panthers throughout the playoffs.
Mr. Speaker, the hard work and sacrifice of the young men at Elder
have brought pride and honor to Price Hill and to our entire community.
Football fans throughout the Cincinnati area congratulate the Panthers
and share in their celebration. Way to go, Elder Panthers. And from a
LaSalle Lancer, it might be a tough thing to do, but we are real proud
of you, Elder. God bless you.
____________________
CALLING UPON RETAILERS TO REMOVE VIOLENT AND DEGRADING VIDEO GAMES FROM
STORE SHELVES
(Mr. DEUTSCH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to this Chamber's
attention a disturbing trend in video game entertainment: Grand Theft
Auto: Vice City, a video game made by Rockstar Games, Inc., contains
violent and discriminatory messages, urging the player to ``kill the
Haitians'' and ``kill the Cubans.''
As an elected official who represents an ever-expanding population of
Haitian Americans and Cuban Americans, I am deeply disturbed by the
inflammatory and anti-immigration message contained in this video game.
These messages run counter to the very principles on which this Nation
was founded: as a haven for all of those who seek freedom and equality.
I stand before the House today calling on my colleagues to join me,
along with many elected officials, to urge retailers to remove this
divisive product from their shelves and Internet Web sites immediately.
The Haitian and Cuban communities in America represent a core of law-
abiding, hard-working model citizenry that embrace family and
community. They are valuable segments of our society who, as others
before them, seek to live the American dream.
It is shocking and disheartening to know that games with such
dehumanizing messages against these groups are routinely sold to
children across the Nation. This sort of insensitivity and degradation
cannot be tolerated.
I urge my colleagues to join me in calling upon retailers to remove
this game.
____________________
ACKNOWLEDGING ADMIRABLE CALIFORNIANS
(Mrs. BLACKBURN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Governor
Schwarzenegger on his efforts to ``clean house'' in California. Since
he took office last month, he has been implementing many reforms to
California's economic and security problems. He has rescinded a $4
billion car tax, called for a constitutional amendment to limit State
spending, and worked with the legislature to repeal the law that allows
illegal aliens to obtain driver's license. Instead of hiding his head
in the sand as his predecessor did, he has shown the courage to balance
the State's budget without raising taxes and to protect the security of
the State.
I would also like to speak on another admirable Californian, Judge
Janice Brown. Judge Brown is the daughter of a sharecropper who has
beat the odds to become one of the finest judges in America. Critics
claim she is an extreme conservative who is outside of America's
mainstream, but they are the ones who are outside the mainstream. These
critics have intentionally disregarded her judicial opinions that have
upheld due process rights for criminal defendants and consumer
protection for Californians. This body must stand with Californians,
like Governor Schwarzenegger and Judge Brown, who are working to make a
difference.
____________________
MISSED OPPORTUNITIES
(Mr. EMANUEL asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, today, as the President signs the Medicare
Reform Act dealing with prescription drugs, although this is going to
be
[[Page 32005]]
hailed around in Washington as a great day, we missed an opportunity to
save our seniors dramatically on the cost of prescription drugs.
We could have included a provision that allowed prescription drugs to
be purchased in Canada or Europe where prices are 40 to 50 percent
cheaper, saving for seniors, on average, a good deal of money, as well
as taxpayers a good deal of money. We could have included a provision
to allow a Sam's Club-like bulk negotiating which the Veterans'
Administration does for veterans, and we could have done that for
Medicare, for 41 million Americans, to reduce prices. Either way,
either of these issues, either through open markets and market access,
allowing competition to bring prices down and give consumers choice, or
allowing bulk price negotiations, which is what happens if you have a
Sam's Club. In either manner, we in the government prevented that from
happening and are forcing our seniors into higher prices and forcing
our taxpayers to play inflated prices.
We have an obligation to the taxpayers to give them the best and most
affordable prices for their taxpayer money, and we took a pass today on
that legislation.
____________________
INFAMOUS DAYS IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY
(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the anniversary of the attack
on Pearl Harbor. That day, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said,
was ``a day that will live in infamy.'' More than 2,400 Americans died
that day, 1,100 were wounded, and that day changed America forever.
But despite being attacked on our own soil, the American people
responded with courage and resolution.
This same courage showed its face on September 11, 2001. That same
resolution continues to drive us in the war on global terrorism today.
As President Bush said this weekend honoring Pearl Harbor,
``America's liberty is sustained by the courage of the American people.
Every generation of Americans has answered the call to protect the
blessings of freedom and democracy. With the help of our friends and
allies, the brave men and women of our Armed Forces are now engaged in
a global war on terrorism. And as in the aftermath of the terrible
attack on Pearl Harbor, our Nation will stay the course, and we will
prevail.''
____________________
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Last year, President Bush
and the Republican Congress refused to extend unemployment insurance
before it expired, leaving millions out in the cold. This year, they
are, again, showing little interest in providing relief to those
searching for jobs. To me, that is wrong.
Despite modest gains in the economy, the job market remains abysmal.
Over 1.1 million Californians remain out of work, looking for jobs.
Long-term unemployment last month was the highest in 20 years, with
over 20 percent of those without jobs looking for work for more than 6
months.
This is especially true in my district where unemployment rates
remain very high. In East Los Angeles, the area that I represent, the
unemployment rate is well over 10.7 percent, and in the year 2001 it
was 8.3, so it has gone up. In the city that I live in, in El Monte, it
was at 6.7 in the year 2001. Now, it is at 8.7. It has not gone down.
While the President hails the recent uptick in the economic figures,
he fails to mention the unemployment among Latinos and other minorities
which continues to rise.
Let us leave no family behind and provide unemployment insurance
benefits for all.
____________________
SOUTH CAROLINA POLICY COUNCIL
(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, last week, the visionary
Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, honored the
South Carolina Policy Council with the rare and prestigious Dragon
Slayer Award. President Edward T. McMullen, Jr., received a symbolic
sword for the Council's efforts in fighting tax increases in South
Carolina.
Since 1986, the South Carolina Policy Council has educated South
Carolina's legislature and citizens about State and local public policy
based on the traditional values of individual liberty and
responsibility, free enterprise, and limited government.
In addition to President McMullen, I would like to give a special
thanks to the dedicated staff of Administrative Assistant Marion
Harsey, Vice President for Development India Hazzard; Vice President
for Public Affairs Ashley Landess; Vice President for Policy Gerry
Dickenson; Chairman of the Board Jake Rasor; and the courageous analyst
Hal Eberle.
The Palmetto State is truly blessed to have such talented people
working on public policy, and I ask all of my colleagues to join me in
thanking the South Carolina Policy Council for their vital service.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, September 11, and the current
December 7.
____________________
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WITHOUT WORK THIS HOLIDAY SEASON
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the
American worker. As we wrap up our work for the year, 8.7 million
Americans are without jobs this holiday season.
The administration keeps promising economic growth will bring job
growth. Yet, even on the heels of an impressive third quarter of
economic growth, the job market has not taken off.
{time} 1115
The Labor Department reports that only 57,000 jobs were added to the
economy last month, a figure that represents only one-third of
economists' prior expectations.
We all know there are deeper economic problems contributing to the
loss of American jobs. Our trade policies have produced record-level
trade deficits and have only encouraged American companies to send
good-paying jobs overseas where they take advantage of cheap labor.
However, as we sit here with 1 day left in the session, we need to do
what we can today to help better the lives of the American workers. We
all know that the administration talks about cutting taxes and putting
money in our pockets, but typically the American working class gets
very little of this extra money. What I want to know is if the
administration is so intent on putting money in our pockets, why they
are eliminating the overtime provisions that are in this omnibus bill
we are talking about today. Why will they not extend the unemployment
benefits? These are policies that give America's workers more money
every single pay period. And if there is ever a need for extra cash, it
is during the holiday season.
____________________
THE ALIEN ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
(Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make my colleagues aware of H.R.
3651, a bill I dropped just today at the end of 3 years of service in
the House. It is titled the Alien Accountability Act. I can only
apologize to the House that I was not able to bring it to the House
sooner.
It deals with the 8\1/2\ million people who are here in America
outside our laws. It deals in a post-September 11 era with a challenge
that America has been trying to face to know who is here, why they are
here, and whether or not they threaten Americans, all Americans.
[[Page 32006]]
This is not a partisan issue. I call on my colleagues to join me in
supporting the Alien Accountability Act to once and for all bring to
the awareness of civil authorities the 8\1/2\ million people that are
here, according to our census, outside the law and find a way to
register these people and to bring about some equitable conclusion to
what has been a failed system of illegal immigration.
____________________
CELEBRATING BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 125TH ANNIVERSARY
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Bankers
Life and Casualty Company on their 125th anniversary, which will occur
on January 17, 2004. Established in 1879, Bankers Life and Casualty
Company is one of the most esteemed insurance companies in the United
States. Headquartered in Chicago, it is the oldest health and life
insurance company in the city and is currently the largest tenant in
the world-famous Merchandise Mart. Through Bankers' dedicated work over
more than a century, thousands of Chicagoland employees have helped
millions of people across the country achieve their vision of living
happy, active, and financially secure lives.
I congratulate them for 125 years of service to the residents of
America.
____________________
INCREASED EARMARKS IN THE OMNIBUS BILL
(Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the omnibus bill
that we will be passing later today, and I rise with great reluctance
to criticize the bill. This Republican Congress has increased the
number of earmarks in bills by about four-fold in just the past couple
of years. This is no way to do business.
We speak a great deal and at great length in this House about rooting
out waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal agencies in the way we spend
money with the Federal Government. I would suggest that we look no
further than the earmarks that we propose in this bill and other
spending bills to root out waste, fraud, and abuse.
Most of these earmarks simply benefit one Member, one project. It is
typically referred to as pork-barrel spending. We as Republicans have
decried this practice for years, and now we seem to have embraced it.
Mr. Speaker, I think we need to turn a different direction and
realize that if we want fiscal restraint, if we want to return to
balanced budgets, then we have to do something about this kind of
spending.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT
ON H.R. 2673, CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
Mr. LINDER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 108-402) on the resolution (H. Res. 473) waiving
points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill
(H.R. 2673) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, which was referred
to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO
CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 465 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 465
Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII
for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee
on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is
waived with respect to any resolution reported on or before
the legislative day of January 31, 2004, providing for
consideration or disposition of any of the following
measures:
(1) A bill or joint resolution making continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2004, any amendment
thereto, or any conference report thereon.
(2) A bill or joint resolution making general
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004,
any amendment thereto, or any conference report thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 465 is a rule that waives clause 6(a) of rule
XIII with respect to same-day consideration against certain resolutions
reported from the Committee on Rules. Specifically, this rule waives
the requirement for two-thirds majority vote by the House to consider a
rule on the same-day that it has been reported by the Committee on
Rules.
This rule's waiver applies to any special rule reported by the
Committee on Rules on or before the legislative day of January 31,
2004, providing for the consideration of disposition of any of the
following:
First, a bill or joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2004, or any amendment thereto, or
any conference report thereon; or, second, a bill or joint resolution
making general appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2004, any amendment thereto, or any conference report thereon.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules reported this same-day rule on
November 21 in order to provide some flexibility to the House
leadership in terms of bringing the consolidated appropriations bill to
the floor. On November 25, the text of the conference report on H.R.
2673, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, was printed in the
Congressional Record for review by House Members. While the rule before
the House today permits consideration of a number of appropriations
options, the purpose of processing of this rule today is to expedite
the consideration of the remaining fiscal year 2004 appropriations
bills in the House. Once this rule is adopted, the House will be able
to consider a consolidated appropriations rule and the underlying
conference report without delay.
This consolidated bill includes the Foreign Operations bill, the
Transportation-Treasury bill, the Agriculture bill, the VA-HUD bill,
the Commerce-Justice bill, the District of Columbia bill, and the
Labor-HHS bill. I commend the hard work of the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) and the Committee on Appropriations for their efforts in
crafting this important funding bill. As I stated, the provisions of
the consolidated appropriations bill were printed in the Congressional
Record almost 2 weeks ago, and the passage of the same-day rule will
provide for prompt consideration of these important funding bills this
afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the
passage of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, Christmas has come early for President Bush and his
high-dollar friends, but for millions of American families, it looks
like the Grinch will be stealing Christmas. The media has widely
reported that the President won victory after victory in negotiations
over the details of this omnibus appropriations bill. But any
Presidential victory comes at a very high cost.
America's working families and those struggling to stay afloat in the
swift currents of unemployment will be
[[Page 32007]]
stuck with the tab. The unemployment rate was essentially unchanged
from October to November and almost 9 million Americans still cannot
find work, including 6.2 percent of the New Yorkers who were
unemployed.
Across the Nation, the number of Americans filing for the first time
for unemployment benefits is up. New claims for unemployment have risen
in 47 States and territories. One economist described last Friday's
unemployment report as ``getting just the Christmas present you want
but two sizes too small.'' The President assured the country that his
massive tax cuts would create 300,000 jobs a month. But unfortunately
for the millions of men and women looking for work, only 57,000 new
jobs were created in November. That is the ``two sizes too small.'' The
real effects of the administration's tax giveaways were more money to
the wealthiest and a staggering Federal deficit.
Only a few days before the Christmas holiday and the beginning of a
new year, unemployment benefits for thousands and thousands of
Americans will run out. After December 20, thousands more will no
longer be eligible for an extension of benefits. Today is our last
opportunity before that happens to extend the unemployment benefits, to
throw a small life preserver to those still caught in the swift
currents of steady unemployment flowing through our murky economy.
Just this morning in the Committee on Rules hearing, the chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations agreed that unemployment benefits
should be extended. We are spending $87 billion on Iraq, $150 billion
this year, and we should be able to extend the unemployment benefits,
especially considering that there is a surplus of unemployment funds.
We need to fight with all our might to protect American jobs,
particularly the manufacturing jobs. Since January 2001, the United
States has lost 2.4 million manufacturing jobs. We should be exporting
American products, not our jobs. The Manufacturing Extension
Partnership, MEP, is a nationwide network of centers devoted to
providing small and medium size manufacturers with assistance,
information, and access to business experts. We should be promoting
this program, but instead this bill slashes the budget by 63 percent.
It is absurd that we are considering cutting this valuable program
while thousands of manufacturing jobs are lost every day. MEP has
proven its value in boosting productivity in sales and employment.
Slashing this program will cost small manufacturers almost $2 billion
in sales and cost 28,000 workers their employment.
Despite the strong opposition of both elected bodies of Congress,
President Bush was successful in killing legislative protections
against limitations on overtime pay. Relaxing the overtime pay rules
makes it easier for companies to force workers to put in more than 40
hours a week without additional pay. And under the broad rules proposed
by this administration, many nurses will be ineligible for overtime
pay, and even manual laborers would be classified as executives, which
would end their eligibility for overtime pay.
These new regulations could make at least 8 million workers
ineligible for the overtime, the money with which many pay their bills
and take care of their families. Millions of them rely on that just to
scrape by each month. And protecting the worker's right to overtime pay
is such an important issue that people from across my district are
asking me to oppose this entire bill because it does not include
overtime pay protection.
I need to add that the overtime pay protection passed handsomely both
Houses of Congress, and we instructed our conferees to keep it in the
bill; but mysteriously it disappeared. A man from Tonawanda said last
week to us no worker should lose his overtime pay since it is essential
to their lives.
This massive bill is yet another example of the disturbing disregard
for women's health. The President's authority to enforce his global gag
rule remains unchallenged. Under the Mexico City Policy, the United
States Government uses family-planning dollars to impose itself between
women and their doctors. The U.S. muzzles health care workers. Clinics
are prohibited from mentioning or counseling women about abortion.
Doctors and nurses are forced to forfeit the right to provide complete,
accurate medical information and advice to their patients.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time in half a century, the Republican
Party controls both Houses of Congress and the executive, despite an
authoritarian leadership style, inefficiency, and squabbling have
produced a job that is less than half complete. The current fiscal year
began over 2 months ago, and only three of the 13 measures that pay for
functioning of the Federal Government were law by October 1 of fiscal
year 2004. And right now only 6 of the 13 bills are law.
With this special rule, we will end the first session of the 108th
Congress in a single day of hurried legislative activity.
{time} 1130
Rather than wisely investing the body's time in deliberating the
details of each of the seven remaining bills, we will spend 1 hour
debating the merits of this massive conglomerate report. When
substantive debate among Members is silenced, the millions of Americans
that we represent are silenced and disenfranchised. Particularly, that
is what happens, when one party of the House is excluded from all
deliberations. This is not an attribute of a deliberative democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that during the coming second session that comity
and genuine bipartisan collaboration will replace arm-twisting and
exclusion. I hope that character, decency, virtue, and respect are more
than words on a page. I hope that we all will embrace the right of all
Members elected here to fully participate in a truly deliberative
process and of all the people to be fully represented in their national
legislature. A natural result of the decline of deliberative democracy
is the decline in the quality of our laws and the decline of public
support for them and the decline of the standard of living in the
United States. I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous
question.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this martial law
rule. This rule will allow us to consider a seriously flawed omnibus
appropriations bill and nothing else.
After today, the House will not come back to work for legislative
business until January 20. The time between now and January 20 that
Congress will be out of session might not seen seem that important to
some, but for hundreds of thousands of Americans it will be a terrible
time indeed; that is because their Federal unemployment assistance is
due to expire.
Mr. Speaker, even with the modest job gains made over the past few
months, the U.S. economy has 2.4 million fewer jobs today compared to
2\1/2\ years ago. There are more than 2 million workers who have been
unemployed for more than 6 months; and to make a bad situation worse,
over 400,000 jobless American will not be eligible for unemployment
compensation after the first of the year.
Americans continue to be unemployed at alarmingly high rates. Just
last week, we saw job numbers that fell well below expectations. And
the percentage of Americans exhausting their unemployment benefits
without finding a job has reached its highest level on record.
Mr. Speaker, jobless Americans need help and they need it now. But
while unemployed Americans continue to struggle to find work, this
Republican-controlled Congress is preparing to leave town for the year.
Like last year, Members of Congress will be free to go home to their
families and constituents. Like last year, Members will have a nice
holiday. And just like last year, the Republican-controlled Congress is
letting unemployment insurance expire during the Christmas season. For
hundreds of thousands of Americans, this
[[Page 32008]]
Republican Congress will be their Grinch who stole Christmas. And I
have little hope that Congress's heart will grow any time soon; that
is, unless we act today.
The facts are clear. It is clear we will not be back in session until
late January; and it is clear that during that time, hundreds of
thousands of jobless Americans will lose their unemployment insurance.
We should not turn our backs on these people and their families in our
rush to adjourn.
Now, I am sure that there is a bipartisan consensus to extend
unemployment benefits. I am sure that if we brought up a bill to do
that, a majority would support it; and if not, we could just hold the
vote open for 3 hours or 4 hours until a majority appeared. That seems
to be the new precedent around here. But the leadership does not want
it. And in today's House of Representatives, what the leadership wants,
the leadership gets. To heck with democracy.
Unemployed Americans deserve better than this.
Mr. Speaker, since this may be our last opportunity to speak this
year, let me conclude with a few words about the process that has
dominated during this session.
I have worked in this House for 20 years, both as a staffer and as a
Member. Never have I seen so much disregard for the rules, the
traditions, and the well-being of this House. We have seen huge pieces
of legislation come to this floor for consideration without allowing
Members the time to read what they are voting on. We have seen
conference reports appear without a conference committee ever having
met. We have seen conference committees that meet, but shut Democrats
out. We have seen conference reports come to the floor, like the one
that we are going to deal with today, that undo the work of the both
the full House and Senate. These bills drop provisions that were
supported by both bodies and add things that we never voted on. And we
have seen rollcall votes held open for hours and hours until the
leadership gets the result they want by any means necessary.
I am honored to hold the seat on the Committee on Rules that my old
boss, Joe Moakley, had; and it saddens me that the Committee on Rules
has become a place not to manage debate, but to stifle it. It has been
used as a weapon against Members of both parties. I have been
approached many times by Republican colleagues expressing their
sympathy and their outrage with the action of their Republican
leadership, and I appreciate their kind words. But I say to my friends
on the other side, I do not need your sympathy. I need your vote.
Until Members on the other side stand up to their leadership, stand
up for democracy in this House, stand up for the precedents and the
traditions of this body, things will get worse, not better. This House
is broken. And I urge my colleagues to think long and hard during this
holiday season about how we can fix it.
Vote no on the previous question.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
martial law rule.
In Oregon, the recession much earlier than the rest of the country.
My State has had the dubious distinction of having the highest rate of
unemployment in the country for much of the last 3 years. During that
time, Oregon has lost 57,000 jobs, a lot of jobs from a State like
mine.
Unemployment benefits are intended as a safety net to carry people
from one job to the next. They do not provide 100 percent of a person's
previous salary, and they require sacrifice to make it work, but the
benefits are absolutely vital for families to make ends meet. And not
only do those benefits provide a level of security to families,
unemployment benefits are also a stimulus to our local economies. When
you take spending power from people, businesses hurt. Each dollar spent
on unemployment benefits results in boosting the economy by $1.73. But
unless Congress takes action today, almost 40,000 Oregonians will lose
their unemployment benefits in the first half of next year. Benefits
that are needed to pay their rent, pay their mortgage, pay for food,
pay utility bills.
Eleven thousand Oregonians exhausted their benefits last month and
that number is going to continue to grow unless Congress acts today.
The Federal Government Unemployment Trust Funds have a balance of
roughly $20 billion, more than enough to continue and improve the
extended benefits program. These funds were paid into that unemployment
compensation system just for the purpose of helping dislocated workers
during difficult economic times. This is money that is there. This is
the only thing that money can be used for. It does not add to the debt.
This is something we need to do.
I urge my colleagues in joining me to defeat the previous question on
the martial law rule for the omnibus spending bill so we can bring up
an unemployment extension bill.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this is not a happy moment. This is not a
happy moment. We are forced to come up here and ask that the previous
question be defeated so that we can give to people who are unemployed,
who need unemployment comp, who are looking for work, an additional 13
weeks. And all we get from the Republican side is reserving the balance
of their time.
There are 9 million unemployed in this country; and here is what is
going to happen: December 20, if you are laid off, or I should say if
you are drawing benefits, you can continue to receive your extended
benefits. But, if you exhaust your benefits on December 21, you are out
in the cold. That is the holiday message from the majority in this
House. It is unconscionable. All kinds of excuses.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has said, Every indicator is
better than in 1993. But the job picture is entirely worse. Job
creation is entirely, dramatically less.
Then I heard: Leave it to the Senate. They are not going to act.
Where are my colleagues from Michigan on the Republican side? Because
of a bipartisan action in Lansing, people who needed it could draw up
to 65 weeks; and now, someone laid off on December 21, or I should say
who is exhausting their benefits, is out in the cold. Not one more
week.
We should not have to be coming here, Mr. Speaker. Times are tough. I
talked to building trade leaders an hour ago. Unemployment is going up
in the building trades in Michigan and in lots of other places, and
there is nothing but a cold shoulder from the leadership of this House.
And I say to the Speaker, whom it is now being said about, that he can
patrol this floor and get the votes, where is your leadership?
We should not have to be here today, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), myself and others. This should be a bipartisan effort, and I
hope in the next 24, no, it is not 24, it is 5 or 6 hours, that you, on
the Republican side, will keep faith with the American people, those
who are working and those who are not working through no fault of their
own. Do not reserve your time. Come here with a bill.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, unemployed Americans are about to get their
annual Christmas gift from the Republican majority, and that is the end
of their unemployment benefits.
This is not the first time this happened. Last year, Congress went
home without extending unemployment benefits for those who, through no
fault of their own, cannot find a job and have exhausted their
benefits.
Now they say, well, we just cannot afford it. They can afford
hundreds of billions of dollars of other things in this bill, foreign
aid other things, much
[[Page 32009]]
of it borrowed, but they cannot find the money for unemployed
Americans. Well, that is actually a lie because there is $20 billion in
the unemployment trust fund.
They do not even have to borrow the money to help unemployed
Americans like they are going to borrow to help many of the special
interests. All they have to do is agree to spend some of the taxes paid
and on deposit to help unemployed Americans, paid by workers, paid by
employers. That is why that money is there.
Every week, 400 Oregonians exhaust their benefits in this jobless
recovery. Nationwide, tens of thousands of Americans are losing their
unemployment benefits. They cannot find work through no fault of their
own. They want to work. They want to work, but they cannot find a job.
Their job has exported to China or to Mexico or from my district, some
of them even to Canada. They cannot find a decent paying job. And now
what is the Republican majority going to do? They are going to go home
without extending unemployment benefits for these people. Many will
lose the benefits Christmas week or New Year's week or in the month
following. They may not be able to make the payments on their house.
They are not going to be able to help their kids get the things they
need to go to school, to feed their family, to pay their electric
bills. These are basics.
We cannot find that money. We have the money. It is sitting in the
bank. All we have to do is agree to spend it.
We have to stop pretending that everything is good with the economy,
that America's just booming ahead again. We have what is called ``a
jobless recovery'' in this country, and those are real people who do
not have jobs. They are real people in my district. And Congress could
do something real for them today. It is just choosing not to. It will
help the special interests but not working Americans.
{time} 1145
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. My colleagues, I do not know why the majority is
reserving their time. Some pretty rough accusations have been made
against them as a party. It would just seem to me that there should be
enough sensitivity if not to respond to us then at least to respond to
those 9 million people who are without work and without hope for the
future.
I can understand the majority in trying to eliminate all taxes for
corporations and the rich. I can understand them trying to dismantle
the Social Security System and the Medicare system. These are things
they have dedicated themselves to doing and can be described as being
Republican and Democratic positions. But how can someone out of work be
the victim of partisanship? How can they determine whether they are
Republican or Democrat? How can they benefit when a kid has to be
withdrawn from school because of their parents' failure to pay their
tuition, or their mortgage is forced to be foreclosed on?
It seems to me that at this time of the year we can at least join
ranks to take care of those people who want to work each and every day.
If we can spend $1 billion a week rebuilding Baghdad, we should at
least give some token of appreciation for those people who have worked
hard to build this Nation, to make her as strong as she is by giving to
them out of their own trust funds that this Congress established to
protect them; that we have the compassion, no, not the compassion, we
have the responsibility to respond to their needs.
Sometimes I am so proud to be a Member of this body, but it is
becoming increasingly more difficult to go to town hall meetings and to
not ask why we tolerate the Republicans doing these things. Why does
this institution, this great institution that we inherited, allow such
pain and suffering to go to the least among us? It is wrong.
We should vote ``no'' on the previous question, and I hope we hear
sometime this morning from the majority.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I too am in opposition to this martial law
rule because it fails to bring attention to the hardworking families
that are struggling every day in this Nation to meet their needs and to
take care of their children. The economy is letting them down. The
economy continues to suffer. The job market is weak. These families are
why we must absolutely extend the unemployment benefits and why we must
do it now. Not later, but now.
Mr. Speaker, families must have the means to be healthy, they must be
safe when their jobs are no longer secure, and that is why we must
extend these unemployment benefits before we adjourn Congress this
year, before we leave here for our holidays. We are highly paid. We are
employed. Yet we are going to leave and enjoy our holidays, and it will
be absolutely irresponsible if we do not extend the unemployment
benefits.
If it is not irresponsible, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly hardhearted,
because we need 26 weeks' more extension for those who have already
lost their jobs or who are going to lose their jobs or for those who
have unemployment benefits that have lapsed. If we do not give
unemployed workers the help they need today, an estimated 500,000 or
900,000, over half a million of the Nation's jobless, will be without
benefits by the time we return from our holidays in January; holidays
that we have been able to enjoy because we are highly paid and we are
employed, until at least November of every other year.
Why are we not taking care of those who do not have the benefits that
we have? I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the extension of
benefits and vote against the martial law rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time. In 1971, when I was 14 years old, in the spring of that
year, one day my father came home from work from the shipyard at which
he had worked for nearly 40 years and he brought home with him that day
a layoff notice from the shipyard because we were no longer making
enough money building the ships. That was a summer where he applied for
a lot of jobs. He had to make, as I recall, a weekly visit to the
unemployment office to pick up his check; and his benefits ran out in
the fall of 1971.
I was not quite old enough to understand what that meant, but I was
old enough to remember the stress and anxiety my mother and father felt
that fall; and I was also old enough to remember that somehow or
another there was some good news that came that fall because the
unemployment checks that my dad was picking up once a week were going
to keep going for a while, to get us through the holiday season that
year in 1971. He hung in there. He eventually got a part-time job and
worked every day for the rest of his life, until he died in 1985 at the
age of 75 years old. Government reached out and helped us that holiday
season 32 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I know there are 1.3 million American families who feel
today like we felt that day 32 years ago, not knowing whether the money
was going to be there for us to have any kind of holiday at all, much
less the money to pay our rent for the next month, to pay for our heat
for the next month to survive on into the next year.
There was money around here to pay for a solar heating experiment for
a Hooters restaurant down South, there was plenty of money, necessary
money in my opinion, to rebuild the wreckage of postwar Baghdad, there
is certainly enough money for the 1.3 million American families who
have already exhausted their unemployment benefits.
Defeat the previous question. Let us bring this issue to the floor.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page 32010]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Washington State (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Well, Merry Christmas, Mr. Speaker. We are here, and
we are going to have a party down at the White House tonight, and
everybody is going to be full of happiness and gemitlichkeit, but the
workers of this country are not going to get anything done by the
Republican legislature.
The leadership of the Republican Congress is ignoring the need to
extend benefits this year, just like they did last year. We will be
back in January; and there will be all this clamor about, oh, we have
to do something about unemployment. We know it now. We not only need to
extend these benefits, but we need to fix a quirk in the law that keeps
people in Washington State from even getting it if we would extend it.
Now, the administration likes to trumpet, oh, the stock market is up
and there are a few jobs here and there, but this economic recovery is
a mile wide and an inch deep. Two out of every three people will not
find a job. That is the statistic out of the Department of Labor in the
Bush administration. We know there are no jobs out there. We say, well,
try harder. Go work harder. Walk around.
Mr. Speaker, no matter how dedicated you are, how willing you are to
accept a job, if there is no chance, it sounds to me like, you know, it
is like being on the Titanic and looking down to see how many life
boats there are and saying, well, I guess I am not getting into one,
but I guess maybe the ship will make it.
Washington State remains one of the hardest hit States in the Nation,
despite being a diverse economy that is a model and a microcosm of
America. Too many people are falling through the cracks, and the
leadership of the Republican Party does not care. They want martial law
in here in this Congress. They would be willing to put martial law out
on the streets if the unemployed in this country rose up.
For every person we know who is unemployed, there are many more who
have been given up, dropped out of sight and out of reach. Washington
citizens from all walks of life look to us for leadership, look to us
for a helping hand in time of hardship. They deserve it, and for the
good of America we cannot turn our backs on our own people.
Now, we can go have that party down at the White House, and there
will be bands playing and violins, and lots of drinks and good food;
but it is sort of like Old England. It is Scrooge's business. Let us
have a party, but we will not worry about the people out on the
streets.
Vote against the previous question and make this leadership bring up
unemployment.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
We are about to adjourn sine die and close the first session of the
108th Congress with no more legislative business until January 20th of
next year. And just like last year at this time, we are again callously
turning our backs on millions of unemployed Americans whose Federal
unemployment benefits are set to expire shortly after Christmas.
It is very interesting how the Republican leadership can find
billions of dollars to make their rich friends even richer, but cannot
find it in their hearts to help jobless workers through this rough time
with money that is already there for them. They can find $87 billion to
fund the war in Iraq, but nothing for those here without jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to call for a ``no'' vote to defeat the
previous question on this rule so we can try to do something to help
the unemployed American workers. If the previous question is defeated,
I will offer an amendment so we can immediately take up legislation to
extend the expiring Federal unemployment benefits. And I want to state
again: the money is there. It does not have to be borrowed. It has been
paid in. It simply requires Federal action to allow the States to
expend it.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will continue the extended unemployment
benefits program for the first 6 months of next year. The bill would
also increase to 26 weeks the amount of benefits provided under that
program, which is up from 13 weeks. This would provide new help to the
1.4 million workers who have already exhausted their extended benefits
and have yet to find work.
This measure is identical to the text of H.R. 3244, the Rangel-Cardin
unemployment extension, and also contains the text of H.R. 3554,
authored by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), which would
fix a flaw in the current law that prevents those States with
exceptionally high long-term unemployment rates from continuing to
receive extra benefits.
There is so much talk today about our economy and claims that things
are looking good. However, new jobs are not forthcoming at this time
and do not appear to be coming anytime soon. Americans continue to be
unemployed at alarmingly high rates. The percentage of Americans
exhausting their unemployment benefits without finding a job has
reached the highest level on record. More than 2 million workers have
been unemployed for more than 6 months. Jobs are disappearing every day
with no relief in sight. These Americans need relief, and they need it
immediately.
If we do not fix this today, over 400,000 jobless Americans will not
be eligible for unemployment compensation after the first of the year.
More than 2 million more will lose the benefits in the first 6 months
of next year. And, Mr. Speaker, the House will probably adjourn sine
die today or later this week, so this is the only opportunity we have
to help unemployed Americans this year. Let us not abandon them today.
I want to emphasize that voting against the previous question will
not stop the omnibus appropriations conference report from coming to
the floor today.
Voting ``no'' on the previous question will still allow that bill to
be considered. But a ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on
legislation that will help our Nation's unemployed workers.
However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question you will stop any
opportunity for this House to extend desperately needed unemployment
assistance to hundreds of thousands of our constituents and their
families. Do you really want to go home and tell these people that you
failed to do your job and failed to help them in their time of need?
Make no mistake, this vote will give the House the opportunity to
vote today to extend Federal unemployment benefits and to give relief
to those hardest hit by our Nation's grim employment situation. I urge
a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to echo the
sentiment of my Democratic colleagues about where our priorities are.
As Congress comes to a close for 2003, I want to emphasize the needs of
the middle class, of the unemployed and of the families struggling to
make ends meet.
I am here to vote ``no'' on the Previous Question on both the Martial
Law Rule and the Rule for the Omnibus Appropriations bill. I am doing
this to allow the House to consider legislation that would continue to
extend unemployment benefits through the first six months of next year.
By voting no, we can consider H.R. 3568, a bill that would also
increase to 26 weeks the amount of benefits provided under that
program--up from 13 weeks--and help the 1.4 million workers who have
already exhausted their extended benefits.
Already this year, the Bush Administration has cut education
spending, giving the rich more tax breaks, and taken away the child tax
credit for the middle class. We need to be taking steps to change this
selfish economic policy and focus on creating jobs and incentives to
employ more people and assist those during the transition.
Right now we know that job creation will need to be far greater, more
sustained and more robust to start to undo the damage of the recession
created by the Bush Administration. Already, President Bush is on track
to have the worst job creation record of any
[[Page 32011]]
modern President. With a current unemployment rate of 5.9 percent, it
is a 44 percent increase than the rate when President Bush took office
in January 2001. This means 2.7 million more Americans are without a
job because of our irresponsible economic practices.
Extending unemployment benefits is one of the first steps to
correcting the administration's poor economic planning. Economists have
estimated that each dollar of unemployment benefits leads to $1.75 in
economic growth.
Last year, the Republicans went home for the holidays and left
800,000 jobless Americans fearing for their terminated benefits. This
year, we have two million Americans out of work for over six months,
and benefits will expire for 90,000 workers every week unless we do
something about this now.
This is something we must do for our constituents who are struggling
to make ends meet because of circumstances that are out of their
control. From my own district in Houston, I have received over 150
pleading requests to not adjourn without passing the unemployment
benefit extension. This Administration needs to come up with economic
policies that will create jobs, and in the interim they must provide
support to unemployed workers by immediately extending Federal
unemployment benefits. We need to take better care of our working
families and make this a priority.
{time} 1200
The text of the material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is
as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 465--Rule on waiving 2/3rds for Omnibus/
C/R and/or Appropriations Measures
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
Sec. 2. Immediately after disposition of this resolution,
it shall be in order without intervention of any point of
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3568) to
provide extended unemployment benefits to displaced workers,
and to make other improvements in the unemployment insurance
system. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1)
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
Chairman and ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Ways
and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the previous
question and the rule, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move
the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 211,
nays 179, not voting 44, as follows:
[Roll No. 672]
YEAS--211
Akin
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--179
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hill
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Majette
Maloney
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--44
Aderholt
Bachus
Burr
Burton (IN)
Cantor
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Cubin
Deal (GA)
Doggett
Engel
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Gallegly
Gephardt
Goodlatte
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Janklow
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lynch
Markey
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Nadler
Rangel
Regula
Royce
Rush
Scott (GA)
Sessions
Tierney
Waters
Waxman
Wexler
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry)(during the vote). Members
are reminded that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1221
Messrs. WYNN, PASCRELL and CRAMER changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 672, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
[[Page 32012]]
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 672, due to urgent
constituent support commitments in my congressional district, I missed
the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 672,
I missed due to unavoidable circumstances. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212,
noes 182, not voting 40, as follows:
[Roll No. 673]
AYES--212
Aderholt
Akin
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Calvert
Cannon
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--182
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hill
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Majette
Maloney
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--40
Bachus
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp
Cantor
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Cubin
Deal (GA)
Doggett
Emerson
Engel
Filner
Fletcher
Gallegly
Gephardt
Goodlatte
Hastings (FL)
Herger
Hinchey
Janklow
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lynch
Markey
Meehan
Miller, George
Nadler
Rangel
Regula
Rush
Scott (GA)
Tierney
Waters
Waxman
Wexler
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded that
2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1230
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 673, due to urgent
constituent support commitments in my congressional district, I missed
the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this
statement for the Record and regret that I was unavoidably detained on
Monday, December 8, 2003, during rollcall vote Nos. 672 and 673 on H.
Res. 493, a resolution waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule
XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from
the Committee on Rules. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''
on rollcall vote No. 672 and ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 673.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was
unavoidably detained and missed two recorded votes on the House floor.
I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record that
had I not been unavoidably detained earlier this morning, I would have
voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 672 (Previous Question) and ``no'' on
rollcall vote No. 673 (Passage of Martial Law Rule).
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
A message in writing from the President of the United States was
communicated to the House by Mr. Williams, one of his secretaries.
____________________
HONORING CONGRESSMAN JOE SKEEN
(Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty to inform
my colleagues and Members of this House that last evening Congressman
Joe Skeen of New Mexico passed away from complications associated with
Parkinson's disease. His funeral will be held on Thursday, December 12,
at 2 p.m. in Roswell, New Mexico. I know that many Members of this
House were close personal friends of Joe, enjoyed his company and his
sense of humor and his deep commitment to this country. After the final
business of today, there will be a 1-hour special order on the House
floor to allow Members to honor their friend.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
[[Page 32013]]
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for rising and for
yielding as well. I had not heard of Joe's passing.
When I came to the Congress of the United States in 1981, my office
was two doors from Joe Skeen's. As we all do, we had the opportunity to
walk down the fifth floor corridor of the Longworth building to vote
and we talk and get to know one another. And Suzanne, his chief of
staff, and I became good friends, and Joe became an extraordinarily
good friend. Joe chaired a subcommittee of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, Joe Skeen was one of those Members who added greatly to
the comity of this body. He had deep convictions, but he also had a
deep respect for those with whom he served. Joe Skeen will be missed by
New Mexico, by his family, but he will also be missed by this House and
by the American people. At a time when the relations between the
parties is not what really it ought to be in this House, and perhaps in
this country, Joe Skeen was one of those who demonstrated that
differences on policy did not need to be accompanied by enmity between
the Members of this House. He will be sorely missed. And I thank the
gentlewoman for giving me this opportunity to say how loved Joe Skeen
was by all who knew him.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a comment. I served
with Joe Skeen on the Interior Subcommittee of the Committee on
Appropriations. He was our chairman, did an outstanding job. We worked
together on a very bipartisan basis. And even though he was struggling
somewhat, he was there every day, worked hard, did a great job on the
Interior bill. Every member of the committee on both sides of the
aisle, all the staff, loved Joe Skeen because he was such a decent warm
human being, and he will be missed. But his work will be remembered,
and he did a lot of great things for our country as chairman of the
Interior Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. We will miss
Joe Skeen.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
MR. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, the tenor here of the Members,
I think, is very appropriate to the man that Joe Skeen was. And I had
the opportunity, as the gentlewoman knows, to serve with him here for
the 5 years that he was here, and I always felt that he was a good
friend. He was very serious about New Mexico. And whenever I had any
question about New Mexico issues or any other issues, for that matter,
he was somebody that I could go to the other side of the aisle and sit
down with and talk with and visit with. So it is with great sadness, I
think, that all New Mexicans feel his passing away. And I think all
Members of Congress that have served here with him know that he was of
the old school. He cared very much about bipartisanship. He cared about
this institution. He was somebody that, I think many years hence, we
will remember him and regret his passing.
So I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and look forward to
participating with her later in the day in the special order.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New
Mexico for his comments. Again, there will be an opportunity for
Members to remember Joe and his contributions to this House and to this
Nation later on this afternoon.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 1078
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have
my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1078.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
____________________
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2673,
CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 473 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 473
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 2673) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and
for other purposes. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 473 is a rule waiving all points of
order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2673, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, and against its consideration.
The rule provides that the conference report shall be considered as
read.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004 fully
complies with the fiscal parameters of the budget resolution and
contains $328.1 billion in discretionary spending and $820 billion in
total spending including mandatory funds.
Mr. Speaker, the bill also includes an across-the-board reduction of
.59 percent in all programs, projects and activities, except for
Defense and Military Construction funds.
The Committee on Appropriations is to be commended for moving with
dispatch to make this conference report available so that the House can
complete its work on funding measures before the conclusion of the
First Session. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues to support
both the rule and the underlying conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, for months the Republicans who control the Federal
Government have held hostage some of the foremost priorities of the
American people. Key national needs like education, veterans' health
care, law enforcement have all been relegated to the back burner while
Republican leaders fought amongst themselves over how best to privatize
Medicare and reward big drug companies.
But today, my Republican friends undoubtedly will come down to the
floor and proclaim that this giant $820 billion spending bill finishes
their work for the year. In response, millions of Americans still
struggling through the aftermath of the last Republican recession will
respond ``What about us?''
It is a fair question, Mr. Speaker. What about the 2.4 million
American jobs that have been lost since the Republican Party first took
over the government 3 years ago? What about the 90,000 Americans who
will lose their unemployment insurance eligibility just 3 days after
Christmas or the 2.1 million unemployed workers who will lose access to
extended insurance over the first 6 months of next year?
In my home State of Texas, over 130,000 people will lose unemployment
insurance if this Republican Congress does not act to help them,
according to the Joint Economic Committee's analysis of the data from
the Labor Department. Republican leaders often try to spin away
statistics like this, but the truth is the Bush Presidency has seen
this Nation suffer through the longest job slump since the Great
Depression, and the picture is still grim for millions of Americans
trying to find good jobs to support their families.
[[Page 32014]]
While the number of jobs in America has shrunk by 2.4 million, the
working-age population in America has grown by 4.5 million. As a
result, America's ``jobs deficit'' has shot up to 6.9 million on the
Republican watch. That has put American workers in a huge hole and left
three unemployed workers for every one job that becomes available.
Despite these facts, Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders are, once again,
planning to adjourn for the holidays without extending unemployment
insurance, just like they did last year. Mr. Speaker, there is no
reason to treat the American people with such callousness. It would be
only fair to provide them with the help that they need before Congress
goes home for the holidays. Even the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, supports doing it,
as he said this morning in the Committee on Rules. After all, the
Republican Congress has already done huge favors for their biggest
supporters. Over the last 3 years, they have squandered trillions of
dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest few, driving the national
deficit above $500 billion on an annual basis and raising the debt tax
on all Americans. And today, President Bush will sign the Republican
``wither-on-the-vine'' Medicare bill. This monstrosity spends billions
to subsidize HMOs and drug companies, but it actually reduces seniors'
choices and it makes it illegal for them to reduce the huge out-of-
pocket cost that the Republican bill does not cover. It will not let
retirees cover these drug costs with the employer-provided drug
coverage that they already have, even though the Republican bill may
only cover selected medicines, regardless of what their doctor says
they need. And it will not let seniors buy Medigap policies to cover
their $3,600 in out-of-pocket expenses either.
Mr. Speaker, that is an outrage, and it comes on top of a $12 billion
slush fund for HMOs and $139 billion in windfall profits for big drug
companies. So why, Mr. Speaker, will Republicans not spend just a tiny
fraction of that to help Americans still suffering from the latest
Republican recession? Why will they not use their legislation on the
floor today, an $820 billion collection of several different spending
bills, to provide desperately-needed relief over the holidays to
Americans who still cannot find a job?
{time} 1245
After all, the omnibus spending bill provides plenty of assistance to
others. For the big drug companies, Republican leaders have dropped
drug reimportation language passed by the House and Senate, meaning
that drug prices will still be astronomically higher for America's
seniors than for people in other countries.
For some of the Bush administration's biggest corporate backers,
Republicans have dropped overtime protection for workers, meaning that
millions of Americans will get paid less, even as they are forced to
work more. And they are spending $13 million on vouchers to subsidize
private schools for a few, taking desperately needed resources from the
public schools that serve all American children.
Despite all this, Mr. Speaker, there are still many worthwhile parts
to this massive spending bill. For instance, Democrats and veterans
groups have finally forced Republicans to increase funding for veterans
medical care that would still fall short of what they need. And to help
communities protect children against abduction, this bill includes $24
million for the national Amber Alert Program that I first introduced
earlier this year. It also includes vital resources to address
important transportation issues in north Texas.
So why can this Republican Congress not do just one more good deed
before the holidays? Mr. Speaker, why not help the 1.4 million workers
who cannot find work, who have already exhausted their extended
benefits and have yet to find work?
Republican leaders may not care about helping them, but that does not
have to stop this Congress from doing the right thing. If Republican
Members will join Democrats in opposing the important parliamentary
vote known as the previous question, then we can amend the rule and
pass commonsense assistance for Americans still unable to find work in
this jobless recovery. Otherwise, while Republicans are enjoying their
vacations, hundreds of thousands of jobless Americans will spend the
holidays preparing to lose the unemployment insurance they need to
support their families.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, this morning's news talks about the elections in Russia.
At the same time it speaks about elections, it talks about the steady
erosion of democratic freedoms embodied in these elections, and it says
there is mounting national and international criticism of those
elections because of the denial of democracy as defined by free
societies, which is because of the heavy hand of the Putin majority.
We are blind if we do not see analogous denials of democracy
American-style wrapped up in this omnibus bill. Is it democracy when,
for the first time, we hold open votes unconscionably long, pressure
Members, it has been alleged illegally, with threats or bribes until
you win what the vote shows you had already lost? We have done that at
least a half a dozen times, ranging from 25 minutes to 3 hours.
Is it democracy when you reverse the votes of the House, as we have
done on the overtime provision?
Is it democracy when we have one-party conferences, locking out the
other party?
Is it democracy when there are in this bill, a major bill, provisions
for which there have been no votes at all? Like the D.C. voucher
provision, there was no vote in the Senate because they had no votes.
The ultimate abuse is they removed the few routine accountability
provisions that by voice vote did get in the bill for D.C. vouchers.
One was that teachers have to have a college degree.
Is it democracy when you lard the bill with Republican pork,
defunding the No Child Left Behind bill while your own school districts
are screaming because they have had to cut their own school funding?
I must say, if we pass this bill, it will be an appropriate way to
end this session, because this entire session has been a monument, as
this bill is, to the denial of democracy.
In this session, Mr. Speaker, we have crossed the line. We have
crossed the line between the kind of contentiousness that has gone on
for 200 years in this House to one-party rule in the people's House.
The way to begin to remedy this, and we must remedy this now, we must
not carry this procedure, this way of conducting business, into the
next year; the way to remedy this outrage is to vote against this bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, today the leadership of this House breathes life back
into the spirit of Ebeneezer Scrooge and for the second year in a row
ignores the plight of America's unemployed during the holiday season.
The majority's failure to extend emergency unemployment benefits for
the long-term unemployed is not only unconscionable; it is cold-
hearted.
In May, President Bush said, ``My economic plan is summed up in one
word: jobs.'' But the truth is, even after 4 straight months of anemic
job growth, President Bush is on course to become the first President
since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net jobs loss during his 4-year
term.
Yes, the economy added 57,000 jobs in November, but here is what they
do not say: the economy has to create 150,000 jobs a month just to keep
pace with the new folks coming into the employment arena. Overall,
there are 8.7 million unemployed Americans today; and nearly
[[Page 32015]]
one-fourth of them, Mr. Speaker, some 2 million people, have been
jobless for more than 26 weeks.
Mr. Speaker, that is the highest percentage of long-term unemployment
since July of 1983, 20 years ago; and there are about 4.2 million other
workers who want a job, but are not even counted among the unemployed.
The reality is this: if the President and Congressional Republicans
refuse to extend Federal temporary unemployment benefits, which are
scheduled to be phased out beginning December 21, an estimated 80,000
to 90,000 jobless workers who exhaust their State benefits every week
will be completely cut off. That is 80,000 to 90,000 people per week.
That is not only callous; it is unnecessary. We have the funding to
extend these benefits. That is right, there is $20 billion in the
Federal fund dedicated to unemployment benefits, which is financed by
unemployment taxes deducted from workers' paychecks.
Mr. Speaker, I know the President and our Republican colleagues would
like nothing more than to pronounce our economy healed and to unfurl
the banner reading ``Mission Accomplished,'' but it is plain that
millions of Americans continue to be hurt. The least we can do is reach
out a helping hand.
Mr. Speaker, we did this last year, and we left 800,000 people on
December 31, 2002, falling off the unemployment roles. With the money
in the pot to help them, why do we leave this day without addressing
this problem? There is no explanation, Mr. Speaker. I predict to you
that the President will, 2 weeks from now, say, oh, my goodness, we
should have done that.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
ranking member for yielding me time.
I wish that we would donate our time and dedicate ourselves to the
wishes of the American people.
Hubert Humphrey said that this Constitution was organized to create a
more perfect Union, and the challenge of creating a more perfect Union
is a continued agitation and criticism, not because we are disloyal to
this country and to the American people, but because we care about a
more perfect Union.
In the backdrop of a 4-hour vote before we left for the Thanksgiving
work recess, I come to the floor of the House now. We have an omnibus
appropriations bill that has barely been before the Members of Congress
for any kind of review. For 4 hours a vote was left open, in complete
disregard for the rules of this House and what the Madison Papers and
our Founding Fathers wanted to establish, a Republic and also a
democracy.
Today we come with a martial law that allows us on one day to just
put on the floor of the House a huge and large and massive
interpretation of the appropriations for 2004. And then we have a
situation where issues that clearly the American people are against,
such as eliminating overtime opportunities for working men and women
are sneaked into the appropriations bill, and then where thousands of
petitions from around the country were brought to this government about
not allowing large media conglomerates to buy up stations to the
disregard of the first amendment. And lo and behold, there is a sneak
provision in here that allows that to happen.
Then, of course, there is a provision that affects many seniors who
were implementing lower-cost drugs by drug reimportation. Clearly those
drugs were safe, because seniors have been doing it for a very long
time. That has been sneaked into the bill, meaning that we have
eliminated that opportunity so that seniors can again suffer. They
suffer first with a Medicare bill that is going to implode and not be
in business until 2006 and cost thousands of Texans to lose their
benefits, and they will suffer.
Then if we talk about international efforts, I was in Ethiopia this
past summer, and one of the things they were begging for is, they
appreciated the famine relief, but they wanted to be able to be taught
to fish. If you teach someone to fish they may not be hungry tomorrow,
but if you give them a fish today, they may be hungry tomorrow. It
takes very low dollars for what we call food security, teaching them
agricultural skills and new technology.
Then, of course, I have been concerned with the Columbia 7 tragedy,
that NASA focus its concepts on safety. In all of the NASA budget, I do
not know if there is a line item that boosts the resources for making
sure that NASA pays attention to safety issues.
We could have done this, Mr. Speaker, if we had deliberated on this
appropriations bill. If we did not have the martial law, if we paid
attention to the rules of the House, we might be able to do this. But,
unfortunately, it seems we cannot.
So I ask my colleagues to vote against this rule so we can get back
to work on behalf of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule on H.R. 2673, the
Omnibus appropriations Conference report. While the Omnibus includes a
significant amount for agriculture appropriations, the omnibus fails to
include the House provisions to prohibit the FDA from spending funds to
prevent individuals and pharmacists from importing FDA-approved
prescription drugs. In addition, this portion of the bill delays for
two years the mandatory country-of-origin labeling for all produce,
meat or meat products except for farm-raised fish and wild fish.
In addition, the omnibus permanently limits the ability of the FCC to
grant licenses for a commercial TV broadcast station if the granting of
that license would result in such party having an aggregate national
audience reach exceeding 39 percent (the House and Senate bills barred
the FCC from increasing the share of the national market one
broadcasting company can own, which currently is 35 percent. The
omnibus also includes provisions that prohibit the implementation of a
background check system that does not include a requirement to destroy
gun purchase records within 24 hours.
I am rather disturbed Mr. Speaker, by the portion appropriating
$139.8 billion for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education, and related agencies. While I am pleased that there is money
for Texas Southern University, a predominantly black university in my
district for their minority engineering program within the college of
Science and Technology, I was rather disturbed that the Democratic
members were shut out from receiving individual earmarks for their
districts because they voted against the bill when it came to the House
floor. This not only goes against fundamental fairness Mr. Speaker, but
when you penalize individual members by not giving them much needed
money for their districts, you hurt their constituents. This is bad for
this institution, and bad for the country. The omnibus also falls $7.8
billion short of the No Child Left Behind Authorization levels and
provides $55.7 billion for the Education Department ($12.4 billion for
the Title I program.
The omnibus fails to include the House and Senate adopted provisions
to block the Department of Labor from issuing rules that would take
away the rights of some white-collar workers to overtime pay.
The omnibus also fails to include House provisions that would have
limited the Administration's ability to outsource some federal jobs and
includes only some limitations to programs funded by the
Transportation-Treasury bill.
I urge members to vote against this rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, last night while I was enjoying sumptuous
airline fare on the red-eye to come out here to vote on this, the lady
sitting next to me was reading a book called ``Nickel and Dimed.'' It
is a book about people who are struggling; who are employed, but who
are struggling to keep their souls and their families together in
today's economically challenged times. And nobody, nobody who has read
this book would vote for this rule.
The reason is that we can quote all the rosy statistics that we can,
but the fact of the matter is if we leave this floor and go out to the
food banks in our districts, in every district in America, the food
banks are jammed, the lines are long, people are still having problems
feeding their children.
As I was talking to a business owner the other day in Seattle, he
says, I hear these statistics, but I do not see the customers. The fact
of the matter
[[Page 32016]]
is, we still have people in pain, and this rule keeps them in that
economically devastated condition.
There are two reasons it does this: one, it guts the effort we had on
a bipartisan basis in the Senate and at least a little bit here on this
floor when, in a democratic process, we voted with the majority to stop
the President of the United States from stealing people's time with
their families by gutting overtime protection.
Over 8 million Americans are going to lose the right to overtime,
and, more importantly, lose the right to control their own time with
their families if this rule passes. That is wrong. It is a violation of
the democratic spirit for us to vote to stop the President from taking
family time away from their families, with people going into a dark
room and stripping that protection out. It is wrong, and we should fix
it right here.
{time} 1300
But second is the unemployment. We have heard that we have had some
modestly encouraging news, that there has been some jobs created in the
recent past, and that is great. But the fact of the matter is, there
have been 2.4 million jobs lost during this administration's tenure.
And the way I figure it, if we look at the jobs that have been created,
we have only got about 2.3 million jobs to go to get our nose above
dead even.
Now, the majority's approach to this is we sort of have the U.S.
economy with 2.4 million jobs lost kind of down in a deep well. The
majority is starting to look at that American worker down in that deep
well, and we have winched them up about 6 inches off the floor and
said, you are on your own now. We have a long ways to go before we can
say that we are out of the woods economically.
This bill does not cut the mustard. This bill gives Scrooge a bad
name. At least he had an epiphany.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the body's
attention to another provision in this omnibus appropriations bill. I
know there are several that are objectionable, and this one may not get
any further discussion, but I think it merits it.
There is a provision in this bill that says that all of the records
of firearm purchases have to be destroyed within 24 hours.
Now, we know that there have been more than 3,500 firearms purchased
by people who should not have purchased them, and that the FBI has been
able to retrieve those guns because the records are currently kept for
90 days. They retrieve them if the person that purchased it is a
fugitive, is a felon, has a history of serious mental illness, is an
illegal alien, any number of reasons that they should not be purchasing
guns, lawfully, in the United States. So 3,500 guns have been retrieved
because we have kept the records available for 90 days. Now, they have
to be destroyed within 24 hours.
Now, the National Rifle Association thinks this is a good thing, but
our law enforcement organizations do not. FBI agents will tell us this
is very serious, what this bill would do. In fact, the al Qaeda
training manual cites the fact that you can go in and buy a gun in the
United States, and as long as you have not been a convicted felon in
the past, you can buy that and the records will be destroyed. And, in
fact, as the Washington Post said in an article last week, that is
true, that if a person gets hold of a gun, their records have to be
destroyed as a result of this bill. If they are denied, then the
records can be pursued. But if they lawfully purchased it, the records
are destroyed, which means that we are deliberately tying the hands of
law enforcement agencies.
Now, is it not appropriate that we be able to consult the list of
violent gang members and terrorists when they try to buy a gun?
Absolutely, is the answer. Yet, this bill says, within 24 hours, even
if it is a holiday, a weekend, even if it is in some rural area where
they do not have the resources to check what they need to be able to
check, it has to be destroyed within 24 hours.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to look back and find this provision as one
of the most dangerous that this House has passed, and the most
irresponsible and irrational. We should not be doing this. It was
another one of these things snuck into the conference report. I
strongly urge Members, unless we can take this out, this bill should
not be supported in its present form.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I rise in reluctant opposition to this rule and to this bill.
We, in the House, have specific rules against approving spending that
is not approved in either a House or Senate version and then comes to
the floor in a bill like this, yet we routinely waive the rules and
waive all points of order against this kind of spending. This is to our
shame. I am ashamed that we are doing this today. This bill has about,
at last count I believe about 7,000 earmarks within it for particular
spending items. Under Republican control, we have gone, I believe, in
1994 from about 2,000 earmarks per year to over 10,000, and that is not
the way that we ought to conduct business. I think that it is going to
come back to bite us. It well ought to.
With that, I think that we ought to oppose this rule because it goes
against procedures that we have established in the House, and we ought
to vote against the bill as well.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me this time. I would hope that we will defeat the previous
question so that we can bring up the unemployment compensation
extension.
Last year, Congress left town without extending unemployment
benefits, but at least we came back and did it retroactively.
Now, some are saying that our unemployment is not as bad or not bad
enough for us to extend the Federal unemployment benefits. They are
saying it is time for the extended benefit program to end.
But let us look at the facts. Never before has Congress allowed the
termination of this program when the unemployment rate is higher than
when the program started; at least up until now. Congress has never
terminated the program with the unemployment benefits when the economy
still has 2.4 million fewer jobs today than when the recession began.
Congress has never stopped the extension of the program where the long-
term unemployment rates have tripled. Yet, there has been no offer to
give any help. Congress has never allowed the extended benefit program
to expire when the exhaustion rate for regular unemployment benefits is
the highest since we have been keeping these records. Yet, we are
talking about leaving town without extending unemployment benefits.
Congress has never refused to extend unemployment benefits when there
is $20 billion in the Federal Unemployment Trust Account, enough money
to pay for extended benefits without going into debt, yet we are
talking about leaving town today without extending the Federal
unemployment benefits.
The Washington Post got it right when it compared this to the last
recession. It said, ``But in 1993, employment had grown for 22 of the
23 previous months, and the overall number of jobs was above the
prerecession level. This time around, employment has grown for only 4
months in a row, following 6 straight months of job losses. Overall,
the number of jobs is down 2.4 million since the current downturn
started in early 2001.''
Mr. Speaker, it would be wrong for us to leave town without helping
those people who do not have jobs through no fault of their own.
Unemployment compensation is not a luxury. We need to do it now.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is probably the House's final work day this year,
but
[[Page 32017]]
Republican leaders are, once again, callously turning their backs on
the millions of unemployed Americans whose Federal unemployment
insurance will expire just days after Christmas. The Republican
leadership has found billions of dollars to extend tax breaks for
corporations, but they keep refusing to help the jobless Americans who
are still suffering from the last Republican recession.
To give Republicans one last chance to do the right thing, I will
oppose the previous question on this rule so that we can immediately
take up legislation to extend the expiring Federal unemployment
benefits.
This commonsense legislation would continue the extended unemployment
benefits program through the first 6 months of next year. It would
increase to 26 weeks the amounts of benefits provided under the
program, up from 13 weeks. It would provide new help to the 1.4 million
workers who have already exhausted their extended benefits and have yet
to find work.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is identical to the text of H.R. 3244,
the Rangel-Cardin unemployment extension, and it also contains the text
of H.R. 3554 by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) which
would fix a flaw in the current law that prevents those States with
exceptionally high, long-term unemployment rates from continuing to
receive the help their citizens need.
Mr. Speaker, Americans still face a difficult jobs market. Since
President Bush took office, the economy has lost 2.4 million jobs. That
is the worst jobs record for a President since Herbert Hoover and the
Great Depression. The percentage of Americans exhausting their
unemployment benefits without finding a job has reached its highest
level on record. These Americans need relief and they need it
immediately. If we do not extend unemployment benefits, then more than
2 million workers will lose benefits in the first 6 months of next
year, including over 130,000 in my State of Texas alone.
I want to stress that this vote is not intended to stop the omnibus
conference report from consideration in the House. Voting ``no'' on the
previous question will still allow that bill to move forward today. But
a ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on legislation to help
provide some much-needed relief to our Nation's unemployed workers,
particularly during this holiday season. However, if Members vote
``yes'' on the previous question, they will kill any chance for
extending unemployment assistance that is so desperately needed by
millions of our constituents and their families.
Let us be clear. This vote will give the House the opportunity to
vote today on extended Federal unemployment benefits and on giving
relief to those hardest hit to the President's dismal economic record.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
This is a rule that provides for the consideration of the
consolidated spending bill. It is something that we must do in this
Congress to fund the government. That is what this rule is all about. I
urge support of that.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the previous question so that this Congress can extend
unemployment benefits to the millions of Americans who cannot find work
in an economy with almost three unemployed workers for every job
opening.
Because of previous inaction, it is now ``zero hour'' for American
families who are set to exhaust their State unemployment benefits. If
we do not extend the Federal unemployment insurance program today,
roughly half a million people who would have been eligible for the
Federal extension program will not be receiving a paycheck or an
unemployment check in January.
These workers form the ranks of America's 2 million long-term
unemployed workers. They have been out of work for at least half a year
and they comprise almost a quarter of the unemployed, a larger share of
those out of work than at any time since July 1983. A recent survey by
the National Employment Law Project noted that over half of the long-
term unemployed had cut back on food purchases for their families,
borrowed money to pay basic bills, and postponed necessary medical
treatment.
We can held these families today. The economic situation in this
country has simply not improved enough to justify the end to the
Federal unemployment extension program. Already, three of every four
Federal unemployment recipients exhaust their benefits without finding
a job.
We must not punish millions of American families simply for losing
their jobs at the wrong time of year, in the wrong month of the
Congressional calendar. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today to object
to consideration of the Omnibus Appropriations bill. I am specifically
concerned with provisions in this legislation that would result in the
removal of overtime pay protection for many American workers.
A few months ago, this House voted to instruct conferees to remove
unfair provisions on overtime pay. Despite the will of a majority of
Members, those provisions still remain in this bill. This does not
reflect the true position of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on what has been called ``the Harkin
amendment.'' This amendment to the FY2004 Labor-HHS appropriations bill
would have prohibited the Department of Labor from issuing regulations
that would disqualify overtime protection to workers protected under
current law.
The opponents of overtime pay protection would require employees to
work more than 40 hours weekly without being paid time and a half for
their work. The Department of Labor claims that only 644,000 current
workers will lose overtime pay benefits under the provisions of this
legislation.
In sharp contrast, the Economic Policy Institute reports that over
eight million eligible workers are earning overtime, and will be
adversely affected by these regulations. This figure includes 5.5
million workers paid hourly and 2.5 million salaried employees. We all
know that we live in a time of scarce resources and few job
opportunities. Therefore, this drastic pay cut, especially during the
holiday season, is fundamentally unfair and wrong for American workers.
Over 1.4 million Americans are also faced with the expiration of
their unemployment benefits at the end of this month. We cannot in good
conscience go home to celebrate the holidays with our families while
unemployed Americans face a grim future and a bleak holiday season.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of this body to take action today
that will give hope to American workers, and protect the wages they
earn and extend the benefits they deserve.
The amendment previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 473, Rule for Conference Report on H.R.
2673, Agriculture/Omnibus Appropriations FY04
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
Sec. 2. ``Immediately after disposition of the conference
report on H.R. 2673, it shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order to consider in the House
the bill (H.R. 3568) to provide extended unemployment
benefits to displaced workers, and to make other improvements
in the unemployment insurance system. The bill shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bills to final passage
without intervening motion except: 1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the Chairman and ranking
Minority Member of the Committee on the Ways and Means; and
2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
[[Page 32018]]
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214,
nays 189, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 674]
YEAS--214
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--189
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--31
Burr
Burton (IN)
Carson (OK)
Conyers
Cubin
Doggett
Filner
Fletcher
Gallegly
Gephardt
Hayes
Houghton
Janklow
John
Kucinich
Lantos
Lynch
Meehan
Miller, George
Nadler
Pelosi
Portman
Regula
Rush
Sanders
Sullivan
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette) (during the vote). Members
are advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1334
Mr. WYNN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. SAXTON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 674, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 674, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, on December 8, 2003, I was unavoidably
detained at a meeting and missed the vote on rollcall No. 674, Ordering
Previous Question on H. Res. 473, the Rule to accompany H.R. 2673, the
Fiscal Year 2004 Agriculture Appropriations Act.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 674, due to urgent
constituent support commitments in my Congressional District, I missed
the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216,
noes 189, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 675]
AYES--216
Aderholt
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
[[Page 32019]]
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--189
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--29
Akin
Burr
Burton (IN)
Carson (OK)
Cubin
Doggett
Feeney
Filner
Fletcher
Gallegly
Gephardt
Houghton
Janklow
John
Lantos
Lynch
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Moore
Nadler
Northup
Pelosi
Rush
Sanders
Taylor (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1343
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 675, due to urgent
constituent support commitments in my congressional district, I missed
the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on the conference agreement accompanying H.R. 2673, and
that I may include tabular and extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2673, CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 473,
I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2673) making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the
conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
November 25, 2003, Book II, at page H 12323.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
{time} 1345
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I call attention to the fact that this conference report was filed on
November 25, nearly 2 weeks ago, so that every Member has had 2 weeks,
if they wanted to, to review this bill to see what was in it and to see
what was not in it.
Something that I always enjoy reporting to the House and reminding
the House of, and they probably get tired of hearing me say it, is that
we passed all of our bills in the House, all of our appropriation
bills, before the August recess, except for two; and those last two we
passed on September 9, the first week back after the August district
work period. So the House has done its job. It has done a good job.
What we are doing here today is we are passing an omnibus appropriation
bill that includes seven bills that we have already passed in the
House. I say that again: these seven bills that are in this package
already passed the House once. So this is now the omnibus bill; this is
the conference report on that omnibus bill.
I will not take a lot of time to say what the seven bills are that
are included because I think everyone knows what those final seven
bills are. But I want to say that there are some important items that
need to be passed now, today, and not in January or February. Because
if we were to operate under a continuing resolution until late January
or sometime in February, there are some important funding issues that
would not be resolved.
For example, the $2.9 billion increase in medical care for veterans
is a very important issue, and one that the House agreed to strongly.
That increase will not take any effect whatsoever until such time as
this bill passes. A CR will not provide for that 2.9 additional
billions of dollars for veterans health care.
The same factor applies for education money. The same increase would
not be available under a CR that is available under this bill.
For the FBI, counterterrorism and embassy security and other security
issues of these types, the increased money that we made available for
security in those areas would not be available under a CR. And the list
goes on. The list is lengthy.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we pass this bill today, and I
hope that we pass it with large numbers, large enough so that our
friends at the other end of the Capitol understand that we are serious
about this government of ours functioning; that we are serious about
the issues that we brought to the attention of the Congress and that we
intend to see them implemented.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is anybody who wants to find something at
fault, something to complain about in this bill, they can do it,
because there are seven bills. I am sure there will be something there
each of us may not like. But I tell my colleagues that it is the best
product that we could provide for, considering the fact that we were
negotiating with Republicans and Democrats in the House, we were
negotiating with the Senate Republicans and Democrats, we were
negotiating with the leadership, and we were negotiating with the White
House. I think
[[Page 32020]]
all in all we have come to a pretty good conclusion considering the
fact that we were able to bring most of those issues together and to
bring a bill that we believe we can pass with a great number today.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the House the conference report
on the Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004.
Included in this bill are the following appropriations bills:
Agriculture; Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary; District of
Columbia; Foreign Operations; Labor, Education and Health and Human
Services; Transportation and Treasury; and Veterans Affairs and Housing
and Urban Development.
So as you can see, this bill is a tremendously important bill. I'm
sure it will not please everyone in all respects but it does address
many important needs of this country.
I believe we have done an extraordinary job in holding spending to
appropriate levels--the bill totals $328.1 billion in discretionary
funding. It is a fiscally responsible bill that complies with the
fiscal parameters prescribed by the President limiting total
discretionary spending to $786 billion or approximately 3 percent
increase over last year's comparable levels. Additional spending has
been offset by a $1.8 billion rescission from any unobligated balances
in the Department of Defense, as well as from P.L. 107-38 and P.L. 107-
117, the $40 billion post 9/11 supplemental, exempting from cuts any
relief funds for New York, Washington, D.C. area, and rural
Pennsylvania. It also includes an across the board reduction of .59
percent to all programs, projects and activities exempting Defense and
Military Construction funds.
I would like to highlight a few items that I believe are of interest
to many Members:
Veterans Medical Care is increased by $2.9 billion over last year,
the largest onetime increase ever.
D.C. School Choice--$40 million is provided to expand school choice
in the District of Columbia, including $13 million to improve public
education, $13 million to expand charter schools, and $14 million to
provide opportunity scholarships for students in the District of
Columbia.
Special Education Grants are funded at $10.1 billion, $1.2 billion
more than last year, and over three times the amount provided in 1995.
Election Reform--Provides an additional $1 billion for programs under
the Help America Vote Act.
International HIV/AIDS Assistance--Provides $2.4 billion in
international assistance for HIV/AID, TB and Malaria, the highest level
in history.
Millennium Challenge Account--Provides $1 billion for the Millennium
Challenge Corporation.
Highway Spending--Total highway spending amounts to $33.8 billion, an
increase of $4.5 billion over the President's request and $6.1 billion
over the FY03 guaranteed amount.
Convention Security--$50 million is provided for security expenses at
the national party conventions in Boston and New York City.
Embassy Security--$200 million is provided for worldwide embassy
security upgrades.
FBI--$513 million in increases are provided for the FBI to fight
terrorism.
NIH--the bill continues our commitment to the NIH by providing an
increase of $1 billion over last year.
National Service Corporation is funded at $584 million, $200 million
above last year.
Faith- and Community-Based Initiatives are increased including the
Compassion Capital Fund at $48 million and Mentoring Children of
Prisoners at $50 million.
Social Security--Provides a 6.1 percent increase to the Social
Security Administration to improve service delivery of Social Security
benefits and accelerate the time it takes to process disability claims.
I believe we've have reached a point of no return--we must now pass
this bill and turn our attention to the FY 2005 budget process.
I encourage all Members to support this important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record detailed information on each of
the appropriation bills in this omnibus legislation.
[[Page 32021]]
[[Page 32022]]
[[Page 32023]]
[[Page 32024]]
[[Page 32025]]
[[Page 32026]]
[[Page 32027]]
[[Page 32028]]
[[Page 32029]]
[[Page 32030]]
[[Page 32031]]
[[Page 32032]]
[[Page 32033]]
[[Page 32034]]
[[Page 32035]]
[[Page 32036]]
[[Page 32037]]
[[Page 32038]]
[[Page 32039]]
[[Page 32040]]
[[Page 32041]]
[[Page 32042]]
[[Page 32043]]
[[Page 32044]]
[[Page 32045]]
[[Page 32046]]
[[Page 32047]]
[[Page 32048]]
[[Page 32049]]
[[Page 32050]]
[[Page 32051]]
[[Page 32052]]
[[Page 32053]]
[[Page 32054]]
[[Page 32055]]
[[Page 32056]]
[[Page 32057]]
[[Page 32058]]
[[Page 32059]]
[[Page 32060]]
[[Page 32061]]
[[Page 32062]]
[[Page 32063]]
[[Page 32064]]
[[Page 32065]]
[[Page 32066]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, only a few weeks after Congress eliminated
the guarantee of health care under Medicare for every senior in
America, just in time for the holidays we are telling every working
person in this country that another guarantee is also a thing of the
past: overtime pay.
The passage of the Fair Standards Labor Act nearly 70 years ago
safeguarded workers' rights in this country. It promised workers time
and a half for the time they worked beyond the 40-hour workweek: a
little extra cash to put a roof over their families' heads, to buy
groceries, and pay their medical bills. On average, these extra wages
account for roughly 25 percent of their total earnings.
This bill, in clear defiance of the will of both Chambers of
Congress, breaks that promise. This bill allows the Department of Labor
to gut the Fair Standards Labor Act, effectively repealing the 40-hour
workweek and forcing 8 million Americans, including police officers,
firefighters, construction workers, nurses, and EMTs, to take a second
job to make up for those lost earnings; this at a time when we already
have millions of people out of work, where income is declining, poverty
is increasing, and health care costs are rising.
This bill opens the door to mandatory overtime, allowing employers to
force millions of workers to stay late with little notice and without
adequately compensating them. It will leave countless working women the
worse off, spending less time with their families as they put more of
their hard-earned wages to afford increased child care and
transportation costs.
The Republican majority has moved effectively to tear up our
country's long-standing contract with the working people of this
country, a contract that says that hard work deserves to be rewarded,
especially when that work is above and beyond the call of duty, after
normal working hours. By ending overtime pay, by denying a fair
extension of unemployment benefits, this bill embodies that assault on
America's working families.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for those families
today, to make a difference in their lives, and say ``no'' to this bill
and oppose it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say
that this is an appropriation bill, and the issues that the gentlewoman
discussed are not within our jurisdiction and are not in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Istook), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on
Transportation.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me this time, and I rise in support in particular of the
section on transportation, treasury, and independent agencies, which is
included as division F of this bill. This is the first time that this
body packaged together this particular grouping of agencies, including
transportation, the Treasury Department, the executive office of the
President, and independent agencies, such as the General Services
Administration and the Office of Personnel Management. I am pleased to
say that with the help of my hardworking colleague, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), and with good staff and with the good
cooperation of the Senate, we have met the challenges of that
particular grouping.
This is a good effort, Mr. Speaker. This portion of the conference
report contains $89.8 billion. That is just 3.7 percent above the level
enacted for fiscal year 2003. Nondefense discretionary spending is
below the President's budget request and below the fiscal year 2003
level.
However, we are able to establish important priorities. In
particular, Federal aid to highways will receive a $2 billion increase.
Even within the overall constraints, a $2 billion increase for
highways, going from $31.8 billion to $33.8 billion. That addresses the
most critical transportation needs in the entire country. It also
provides much-needed jobs and will assist in relieving congestion in
the overburdened highway system.
In addition, it provides significantly more money for the IRS tax law
enforcement programs. The return to Treasury on the investment in law
enforcement is enormous; and we have given it, appropriately, a top
priority.
Other programs in the bill receive sufficient funding to continue
operations but not enough for frills.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is very important for transportation in the
country, whether we are talking about road, rail, mass transit, or any
other system. I appreciate the effort to work together cooperatively
with both sides of the aisle on that, and I ask that this bill be
approved.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Transportation,
Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004, which is
included as division F of this bill. This is the first time this body
has had to package together the funding priorities of the
Transportation Department, the Treasury Department, the Executive
Office of the President, and independent agencies such as the Office of
Personnel Management and the General Services Administration. Dealing
with fundamental financial and personnel policy issues while trying to
provide for the Nation's infrastructure has proven to be a formidable
challenge. But I am proud to say that, with the help of my hard-working
colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Olver, and with the good cooperation
of the Senate, we have met that challenge.
This is a good Transportation and Treasury bill, Mr. Speaker. Within
very tight fiscal constraints, it strikes a good balance between the
programs of those departments. It provides for critical, core programs
but trims back new initiatives.
That portion of this conference report contains $89.8 billion in
budgetary resources. That is just 3.7 percent above the level enacted
for fiscal year 2003. Non-defense discretionary spending is below the
President's budget request and below the fiscal year 2003 level.
However, this part of the bill does establish priorities. In
particular, the federal-aid highways program will receive a $2 billion
increase, going from $31.8 billion to $33.8 billion. This addresses the
most crucial transportation issue in America. This will provide much-
needed jobs around the country, and assist in providing congestion
relief on our overburdened highway system. In addition, the bill
provides almost $350 million--9 percent--more for IRS's tax law
enforcement program in the coming year. Given the budget problems
facing the Nation, every additional tax dollar the IRS collects is
critical. The return to the Treasury on this investment is enormous, so
we have given it a top priority.
Let me make special note of one of our most critical grant programs,
the election reform grants authorized by the Help America Vote Act of
2002. These grants go out to all States, to help them meet Federal
deadlines for upgrading voting machines. Given their budget situation,
many States will have a difficult if not impossible time meeting the
deadline without Federal help. This bill provides $1.5 billion for
those grants, which is $1 billion above the House-passed level. The
funding in this bill will bring total assistance for election reform to
$3 billion.
Other programs in the bill receive sufficient funding to continue
their operations throughout the year, but they won't have enough for
frills. The IRS's operating budget would rise by 3 percent. The FAA's
by 7 percent. The Executive Office of the President receives an
increases of only 1 percent. The essential air service program receives
$102 million, which will sustain their current operations. The Airport
Improvement Program is at $3.4 billion, which is also the FY 03 level.
Amtrak, which requested $1.8 billion, will receive $1.225 billion,
essentially the same amount as in the current year.
The bill has a number of important oversight initiatives that I'd
like to highlight as well.
For Amtrak, the bill continues the strong oversight provisions first
included in last year's appropriations bill. In addition, we have added
a new provision authorizing the Surface Transportation Board to
continue commuter rail service if Amtrak ceases operations, and
providing $60 million to the Secretary for these purposes.
In FAA, the bill provides additional resources for contract audits of
major procurements and fences the funds only for that purpose.
According to the IG, FAA has been negligent in performing these
valuable audits. With major new acquisitions facing the agency, the
bill requires FAA to do a better job at reviewing contractor proposals
and bid prices and gives them money for that purpose.
[[Page 32067]]
In the Federal Transit Administration, the bill directs FTA to ensure
that alternative modes or alignments are analyzed as part of the
planning process for new starts, and that they fully support the mode
chosen by weighing all viable alternatives and using quantitative
measures, rather than pre-ordaining expensive light-rail as their
choice for transit. We need to make sure that, when the Federal
Government is asked to pay 50 percent or more of the money, local
communities have done their homework in studying alternatives that will
most effectively deal with the problems.
In short, Mr. Speaker, this is a very good compromise. It involved
some give and take by both sides, but we were able to preserve the most
critical aspects of the House-passed bill. It deserves every Member's
support.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and initially I would like to submit for the Record at this point
in time my remarks with reference to the Office of Federal Detention
Trustee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Wolf, the chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations
Subcommittee, for the opportunity to discuss the roles and authorities
of the Federal Detention Trustee.
It is my understanding that the language in the report addressing the
building of detention facilities by the Office of Federal Detention
Trustee clearly indicates that the Office does not have the authority
to solicit contracts to build a new detention facility and directs the
Office to withdraw any solicitation for such activities.
While the language is report language and is not binding, I believe
it is sufficient to prevent the Office of Federal Detention Trustee
from going forward with its plans to solicit contracts to build a new
detention facility.
Chairman Wolf has committed to working with me to ensure that the
Detention Trustees abides by the clear intent of the Congress that
contracting for a new facility is not an allowable use of funds.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and
I too wish to submit a statement for the Record regarding the Office of
Federal Detention Trustee.
On discussion of the role of the Office of Federal Detention Trustee
at the Department of Justice, the statement of managers clearly
indicates that the Office does not have the authority to solicit
contracts to build a new detention facility. I would also point out
that the committee revised the bill language to strike any reference to
construction. I am fully aware that many States, including Maryland,
Louisiana, Ohio, and others have excess prison bed space capacity. It
was never the intention of the Congress to allow the Detention Trustee
to build additional facilities, but to take advantage of existing State
and local excess prison bed space. The committee will work with Mr.
Hoyer of Maryland and other concerned Members in the coming year to
address these concerns.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I rise again, as I always
do, to say that the chairman of our committee is extraordinarily fair.
I wish I could vote for this bill. I voted for many of the bills that
are in here, as the chairman knows.
But, Mr. Speaker, we have a very bad process that is going on here.
We act in the House, the Senate acts the same way, and it goes to
conference and magically it disappears, or it comes back here 180
degrees different. This is a corruption of the democratic process. It
has ignored the will of the House and the Senate on outsourcing, Cuba
travel, drug reimportation, school vouchers in the District of
Columbia. Funding in the omnibus for the No Child Left Behind is too
low; funding for NIH represents a real reduction. The congressional
branch does not work, Mr. Speaker, for the executive.
I would urge the majority party, my friends on the other side, to let
the executive department know that this is a democracy. It is not a
kingdom; it is not a dictatorship. And just because the House passes
something, the Senate passes something, and they do not like it, that
does not mean the Congress of the United States ought to turn tail and
run. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would be able to resolve some of
these issues that the House and the Senate have agreed upon. I agree
with the chairman, some of these are authorizing matters; but both
Houses agreed and the White House did not like it, so it was dropped.
The outsourcing is particularly, in my opinion, egregious because we
had a conference. The chairman, as always, was fair and open. Senator
Stevens was fair and open. We had an agreement. That agreement was
adopted in an open conference, and lo and behold it has disappeared. It
was totally changed. It has undermined the very protections for Federal
employees we wanted to build in the bill.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) was in charge,
and he is in charge of our committee, no doubt about that; but if he
made the final decisions, this would not have happened, and I know that
and I lament it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to advise the gentleman that I am happy to report that one of
the major issues he was concerned about, the election reform program
and to help the States, that money is in this package.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for making that
observation. He is absolutely right. And I want to make the public
aware of the fact that we differ from time to time on partisan issues,
but if the chairman of this committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), had not been such a tenacious supporter both of revising and
reforming our election apparatus and then funding it, it would not be
there.
I want to thank the chairman profusely, because I think he, as he
knows, and I think the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), our
Speaker, has also been very responsible for this bipartisan
accomplishment, and I thank the gentleman for his support. It is an
important step. There are a lot of good things in this bill, and I
would like to support it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and
Related Agencies.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference
agreement; and as we consider this bill, I would like to take a minute
to recognize one of the star players behind the scenes.
Lots of folks out there watch us on television and in committee
hearings and markups and think that the Members of the House are the
ones that actually do all the work, cross all the T's, dot all the I's,
and check all the legalese, and we do check all that; but the people
that do the work day in and day out are the great staff members of the
committees and subcommittees. I am losing a key member of this team,
the clerk for my agriculture appropriations subcommittee, and his name
is Hank Moore.
As many of my colleagues know, Hank has announced he will not be with
us next year as we work our way through this process. He has decided
after 30 years of working here for the Federal Government that he would
like to spend more time with his family and is retiring.
Mr. Speaker, most Americans probably do not realize, as I did not
when I first arrived in the House of Representatives, that this bill is
1,200 pages long. There are countless paragraphs, clauses, commas,
sections, outlays, all kinds of terms that are put in this bill; and it
has to be done right year in and year out. And while many of us are
dealing with the substance of big issues as we develop these bills each
year, good members of the staff, like Hank Moore, are there on
weekends, late at night making sure that all of the language is exactly
right every step of the way.
As I have worked with Hank, and I frequently use football terms on
occasion, but I want him to know that I have always been very grateful
that
[[Page 32068]]
every time I turned around, the ball was there. Every time. It made my
job a lot easier, and it made the job of a lot of folks that preceded
me in the Committee on Appropriations a lot easier. I want to wish him
well, and his family, and let him know that we will miss him.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House today the
conference report on H.R. 2673, providing appropriations for
Agriculture, Rural Development, the Food and Drug Administration and
Related Agencies for fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes.
I want to acknowledge the good work of the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms.
Kaptur, my ranking member, who has contributed greatly to this process.
It has been a pleasure working with her and all the members of the
subcommittee on both sides of the aisle.
I believe we have produced a good bipartisan conference agreement
that does a lot to advance important nutrition, research, and rural
development programs and still meets our conference allocations on
discretionary and mandatory spending.
My goal this year has been to produce a bipartisan bill, and I
believe we have done a good job in reaching that goal.
This conference agreement does have significant increases over fiscal
year 2003 for programs that have always enjoyed strong bipartisan
support. Those increases include:
Agricultural Research Service, $54 million for Salaries and Expenses;
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, $2
million; Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, $33 million; Food
Safety and Inspection Service, $30 million; Farm Service Agency, $18
million; Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund, $482 million;
Reimbursement for net realized losses of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, $990 million; Natural Resources Conservation Service, $12
million; Rural Cooperative Development Grants, $15 million; Renewable
Energy Program, $23 million; Broadband Telecommunications Loan
Authorization, $522 million; Domestic Food Programs, $5.4 billion,
including Child Nutrition Programs, $837 million and Food Stamp
Program, $3.6 billion in program expenses as well as $1.0 billion in
reserve to respond to economic conditions; Foreign Assistance and
Related Programs, including P.L. 480, $45 million--excluding last
year's supplemental appropriation; and Food and Drug Administration,
$12 million.
Mr. Speaker, we all refer to this bill as an agriculture bill, but it
does far more than assist basic agriculture. It also supports human
nutrition, the environment, and food, drug, and medical safety. This is
a bill that will deliver benefits to every one of our citizens every
day. I would say to all Members that they can support this conference
agreement and tell all of their constituents that they voted to improve
their lives while maintaining fiscal responsibility.
The conference agreement is a bipartisan product with a lot of hard
work and input from both sides of the aisle. I would like to thank the
gentleman from Florida, Chairman Young, and the gentleman from
Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, who serve as the distinguished chairman and
ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. I would also like to
thank all my subcommittee colleagues: the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Walsh; the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Kingston; the gentleman from
Washington, Mr. Nethercutt; the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Latham;
gentlewoman from Missouri, Mrs. Emerson; the gentleman from Virginia,
Mr. Goode; the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. LaHood; the gentlewoman
from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro; the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Hinchey; the gentleman from California, Mr. Farr; and the gentleman
from Florida, Mr. Boyd. In particular, I want to thank the gentlewoman
from Ohio, Ms. Kaptur; the distinguished ranking member of the
subcommittee, for all her good work on this bill this year and the
years in the past.
Mr. Speaker, we have tried our best to put together a good, solid
bill that works for all America. Much of it is compromise, to be sure,
but I believe it is a good compromise and good policy.
In closing, I would like to thank the subcommittee staff for all
their hard work: Hank Moore, the subcommittee clerk; Martin Delgado;
Maureen Holohan; Joanne Perdue; Martha Foley of the staff of the
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey; and Walt Smith, from my personal
office. Without their good work, we would not have a bill here today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this conference
agreement.
Mr. Speaker, we have worked hard to bring a good conference agreement
to the House. We have made prudent recommendations for the use of the
budgetary allocation available to us, and we have done yeoman work in
keeping the bill free of contentious issues that have caused concern in
prior years. I think we have a very good conference agreement. In
closing, I would certainly hope that all Members would support this
agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record detailed information regarding
the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies included in this omnibus
legislation.
[[Page 32069]]
[[Page 32070]]
[[Page 32071]]
[[Page 32072]]
[[Page 32073]]
[[Page 32074]]
[[Page 32075]]
{time} 1400
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and
Related Agencies.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I also want to express my deep appreciation from the Democratic side
of the aisle for the over two decades of professional and honest
service that Hank Moore has devoted to the people of this
[[Page 32076]]
country. I thank him for his professionalism and courtesy throughout,
and wish him well in the months and years ahead. The Committee on
Appropriations will always be his home, and we hope he returns to see
us.
I also dedicate my remarks today to Mr. Joe Skeen, who passed this
past weekend in New Mexico, and to his wife, Mary, and family. It was a
joy to work with him. He was a man who did not lead by partisanship,
but by a deep concern for our country. Our Nation and its people are
better for the years he devoted here. His perseverance, honesty and
intelligence have made their mark. He and his good sense of humor will
never be forgotten.
Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the subcommittee, I would like
to discuss some issues regarding this conference report. In working
with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), it was not easy to make
some of the decisions we were faced with. But first and foremost, I
would like to focus on the fact that so many of the decisions,
unfortunately because of the time constraints, that relate to
Agriculture and the Food & Drug Administration happened behind closed
doors and without full sunlight. Therefore, it makes it very difficult
to support this bill in its entirety.
In terms of the funding levels, the Agriculture division of this bill
is $62 million lower than both the House and Senate bills. It is almost
$1 billion below last year's bill, a reduction of almost 5 percent,
even though mandatory programs, which do not have the control of this
committee exerted upon them, have increased by 12 percent.
On conservation, such an important issue, as we increase in
population and as resources become more dear, we find the conference
report cuts $70 million more from Farm Bill conservation programs for a
total reduction of over $490 million.
Finally, I want to focus on rural housing, also reduced, and I am
deeply concerned that our prescription drug title to permit the
importation of prescription drugs that are safe into our country was
also dropped, even though we asked that it be included, and the House
so voted.
I wanted to end by saying that behind closed doors, just a few weeks
ago, the country of origin labeling provisions were eliminated from
this bill, 2 years past their scheduled implementation date, not just
for meat, but produce was added. I would like the American people to
know, if we look at the over 600 people who just got sick in Pittsburgh
at Chi-Chi's restaurants, one of the ways we get at that problem is by
tough country of origin labeling on produce as well as on meat. Behind
closed doors, our attempt to do that was absolutely subverted. It is
with great disappointment that I come to the floor today and say this
bill could have been a lot better than what is before Congress today.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the conference report
for the fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and
Related Programs bill which is incorporated as Division D in this
Consolidated Appropriations Act.
Mr. Speaker, the foreign operations section significantly furthers
our foreign policy objectives and U.S. strategic interests abroad. It
is a bill that is innovative and provides increased resources to combat
the pandemic of HIV/AIDS. It also creates a new paradigm for foreign
assistance, the Millennium Challenge Corporation.
The conference report before the House provides $17.235 billion for
foreign operations. This is $115 million more the House bill which
passed last July, but nearly $1.2 billion below the amount contained in
the Senate-passed bill. Therefore, with this tight allocation, we have
made some tough choices and set priorities.
For HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, this conference agreement
provides $2.4 billion. When combined with the amounts in the Labor/HHS
bill, that is $805 million more than fiscal year 2003, $362 million
above the President's request and $325 million more than the House-
passed bill.
It provides $400 million to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and
malaria, and includes language that gives other donors an incentive to
contribute. This bill strongly supports our new AIDS coordinator,
Ambassador Randy Tobias, and provides for one additional country
outside Africa and the Caribbean to be added to the HIV/AIDS
Initiative.
This agreement both creates and appropriates funds for the new
Millennium Challenge Corporation. The consolidated appropriations bill
provides $1 billion for this exciting, new and innovative model to
provide foreign assistance, one that seeks to give a boost to poor
nations to enable them to break out of the cycle of poverty. Many have
talked about the need to change the way U.S. foreign assistance is
provided. President Bush came forward with leadership and vision, and
this bill makes that vision a reality.
The MCC is a key component of President Bush's new compact for global
development, which links greater contributions from developed nations
to greater responsibility from developing nations.
There are a number of important programs and initiatives supported by
this foreign operations conference report, too numerous to delineate in
the time allotted to me. They include funds for Israel, Egypt, Jordan,
for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, Child Survival and Health
Programs Fund, Development Assistance, the Eastern Europe and Baltic
States, and the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union.
There are a number of structural changes and process improvements in
the bill. These changes support the role of Congress in reviewing
foreign assistance. There are a number of management improvements in
agencies like USAID which help ensure that taxpayer dollars are well
spent.
This conference agreement on foreign assistance presents a very good
bill which is an important component of this consolidated measure. It
does not do everything that we have been asked to do by the
administration and others in Congress, but we have necessarily made
reductions and sought efficiencies. It is a conference agreement that
all Members should support.
Finally, I want to mention two members of our staff who worked very
hard on this bill, along with our outstanding committee staff. Rob
Blair served on the detail from the Department of State, and Sean
Mulvaney of my staff took the lead in developing the Millennium
Challenge Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation, and I urge
its support.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the conference report for the
Fiscal Year 2004 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related
Programs bill, which is incorporated as Division D of this Consolidated
Appropriations Act.
Mr. Speaker, the foreign operations section significantly furthers
our foreign policy objectives and U.S. strategic interests abroad. It
is a bill that is innovative and provides increased resources to combat
the pandemic of HIV/AIDS. It also creates a new paradigm for foreign
assistance, the Millennium Challenge Corporation.
The conference agreement before this house provides $17.235 billion
for Foreign Operations. This is $115 million more than the House bill
which passed last July, but $1.167 billion below the amount contained
in the Senate passed bill. Within that tight allocation, we have made
some tough choices and set priorities.
For HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, this conference agreement
provides $2.4 billion. When combined with the amounts in Labor/HHS that
is $805 million more than FY2003, $362 million above the President's
budget request, and $325.7 million more than the House passed bill.
That this bill provides $400 million to the Global Fund to fight AIDS,
TB and malaria and includes language that gives other donors an
incentive to contribute. This bill strongly supports our new AIDS
Coordinator, Ambassador Randy Tobias, and provides for one additional
country outside Africa and the Caribbean to be added to the HIV/AIDS
Initiative.
[[Page 32077]]
This agreement both creates and appropriates funds for the new
Millennium Challenge Corporation. The consolidated appropriations bill
provides $1 billion for this exciting, new and innovative model to
provide foreign assistance--one that seeks to give a boost to enable
them to break out of the cycle of poverty. Many have talked about the
need to change the way that U.S. foreign assistance is provided.
President Bush came forward with leadership and vision, and this bill
makes that vision a reality.
The MCC--as it is known for short--is a key component of President
Bush's ``new compact for global development,'' which links greater
contributions from developed nations to greater responsibility from
developing nations.
New resources will flow to those low-income countries that possess a
demonstrated commitment to good governance, economic freedom, and
investments in their own people. In eligible countries, the new MCC
will target investments to overcome the greatest obstacles to economic
growth and reduce poverty.
The MCC departs from traditional foreign assistance and draws on
lessons learned about development over the past 50 years;
First, that aid is more likely to result in successful sustainable
economic development in countries that are pursuing sound political,
economic and social policies;
Second, that development plans supported by a broad range of
stakeholders, and for which countries have primary responsibility,
engender country ownership and are more likely to succeed;
And, finally, that integrating oversight and evaluation into the
design of activities boosts aid effectiveness.
I wish to commend the leadership of Chairman Hyde and Mr. Lantos and
the House International Relations Committee, and their Senate Foreign
Relations Committee counterparts for their strong support for this
initiative.
There are a number of important programs and initiatives supported by
this foreign operations conference report. Let me name just a few:
The agreement includes $2.132 billion for the economic support fund.
Included is $480 million for Israel, $575 million for Egypt, and $250
million for Jordan.
The agreement provides $241 million for International Narcotics
control and law enforcement, and an additional $731 million for the
Andean Counterdrug Intitiative--$71 million more than the Senate bill.
The agreement provides $1.835 billion for the Child Survival and
Health Programs Fund, and $1.385 billion for Development Assistance.
The conference report includes $445 million for assistance to Eastern
Europe and the Baltic States, and $587 million for assistance for the
Independent States of the Former Soviet Union. This is one area where
reductions have been made as this agreement provides $245 million less
for these nations than the FY2003 bill.
The conference agreement provides $353.5 million for
nonproliferation, anti-terrorism and demining, an increase of $49.1
million over 2003.
The conference agreement provides $4.450.1 billion for Military
Assistance programs. This represents an increase of $221.3 million
above FY2003. We have provided $2.160 billion in military assistance
for Israel, $1.3 billion for Egypt and $206 million for Jordan. We have
fully funded the budget request for international military education
and training at $91.7 million.
The conference agreement provides $1.713 billion for multilateral
economic assistance, an increase of $223.2 million above FY2003.
Included in the agreement is $321.7 million for international
organizations and programs, and $913.2 million for the international
development association.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of structural changes and process
improvements in the agreement. These changes support the role of
Congress in reviewing foreign assistance. There are a number of
management improvements in agencies like USAID, which help ensure that
taxpayers' dollars are well spent.
We have endeavored to accommodate requests from colleagues, though,
as always, we have strived to keep foreign assistance free of earmarks.
However, I acknowledge that when faced with a Senate bill that included
over 200 amendments, this task becomes increasingly more challenging.
Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement on foreign assistance presents
a very good bill. It is a very important component of this overall
consolidated measure. It does not do everything we have been asked by
the administration and others in the Congress. We have necessarily made
reductions and sought efficiencies. It is a conference agreement that I
think all members of this body should support. It represents a
bipartisan bill that supports our President and Nation.
Before closing, I would like to mention two members of our staff who
worked very hard on this bill, along with our outstanding committee
staff. Rob Blair served on detail from the Department of State and put
in some outstanding work for us on the HIV/AIDS and global health
issues. He left our subcommittee as detailee only a few days ago and
already he is sorely missed. And, I would be remiss if I did not
mention Sean Mulvaney of my staff who took the lead on the Millennium
Challenge Corporation, and authored the legislation in Title VI of this
agreement. As he consistently demonstrates on such issues as trade and
international economics, Sean brings a personal commitment and
intellectual rigor and honesty to his job. This overall agreement is a
better product based on Sean's professionalism and expertise.
I would, of course, also like to thank my ranking member, Mrs. Lowey;
and the minority staff, Mark Murray and Joe Weinstein; and our
subcommittee's staff, Charlie Flickner, Alice Hogans, Scott Gudes and
Lori Maes.
Mr. Speaker, in closing this is an important piece of legislation,
with many priority initiatives of the President and the Congress. I
hope that our colleagues in the other body will not delay further the
delivery of these important programs, such as the effort to save the
lives of those infected with HIV and AIDS.
I urge adoption of the conference report.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this appropriations
bill.
While there are some positive steps taken in this bill in the area of
transportation and medical facilities, once again, the public trust is
being turned over whole hog to special interests. Taxpayers are being
asked to subsidize important special interests, just like we did in the
prescription drug bill and as we did in the energy bill. Under those
pieces of legislation, taxpayers are being overcharged 40 percent by
the pharmaceutical industry when we could have competitive pricing. And
in the energy bill, somewhere close to $20 billion, taxpayers are
subsidizing the energy industry, the most profitable industry, and
underwriting their business mission. They want to drill for oil, they
should do it without taxpayers subsidizing their activities.
Today, this bill is cut from the same cloth as the prescription drug
and the energy legislation. This measure contains $50 million to build
an indoor rain forest, $725,000 for a ``Please Touch Museum,'' $90,000
for olive fruit fly research in Montpelier, France, $75,000 for a North
Pole Transit System, all this while we refuse to increase college
assistance and Pell Grants for middle-class families, while we refuse
to increase funding for the Leave No Child Behind in the area of
education.
Sadly, for middle-class families and taxpayers, the culture of
dependency, the culture of welfare has dominated these three bills,
whether they be the prescription drug bill, the energy bill, or this
appropriation bill. We must end welfare as we know it. The culture of
dependency that has been dominated by corporate and special interests,
and have turned the government, whole cloth, into a subsidy and ATM
machine for the special interests.
Mr. Speaker, this is another missed opportunity to end this new form
of welfare that is being abused in government. For these reasons, I
urge Members to vote against this appropriations bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor,
Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge Members to support this
bill, but I just want to address a few of the highlights in the Labor,
HHS, and Education portions.
One, the Department of Education gets an increase of 4.8 percent
which is above the overall rate of inflation, and, I think, recognizes
the importance of education. Special education has an additional $200
million over the House-passed number, for a total increase of $1.2
billion over last year.
Reading programs have been increased in the overall bill, as has
improving teacher quality, which I think
[[Page 32078]]
is extremely important. We have a number of programs in here that are
important from the standpoint of improving teacher quality, including
increasing the number of math and science teachers. Pell Grants are
maintained at the highest level ever. Impact Aid is $48 million over
last year. After-school programs are $400 million over the President's
request because we recognize the importance of these programs to young
people. TRIO and Gear-Up are increased, Head Start is increased $148
million over last year, and we maintained comprehensive school reform.
That is particularly important in addressing the dropout rate.
Community health centers are expanded. I think most of us know from
experience that these are an important part of a community's health
program, to have funding for these health centers, and we provide funds
to expand them.
National Institutes of Health, we give them an increase of more than
7 percent if we take into account one-time costs in fiscal year 2003.
The same is true for a number of activities, such as international HIV,
infectious disease, homeland security biodefense. In addition, LIHEAP
is fund at $1.9 billion.
I am particularly pleased that in the Labor Department, we are
supporting job training programs. The worker training programs are
extremely important, particularly as people shift to new types of
employment. As the overall job economy changes in our society, it is
important that we have a place that people can go and know that there
is hope for getting a new job or getting a better job or getting an
opportunity. I am glad we were able to do that in this bill.
Overall, I think the Labor-HHS portion of the bill is very responsive
to the needs of our people. It is less than 4 percent overall, which is
lower than the rate of inflation. It is about 3.4 percent over last
year.
Mr. Speaker, given the fact that these programs are very important to
people, touch the lives of 280 million Americans in one way or another,
the subcommittee and the conference committee tried to address these
challenges in the most effective way possible. I urge support of the
bill.
Mr. Speaker, Division E of this conference agreement provides funding
for a broad range of programs and activities affecting the lives of
nearly every American. It provides help to workers looking for
retraining or enhancing their job skills, assistance for teachers
working hard to educate our children, support for families in need of
health services, and funding for scientists seeking to understand and
cure disease. The agreement totals $139 billion in discretionary
spending, an increase of less than 4 percent over 2003.
In the area of education, I want to begin by laying out a few basic
facts. Federal funds for education have more than doubled over the past
8 years. Discretionary appropriations for the U.S. Department of
Education have climbed from $23 billion in FY1996 to $55.7 billion in
this bill. This is an increase of 141 percent. The problem in American
education is not lack of spending. It is lack of accountability for
results. With the help of the reforms put in place by the No Child Left
Behind Act, being implemented by good teachers and principals and
caring parents all across this country, we are changing things for the
better.
I will give a few examples of how this bill takes a focused approach
to improving education for our Nation's children. First, funding for
Special Education for disabled children is increased by $1.2 billion in
this bill, bringing total funding to $10 billion. Meeting our Federal
commitment in this program has been a priority for the Congress for the
past 8 years, and this bill continues that progress.
Second, Title I, which helps children from low-income homes achieve
academic success, is increased by nearly $700 million to a total of
$12.35 billion. Coupled with the new accountability standards in No
Child Left Behind, Title I has the potential to change ``business as
usual'' at our public schools.
Third, reading programs, which use sound scientific evidence to help
children learn to read effectively, are funded at over $1 billion,
representing a tripling of these funds in just 3 years. These programs
are important because we know that many children are placed in special
education simply because they have not been taught to read properly. By
investing in sound reading programs, we can ensure that every child
gets the help to excel in reading at a young age.
tchr quality--comprehensive school reform
There are many other good education programs funded in this bill. We
have increased funding for training teachers, especially math and
science teachers, so that our future workforce can compete in the high-
tech, global marketplace. We have included funds for after school and
mentoring activities. We have increased funding for student aid
programs and other higher education programs to help all students have
a chance to realize the dream of graduating from college. Seventy-one
education programs have been increased above last year's level in this
bill. At the same time, other programs have been cut or eliminated from
the budget entirely because they have not proven their results or
because they duplicate other programs.
Our conference bill also invests in important health service and
research programs. Community health centers, which are the backbone of
medical care in many communities, receive an increase of $120 million,
which puts our efforts ahead of the benchmark anticipated in the
President's 5-year expansion plan. Maintaining the congressional
commitment to supporting the important care provided by our pediatric
hospitals, the conference agreement provides a $13 million increase for
the graduate medical education program for children's hospitals. To
ensure that we have enough health care providers for these community
clinics and hospitals, we have preserved the health professions and
nurse training programs in the face of drastic reductions proposed by
the administration.
I'm pleased to report that we were able to provide more than a 30
percent increase for the abstinence education program, which I know
many of our Members believe is very important to strengthen their
communities.
We continue our commitment to biomedical research to provide the
breakthroughs necessary to improve the quality of care we can give our
citizens and provide answers to families who are desperate for help.
The conference agreement provides over a 3 percent increase for the
National Institutes of Health. This year's increase follows the
successful campaign to double funding for NIH--in the previous 5 years,
the NIH appropriation jumped from $13.6 billion to almost $27 billion.
I am confident that the roadmap for future NIH investments developed by
the new director of NIH will mold and discipline this investment to
ultimately make possible better health care for our communities.
The conference agreement includes $100 million to fund a new
substance abuse treatment voucher program, Access to Recovery, which
will open new pathways to people who need treatment for addiction. By
investing in this new initiative, Congress is giving hope to those who
are lost in the cycle of addiction. This program will increase
treatment capacity and access to providers by giving vouchers to those
most in need.
In the area of faith-based programming, the conference agreement
provides a 30 percent increase over last year. Increasing the capacity
of small faith-based groups to provide outreach and services to our
communities means that more people in need will be served. Programs in
this bill with a faith component provide a wide-range of services
including mentoring, substance abuse treatment, refugee services, child
abuse prevention, and many others.
To provide services to families and individuals who care for their
elderly loved ones, $160 million is provided for the Family Caregiver
Program within the Administration on Aging. This program provides
information, assistance, counseling, respite and supplemental services
to the millions of caregivers who are the most important long-term care
resource in the country. This support allows our Nation's elderly to
remain at home for as long as possible.
For the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the agreement
provides $1.9 billion. Within those funds, the conferees have included
$100 million to meet the additional home energy assistance needs
arising from a natural disaster or other emergency.
While much more could be said about how this bill will benefit the
American people, I will stop here and simply say, it is a responsible
bill, crafted during tight budget times, that tries to direct resources
to programs that work for people most in need. I want to thank Chairman
Young for his assistance in forging this agreement. We had some tough
issues to resolve with the other body. Of the nearly 600 programs and
activities funded in the bill, 61 percent of them were at different
levels between the two bodies. On top of that, several difficult policy
items had to be resolved.
I also say to my friend, Mr. Obey, this year has been difficult for
both of us. I respect your deep commitment to the programs in this bill
and understand the reason for your opposition. I trust that in the
future, we can again be partners.
[[Page 32079]]
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 12 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a pitiful Christmas tree with such a bad
smell that it smells more like a garbage truck than something
appropriate to Christmas. It spectacularly insults the judgment of both
the House and the Senate on a number of items.
Both Houses of the Congress voted to provide overtime protections for
workers because the administration is trying to take those protections
away from 8 million workers.
{time} 1415
This bill, without one minute of comment in the conference committee,
arbitrarily at the instruction of the Republican leadership rips out
those protections.
Both Houses voted on a bipartisan basis to cap the number of
television stations that could be owned by media conglomerates around
the country. In the Senate, that amendment was offered by a Republican,
Senator Stevens, and in the House it was offered by me. The House and
Senate adopted both of them. Despite that fact, again, without a
moment's discussion in the conference committee, at the instruction of
the leadership, this conference committee has ripped out the judgment
of both Houses on that score; and they have come back with a nice cozy
insider arrangement that protects all of the major media giants from
having to do anything inconvenient. So much for pluralism and
democracy.
This House voted to instruct the conferees to allow for drug
reimportation. This conference committee has stripped that out. This
House earlier reached a compromise in the DOD bill and in Interior on
outsourcing. This conference again arbitrarily changes that bipartisan
agreement.
Fifthly, there are incredible numbers of American workers who have
been unemployed for an extended period of time, and yet this Congress
refuses to, in this same omnibus bill, extend long-term coverage for
the unemployed. This Congress ought to be ashamed of itself on that
score.
This bill gratuitously amends and guts a key provision of the Clean
Air Act.
And then on funding levels, this bill on education falls $7 billion
below the amount promised under the No Child Left Behind Act. It falls
$350 million below the Republican-passed House budget resolution in the
funding level it provides for title I, which is the main education
program that helps disadvantaged children to try to improve their
academic performance. And it falls $1 billion below the amount that was
promised in the House budget resolution for helping to educate
handicapped children.
In the National Institutes of Health, the committee pretends that it
is above the bill that left the House; but by the time you take into
account the across-the-board cut that is required in the bill and other
financial transactions, this bill is in reality $118 million below the
President for the National Institutes of Health, $145 million below the
House-passed bill, and $182 million below the Senate-passed bill. It on
substance short-sheets and shortchanges some of the most basic
obligations of government. Yet this conference finds room for over
7,000 individual Member pieces of pork which cost the taxpayers over
$7.5 billion.
In 1995, the last year that I chaired the Committee on
Appropriations, the House provided virtually no earmarks in the Labor-
Health-Education bill. There are well over 1,200 of those special
earmarks this year.
In the VA-HUD bill, we have a $1.1 billion plug for projects. $1.1
billion is being spent for earmarked projects. One-quarter of the
amount that is reserved for the House goes to three Members, one from
New York, one from West Virginia, one from Alaska. If you take a look
at the way these projects are distributed, if we distributed the
earmarks evenly with every Member getting an equal amount in the Labor-
Health-Education bill, for instance, there would be about $2 million
per constituent provided for each Member's district. But it is not
provided equally.
So if you are from Indiana, if we simply went by basic formulas,
Indiana would get about $18 million in special earmarks, but it does
not. In this bill, Indiana taxpayers get about 62 cents per capita by
way of special earmarks. If you represent Oregon, you bring home to
your constituents in this bill about 64 cents per capita in earmarks.
North Carolina, you bring home about 85 cents per capita in earmarks.
California, about a dollar. But in that same Labor-Health bill, if you
are from Alaska, you bring home $47 per person. And then if you look at
what else Alaska gets, they get $123 per person in the VA-HUD bill,
they get $192 per person in the Transportation bill, and they get $220
per person from the Commerce-Justice bill. That means that special
grants to Alaska wind up totaling $638 per person in comparison to the
table scraps that I just explained for States like Indiana, Michigan,
North Carolina, California and the like.
Mr. Speaker, the appropriations process used to be the main task of
government. The main task of the Congress each year was to pass the 13
appropriation bills which funded all of the financial activities of
government. The appropriation bills used to provide an opportunity for
a debate on priorities. Instead, what has happened is that the number
of earmarks, the number of pieces of pork have become so numerous that
Members of Congress have changed their focus and today instead of
asking ``Where's the beef?'' in terms of funding levels for education
or for health care or for science, instead they are asking, ``Where's
the pork and how much did I get?''
And what has happened is that these projects are now being used to
entice Members into only asking one question: How much did I get in
pork? Rather than what were we able to do to improve the program
funding for education or health care or environmental protection or you
name it. I think that fundamentally corrupts the appropriations
process, I think it makes us all simply ATM machines rather than
policymakers, and I think it does no credit whatsoever to the Congress
as an institution.
I want to point out, in a troubled agency like NASA, in 1995 there
were two special earmarks that were provided. Today there are 104. Over
the past few years since 1998, $1.7 billion has been diverted from
regular NASA appropriations, a very troubled agency with serious safety
problems; $1.7 billion has been diverted from those regular programs to
industrial parks or museums or other local projects.
In the Commerce-Justice bill in 1995, there were 45 projects costing
the taxpayer $104 million. Last year, Mr. Speaker, there were 996,
costing the taxpayer over $1 billion. There has been a 4,200 percent
increase in earmarks for the Justice Department over that same period
of time.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we vote ``no'' on this bill.
This bill is a gratuitous insult to every worker who is entitled to
overtime pay. It is an outrageous neglect of the workers who ought to
see their elected representatives pushing for expanded unemployment
compensation for the long-term unemployed. This bill falls seriously
short of the funding that this Congress itself promised in the
Republican budget resolution just 5 months ago for education. It falls
far short of where we need to be in the area of health care. It falls
half a billion dollars short of where we ought to be in providing aid
to our local and State levels of government for law enforcement
assistance. And I think the way in which the earmarking process has
gradually moved from something which was a tolerable and understandable
effort on the part of the Congress to shift a small number of financing
decisions to Congress into a decision-making process in which the total
dominant consideration is simply congressional pork rather than
substance in programs. I think when we do that, we fundamentally erode
the confidence that each individual Member has in this institution, and
I think we erode the confidence that every taxpayer has in this
institution. I regret that.
This bill is a spectacular example of legislation and political
pressure run amuck, and I would urge a ``no'' vote on the legislation.
[[Page 32080]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), chairman
of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, the consolidated appropriations conference report before
us this afternoon also contains the fiscal year 2004 District of
Columbia appropriations bill. This portion of the conference report
totals $8 billion, including $545 million for Federal payments to
various District programs and projects, $1.8 billion in Federal grants
to District agencies, and $5.7 billion in local funds for operating
expenses and capital outlays of the District government.
There is much to be proud of in this bill. I believe it reflects
Congress' commitment to helping our Nation's capital. This is where we
all work and where many of us live. Of the $545 million in Federal
payments to various programs and projects, 68 percent of these funds,
or $368 million, is for funding of the D.C. courts, public defender
services, and the court services and offender supervision agency. These
are District functions which we took over as a Federal responsibility
in 1997.
The remaining 32 percent, or $177 million, are for programs and
projects that directly benefit the District. These include the very
popular tuition assistance program for District college-bound students,
$17 million; $11 million to reimburse the District for added emergency
planning and security costs related to the presence of the Federal
Government in the District; $40 million for a three-prong school choice
program, promises we delivered upon; $42 million for capital
development projects in the District; $5 million for the Anacostia
waterfront; $4.5 million for public school facility improvements; and
$14 million to improve foster care in the District. These are all
initiatives we can be proud of as we vote in favor of this bill this
afternoon. I ask that Members support the overall omnibus.
In particular, I want to highlight the funding level for school
choice.
When the District of Columbia appropriations bill was on the House
floor back in September, there was much criticism that the bill was
walking away from the District's request of additional funding for
public schools and public charter schools.
While that was true at the time due to the fiscal constraints of the
bill, I stated then and at every opportunity after that it was not my
intention that that be the case when we come out of conference with the
Senate. I fully supported the Mayor's approach and worked with Chairman
Young towards a conference allocation that was sufficient to address
all three sectors of education in the city. The conference agreement
reflects this commitment and provides $13 million for each of the three
sectors of education the District leaders requested--scholarships,
public schools, and charter schools. We need to provide parents greater
choices for parents and their children.
In summary, the fiscal year 2004 District of Columbia Appropriations
division is fiscally responsible and balanced and deserves bipartisan
support.
I thank Chairman Young for his leadership through a difficult
conference.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague and the chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding me the time and
congratulate him and all of his committee members on a job well done.
We can look at a lot of the things that we do around here as though it
were a half a glass of water. We just heard a description of the bill
from our colleague and friend from Wisconsin describing the glass half
empty. I would suggest to all of you that we should really look at this
bill today before us as a glass that is half full. The committee, under
very difficult circumstances, had a lot of decisions to make; and I
think they have made them very well.
In the area of education, an area that I am very interested in as the
chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, when we
passed the No Child Left Behind Act in a broad bipartisan way, our
commitment was to adequately fund the reforms in education. There was
never any discussion about fully funding to the authorized levels. The
commitment was to adequately fund our efforts to renew American
education.
{time} 1430
In this bill we continue that effort. In the area of Title I, we
increase Title I spending by $700 million to $12.4 billion annually.
This is more in the last 2 years than we saw in 8 years under former
President Clinton in terms of increases to Title I. We should be very
proud of that commitment.
Another major area of our concern in education comes to children with
special needs, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, where
we attempt to fund a portion of the cost for those students that have
special needs in our local schools. Congress has been involved in this
since 1975, and from 1975 to 1995, as this chart will show, we move
spending from zero to about just a little over $3 billion. And since
1995, we are not only just shy of $10 billion, but in this conference
agreement the number is now $10.1 billion; $10.1 billion, over a 300
percent increase since 1995. That is something that I think this
Congress ought to be very proud of.
Let me make one other point about the bill we have before us. And the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) who just spoke, who
chairs the District of Columbia Subcommittee of the Committee on
Appropriations, and that is the effort to help children in the District
of Columbia who are stuck in very bad schools, and the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis) and I worked diligently over the course of this year to help the
Mayor and the School Board who requested our help in helping children
that were stuck in failing schools. Of all the big urban systems around
the country that have problems, and there are a lot of them, there is
none that have bigger problems than the schools right here in the
District of Columbia. The children here deserve as good a shot at an
education as the children in our own districts. And for those children
who are trapped in very bad schools, we believe they ought to have some
choice. They ought to have a chance to go to a real school and get a
real education. And the $13 million that is in this bill will help
about 1,700 students here in the District of Columbia be able to choose
a school of their choice, and I do believe this is good for those
children, and it will be good for the DC schools because when we bring
competition into where children can actually go to school, we have seen
the public schools do improve. And I want to thank the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis), and certainly, again, I want to thank the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young) and his cardinals and the members of his committee
for a job well done.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, once again we have heard the gentleman in the well, on
behalf of the Republican Party, try to make the case that somehow the
Republican Party was responsible for the education budget increases of
the last 2 years. For the Republicans to take credit for increases in
education spending over the last 8 years, Mr. Speaker, is like Saddam
Hussein taking credit for providing the Third Infantry Division safe
passage to Baghdad.
The fact is that the majority party leadership fought every step of
the way to prevent us from being able to eventually add the $19 billion
in education funding that we provided, because of Democratic pressure
over the past 8 years, $19 billion above the amount that the
Republicans tried to put in their own education bill when those bills
were before the House.
The Republican Party leadership fought us every step of the way. That
increase in $19 billion happened over their dead bodies, politically
speaking, and in spite of every trick that their
[[Page 32081]]
leadership could concoct to stop it from happening. They refused to
give the subcommittees an allocation that would allow meaningful
increases. They broke every arm on their side of the aisle to force
people to vote for lower funding levels when the bills went to the
floor. When that technique failed, they refused to allow the bills to
be considered on the floor. When that did not work, and when they
finally had to go to conference, and often they had the conference
legislation that had never even been considered in the House because of
the inadequacy of their allocation, they then blocked the conferees
from reaching agreement between the two Houses because the funding
levels for education would be too high in their judgment. They relented
only at the very last minute when conceding on education funding that
increases that we were asking for was the only way to end the session
and get the Congress out of town.
On one occasion they even agreed to allow a funding level for
education to be reported out of the conference and then decided they
could not tolerate such a high level of support and forced the bill
back into conference to strip out increases in education funding. For
the Republican Party members of this House to claim that somehow they
were responsible for those education budget increases, makes Pinocchio
look like Honest Abe by comparison. The credibility gap that we have on
the Republican side of the aisle has grown faster than Pinocchio's
nose. So I just want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is crocodile
tears to hear the Republicans profess that they really are friends of
education.
I also would like to point out one other thing, a newspaper ad which
appeared in the Washington Post today. It reads ``The most outrageous
Christmas list in America.'' It says ``It's called the omnibus. No,
it's not Santa's sleigh, but it is laden with presents. It's coming to
Washington D.C. this week. And you better believe the Bush
Administration's best friends have front row seats.
``Having failed to pass seven of the Federal Government's 13 budget
bills, the White House and Republican congressional leaders have rolled
them all into one massive package dubbed `the omnibus.'
``So who does President Bush think is naughty and nice? Apparently no
one is more deserving than Rupert Murdoch and his fellow network
moguls. Despite the wishes of Congress and the vast majority of
Americans, the President insists the omnibus include a relaxation of
media antitrust rules. Now, the biggest networks will be able to
acquire more of the hugely profitable local stations they desire.
``American workers, on the other hand, must have been very naughty.
The omnibus bill eliminates extended unemployment benefits for millions
of jobless. And 8 million workers who currently have Federal overtime
protection lose their right to extra pay for those extra hours.''
That is the problem with this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I urge a ``no''
vote.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have only myself left for a
brief statement and the majority leader will close for our side.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has two remaining speakers, I
would ask him to use one of them now, and then I will close.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I extend best holiday greetings and a Merry Christmas to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and to say what a pleasure it is to
work with him. He is an honorable opponent. We have many disagreements,
but we work together for what we think is the best interest of country
and the institution of the House and the Committee on Appropriations.
His staff and our staff worked together extremely well. Jim Dyer, as
our clerk and chief of staff, and Scott Lilly on the gentleman from
Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) side worked together very well, and we have a
lot of staff and they do work together very well. We try to deal with
our differences in a very respectful manner, and I think that the
actions over the years have proved that. So I wish all of our
colleagues a very Merry Christmas.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I hope that the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would conclude, yield back his
time, and then we will close.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has one remaining speaker?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader, and I will
close.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am waiting until the gentleman has one
speaker. He does not have the right to two closing speeches. I have got
the right to have the second to the last speech.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman indicates he has
two remaining speakers; so I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, to accommodate the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The conference report before us, one of the last bills that the House
will pass before we recess for the year, in my opinion, is a fitting
end to the legislative session. This omnibus represents the values of
discipline, innovation, and conviction we all treasure, values also
embodied in the man that we have most to thank for it, and that is the
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) of the Committee on
Appropriations.
When we pass this bill this afternoon, we will have funded vital
priorities, made difficult and important choices, and reaffirmed our
commitment to fiscal discipline. For a year that began with a
struggling economy and pressing needs at home and abroad, that we have
held the growth of discretionary spending to 3 percent is a titanic
achievement in fiscal restraint.
I know there has been a lot written, most of it false, about the
spending habits of this body. But we have to look at what is going on
here. Yes, spending has been out of control for a while, but we started
ratcheting it down and we have ratcheted down, ratcheted down to where
spending for 2004 will have an increase of only 3 percent. That is the
lowest increase in spending in the 9 years we have been in the
majority. I think that is significant and important, and we have the
Committee on Appropriations, the chairman, to thank for that.
And as far as the projects and earmarks are concerned, they cannot on
the one hand decry the fact that they are not getting projects and
earmarks and on the other hand argue that this bill is full of projects
and earmarks and urge people to oppose the bill because it has
earmarks. There is a fundamental difference in how we approach earmarks
that has been going on for the last few years. We learned early on in
the majority, when we had a Democratic President, that the Congress,
being the third branch of government, had the right to direct spending
to our districts, rather than wait on some bureaucrat to decide whether
it was a useful project or not. The same is going on now. This Congress
can state, through earmarks, the importance of spending in certain
parts of the country and in our districts.
I will give the Members a perfect example in this bill. There is
money that goes to M.D. Anderson Hospital in Houston, Texas. Some may
call that pork, but I will tell the Members what, the thousands of
people that are relying on M.D. Anderson to cure them of their cancer
do not think of that earmark as pork. They think it is real, it is
important, it is important for their health, and it is important for
their family and the length of time that they may be on this earth. It
is not pork. It is an earmark. And they do not have to wait around for
some bureaucrat to wait around and decide whether it is important or
not. It is in the bill. The Congress is stating that that money should
go to M.D. Anderson as a vital expenditure of taxpayers' money. There
are all kinds of stories like that all over this country. And many
Members have stood up for the good spending that they think is
important in
[[Page 32082]]
their districts. So I am not ashamed of the fact that there are
earmarks in this bill.
Secondly, the real opposition is coming because there is not enough
spending, and I say to my colleagues if they want to show real fiscal
restraint, we are doing it here in this bill, and we are doing it
within the budget that we passed this year. This bill is within the
budget we passed. Actually, the Medicare bill, the $400 billion
prescription drug benefit, is within the budget that we passed. And it
was an agreement between the House and the Senate and the White House
to hold the line on spending, and we have done it. Yet opposition is
decrying the fact that we are not spending enough. And if they were in
charge, they would be spending much more than what we are spending in
this omnibus bill. So I am not ashamed of the spending. I think the
priorities were set and set well, and I give credit to the
appropriators and the hard work that they have done.
{time} 1445
But this bill is a success for this House and the American people,
not only for the money it does not spend, but the money it does spend.
Included in all the pages of numbers and dollar signs, there are real
programs that will benefit real people.
First and foremost, the omnibus includes funding for a school choice
initiative in Washington, D.C. Thanks to this program, 1,700 low-income
children will be given a chance finally to attend schools that their
parents choose, just like children in higher tax brackets always have.
District children who have today been held captive by failed schools
and bureaucrats will be given a chance to obtain the freedom, hope, and
opportunity that a good education provides all of us.
This bill also helps America's veterans to the tune of $2.9 billion
in a funding increase in veterans medical benefits over last year. I
thank the appropriators for working with the veterans community to meet
this very fundamental obligation.
I also want to thank negotiators for acknowledging and maintaining
America's national commitment to defend the dignity of human life with
the inclusion of the amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Weldon) banning the patenting of human organisms.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is full of similar provisions, sound,
disciplined policies, funded at responsible, reasonable levels. It is a
spending bill worthy of the national challenges it meets, and I urge
all Members to support its passage today.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/3\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that I agree very much with the
remarks of the distinguished majority leader that this legislation is a
fitting close to this session, because this congressional session has
been marked from start to finish with an iron-hard determination to do
what was necessary to deliver the most to those who have the most in
this society.
We started with tax cuts which aimed a huge percentage of the
benefits to those who are most well-off in our society, giving huge
benefits to the most well-off 1 percent who earn more than $330,000 a
year. Yet this same Congress denied tax cuts to persons whose income is
so limited that they had to apply for the Earned Income Tax Credit.
They were not allowed to come to the table to get their share of the
tax cut.
This is the same Congress which, even as it walks out the door,
having provided in the energy bill fiscal health to companies like
Hooters, this is the same Congress that now says, ``Oh, but, by the
way, no, we will not provide a last-minute bit of help to workers who
have been out of work for an extended period of time.'' They refuse to
allow States to provide additional unemployment compensation for the
long-term unemployed.
This truly is a fitting close to the Congressional Record, which we
have sadly seen since the beginning of January.
With respect to the gentleman's comments about this Congress being a
paragon of fiscal responsibility and virtue, I simply want to announce
that I am perfectly willing right here and now to give the majority
leader the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, because this is the same
Congress and this is the same White House that has shown so much fiscal
responsibility that in 3 short years they have taken us from a $230
billion surplus to a record $375 billion-plus deficit. That is some
fiscal responsibility. I think Mr. Webster would weep if we asked him
to put that definition in the dictionary.
I want to say one more time, Mr. Speaker, with all of the gifts that
are given in the energy bill to the special interests, with all of the
gifts that are given in this bill to many special interests throughout
the land, with all of the gifts that were given to special interests in
the tax bill, it seems to me that we could at least provide some
additional benefits to the long-term unemployed. But, no, no, no, that
does not fit in the Christmas plans for the Scrooges who are running
the other party on the other side of the aisle.
The motto for this Congress when it comes to working people ought to
be ``Bah, humbug,'' because that is what the record looks like.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following article from the
December 8 edition of the National Journal's Congress Daily AM
bulletin, which comments on the choice of the Appropriation process by
the majority party.
[From the Congress Daily AM, Dec. 8, 2003]
The Triumph of Pettiness
(By David Hess)
The partisan bitterness that has suffused Congress over the
past decade has reached a new level. Democrats have long
grumbled about power-mad Republicans who will stoop to
anything to exert their will. Republicans grouse about fault-
finding, obstructionist Democrats and speak of getting even
for long-ago Democratic abuses. But up to this point, in the
rough and tumble of parliamentary skirmishing, both sides
have largely refrained from sweeping, systematic legislative
blackmail.
Now the wraps are off even that. Furious about opposition
to key spending bills, Republican leaders have dropped the
hammer on hometown projects--known as ``earmarks''--sponsored
mostly by Democrats but also by some Republicans who have
balked at runaway spending in some of the bills.
The first round of earmark trashing came in a big bill
funding the Labor Department and HHS; that legislation
contains about $180 million for local projects. The second
came when the GOP leadership wreaked vengeance on 100 members
of both parties who voted last summer against the VA-HUD
spending bill; approximately $750 million in earmarks are in
that legislation. After some finagling, House Labor-HHS
Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member David Obey, D-
Wis., managed to restore about $20 million worth of
Democrats' projects and program enhancements in the Labor-HHS
spending bill. But major damage to the House's sense of
comity had been done.
``If they don't support the bills [in committee and on the
floor], then they shouldn't expect to get their projects,''
said Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Ohio, a senior member of the House
who chairs the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee.
Coming from regula--who for 40 years has served with
distinction from the Ohio General Assembly to the U.S. House
and enjoys a reputation as a fair and decent legislator--that
was a stunning remark. For it bespeaks a vindictive attitude,
prevalent now in the House in both parties, that poisons the
diminishing fount of civility in an institution at its best
when each party respects the other's right to act in
principled opposition--without fear of petty retribution--on
the issues of the times.
Beyond that, this brand of political blackmail is
misguided. It is the scattershot tactic of ruthless partisans
lashing out in fury to inflict damage on critics who have
every right--if not the duty to their constituents'
interests--to express their criticism of policy choices. And
who exactly is being punished? Certainly not the members who
dared oppose the legislation on policy grounds. The real
victims are the folks back home, Republicans as well as
Democrats and independents, taxpayers all, who stand to
benefit from the earmarked projects.
In Racine, Wis., for example, citizens will go without a
$400,000 water-treatment process to screen out a dangerous
pathogen, cryptosporidium, which causes serious and even
lethal intestinal disease. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., the
project's sponsor, had voted against the FY04 VA-HUD bill
because it cut spending for veterans below the amount
provided in the Republicans' budget resolution.
Then there's the case of Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., a
member of the Appropriations Committee, who in last year's
Labor-HHS spending bill managed to secure funding for four
projects--two for hospitals, two for
[[Page 32083]]
universities--worth a total of $1.3 billion. This year he
voted against both the Labor-HHS and VA-HUD bills, on policy
grounds, when they reached the House floor. He paid a stiff
price for his opposition votes. Only one project, $150,000 in
the Labor-HHS bill to expand an emergency room in Newburgh's
St. Luke's Hospital, made the cut. Hinchey is not even
certain it would have survived, had New York's senators not
supported the project.
The lame excuse is often made that the exigencies of party
discipline require stern measures to whip the members into
line. But what about the power of good policy ideas and moral
suasion to convince, rather than bludgeon, balky members who
harbor reasonable doubts about the impact of pending
legislation on their districts? Or the effect on principled
advocates, liberal and conservative alike, who oppose on
deeply felt philosophical grounds the options dictated by
party leaders? Are the leaders so hell-bent on winning they
must resort to strong-arm tactics, rather than persuasion and
the often-small compromises that win over reluctant members?
In reflecting on the head-bashing partisanship so manifest
in Congress, this writer wonders what his later mother--a
stalwart, lifelong Republican--would have thought about such
behavior by the leaders of her party. The GOP embodied the
values she held dear: individualism, self-dependence, fiscal
integrity, personal enterprise, fair play and charity for the
worthy. She would have given short shrift to the small-
minded, mean-spirited, punitive and divisive tactics this
sort of blackmail entails.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, again I appreciate the opportunity to work with the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), as we bring closure to these final
seven appropriations bills which the House had already passed once, as
I have said before.
There are several important issues: one, as the majority leader said,
is we are within the budget. There are a lot of good increases that we
have called attention to, in health care, in education, in veterans
care, in embassy security, in counterterrorism activities and all. But
we offset those increases with rescissions, so that we were able to
stay within the budget.
This is a must-pass bill. Appropriations bills have to pass. They are
about the only bills here that have to pass. That is why sometimes they
attract some riders that actually cause us more problems in
negotiations than the appropriations bills themselves. But it is a
give-and-take. Republicans and Democrats in the House, Republicans and
Democrats in the Senate, leadership of both parties, the
administration, the President, we brought all of those divergent groups
together and we came up with a package, and that is what is before us
today.
For those who are concerned that we did not spend enough money, we
did; but we offset. We could have spent more, because we had requests
from Members for over $50 billion worth of Member-adds. For those
fiscal conservatives in our body, we found a way to say no to almost
all of those requests, the $50 billion. But we bring about as good a
fiscally conservative bill that meets the needs of the country as we
possibly could.
So, again, Mr. Speaker, as we get ready to pass this bill and hope
and pray that the other body will see fit to do similar so that our
agencies can get about their business, I want to thank you for the
exemplary way in which you conducted this session today, I want to wish
you a Merry Christmas, and I want to wish all the Members a Merry
Christmas. We look forward to seeing you next year, when we start this
appropriations process all over again.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference
report on H.R. 2673. This omnibus appropriations bill, which was thrown
together at the last minute, underfunds important programs and proposes
dangerous new policies. As Ranking Member of the House Judiciary
Committee, I would like to detail my many concerns with this
legislation.
law enforcement grants
The conference report would significantly underfund Federal grants
for enhanced law enforcement efforts, for both state and local law
enforcement assistance and the Community Oriented Policing Services
program (``COPS''). For instance, with respect to actual state and
local law enforcement assistance grants (Local Law Enforcement Block
Grants, State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, Byrne Grants, Justice
Assistance Grants, drug courts, etc.), the Justice Department received
$2 billion. This conference report would provide only $1.3 billion, a
drastic cut of $700 million (35 percent). This means that important
programs like police block grants, the Boys and Girls Clubs, Project
ChildSafe, and others will be slashed.
Developed by the Clinton Administration in 1994, COPS has community
policing as its cornerstone; police officers concentrate on specific
neighborhoods and gain the trust of community residents to prevent and
solve crimes. Targeting youth violence has been a major priority for
COPS; instead of locking up juveniles after they have committed
offenses, the presence of cops on the beat and in schools helps to keep
them out of trouble in the first place. In addition to putting cops on
the street and in schools, the COPS program has reduced domestic
violence, gang violence, and drug-related crimes by helping to create
and organize community groups, victims' groups, treatment centers, and
community police in various regions around the country. It is also
important to note that local law enforcement is a critical component in
the war on terrorism; local police in the everyday course of patrol may
be the first to learn about potential terrorist acts or terrorists.
Its success has led to COPS being praised by law enforcement and
politicians on both sides of the aisle. Fraternal Order of Police, the
largest law enforcement organization in the United States, has stated
that ``[COPS] is a program that works and one that has had a positive
impact on our nation today.'' Also, during his confirmation hearings,
Attorney General John Ashcroft promised to continue supporting COPS
and, as a Senator, cosponsored legislation to reauthorize it. Finally,
Representative Jim Kolbe, a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee
on Commerce-Justice-State-Judiciary, has noted that COPS ``has always
played a vital role in community safety and [he was] glad to see
Federal money funding such a position.'' This is why it should not be
surprising that, initially intended to fund 100,000 officers, the
program funded 116,573 officers in September 2002 alone.
The Republican leadership, however, refuses to acknowledge the
successes of COPS. Overall, this bill provides $756 million for COPS, a
drastic cut from the FY03 level of $978 million. More specifically, the
conference report provides only $120 million for the hiring of
officers, which is the program's most important component; in FY03,
this portion received $199 million (the Senate bill would have given
$200 million for hiring). In the September 2003 issue of Washington
Monthly, the Chief of the Richmond Police Department, Andre Parker,
said he was ``dismayed at the current Administration's attitude toward
local law enforcement. . . . [It] has not seemed to grasp what we
face.'' It is clear that the Republicans are giving law enforcement and
community policing the short shrift.
If we take away funds now, our local communities who have used COPS
money to hire police officers will be devastated; many already are
hard-pressed financially because of the slowdown in the economy. So
there is no question in my mind that reducing funds will lead to police
layoffs and an increase in the cycle on crime and violence.
Biomedical Research
The conference report also would stifle research on life-saving drugs
and treatments. This is because of the report includes an amendment by
Representative Dave Weldon that prohibits the PTO from issuing patents
``encompassing or directed to'' human organisms (section 634 of
Division B). While this provision has been marketed as targeted toward
human cloning, it would have a much broader effect.
Arguably, any medical treatment is ``directed to or encompasses''
human organisms. This is broad and vague prohibition could prevent
patents on, and thus discourage research into, drugs and treatments for
Alzheimer's, in vitro fertilization, and virtually any other area of
medicine that pertains to the human body. This poorly-drafted provision
is an example of why Congress should not legislate on medical practices
and should not make important policy decisions without the input of
experts in the field.
Gun Safety
The Republican leadership also caved to the gun industry by
preventing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and explosives
(``ATF'') from enforcing gun safety laws. For instance, the conference
report includes proposals from Representative Todd Tiahrt that:
[[Page 32084]]
Impose a 24-hour limit on destruction of records of approved firearm
purchases (section 618 of Division B). The current rule permits the
retention of records for 90 days. The new proposal would undermine
audits of the system to ensure it is working properly and undermine the
ability to retrieve firearms that have been transferred to criminals
and other prohibited owners. A June 2002 study by the General
Accounting Office stated that 228 of the 235 (97 percent) firearm
retrievals initiated during the first 6 months of the current 90-day
rule could not have been done under a 24-hour rule; in other words, the
new rule would permit 228 prohibited persons (i.e. felons, domestic
violence misdemeanants, fugitives) to keep their illegal guns.
Prohibit the ATF from releasing to the public information regarding
sales and dispositions of firearms kept by gun dealers and
manufacturers, as well as any records of multiple handgun sales (where
2 or more handguns are sold to the same buyer within 5 days) or gun
tracing information reported to ATF (title I of Division B). Community
residents no longer would be aware of neighbors stockpiling mass
quantities of firearms.
Prohibit ATF from requiring dealers to provide a physical inventory
(title I of Division B). This precludes the ATF from finalizing a rule
it proposed in August 2000 to require annual inventories. The purpose
of the proposed rule was to allow dealers to identify missing firearms
and report them as such. Had the ATF's proposal been in effect, we
could have avoided the situation that occurred in the Washington, DC,
sniper case where Bull's Eye Shooter Supply (the dealer from whom the
snipers allegedly stole an assault rifle) asserted they did not know
the gun was stolen until the ATF traced it to the store.
Prevent ATF from computerizing records of gun dealers who go out of
business (title I of Division B). Computerized records are critical
with respect to being able to trace guns used in crimes. As a result of
this amendment, a gun used in one crime could not be connected to
another crime; depriving law enforcement of valuable evidence.
In essence, the conference report would reverse Clinton
Administration policies that led to a substantial decrease in the
number of gun dealers from 245,000 in 1994 to 58,500 now. By making it
easier to be a gun dealer, the conference report would make gun shops
as prevalent as 7-Eleven; there would be one on every corner in every
neighborhood in America, open all day and night. Moreover, as Kristen
Rand, Legislative Director of the Violence Policy Center, noted on July
23, 2003, ``Representative Tiahrt's proposal would aid criminal gun
traffickers and at the same time devastate ATF's already weak oversight
authority.'' Make no mistake about it, the only winners under this
proposal are criminals and the NRA.
Beyond these matters relating to Judiciary Committee jurisdiction, I
am troubled by the conference reports treatment of other programs and
initiatives important to everyday Americans.
In a reversal of prior votes of the House and Senate, the conference
report would encourage media monopolies. In June 2003, the Federal
Communications Commission raised the broadcast ownership cap from 35
percent of the national market to 45 percent of the market. This
decision was widely criticized by Congress and the public, so much so
that the House passed by a vote of 400-21 an appropriations bill that
prevented the FCC from increasing the 35 percent cap. Similarly, the
Senate Appropriations agreed by a vote of 29-0 to overturn the FCC
decision, using an appropriations bill to retain the cap at 35 percent.
Despite these prior votes, the Republican's engaged in backroom dealing
to craft a conference report that lifts the cap to 39 percent (section
629 of Division B). This simply is bad policy that will encourage
consolidation and discourage the diversity of voices in the media that
drives our democracy.
The legislation fails to block a Labor Department regulation that
would deny overtime pay to approximately 8 million workers across the
country. Both the House and Senate had agreed to prevent this anti-
worker provision from becoming effective, but the Republican leadership
has turned its back on working Americans.
The House had agreed to permit drug reimportation so Americans with
medical needs could reap the benefits of lower drug costs. By reneging
on this promise, the Republican leadership is putting the needs of
billion dollar corporations ahead of the needs of the sick.
In a blow to public education and home rule, the Republican
leadership is authorizing funds for a school voucher program for the
District of Colombia. This program will drain needed funds from
already-suffering public schools, depriving school-aged children of the
education they need and deserve.
Despite public rhetoric about how much it supports our troops, the
Republican leadership thinks nothing of our men and women in uniform
when they return from the front. The conference report provides
veterans' medical programs with $700 million less than the Republican
leadership promised in the budget resolution and $900 million less than
the veterans groups had sought.
Continuing the Majority's attack on the environment, the Republican
leadership weakens the Clean Air Act and prevents 49 states (all except
California) from adopting stricter emissions control laws for small
engines.
Despite public statements by the President and congressional leaders
to support AIDS prevention and treatment, the conference report
actually provides less money for AIDS programs than the President's
request and other bills. The report requires the National Institutes of
Health (``NIH'') to return to the treasury a large portion of non-
research funds. As a result, the NIH receives $118 million less than
the President's request, $145 million less than the House level, and
$182 million less than the Senate level. This translates into an actual
cut from current funding levels for AIDS programs.
The Bush Administration touted its ``No Child Left Behind'' package
and signed it with great fanfare; not surprisingly, it sought virtually
no funds for the program in its next budget. Now, the conference report
gives $24.5 billion, which is $7.8 billion lower than the amount
authorized in the actual bill. This gives schools just enough money to
cover inflation and fails to give funding to cover costs incurred in
complying with Federal mandates.
The Republican leadership claims to be concerned about domestic
security, but now it underfunds the very Department created to provide
that security. For example, the 0.59 percent across-the-board budget
cut applies to the Department of Homeland Security, such that the
planned increase for border protection will have to be cut by two-
thirds.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
conference report.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference
report on H.R. 2673. Had this been the product of the appropriations
committees of the two chambers, I would gladly lend my support to the
passage of this funding bill. But the meddling of the Republican
Leadership and administration that wants what it wants when it wants it
made for legislative product that is not worthy of support.
When I came to Congress in 1996, I made a commitment to my Michigan
constituents to put people first. This bill fails to meet that test.
This bill fails that test, and I would like to explain my reasons for
opposing its passage.
H.R. 2673 excludes a provision to that would prohibit the Department
of Labor from issuing a regulation denying overtime pay to more than 8
million workers. The provision to protect the pay of middle-income
working Americans was agreed to by a majority of both bodies, and the
Republican Leadership removed this provision.
The bill shortchanges education. It provides $39 million less for
education than what the House originally passed, after subtracting $318
million in earmarked projects added in conference. The bill does not
meet the promises of the ``No Child Left Behind Act''--providing $7.8
billion less than was promised. It shortchanges help with the basics of
math and reading by $6.2 billion when compared to the level promised in
No Child Left Behind, leaving more than 2 million children behind. It
also shortchanges funding for after-school centers by $751 million.
The measure includes $14 million for a new private school voucher
program for the District of Columbia. Private school vouchers drain
much-needed funding away from public education where all children can
benefit.
This funding bill funds state and local law enforcement at $500
million below the level funded last year, even though state and local
law enforcement are on the frontlines in keeping our communities safe.
The conference agreement abandoned the bipartisan agreement between
both chambers of Congress to block the Federal Communications
Commission regulations permitting broadcast networks to expand. The FCC
issued rules raising the ceiling on media ownership from 35 to 45
percent. Even though House and Senate conferees originally agreed to
keeping the current (35 percent) limit, the White House forced a
compromise at 39 percent, which would accommodate to giant media
interests.
The bill funds the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) at just
$39 million, a sharp decrease from the fiscal year 2003 level of $106
million. The MEP offers small manufacturers a range of services from
plant modernization to employee training. These modernization efforts
help our beleaguered small
[[Page 32085]]
and mid-sized American manufacturers stay competitive.
This bill forgets about the unemployed in America. Long-term
unemployment in November surpassed a 20-year high. Two million
Americans remain out of work and have been out of work for over six
months. But the majority in this Chamber is ignoring the calls of the
jobless for extending unemployment insurance benefits. Congress will be
leaving town this week and after December 21, a half a million workers
who are jobless through no fault of their own will lose unemployment
benefits.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the
passage of this bill.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I must express my extreme
disappointment and dismay at the amount of funding in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2004 for the health care of our nation's
veterans.
For almost an entire year, the Members of the House Veterans Affairs
Committee (both Democratic and Republican) have been fighting for a
budget that is worthy of our veterans. The $26.3 billion that is
included for the FY2004 VA Medical Care Budget in this appropriations
bill is approaching a billion less than the figure recommended by the
House VA Committee and by the Independent Budget, the budget that is
drafted by veterans. One billion dollars would fund approximately 5000
doctors or 10,000 nurses or 3 million additional outpatient visits.
As many of you know, VA Secretary Anthony Principi has been forced,
because of lack of funds, to refuse enrollment to many veterans in the
VA health care system. Waiting lists for health care appointments
include tens of thousands of veterans who are waiting more than six
months for their first health care appointment at the VA. This is not
the message that we want to send to our troops who are fighting in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, at this time more than ever, we must place
veterans as a top priority. This appropriations bill does not do that.
Veterans' health care is one of our most important funding issues. We
hope and pray that we do not have veterans from the current conflict
who become ill with Gulf War illnesses. But we must be prepared for
that possibility. We must also not forget the warriors of the first
Gulf War who are sick and still waiting to learn the cause and the cure
for their illnesses. We must be ready to give treatment and care to all
the men and women who have sacrificed for our country. We cannot
guarantee that with the budget figures in this bill.
It is time to stop this frustrating and ineffective funding for
veterans' health care. It is time to change the process of funding VA
medical care. Congressman Lane Evans, Ranking Democratic Member of the
House VA Committee, has introduced a bill (H.R. 2318), which I have co-
sponsored, to automatically increase VA health care funding each year
to accommodate inflation and new enrollees. We must change from our
current practice of discretionary funding for VA health care to
mandatory (or assured) funding, the way we fund many other veterans'
benefits. That change would do away with the fight we have to make each
year in Congress for our veterans--a fight that, unfortunately, we
often end up losing.
We have the resources. It is a question of priorities. It is a
question of will. Join me in vowing that this will be the last year we
end up with less money than is needed for veterans' health care. Join
me in pushing for passage of assured funding for our nation's veterans.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote against
the Conference Report on the Fiscal Year 2004 Consolidated
Appropriations bill.
This Conference Report does a disservice to our constituents and to
our country's democratic principles because it fails to respect the
votes of Members of Congress and abuses the appropriations process.
For example:
It weakens the prohibition against the new FCC media ownership rules,
despite the fact that stronger restrictions were agreed to by both
Houses of Congress.
It allows the Labor Department's new overtime regulations to go
forward, flouting the will of the House and Senate and jeopardizing
overtime pay for over 8 million workers.
It underfunds the No Child Left Behind Act by $8 billion.
Net funding for the NIH is $145 million less than passed by the House
and $182 million less than the Senate supported.
This bill fails in other important ways:
It cuts funds for state and local law enforcement by $500 million.
It implements a controversial school voucher program in the District
of Columbia.
It provides $230 million less for veterans' benefits than Republicans
have promised.
It rescinds $1.8 billion in appropriations--largely from the
Department of Homeland Security.
Because of these and many other serious flaws, I cannot in good
conscience support this bill and I urge my colleagues to oppose the
Conference Report. We could be doing so much more for our country.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to what I believe to have
been the unwarranted omission of language from the Omnibus
Appropriations Conference Report, originally included in the Senate
version of the Agriculture Appropriations bill, that would have
designated funds to assist electric ratepayers on the Island of Kaua`i,
Hawai`i.
The Rural Community Advancement Program in Division A of the Omnibus
Conference Report contained a directive to the Secretary of Agriculture
to provide grant assistance to the not-for-profit, consumer-owned
Kaua`i Island Utility Cooperative under the ``Rural Utilities Service,
High Energy Costs Grants Account''.
The Senate language was designed to provide a small amount of vitally
needed assistance to families and small businesses on this economically
challenged island. The poverty rate on Kaua`i runs at about twenty (20)
percent. While unemployment has slightly declined to a somewhat low of
5.3 percent, the jobs available are overwhelmingly very low-paying
jobs. With a current electric rate of nearly 27 cents per kilowatt
hour, many among the ``working poor'' face a daily decision whether to
turn on a few lights, or put food on the table for their family.
Twenty-seven cents per KWh is the highest cost for electricity
anywhere in the United States except for two or three very small,
remote villages in Alaska. A very large portion of families on Kaua`i
must actually rely on the Food Bank to adequately feed their families.
The Senate provision would simply have designated, from within funds
otherwise appropriated for the High Energy Costs Grants Account, an
amount to offset the expenses incurred recently when island residents
took over the utility system as a means to help gradually lower the
punishing electric costs being charged by an off-island investor-owned
company.
The Senate provision for the cooperative on Kaua`i was just one of
several items dropped from the final conference agreement. I understand
that the conference committee took a position against hard earmarked
projects, relying instead on the Secretary to hopefully recognize the
needs and make these allocations within the existing programs at the
Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, this language would have guaranteed an enormous impact
on the Kaua`i community, and I am very concerned that it was not
included in the measure before us today. I can only hope that the
Secretary does in fact heed the intent of this language, and I will
continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both
sides of the Capitol to assure my constituents this badly-needed
relief.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, although I have objections to
the overall bill and I oppose the overall conference report on H.R.
2673, the Consolidated Appropriation Act 2004, I rise today to support
the additional $1 billion dollars in funding that has been included in
the Omnibus spending bill for the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). This
funding is in addition to the $500 million request by the President and
approved by the House in the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act of 2004 section of this Omnibus spending
bill.
HAVA was signed by the President over a year ago in response to the
frustrations experienced by both voters and candidates during the 2000
election cycle. Reportedly, between four to six million Americans went
to the polls in November 2000 and for a variety of reasons they were
denied their right to vote and to have their vote counted. The causes
for this denial of democracy range from faulty machinery to wrongful
purges from voter lists to poorly designed ballots.
Thanks to the leadership of the bill's co-sponsors, my House
Administration colleague, Chairman Bob Ney, and former Ranking Member
Steny Hoyer, with HAVA we now have the foundation for a much more
efficient voting system, and the much needed increase in funding over
the $500 million requested by the President necessary for its full
implementation.
The additional funding for HAVA will be used to educate voters about
voting procedures as well as about their rights; make polling places
more accessible to people with disabilities; create statewide voter
registration databases that can be more effectively managed and
updated; improve ballot review procedures, allowing voters to ensure
that the ballots they cast are accurate; and create provisional
balloting systems to guarantee that no eligible voter is ever turned
away at the polls.
[[Page 32086]]
Lastly, I would like to commend the chief sponsors of HAVA in the
Senate, Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY), for
their bipartisan efforts to secure the additional funding in the other
body. But the fight is far from over; the Senate needs to confirm the
four nominees chosen to run the new Election Assistance Commission
(EAC). In addition to being charged with overseeing the full
implementation of HAVA, the EAC will function as the clearinghouse for
information on election management. This information will be necessary
to ensure that the 2004 election cycle runs smoothly, and I would urge
the other body to act on these critical nominations as quickly as
possible.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of the omnibus
appropriations bill. While there were several important reasons for me
to vote in favor of this legislations, this bill also had several deep
flaws.
I would like to point to several positive items that I have worked
for and was able to achieve through this appropriations bill. The bill
contains a $50 million increase for the Department of Education's Math
and Science Partnerships, which will help bring universities and the
private sector together with local school teachers to provide long term
teacher training. I hope this will put us on the path of reaching the
authorized level of $400 million.
I am also glad to see that the conferees retained a version of the
Corzine amendment, which would restore cuts in student aid by blocking
the implementation of recent Department of Education changes to
financial aid eligibility formulas. The Department's changes would have
drastically increased the expected family contributions by
underestimating their level of state and local tax payments. In fact,
the Department of Education recently determined that the changes in the
state and local tax allowances will cause 84,000 students to lose their
Pell Grants entirely, and will reduce Pell Grants overall by $270
million. I was happy to work with Congressman Rick Keller and seventy-
five other Members of Congress on a letter to Labor-HHS conferees
supporting the Corzine amendment freezing those changes.
I am grateful that the conferees included language to begin a program
intended to provide the public with science-based evidence on the
safety of foods produced with biotechnology for human consumption.
I have fought on behalf of New Jersey's birth defects registry
program and led a bipartisan effort by our delegation to increase
funding for birth defects registries. I am therefore pleased to see
that this bill does increase the overall level of birth defects funding
through the CDC. Funding for birth defects is now $113 million, a
rather sizeable increase of $15 million from the previous fiscal year
and $26 million over the Administration's budget request.
The bill also provides $1.225 billion for Amtrak, which provides
critical rail service for residents in my district and throughout the
Northeast. It also directs Amtrak to continue providing fare discounts
to veterans and members of the military.
The budget for the National Science Foundation (NSF) is increased
$300 million over last year's level and $130 million over the budget
request, bringing FY04 funding to $5.6 billion, the largest NSF budget
ever. This will mean a great deal for improving funding for research
and development.
The bill also includes $12.1 billion for Section 8 voucher renewals
for affordable housing, $810 million more than FY03 and $205 million
more than the request. This will fully fund all authorized vouchers
based on a 96% lease up rate and the most current cost estimates. I
have heard from many constituents about their need for and support of
this program.
Once again however, the rhetoric from the House leadership is not
being met with adequate resources for education. Congress has passed a
sweeping reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, created
several new programs and mandates, but we don't seem willing to provide
the necessary funding. We cannot expect our schools to meet the so-
called ``adequate yearly progress'' standard if we cannot provide them
the resources they need to do so.
While funding for ``No Child Left Behind'' programs is nominally
above last year's level, it is only sufficient to cover inflation and
provides local schools with no additional resources to meet federal
mandates. This bill provides $7.8 billion less than the amount promised
for fiscal year 2004 by the highly touted ``No Child Left Behind''
authorization.
Overall funding for the Department of Education is at $55.7 billion,
only $279 million above the level contained in the House-passed bill.
That increase, however, includes $318 million in special, member-
specific education projects. As a result, regular formula grant or
merit-based programs are actually funded less than the level contained
in the House bill.
Further, the bill authorizes funds for a voucher program for D.C.
schools. This is a poor policy decision that deprives citizens of the
District of Columbia of making the decision for themselves and the
school system from receiving much needed federal funding.
The bill also fails to provide the resources necessary to increase
students' access to higher education. The bill keeps the maximum Pell
grant award at $4,050, the same as last year, even as the cost of
college is going up all over the country.
The omnibus bill will hurt those who have left school and are now in
the workforce. A prohibition against the Labor Department's new
overtime regulation was dropped entirely despite the fact that it has
the support of solid majorities in both Houses. Allowing this new rule
to go through will deny overtime pay to more than 8 million American
workers. These are employees who rely on overtime to make ends meet,
and it speaks volumes that the Republican leadership is willing to deny
hard-working, middle class families that additional pay they earn.
Further, I am concerned that because I opposed the House-passed bill
on the principle that we cannot under-fund education and healthcare in
this country, the leadership will now punish my constituents. Important
projects will not be funded simply because of politics. For example,
funding has been denied to naturally occurring retirement communities
where the elderly can stay and receive services and E=Mc\2\, which
provides important training to science teachers, will not be funded
either.
Mr. Speaker, I again want to say that I reluctantly support this bill
in order to keep our government functioning and to fund important new
initiatives. I hope that next year we will be able to work in a
bipartisan manner so that we can best provide for the needs of all the
Americans we proudly represent.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Fiscal Year 2004
Omnibus Appropriations bill. I will vote in favor of this bill because
it includes federal funding for a great number of very worthwhile
projects in my district of southern West Virginia, many of which I
personally sought and others that were provided by the esteemed senior
Senator from my state, West Virginia's great champion, Senator Robert
C. Byrd.
On my account, these projects include funding for technological
infrastructure in a historically underserved area, transportation
planning and congestion relief funding, funding to help educate the
blind, federal assistance for wastewater treatment, and maritime safety
training dollars for port security.
In addition, it is with tremendous gratitude for his efforts that
West Virginia thanks Senator Byrd for providing much-needed funding of
projects such as a road building effort that will enable veterans to
access their medical center. He also provided funding for our
universities and colleges, funding for economic revitalization efforts,
and federal dollars for a great number of other worthwhile endeavors.
However, I cast my vote with great misgivings.
As a result of White House meddling, this bill recklessly strips
overtime protection provisions that a tremendous majority of Americans
favor and that overwhelmingly passed both the House and the Senate. To
do the President's bidding on behalf of his big corporate friends, the
Republican leadership in the House and the Senate made sure in this
bill that the Department of Labor can gut more than 60 years of worker
protections.
As a result of White House meddling, this bill unwisely fails to fund
the No Child Left Behind initiative while actually even cutting many
programs such as teacher quality grants, technology grants, safe and
drug-free schools, and reading first grants.
As a result of White House meddling, this bill unfairly freezes
funding for child care and wrongly imposes more stringent work
requirements for parents receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families.
There are also a host of other shortcomings and deficiencies in this
bill.
But this is what happens when the Republican leadership of the House
and Senate fail once again to complete their Constitutionally-required
appropriations bills in a timely manner. A bunch of different bills get
rolled into one rather than being considered individually on their
respective merits. Then, the White House threatens, as it did here, to
veto the entire bill, which would leave many federal agencies without
funds and therefore leave many needy people without protection, unless
the President once again gets exactly what he and his rich friends
want.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the importance of the
State Assisted Fair Bid
[[Page 32087]]
provision in the FY2004 Transportation Appropriations bill. The
Conference Report contains a provision that will establish a pilot
program to assist states that choose to contract with the private
sector to provide intercity passenger rail service. I anticipate there
will be at least two or three demonstration projects under this
proposal in fiscal year 2004. The report provides the Secretary with up
to $2.5 million to assist the states in implementing the competitive
process. I have spoken with Appropriations Chairman Young, and he has
assured me that the funding may be used for any purpose in the
implementation of a Fair Bid Demonstration project, including providing
insurance to states and operators in a manner that results in the
lowest possible insurance costs. Furthermore, I understand that the
Secretary is encouraged to use a portion of the $2.5 million in grant
money provided to the states to subsidize alternative insurance
arrangements as a part of the Demonstration Projects.
I want to be clear in my understanding that the states have a great
deal of latitude in proposing Demonstration Projects under this
provision. The only statutory requirement is that the state must assist
the intercity service with a subsidy of some nature. My friend,
Chairman Young, has assured me that this is so. Obviously, all of the
current state-assisted operations, which are commonly known as 403(b)
service, and are now being operated under contract with Amtrak, are
eligible. One example of this service that comes to mind is my state's
Missouri Mule, which operates between St. Louis and Kansas City. The
state of Missouri attempted a competitive bid for the Missouri Mule
service last year when Amtrak increased the state subsidy requirement.
The process failed, because Amtrak refused to make facilities and
equipment, or even access to its national reservation system, available
to any bidder on reasonable terms. In many ways, it is the Missouri
Mule example that resulted in the Fair Bid language being contained in
this bill. Certainly, the Missouri Mule will be a candidate under this
new provision.
However, there are many other candidates. The North Carolina Piedmont
and Carolinian provide another example of such trains. The Amtrak
Cascades Service between Vancouver, British Columbia and Eugene, Oregon
is a 464-mile corridor that is subsidized by the Washington and Oregon
DOTs. Services that are not current 403(b) services would also be
eligible should the state choose to provide a subsidy. In another more
general example, the State of Florida is interested in new conventional
intercity passenger rail service along the East Coast, but Amtrak has
declined to initiate the operation. In cooperation with the track
owner, the state has the option of putting that service out to
competitive bid.
Another example is New York's Empire service between Albany and New
York City. That service is currently not subsidized, but Amtrak has
requested a subsidy from the state as a condition of operating New
York's remanufactured 125 mile per hour turbo trains. The Empire
corridor could be put out to competitive bid under the terms of this
provision.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference
report on H.R. 2673. This bill would provide funds, for the fiscal year
that began on October 1, for eleven of the fifteen Cabinet departments,
several independent government agencies, and the District of Columbia
government.
I will oppose this bill because it is a combination of missed
opportunities and misplaced priorities. This bill has many
shortcomings, but let me focus on three key areas: agriculture,
education and homeland security.
Mr. Speaker, I grew up on a tobacco farm, and my district is one of
the leading tobacco producing districts in the country. As a Member of
the House Agriculture Committee, I know that our farmers are hurting.
North Carolina's farm families are watching a way of life that has
sustained us for generations vanish without any assistance from the
federal government to transition into the future. I have been working
throughout this Congress on a bipartisan basis to pass a buyout of the
federal tobacco quota program to aid that transition. Having worked to
achieve consensus legislation, my colleagues and I sought to attach
buyout legislation to this omnibus appropriations bill, the last
legislative vehicle of the First Session of the 108th Congress. But the
Republican Leadership rejected this effort. As a last ditch effort, I
wrote to Speaker Hastert and asked him to include Congressman Walter
Jones's bill to freeze quota levels that determine how much tobacco
farmers can produce. Again, we were denied.
Our tobacco farmers deserve better, and I will vote No to protest the
shabby treatment they have gotten from the Republican Congressional
Leadership.
As the former Superintendent of North Carolina's public schools, my
life's work has been the improvement of educational opportunities for
all of our children. In the U.S. House, I chair the Democratic Caucus's
special Task Force on Education and Job Training. In the 107th
Congress, I voted for the President's landmark No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) education reform law because the Administration promised to
provide the resources to make the tough new reforms work.
Unfortunately, the Administration has broken that promise, and I have
been forced to introduce legislation to require full funding for NCLB.
This omnibus appropriations bill continues to break the promise of NCLB
to our children, their parents, our teachers, taxpayers and schools.
The bill shortchanges NCLB by $7.8 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone.
This bill also contains misguided private school vouchers in the
District of Columbia. Vouchers are bad public policy because they take
taxpayer dollars to pay for private school tuition. That is just plain
wrong, and I have consistently opposed vouchers throughout my service
in public office.
Our children deserve better, and I will vote against this bill
because of the harm it does to our schools.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, as a center for the military, agriculture,
technology and transportation sectors, North Carolina plays a prominent
role in the ongoing effort to secure the homeland against the threat of
additional terrorist attacks. As a Member of the House Select Committee
on Homeland Security, I have worked throughout this Congress to bolster
our nation's homeland security. Although this bill does not fund the
Department of Homeland Security, two important provisions of the bill
will negatively impact its operation. This legislation forces the
rescission of $1.8 billion in prior year supplemental appropriations
and a significant portion of those funds are in DHS. In addition, the
across-the-board cut contained in this bill will have a dramatic impact
on certain areas. For example, the needed increase of 570 Customs and
Immigration agents for improving border protection will have to be cut
by nearly two-thirds. Also, the bill cuts state and local law
enforcement funds by $500 million below last year's level at a time
when our state and local governments face massive budget shortfalls.
Our communities deserve better, and I will vote against this bill
because of its shortsighted treatment of our homeland security.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there are many provisions of this bill I
do support. I strongly support each of the projects for North
Carolina's Second Congressional District that are funded in this bill.
But the Republican Leadership chose to craft this bill through an
indefensible and incoherent process. The result is a bill that can be
summed up as a missed opportunities and misplaced priorities.
The people of my district and this country deserve better. I will
vote against final passage of this legislation, and I urge my
colleagues to join me in doing so.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, because this bill is coming to the floor as
a conference report, I am unable to offer a very important amendment.
My amendment would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
to complete and issue its rulemaking in CC Docket 02-33 within 60 days
of passage of this bill. This is proceeding pending at the FCC to
determine whether broadband facilities provided by telephone companies
should be regulated as telephone services under Title II of the
Communications Act or as information services under Title I of the
Communications Act.
The FCC adopted the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on February 14,
2002. Comments were filed on May 3, 2002 and reply comments on July 1,
2002. The FCC, however, has been sitting on its hands for the last 16
months.
This is the same agency that, once it voted on its triennial review
report and order spent another six months before actually releasing the
text of the order. The FCC has not ruled on the petitions for
reconsideration pending on the triennial review. My amendment will also
require the FCC to rule on these petitions for reconsideration within
60 days of passage of this bill. Unfortunately, the FCC's Nero seems to
be fiddling again while the telecommunications industry's Rome is
burning.
The Industry is in state of regulatory stasis concerning broadband.
Companies do not know what the broadband rules will be, so they cannot
make sound decisions as to when, where, and even whether to deploy
broadband. This is an industry that has lost more than 500,000 jobs
during its current economic slide.
This inaction is inexcusable. The delay is further harming an
industry already seriously wounded. There is little doubt that
ubiquitous deployment of broadband will boost the U.S. economy, and
particularly the moribund telecommunications sector. A recently updated
[[Page 32088]]
study by Robert Crandall, Charles Jackson, and Hal Singer states that
``the cumulative increase in capital expenditures associated with the
ubiquitous adoption of current generation (broadband) technologies will
result in the cumulative increase in gross domestic product (GDP) of
$179.7 billion (over nineteen years) and will sustain an additional
61,000 jobs per year.'' Yet, the FCC continues to ignore the negative
economic impact its indecision has on the industry.
All my amendment does is require the FCC to complete something it
should have done over a year ago. We've given the FCC enough time. The
American people are waiting and the U.S. Congress has had enough of the
FCC's paralysis.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2004. In almost every areas of concern
for families, this bill is grossly inadequate and detrimental to
America's future.
For our Nation's children and schools, the funding shortfalls in the
Omnibus are legion. At a time when we are demanding more of our public
schools, and as State and local education budgets continue to be cut,
funding for No Child Left Behind is frozen. At a time when the average
Pell Grant is worth about $50 less in real terms than it was in 1975,
the size of the maximum grant is frozen.
The Omnibus also freezes funding for the 21st Century Community
Learning Centers program, the main source of Federal funding for after
school programs. Over 1 million children will not have after school
opportunities under this bill. This bill even falls $1 billion short of
the level promised in the Republican budget resolution and
authorization bill passed earlier this year for IDEA, which educates
disabled children. Again, this funding shortfall is passed directly on
to local school districts.
For as many as 8 million workers, this bill also represents the end
of overtime pay--but not the end of overtime hours. Although this body
voted to strip the administration's plan to eliminate overtime coverage
for millions of Americans, the Omnibus continues forward with a
regulatory agenda determined to make Americans--from paralegals to
paramedics--work longer hours for less pay.
Finally, last July this Congress took a giant step forward in
overwhelmingly voting to eliminate funding for section 213 of the
PATRIOT Act, a provision what allows for so-called ``sneak and peak''
searches, or searches of property without the advanced notification of
the person being searched. This action spoke to the anxiety of millions
of Americans who believe the PATRIOT Act must be repealed or revised to
restore fundamental civil liberties in this Nation. Again, the result
of this bi-partisan vote is starkly absent from the Omnibus.
Not only does the Omnibus cut education, it defies the will of the
House on overtime pay and civil liberties. Our children and our
families suffer and the integrity of the U.S. Constitution remains at
risk. Vote against the Omnibus Conference Report.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I will be casting my vote against this bill
today because of many serious flaws in this legislation, flaws that
were included in the bill despite widespread, overwhelming opposition.
Additionally, the bill tragically underfunds several key programs, such
as funding for education reform and veterans.
Included in this legislation is language to delay the implementation
of country-of-origin labeling until 2006. Country-of-origin labeling
was required by the 2002 Farm Bill and is necessary to give U.S.
consumers important information and give U.S. producers credit for the
considerable investment they have made in the quality and safety of
their products.
Included in this legislation are provisions that could make 8 million
women and men lose the overtime pay that they use to feed their
families, pay for medicine, and educate their children. These
provisions were not approved by a majority of the House and Senate.
Included in this legislation today is language to allow television
networks to own as much as 39 percent of a market. Shortly after the
Federal Communications Commission made its decision to allow television
networks to own stations reaching as much as 45 percent of the country
earlier this year, both chambers of Congress went on record for
supporting lowering the limit to 35 percent.
In addition, while I support the intentions of last year's education
reform promise to leave no child behind, I am also convinced that the
success of this new law will be determined in part by the investment
made in this historic reform effort. I am deeply disappointed that this
funding plan falls more than $7.8 billion short of the resources
promised.
I am pleased to have supported the inclusion of a number of important
North Dakota projects in this legislation. However, the House could and
should consider clean legislation that does not contain those
provisions not supported by a majority of representatives. I hope this
bill is taken up again in January without these objectionable
provisions.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment
that the omnibus appropriations package before us, H.R. 2673, does not
include provisions passed by both houses of Congress to protect
workers' overtime pay nor does it extend the Temporary Extended
Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) program.
Mr. Speaker, there we are again, the holiday season is upon us and
once more, it is time to buy presents for our loved ones. Whether we
are celebrating Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanzaa or simply the holiday
season, it is a time for sharing gifts, festive meals and caring for
others. Unfortunately, the appropriations package before us will strip
workers of their overtime rights and does not extend TEUC benefits,
possibly resulting in Santa Claus not making stops at everyone's house
next year.
Millions of families continue to struggle through the rough fringes
of our economy. Currently the official U.S. unemployment rate is at 5.9
percent representing more than 8.5 million unemployed workers, and the
rate for Hispanics has moved up to 7.4 percent. As much as these can be
seen as mere figures, we must realize that they are more than just
numbers. They represent human beings: someone who needs work and whose
family may need food and clothing. These are not luxuries; they are the
essentials.
Too many Americans are going to wake up New Year's morning to find
out that their unemployment insurance has run dry. In the past 2 years,
we've seen some 3 million jobs disappear.
Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity to extend the reauthorization of
the TEUC program and we failed to do it.
I joined the efforts to extend those benefits so that working
families still looking for jobs can enter the New Year with some place
of mind. The leadership in this House, however, saw it differently and
blocked our efforts to extend help to out-of-work Americans. They
reportedly said the economy's doing so much better than unemployed
workers don't need any extra help. Sadly, this failure not only hurts
families but also the economy. Worse yet, it comes just a few weeks
after these same leaders approved a $12 billion handout to insurance
companies.
That's not all. Even those who are fortunate to have jobs have come
under attack by the leadership of this House. On March 31, 2003, the
Bush administration proposed changes to the overtime pay rules that
require additional pay for workers who put in more than 40 hours per
week. These changes will impact up to 8 million employees who could
find themselves working longer without any additional pay.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity to include provisions
in this massive appropriations package to ensure that the rights of
over 8 million workers to receive overtime for their hard work were
protected, and we failed.
The new rules will impact workers who make between $22,101 and
$65,000 per year. These middle class workers, from journalists to
medical technicians, often rely on the extra money they get for
overtime and appreciate there being some limit on the time they are
expected to work.
Congress votes to stop this change in labor policy, though the vote
was particularly close. Despite this action from Congress, the Bush
administration has continued to push for the changes. The President
even issued a veto threat against this massive appropriations bill if
it included any attempt to maintain the overtime protections for these
workers and their families.
As we enter the holiday season, it's sad that there's so little
compassion for Americans struggling to find jobs and make ends meet.
Clearly, the battle for America's working families is not over.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last summer this House in an overwhelming
bipartisan fashion adopted H.R. 1950, the foreign relations
authorization bill which, among other provisions, authorized the
establishment of the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) and the
creation of a Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC).
Today, this House will consider the conference report for the Foreign
Operations Appropriations bill as a part of the Omnibus Appropriations
bill that we are considering. In it will be authorizing language for
the MCA and the MCC which largely reflects many of the priorities and
structures incorporated in the MCA bill that Democrats and Republicans
so painstakingly crafted in the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight one specific aspect in the
creation of a Millennium
[[Page 32089]]
Challenge Corporation. I believe that the MCC will face a variety of
management issues as it begins to administer the MCA. It is critical
that the corporation have access to the best advice available to help
frame its initial organizational structure and guide its subsequent
operations, particularly in developing and fine-tuning policies,
procedures and processes.
I strongly encourage the chief executive officer or the interim CEO
of the corporation to seek advice from organizations with managerial
expertise--such as the National Academy of Public Administration
(NAPA)--in designing and launching the Millennium Challenge
Corporation. The report, which accompanied the MCC legislation reported
from the Committee on International Relations made such recommendation,
and I believe that it is important that we take note of this counsel
since we are passing this legislation in a somewhat different from
today.
Mr. Speaker, I also would like to make a brief comment on section 534
of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004 as it
relates to assistance to Lebanon.
Mr. Speaker, last year, this House adopted the conference report to
H.R. 1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2003, which
became Public Law 107-228, included section 1224, a provision
restricting foreign assistance to Lebanon until it fully took control
of its borders. This provision, which derives from an amendment I
offered to the bill and which prevailed on the House floor, reads as
follows:
SEC. 1224. ASSISTANCE TO LEBANON.
(a) Prohibition--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, $10,000,000 of the amounts made available for fiscal
year 2003 or any subsequent fiscal year that are allocated
for assistance to Lebanon under chapter 4 of part II of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.;
relating to the economic support fund) may not be obligated
unless and until the President certifies to the appropriate
congressional committees that--
(1) the armed forces of Lebanon have been deployed to the
internationally recognized border between Lebanon and Israel;
and
(2) the Government of Lebanon is effectively asserting its
authority in the area in which such armed forces have been
deployed.
(b) Requirement Relating to Funds Withheld--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, any funds withheld pursuant to
subsection (a) may not be programmed in order to be used for
a purpose other than for assistance to Lebanon until the last
month of the fiscal year in which the authority to obligate
such funds lapses.
Section 534 of the FY2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act,
which is contained in this conference report, provides a special
authority to provide assistance to Lebanon ``notwithstanding any other
provision of law.'' I note that in trying to look at congressional
intent to determine how to interpret this ``battle of the
notwithstandings,'' I note that identical language to section 534 was
contained in past foreign operations appropriations acts prior to the
enactment of section 1224 of the Foreign Relations Authorizations Act
of 2003. Section 534 and its predecessors were originally clearly
designed to deal with issues other than the restriction in section
1224. Moreover, there is no legislative history that would suggest that
section 534 was meant to override section 1224. Finally, I understand
that in a similar situation last year, after careful consideration, the
administration decided not to use identical language in the FY 2003
Foreign operations Act to override section 1224, even though that act
was enacted after the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2003.
On this basis, and particularly in view of the soon to be enacted
Syria Accountability Act, which addresses the reasons that Lebanon is
unable to deploy its troops to the border, I believe that congressional
intent is clear that section 534 of the FY2004 Foreign Operations Act
cannot be used to override section 1224 of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act of 2003.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this
conference report. I can support neither the process by which it was
assembled nor the misshapen result of that process.
Once again the House is being asked to vote on a massive omnibus
measure that rolls together the thousands of specific accounts that
properly should be included in no fewer than seven separate regular
appropriations bills. This is exactly what happened last year, and it
is just as objectionable now as it was then.
I do not blame our appropriations committee for this. I have the
greatest respect for both its Chairman, the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Young, and its ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey.
They and their colleagues did their work, and the House passed all of
the regular appropriations bills, in a timely fashion.
Unfortunately, however, the Senate did not follow suit--and the
leadership of both chambers insisted on taking control of the process
in order to accommodate the desires of the Bush Administration. As a
result, the bill before us today not only has provisions not considered
by either chamber, it also omits some things that were approved by both
bodies. And while it does provide essential funding for many purposes,
in several important respects it falls far short of what is needed.
For example, one of my biggest concerns is how this conference report
deals with important scientific facilities of two agencies--the
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)--in Colorado.
I voted against the commerce department funding bill when the House
considered it earlier this year because it included severe reductions
in funding for these facilities. I could not support such cuts, not
just because these facilities employ so many Coloradans, but also
because the work done there is so important for our country.
Still, even though that part of the House bill was seriously
inadequate, I hoped that the Senate would not make the same mistake and
that the conference report would more appropriately recognize the needs
of these facilities--but, as I have reviewed the conference report,
that hope has faded.
noaa laboratory funding
The conference report isn't as clear as it could be. For instance, it
hasn't been possible to determine whether or not the report includes
$4.5 million to pay rent for NOAA's Boulder labs. In fact, even NOAA's
budget office isn't sure whether or not that money was included.
Similarly, it isn't readily apparent how the research funding breaks
down and at what levels the Colorado labs are funded--apparently
program accounts have been padded with an ``administrative charge,''
though we don't know the amount, there are across-the-board rescissions
that also affect program accounts, and there are huge numbers of
earmarks in the bill that take from program funds. Furthermore, it
isn't yet clear whether or not jobs will be lost at NOAA.
One thing that is possible to discern--through inference--is that
NOAA's Space Environment Center (SEC) is funded at $5.3 million. This
is barely two-thirds of the base funds needed by SEC, which suffered
similar shortfalls last year, and 40 percent less than the President's
$8.3 million FY04 request.
This is more than disappointing--in my opinion, it is irresponsible.
Let me briefly explain what leads me to that conclusion.
In October, the Science Committee's Environment, Technology, and
Standards Subcommittee held a hearing to fully examine the issue of
space weather and who should be responsible for its forecasting. We
heard testimony from representatives of NOAA, the Air Force, and NASA,
along with officials from the electric power, satellite, and airline
industries, which are the predominant users of the SEC's forecasts.
From that hearing, it was clear that:
The services that NOAA's SEC provides are relied upon heavily by
government and many critical private sector industries;
The SEC functions cannot be easily transferred to another agency
without huge expenditures and temporary to intermediate loss of
forecasting services; and
Even at the House approved funding level of $5.3 million, the SEC
would have to significantly reduce current services at a time when our
industries are more vulnerable to space weather.
With our country increasingly vulnerable to these solar events, it is
short-sighted and penny-pinching to reduce the services provided by the
SEC.
national institute for standards and technology (nist)
The numbers for NIST are no more satisfactory. The overall Scientific
and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account is funded at a lower
level than both the House and Senate bills, and this lower level also
includes $15.5 million in earmarks. The lab account thus will provide
only minimal funding to cover mandatory cost-of-living increases, at
the same time new responsibilities are being assigned to NIST.
With approximately 55 percent of NIST's STRS budget devoted to
personnel compensation and benefits, these cuts in the lab account will
lead to more job losses at NISt, only continuing the steady decrease in
the number of NIST staff in the laboratories since 1994.
Funding for direly needed construction at Boulder's NIST laboratories
is again less than is needed. The NIST Boulder laboratories have
contributed to great scientific advances through its key facilities,
but these facilities are now over fifty years old, and if they are to
continue to make important contributions, they need help.
[[Page 32090]]
Of the millions of dollars of work that was shown to be necessary in
NIST's 1998 Facilities Improvement Plan, only about $11 million has
been appropriated over the years--for the design of an electrical
system upgrade at the Boulder facilities and for the first phase of
construction of a new central utility plant. The central utility plan
still needs $22.6 million, and the electrical services improvements
need $5.5 million, yet the conference report includes $23.5 million in
earmarks in the NIST construction account. Only about $20 million of
about $65 million is left in the report for construction, and it's
unclear how that total will be divided between NIST's Gaithersburg and
Boulder labs.
NOAA and NIST are not the only Commerce Department accounts that are
shortchanged by the conference report--and the damage goes beyond
federal agencies to hurt the private sector too.
Manufacturing Extension Program
The conference report cuts by more than two-thirds the Manufacturing
Extension Program, which assists thousands of small and medium-sized
manufacturers across this country. This cut effectively guts the
program, which was the Bush Administration's intent. With manufacturing
jobs still being lost every month and high-tech companies struggling,
now is not the time to turn our back on the manufacturing community and
our small high-tech entrepreneurs.
It is one thing to make government more lean; it is another thing to
cut programs and jobs year in and year out at facilities all over the
country--not because there is fat to cut at these facilities, but
because the Subcommittee allocation simply doesn't provide enough money
to go around. This conference report continues the pattern of bleeding
NIST and NOAA dry--agencies that do so much to support our nation's
economy and the public's well-being.
Of course, the conference report does include funding for programs to
assist veterans, housing programs, and many other worthwhile purposes,
including necessary investments in transportation infrastructure--
things that I definitely support.
Some of the transportation items are of special importance for
Colorado. These include: $8 million for the Boardway Bridge/I-25
interchange complex; $4 million for work on the Santa Fe/C-470
corridor; $3 million for the McCaslin Boulevard/U.S. 36 interchange; $3
million for repairs to the Red Cliff/Arch bridge; $2.5 million for
implementation of the incident management plan for Interstate 70; $2.5
million for the Colorado I-225 and Colfax Avenue interchange; $800,000
for the U.S. 36, Wadsworth, and State Highway 128 interchange; $800,000
for the I-70 and State Highway 58 interchange; $500,000 for the
Wadsworth Blvd/SH121/Grandview grade separation project; $500,000 for
the East 104th Ave. and U.S. 85 intersection improvements; $500,000 for
the U.S. 6 and State Highway 121 interchange; $450,000 for the U.S. 36,
I-270 interchange; $400,000 for work on State Highway 149; and $200,000
for work on I-76 between Fort Morgan and Brush. In addition, the
conference report includes $14 million for buses and bus facility
projects of the Colorado Transit Coalition, whose request I strongly
supported.
If we had the chance to consider separate final bills for these
purposes, I would be glad to support them. But instead they have been
rolled into this conference report, with all the serious deficiencies I
have mentioned.
And those deficiencies are not the only ones--the conference report
before us has other serious defects as well, such as the fact that it
does nothing to prevent administrative actions that threaten the right
of many workers to receive overtime pay to which they are now entitled,
and the omission of the provision passed by both Chambers to make it
easier for Americans to travel to Cuba.
The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that these many deficiencies make it
impossible for me to vote for this conference report.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad commentary on the
performance of the Republican leadership who control the White House
and both Houses of Congress that they still cannot get the
appropriations work done on time. I voted against several of these
measures as stand-alone bills. Rolling them together and adding special
interest provisions has not made them any better.
Indeed, in several instances this bill represents a repudiation of
the will of the public and express decisions of Congress. Examples
include the fact that a bipartisan majority of Congress had already
voted to prevent the Bush administration regulations that would deny
overtime pay to 8 million employees. This bill strips the ban.
Additionally, this bill abandons an overwhelming bipartisan agreement
of both bodies of Congress to block Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) regulations permitting broadcast networks to expand their reach
and consolidate the industry.
This omnibus appropriations bill spends too much on the wrong things
and shortchanges critical needs such as education, veterans'
healthcare, and state and local law enforcement. It's made all the
worse that this funding is borrowed money that will add to our budget
deficit. I vote ``no.''
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, H.R. 2673,
FY 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
Mr. Speaker, this is a disappointing bill in many ways. Not only is
it inadequately funded, it is not timely.
For the second year in a row, we will fail to provide the Nation's
largest federal health care system, the Veterans Health Administration,
with a timely and adequate budget. After another year of fierce battles
over funding, we are not likely to pass a budget for veterans' health
care until we return in January--after almost a third of the fiscal
year is gone. In the worst case scenario, the veterans' health care
system will subsist on a continuing resolution through the rest of the
fiscal year.
Not only will the budget be late, which wreaks havoc on VA's ability
to plan effectively to meet the demands of its burgeoning workload, it
will be greatly inadequate and, far less than the $1.8 billion
additional funding we promised veterans in the budget last April. What
will this likely mean for veterans who rely upon the VA as their health
care provider?
Increases in waiting time: VA's workload has increased each year
since 1997. Wait times reached a crisis point of hundreds of thousands
of veterans waiting more than six months for care, around the beginning
of the last fiscal year. VA's budget, on the other hand has not kept
pace with the rate of growth in enrollees or medical inflation. VA
began to make progress addressing waiting times for its major clinics
last year, but with another late and insufficient budget it is likely
that waits will be on the rise again.
Possible additional curtailments in enrollment: For the first time
since 1997, last January, the Secretary chose to prohibit new veterans
in Priority 8--some of whom make as little as $25,000 each year--to
enroll in VA for their health care. Fiscal pressure may drive
additional prohibitions.
New fees and additional copayments for veterans: Every year, this
Administration has proposed new entrance fees and increased copayments
for veterans as a means of making its inadequate budgets balance by
deterring veterans' utilization of health services and enhancing its
scarce revenues.
Continued inabilities to recruit scarce clinical personnel: For the
second consecutive year, VA will have missed the prime time in the
academic cycle for recruiting physicians--this is particularly damaging
for recruitment of those in high-demand specialties. VA has held
hundreds of these positions vacant and was relying on a timely and
adequate budget, in addition to legislation, to help with these
vacancies. Nurse and pharmacist shortages also continue to be
problematic.
Inabilities to prepare for returning troops: VA must shore up
programs, such as its renowned post-traumatic stress disorder
treatment, readjustment counseling, prosthetics, and other programs for
special disabilities in order to meet the needs of new veterans
returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
This Congress must now seriously consider the question, ``Is this
really the best we can do for our veterans in a time of war?''
Our answer must be an unqualified, ``no!''
The time has come for us to assure that an adequate and timely budget
is available to our veterans' health care system at the start of each
new fiscal year. The time has come for a rational way of determining
VA's budgetary needs. The time has come for us to support, H.R. 2318,
``Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act of 2003.'' This bill
would automatically fund the veterans' health care system by the number
of enrolled veterans and the anticipated changes in the hospital
inflation rates for each year.
We really can do better by our Nation's veterans.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things both
good and bad in this Omnibus Appropriations bill that we're considering
today. I want to talk specifically about an issue that is extremely
important to me and the people I represent, and one that I've been
working on for years.
Our farmers grow the best produce and raise the best livestock in the
world. And American consumers know this. Studies have shown that
Americans want to buy American commodities, and are even willing to pay
a premium to do so. Yet while a consumer can go into a department store
and know that their shirt is made in this country, they can't go into
the grocery store and have the same certainty
[[Page 32091]]
about the food they are going to serve their families.
U.S. producers need mandatory labeling in order to compete in the
marketplace. Product differentiation is the only way consumers can
exercise their choice between purchasing either domestic beef or beef
produced by foreign competitors. Our nation's farmers and ranchers
produce the best and safest commodities in the world, and our nation's
consumers deserve the chance to determine where their food is born,
raised, and processed.
For these reasons we had country of origin labeling provisions added
to the Farm Bill last Congress. Unfortunately this bill throws another
hurdle in front of our consumers and our farmers, delaying
implementation of this important law.
Country of Origin Labeling is good for Americans farmers and good for
Americans consumers. I am extremely disappointed that the conferees
included these delays on country of origin labeling.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to an
authorization provision contained in the conference report we are
considering today. This provision--inserted in the eleventh hour--would
limit a television broadcaster's potential national audience reach to
39 percent. Not only is this bad public policy, but this provision is
more susceptible to a First Amendment challenge than the FCC
restriction it replaces. The DC Circuit rule in its 2002 Fox Television
decision that the FCC failed to justify its old limitation. The court
made it clear that any broadcast ownership limit is subject to at least
rational-basis scrutiny under the First Amendment. Consequently, the
FCC conducted an exhaustive study and developed a comprehensive record
which concluded that a 45-percent limit was supportable. This bill
ignores the FCC's findings, as well as the Fox decision, and plucks a
39-percent figure out of thin air. An act of Congress is afforded more
deference than an FCC rulemaking, but it is still subject to First
Amendment scrutiny. With absolutely no record to support this limit,
the provision might very well not withstand judicial review,
potentially leaving us with no restriction whatsoever.
The bill's ownership provision is also rooted in a misunderstanding
of the FCC's new rule, current levels of concentration, and the state
of competition. The FCC's rule measures potential audience reach, not
the number of television stations an entity owns. No broadcaster owns
anywhere near 45 percent of the nation's more than 1,700 full-power,
commercial and non-commercial television stations. In fact CBS and FOX
only own approximately 2 percent--the ruling by the FCC's would allow
them to purchase only a handful more stations--while NBC owns less than
2 percent, and ABC owns less than 1 percent.
Mr. Speaker, the FCC rule limits a broadcaster to owning television
stations whose signals, in the aggregate, serve areas encompassing no
more than 45 percent of the nation's television households. This does
not mean that viewers are watching the broadcaster's stations, only
that the stations' signals are potentially available in the viewers'
areas. No broadcaster's actual audience share is close to 45 percent.
Even CBS, which currently leads the ratings race, only garners about a
14-percent audience share during primetime. And in fact, the vast
majority of the stations carrying CBS programming are independent
affiliates not owned by CBS. In terms of actual viewership, no major
broadcast network owns stations that, in the aggregate, exceed 3.4
percent of the national viewing audience.
To win viewers, each network still must compete with many other
broadcasters, each of which would also theoretically own stations with
signals available to 45 percent of the country. Indeed, there are now
seven major broadcast networks--ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, UPN, WB, and PAX--
as well as foreign-language networks, and many independent
broadcasters. Moreover, 85 percent of television households now
subscribe to cable or satellite service with access to both broadcast
and non-broadcast programming, and entities other than ABC, NBC, CBS or
FOX own approximately 75 percent of the more than 100 channels of
programming received in the average home. Also, keep in mind that the
FCC's local ownership rules still protect localism and diversity by
requiring a minimum number of independent voices in each market. In
this context, the drummed-up fear over the FCC's rule is almost as
ludicrous as would be the fear over the national availability of
Starbucks. Starbucks, it sometimes appears, can be found on every
corner. But Starbucks' seemingly ubiquitous presence does not mean that
consumers can't drink other brands of coffee, or forgo coffee
altogether in favor of tea, juice, soda, or any other beverage.
The FCC granted broadcasters the added flexibility to help preserve
free, over-the-air television, which is losing ground to cable and
satellite service. Since 2002, cable programming has had more primetime
viewers than broadcast programming, and its lead is increasing. This is
particularly significant because broadcasters depend exclusively on
advertising, while cable and satellite providers benefit not only from
rapidly increasing advertising revenue, but subscription revenue, as
well. By preventing broadcasters from making limited and reasonable
acquisitions to improve their economies of scale and operating
efficiencies, we jeopardize the continued viability of free television
broadcasting.
Adding insult to injury, this bill will forbid the FCC from raising
or lowering the 39 percent limit as market conditions continue to
change. In fact, the bill eliminates the FCC's authority to
periodically review even ``rules relating to the 39 percent national
audience reach limitation.'' Eliminating the FCC's discretion over the
national audience-reach limit in this manner is unwise. Congress
created the FCC to avoid having to pass legislation every time
conditions change. By requiring Congress to act whenever fine-tuning
becomes necessary is not only impractical, but it stifles the media
marketplace. Moreover, the rush to judgment is not even necessary here,
as the Third Circuit has prevented the FCC's rule from taking effect
while the court considers it on appeal. Unfortunately Mr. Speaker, the
provision contained in this bill may just be yet another nail in the
coffin of free, over-the-air television, as broadcasters find it
increasingly difficult to grow when faced with the tightened broadcast
ownership cap, and as business models continue to turn toward cable and
satellite service.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, the House is meeting today--69 days after
the beginning of the fiscal year--to debate H.R. 2673, a colossal $328
billion spending bill that includes 7 of the 13 annual appropriations
measures for fiscal year 2004.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Young, and the gentleman from
Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, have worked diligently this year to pass the
annual spending bills one-by-one. However, as it became apparent that
the Congress could not approve these measures individually,
congressional leaders began working to fit them together into one
catch-all bill, like the pieces of a $328 billion puzzle.
Unfortunately, the pieces of this puzzle are not fitting together in a
way that benefits the American people.
I will oppose H.R. 2673 because it breaks promises Congress made
regarding education, it cuts necessary Federal funds for State and
local law enforcement, and fails to extend unemployment benefits for
thousands of Missouri workers who are currently out of work this
holiday season.
Education remains a top priority of the people of Missouri. When I am
back home, I frequently visit schools to meet with students and
teachers. At nearly every location, teachers and administrators inform
me of the difficulties they have when it comes to unfunded Federal
mandates burdening their districts. School districts throughout the
Show-Me State and the Nation are experiencing tough times as the poor
economic conditions and the fiscal choices made by this Congress are
leading to decreased revenue for schools. The professionals who teach
our children and grandchildren deserve to have the resources they need
to get the job done. When the Congress approves legislation authorizing
specific legislative initiatives, we ought to fully fund them.
H.R. 2673 provides $7.8 billion less than Congress promised in the No
Child Left Behind Act and falls 45 percent short in special education
funding promised under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) reauthorization bill that passed earlier this year. It also
freezes Pell Grant awards at a time when State universities are
drastically increasing tuition costs and underfunds by 18 percent the
funds necessary for Impact Aid. H.R. 2673 also establishes a private
school voucher program for students who live in the District of
Columbia, moving Congress a step closer to abandoning our historical
commitment to public schools and establishing the first Federal
subsidies for getting a private school education.
As a former prosecuting attorney and juvenile officer, I have worked
closely with law enforcement officials. Law enforcement personnel play
a critical role in protecting Missouri communities from the scourge of
methamphetamine abuse and other crimes and from the threats posed by
terrorism. Congress has a duty to provide adequate funding for those
who protect us in our hometowns. Under H.R. 2673, State and local law
enforcement is funded at $500 million below last year's levels.
As the holidays approach, millions of Americans are still facing
unemployment. While economic news has indicated that the numbers of
[[Page 32092]]
jobless Americans decreasing, Congress must work to extend unemployment
benefits to those who are not so fortunate. Time and again, we have
worked in a bipartisan manner to assist unemployed Americans. I am
disappointed that the House leadership has failed in this regard,
especially at this time of year.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2673 shortchanges teachers and students, law
enforcement personnel, and unemployed Missourians. Appropriations bills
should speak to our priorities as a nation. I cannot support this
measure that sets our country on a course of misplaced priorities.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Subcommittee
Chairman Istook, Subcommittee Ranking Member Olver, Chairman Young and
Ranking Member Obey for including a provision I have been fighting for
during the last several years to protect workers negatively impacted by
illegal, age discriminatory cash balance pension plans.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, on September 9, 2003, this House
overwhelmingly passed by a vote of 258 to 160 an amendment I offered to
the Fiscal Year 2004 Transportation-Treasury Appropriations bill
barring the Treasury Department from helping to overturn the court
decision in the Southern District of Illinois brought by IBM employees
against IBM's cash balance pension plan.
The Federal court in that case has determined that, as many of us in
this House have argued, IBM's cash balance plan and indeed all cash
balance plans inherently violate current Federal anti-age
discrimination law. By its terms, my amendment barred Treasury from
opposing the IBM employees in that case. One of the intended effects of
my amendment was also to bar Treasury from finalizing the proposed
regulations on cash balance plans--regulations that were improper
because they are contrary to the requirements of Federal age
discrimination statutes.
On October 23, 2003, the Senate passed a similar amendment by Senator
Harkin barring Treasury from finalizing these illegal regulations.
These two amendments served as the foundation for the final legislative
language which requires the Secretary to submit to the Congress
proposed legislation to remedy the harm that these cash balance plans
do to older workers. This legislative language also bars the Treasury
Department from finalizing its illegal regulations on cash balance
pension plans.
Now, I understand that report language has been added that attempts
to rewrite the legislative history of this provision by stating that
the intent of this legislative language is not to call into question
the validity of cash balance plans.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the intent of this provision.
There is no doubt. This legislative provision is included in the final
bill before the House because Members of this body and the other body
have grave doubts about the legality of cash balance pension plans.
While this report language in no way dilutes the effect of the
legislative ban on Treasury finalizing its cash balance regulations, it
is a cynical attempt to hoodwink the courts considering the validity of
these cash balance plans into believing that Congress has not spoken on
this issue. It was no doubt carefully crafted by lobbyists with the
express intent of using it in a legal brief.
Mr. Speaker, the debate on my amendment and Senator Harkin's are
clear. None of us in this Chamber are fooled by this non-binding report
language and I trust that the esteemed courts of this country will not
be either.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, we are nearing the finish of this session
of the 108th Congress, and I am sure most Members will be heartily glad
to see it end.
Today, we are considering an Omnibus bill making appropriations for
departments and agencies that ought to be funded in seven separate
appropriations bills, which have been held up by various obstacles,
including insufficient allocations and controversial riders--or riders
to stop controversial administration policies.
On the matter that should be in a separate bill for the Departments
of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Federal Judiciary, and several
important related agencies, we began with a bad budget allocation that
has gotten worse and will be further reduced by across-the-board cuts,
both within our division of the Omnibus and across the government.
I must say that our chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf)
is not to blame for the deficiencies in our portion of this bill.
Throughout the process, he has been very fair and has sought to produce
the best possible bill, given the limited resources his leadership gave
him to work with. For that, I thank him very much.
I also cannot thank the staff enough for all their hard work, long
hours, and time away from their families. Mike Ringler, Leslie
Albright, Christine Ryan Kojac, and John Martens for the majority, as
well as Anne Marie Goldsmith and Alan Lang, this year's detailees, have
worked closely with Rob Nabors and David Pomerantz of the Democratic
staff and Lucy Hand, Nadine Berg, and Diaraf Thiouf of my staff and my
Presidential Management Interns Pete Balfe and Erin McKevitt.
However, the allocation is still too small, and I am seriously
concerned about its impact on very important government functions in
law enforcement, the judiciary, foreign affairs, and other areas. I am
alarmed that the amounts we have worked out in conference with the
Senate will be reduced by across-the-board cuts. We fought hard for
adequate funding, for example, for the FBI and other law enforcement,
but even those amounts face devastating cuts.
Among the most worrisome deficiencies are the State and local law
enforcement programs. Most of them are at barely acceptable levels,
before the across-the-board cuts, but the Local Law Enforcement Block
Grant, funded at nearly $400 million last year, falls to $225 million
this year, before the across-the-board cuts. Even relatively small
programs had to be cut, such as the Police Integrity grants, which
falls from nearly $17 million in fiscal year 2003 to $10 million. We
are asking State and local governments to do more to protect our
people, as the resources available to support this work decline.
Another alarming problem is the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
(MEP) program, which this year falls from over $106 million to just
under $40 million, before the across-the-board cuts. This is a severe
blow to a very important program, at a time when manufacturers need
help. I can only hope that in fiscal year 2005 we can get back to a
more appropriate level.
One last agency I would like to mention is the Legal Services
Corporation (LSC) We had tried to stabilize LSC's funding this year,
but across-the-board cuts will undercut that goal. Beyond that, there
is growing concern that limits on the uses of private money donated to
independent LSC grantees are hurting America's low-income families and
imposing unwarranted government restrictions on the private sector. The
administration does not tolerate such interference with the privately
funded religious activities of its faith-based grantees. It--and we--
would not tolerate such interference with privately funded secular
activities also dedicated to helping families in need. I am hopeful
that next year we can address these restrictions on privately donated
funds. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit
for the Record letters I have received on this issue.
I am also alarmed by the process that got us to this point. The
Republican leadership has imposed policies that are not supported by
the majority of the American people, the Congress, or the conferees--in
our subcommittee's division, the dead-of-night ``compromise'' on media
ownership. The gun provisions are also different from what was agreed
to by the conferees.
Mr. Speaker, if we can find $87 billion for a war we didn't have to
fight, we ought to be able to find the resources to support our
domestic law enforcement agencies with the personnel and resources they
need; the commercial, statistical, and environmental activities of our
Commerce Department; our foreign policy establishment; and such crucial
agencies as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
and the Small Business Administration (SBA).
Mr. Speaker, in the end, however most Members vote on the Omnibus
Appropriations bill--and I recognize that many crucial programs would
suffer under a long-term continuing resolution--I must emphasize that
the resource allocation that has yielded Division B of the Omnibus,
which funds the agencies in the jurisdiction of the Commerce, Justice,
State, Judiciary, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, is grossly
inadequate and may prove damaging to the national interest.
November 20, 2003.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and
Judiciary, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jose E. Serrano,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and
Judiciary, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Wolf and Congressman Serrano: We write to
thank for your tremendous leadership on behalf of America's
families by supporting increased funding for the Legal
Services Corporation in the Fiscal Year 2004 Commerce,
Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill introduced in your Subcommittee.
However, we also write to express our regret that for the
past several years this bill
[[Page 32093]]
has included a restriction that severely limits the manner in
which independent civil legal aid programs funded by LSC can
spend their own private, state and local funds.
This ``private money'' restriction annually encumbers more
than $300 million in non-federal money, and harms communities
in two distinct ways. First, the restriction imposes costly
government obstacles to private philanthropy. Second, the
restriction closes the doors of justice to many low-income
individuals and families unable to afford necessary legal
representation in civil matters.
The undersigned groups write to express our support for
amending the LSC appropriation in order to end this
governmental interference with non-federal funding for legal
aid nonprofits. We urge you to continue your tremendous
leadership on behalf of America's families by guiding efforts
to end this unfairness.
In particular, we hope you will support removal of the
private money restriction because the restriction improperly
interferes with the right of private philanthropies and other
non-federal donors--including state and local governments--to
determine the purposes for which their charitable donations
will be used. In addition, the restriction interferes with
the right of non-federal donors to select those local
institutions best equipped to carry out the purposes of their
charitable donations.
By removing the private money restriction, but keeping
intact restrictions that control activities financed with
federal LSC funds, Congress would properly place independent
LSC recipients in the same position as nonprofit grantees of
other federal entities which are permitted to use their non-
federal funds free of unwarranted restrictions. This would
bolster the mission of LSC as a model public-private
partnership dedicated to supporting independent and
accountable local programs that set their own priorities
based on community need.
Furthermore, Congress's removal of the LSC private money
restriction may well encourage increased charitable donations
to the more than 150 independent LSC recipients that serve
the working poor, veterans, the elderly, victims of domestic
violence, family farmers and people with disabilities in
every county and Congressional District in the Nation.
Thank you very much for your support and continued
leadership on behalf of America's families.
Sincerely,
Brennen Center for Justice at NYU School of Law;
International Union, UAW; National Legal Aid and
Defender Association; Center for Law and Social Policy;
National Organization of Legal Services Workers, UAW
Local 2320; National Immigration Law Center; Open
Society Policy Center; Association of the Bar of the
City of New York; Community Service Society of New
York;
National Council of La Raza; Council on Foundations
Independent Sector; National Council of Nonprofit
Associations; National Committee for Responsive
Philanthropy; OMB Watch; Charity Lobbying in the Public
Interest; Alliance for Justice; Nonprofit Coordinating
Committee of New York.
____
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, September 23, 2003.
Hon. Jose Serrano,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State,
Judiciary and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Serrano. We greatly appreciate your
efforts to secure additional funding for the Legal Services
Corporation in the 2004 Commerce, Justice, State, the
Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations bill (CJS). You
know as well as any of us the importance of providing
affordable legal services to our country's most needy.
We write today because, like you, we are increasingly
concerned about an unfair and unnecessary provision in the
CJS Appropriations bill that restricts the use of private and
other non-federal funds by independent legal service
providers funds in part by LSC. The ``private money
restriction'' encumbers more than $300 million annually in
non-federal funds--money that could be used to provide
critical legal assistance to our society's most vulnerable
individuals and families. The private money restriction
burdens independent legal service providers with unwarranted
costs; it impedes private charitable initiatives, and it
undermines our Nation's promise of equal justice for all.
It is our hope that the Committee on Appropriations will
revisit the private money restriction when it considers the
2005 CJS Appropriations bill. We urge you to continue your
leadership on behalf of America's families by guiding efforts
in your Subcommittee to end this unfairness.
Sincerely,
John Conyers Jr., Howard L. Berman, Rick Boucher, Robert
C. Scott, Zoe Lofgren, Maxine Waters, William D.
Delahunt, Tammy Baldwin.
Adam B. Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, Melvin L. Watt, Sheila
Jackson-Lee, Martin T. Meehan, Robert Wexler, Anthony
D. Weiner, Linda T. Sanchez.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the conference report (108-401) for H.R.
2673, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, contains very
important language within the FAA, operations section regarding
improving our existing commercial air fleet's flight data and cockpit
voice recorder standards.
Specifically, this language request that the FAA seriously review the
potential of transferring the U.S. military's deployable flight data
recorder technology into our commercial air fleet.
I am very pleased that this language was included as it reflects the
goals I am seeking to implement within the legislation that I
introduced earlier this year, H.R. 2632, the Safe Aviation Flight
Enhancement (SAFE) Act.
Congress has previously showed interest in the deployable technology
and requested within the FY2001 Transportation Appropriations Bill,
that the FAA issue a report to Congress on the benefits and
advisability of using deployable flight recorders in the commercial
fleet. This report was issued in the December 4, 2001 Future Flight
Data Collection Committee Final Report and detailed the United States
military's successful use of the deployable recorder technology,
concluding that it would be acceptable to incorporate the deployable
recorder technology within the NTSB's 1999 recommendation to improve
flight recorder standards.
The 1999 NTSB recommendations that the FAA's report is referring to
were issued as a result of a history of delay in black box recovery and
lost data due to crash damages in some of our countries most recent and
devastating air accidents.
Following a series of air accidents where critical flight recorder
information was lost, the NTSB issued recommendations A-99-16 through
18, which called on the FAA to require improved recorder capabilities
and the installation of two sets of combination flight data and cockpit
voice recorders in commercial aircraft to ensure the survival and
recovery of at least one set of recorders.
It is important to note that the intention of the Conferee's language
on deployable recorders within the FAA, operations section of the
FY2004 Omnibus appropriations conference report is that the FAA
evaluate the deployable technology within the context of incorporating
the deployable recorder system as one of the two combination recorder
systems recommended in the NTSB's 1999 recommendations.
I am hopeful that the FAA will move swiftly on this, since 4 years
have passed and these recommendations have yet to be addressed.
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 opened the Nation's eyes to the face
that our skies are vulnerable to more than mechanical or human error.
One of our best examples of what can occur when we do not have
immediate access to this information following a crash was demonstrated
in the aftermath of the TWA 800 crash. This accident clearly
illustrated the pressures investigators are under to rule out the
potential of terrorism and quickly identify the safety concerns. At the
outset of TWA 800 crash investigation, there was intense speculation
that a ground-to-air missile was the cause of this disaster. For every
day that went by as we search the ocean floor for the recorders, the
speculation and questions mounted about the potential of terrorism.
Ultimately, it took 7 days and millions of dollars to recover those
fight recorders from the bottom of the ocean and eventually,
investigators and explosive's experts led us to the understanding that
it was an accidental fuel tank explosion, not terrorism that was
responsible for the crash.
Post 9/11, we cannot afford to be faced with a similar situation of
uncertainty. Our national security teams and transportation safety
officials must have immediate access to the flight recorders to
determine the appropriate response.
The deployable technology presents us with ability to ensure
immediate and complete access to the flight recorders today, as our
United States Navy has successfully tested, developed and used the
deployable recorder technology for years on aircraft including the
Navy's F/A-18EF Super Hornet fleet. The deployable technology is
capable of meeting the needs of the commercial industry and is designed
to ``deploy'' from the aircraft during a accident, which allows it to
land outside of the crash impact site, thus avoiding becoming ensnared
within the aircraft wreckage and the direct impact forces and fire
intensity of the crash. The deployable recorder is also designed to
float indefinitely in cases of a water crash.
The use of the deployable recorder in the commercial air fleet would
provide the same benefits that it does for the military and would
[[Page 32094]]
present an obvious way to maximize our ability to ensure the
survivability and quick recoverability of flight recorders.
Again, I am pleased that Congress addressed this very important issue
to encourage the FAA to move expeditiously in formulating regulations
to address the need for improved flight recorders and that Congress
would like the deployable technology to be considered within the
context of the dual-combination recorder recommendation issued by the
NTSB in 1999.
Such improvements will help us ensure that our safety and security
officials will have immediate and complete access to the recorders
following an aviation crash and make great strides in protecting the
American people.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on July 22, 2003, I introduced an
amendment to provide congressional support for the current U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office (USPTO) policy and practice against approving
patent claims directed to human organisms, including human embryos and
human fetuses. The House of Representatives approved the amendment
without objection on July 22, 2003, as section 801 of the Fiscal Year
2004 Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations Bill. The amendment, now
included in the Omnibus appropriations bill as section 634 of H.R.
2673, reads as follows: ``None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available under this Act may be sued to issue patents on claims
directed to or encompassing a human organism.''
The current Patent Office policy is that ``non-human organisms,
including animals'' are patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101,
but that human organisms, including human embryos and human fetuses,
are not patentable. Therefore, any claim directed to a living organism
must include the qualification ``non-human'' to avoid rejection. This
amendment provides unequivocal congressional support for this current
practice of the U.S. patent office.
House and Senate appropriators agreed on report language in the
manager's statement on section 634. The statement reads: ``The
conferees have included a provision prohibiting funds to process
patents of human organisms. The conferees concur with the intent of
this provision as expressed in the colloquy between the provision's
sponsor in the House and the ranking minority member of the House
Committee on Appropriations as occurred on July 22, 2003, with respect
to any existing patents on stem cells.''
The manager's statement refers to my discussion with Chairman David
Obey, when I explained that the amendment ``only affects patenting
human organisms, human embryos, human fetuses or human beings.'' In
response to Chairman Obey's inquiry, I pointed out that there are
existing patents on stem cells, and that this amendment would not
affect such patents.
Here I wish to elaborate further on the exact scope of this
amendment. The amendment applies to patents on claims directed to or
encompassing a human organism at any stage of development, including a
human embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent, or adult, regardless of
whether the organism was produced by technological methods (including,
but not limited to, in vitro fertilization, somatic cell nuclear
transfer, or parthenogenesis). This amendment applies to patents on
human organisms regardless of where the organism is located, including,
but not limited to, a laboratory or a human, animal, or artificial
uterus.
Some have questioned whether the term ``organism'' could include
``stem cells''. The answer is no. While stem cells can be found in
human organisms (at every stage of development), they are not
themselves human organisms. This was considered the ``key question'' by
Senator Harkin at a December 2, 1998 hearing before the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and
Education regarding embryonic stem cell research. Dr. Harold Varmus,
then director of the NIH testified ``that pulripotent stem cells are
not organisms and are not embryos . . .'' Senator Harkin noted: ``I
asked all of the scientists who were here before the question of
whether or not these stem cells are organisms. And I believe the record
will show they all said no, it is not an organism.'' Dr. Thomas Okarma
of the Geron Corporation stated: ``My view is that these cells are
clearly not organisms . . . in fact as we have said, are not the
cellular equivalent of an embryo.'' Dr. Arthur Caplan agreed with this
distinction, saying that a stem cell is ``absolutely not an organism.''
There was a unanimous consensus on this point at the 1998 hearing,
among witnesses who disagreed on many other moral and policy issues
related to stem cell research.
The term ``human organism'' includes an organism of the human species
that incorporates one or more genes taken from a non-human organism. It
includes a human-animal hybrid organism (such as a human-animal hybrid
organism formed by fertilizing a non-human egg with human sperm or a
human egg with non-human sperm, or by combining a comparable number of
cells taken respectively from human and non-human embryos). However, it
does not include a non-human organism incorporating one or more genes
taken from a human organism (such as a transgenic plant or animal). In
this respect, as well, my amendment simply provides congressional
support for the Patent Office's current policy and practice.
This amendment should not be construed to affect claims directed to
or encompassing subject matter other than human organisms, including
but not limited to claims directed to or encompassing the following:
cells, tissues, organs, or other bodily components that are not
themselves human organisms (including, but not limited to, stem cells,
stem cell lines, genes, and living or synthetic organs); hormones,
proteins or other substances produced by human organisms; methods for
creating, modifying, or treating human organisms, including but not
limited to methods for creating human embryos through in vitro
fertilization, somatic cell nuclear transfer, or parthenogensis; drugs
or devices (including prosthetic devices) which may be used in or on
human organisms.
Jamed Rogan, undersecretary of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
has stated in a November 20, 2003, letter to Senate appropriators:
``The USPTO understands the Weldon Amendment to provide unequivocal
congressional backing for the long-standing USPTO policy of refusing to
grant any patent containing a claim that encompasses any member of the
species Homo sapiens at any stage of development . . . including a
human embryo or human fetus . . . The USPTO's policy of rejecting
patent application claims that encompass human lifeforms, which the
Weldon Amendment elevates to an unequivocal congressional prohibition,,
applies regardless of the manner and mechanism used to bring a human
organism into existence (e.g., somatic cell nuclear transfer, in vitro
fertilization, parthenogenesis).'' Undersecretary Rogan concludes:
``Given that the scope of Representative Weldon's amendment . . . is
full consistent with our policy, we support its enactment.''
The advance of biotechnology provides enormous potential for
developing innovative science and therapies for a host of medical
needs. However, it is inappropriate to turn nascent individuals of the
human species into profitable commodities to be owned, licensed,
marketed and sold.
Congressional action is needed not to change the Patent Office's
current policy and practice, but precisely to uphold it against any
threat of legal challenge. A previous Patent Office policy against
patenting living organisms in general was invalidated by the U.S.
Supreme Court in 1980, on the grounds that the policy has no explicit
support from Congress. In an age when the irresponsible use of
biotechnology threatens to make humans themselves into items of
property, of manufacture and commerce, Congress cannot let this happen
again in the case of human organisms.
I urge my colleagues to support this Omnibus in defense of this
important provision against human patenting.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the privatization
provisions of this bill, provisions that govern when federal jobs are
given to private contractors under an obscure Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Circular called A-76.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Bush administration has
declared war on federal employees. Under the guise of reform, it has
stripped hundreds of thousands of federal employees of basic rights,
like the right to appeal unfair treatment and the right to collective
bargaining. It has opposed modest cost-of-living increases for rank and
file employees while at the very same time supporting large cash
bonuses for political employees.
But the Administration's most direct assault on federal employees is
the effort to terminate federal jobs and hire private companies to
perform the same work. The President's ``Competitive Sourcing
Initiative'' is aggressively forcing federal agencies to allow private
contractors to bid for hundreds of thousands of jobs currently being
performed by federal employees. Earlier this year, the Administration
rewrote the rules governing competitions between public employees and
private sector contractors.
The House is on record as rejecting those new rules because those
rules so blatantly favored contractors over federal employees. And on a
bipartisan basis, appropriations conferees last month agreed to certain
basic protections
[[Page 32095]]
for all federal employees. Unfortunately, after the conference was
closed on the Transportation Treasury Appropriations bill, OMB
registered last minute objections, and the Republican leadership
rewrote the bill to eliminate or truncate those basic protections for
federal workers.
For example, the bill, before us no longer includes language giving
federal employees the right to contest agency competitive sourcing
decisions, and it no longer even requires that an agency achieve
significant cost savings on all privatizations. Mr. Speaker, it is time
to end the assault on federal workers. Vote no on this bill. We can do
better.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I
have concerns with numerous provisions in this omnibus bill. Among them
are three that may actually contribute to violent crime in our
communities and aid terrorists. These NRA-backed provisions were added
in the dead of night to the benefit of gun manufacturers and criminals
who obtain guns illegally.
The first weakens the highly successful Brady Bill by requiring
federal authorities to destroy all firearm purchase records within 24
hours instead of 90 days as under current law. This provision weakens
law enforcement's ability to stop illegal gun purchases and rejects a
July 2002 GAO study which concluded that a ``next-day destruction
policy . . . would have public safety implications and could lessen the
efficacy of current operations.'' Nearly one million illegal gun
purchases have been stopped since the Brady law went into effect. Now
is not the time to tie the hands of law enforcement officials who
tirelessly work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Another provision would protect ``bad apple'' gun dealers. For
example, the snipers who terrorized Maryland, Virginia, and Washington,
D.C. obtained the assault rifle used in their sniper attacks from a
Tacoma, Washington gun store called Bull's Eye Shooter Supply. After
the sniper suspects were apprehended and the gun was recovered and
traced, Bull's Eye claimed to have no record of selling the gun, and
did not even know it was missing until the shooting spree was over. The
snipers' gun was just one of more than 238 firearms ``missing'' from
Bull's Eye's inventory during the previous three years.
This provision would essentially block ATF from requiring gun dealers
like Bull's Eye to take regular inventories of their firearms. In
August 2000, ATF issued a proposed rule requiring licensed dealers to
do annual physical inventories. The rulemaking proceeding is still
pending. If anything, Congress should require ATF to issue this rule.
Instead, this legislation would block ATF from ever issuing this
requirement as a final rule. This would severely hamstring ATF's
ability to address what it has stated is a serious problem.
And lastly, language was included to prevent public scrutiny of
corrupt gun dealers.
ATF has indicated analysis of crime gun traces and multiple sale
reports has yielded a series of gun ``trafficking indicators'' that can
be linked to particular firearms dealers.
ATF has always made this information available to the public through
Freedom of Information Act (``FOIA'') requests, which allow for vital
public oversight of the effectiveness of the Agency. Under the
provision in the omnibus appropriations bill, ATF will not be allowed
to release trace or multiple sale data, thereby gutting the purposes of
FOIA, and effectively shielding the most corrupt firearms dealers from
public scrutiny.
The NRA lobbied hard for these favors which do nothing to keep
American families safe, but rather advance another well-connected
special interest. Worse, they could actually contribute to more illegal
gun purchases, meaning more criminals with guns.
We should be working to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong
hands. Instead, this Administration and Congressional leadership
continues to roll back commonsense gun safety measures that save lives.
We can, and must, do better.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the House will consider the
conference report on H.R. 2673, the Agriculture Appropriations bill for
FY 2004. This has become the omnibus spending bill for enacting the
remaining seven appropriations bills--Agriculture, VA-HUD, Labor-HHS,
District of Columbia, Commerce-Justice-State, Foreign Operations, and
Treasury-Transportation. The bill would fund, for the fiscal year that
began two months ago, 11 of the 15 Cabinet departments, several
independent government agencies, and the District of Columbia
government--and makes up $328 billion of the total discretionary budget
for the year. Currently, these departments are operating under a
continuing resolution funding the government through January 31, 2004.
This measure is not only an irresponsible way to govern, but more
importantly it represents misplaced priorities. This session of
Congress has proven again that Republican policies are making it harder
for Americans to succeed. Democrats want to put American families
first. We will continue to fight to create jobs, make health care more
affordable, honor our veterans, and return America to prosperity. The
following highlights some of the deficiencies of the omnibus bill.
This measure excludes a provision to block Bush Administration
regulations that would deny overtime pay to 8 million employees. This
provision to protect the pay of middle-income Americans was agreed upon
by a majority of both bodies, and yet was dropped in the backroom deals
at the 11th hour at the insistence of the Bush Administration. At a
time when people are working harder and longer just to make ends meet,
this measure permits a cut in the pay of millions of workers, including
firemen and policemen, licensed practical nurses, and air traffic
controllers.
Even though education is a top priority of the American people, this
measure provides $39 million less for education than the inadequate
House bill, after subtracting the $318 million in earmarked projects
added in conference. This measure fails to meet the promised education
investment promised in the No Child Left Behind Act--providing $7.8
billion less than was promised. Like the House-passed bill, this
measure shortchanges help with the basics of math and reading by $6.2
billion compared to that promised in No Child Left Behind--leaving more
than 2 million children behind. It also falls $751 million short for
after-school centers promised in the No Child Left Behind Act. The
additional funds would have provided expanded learning opportunities
for 1 million children. The conference report bill falls $352 million
short of the $3.3 billion promised (in real terms) to states for
improving teacher quality; as a result, approximately 78,000 fewer
teachers will receive high quality, federally-supported professional
development. This conference report falls 45 percent short in special
education funding promised under the IDEA--Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act--reauthorization bill passed earlier this
year.
Not only does it shortchange education reform, it contains private
school vouchers which harm public schools. The measure includes $14
million for a new private school voucher program for the District of
Columbia. Private school vouchers drain much-needed resources away from
public education where all children can benefit, and reduces
accountability.
Mr. Speaker, I am gratified by what is in the bill regarding
veterans' health care, paid for by cutting funds to process veterans'
benefits and compensation claims. The conference agreement provides
$1.1 billion more than the President requested veterans' health care,
but still fails to keep the promise made by Republicans in the budget
resolution--taking into account the across-the-board cut and not
counting rescinded funds. After Republicans voted to cut veterans'
health care by $14 billion, they agreed to provide an additional $1.8
billion in the budget resolution because of Democratic pressure.
However, this conference agreement subjects all veterans' programs to
a 0.59 percent across-the-board cut--so some of the increase in
veterans' health care is in effect paid for through cuts to other
veterans' programs. The most dramatic is the cut in funds needed to
speed up processing of applications for veteran benefits and
compensation. Currently, there are 448,000 claims pending, with the
average time to provides a claim at 157 days. The across-the-board cut
will reduce funding for the claims administration by $6 million--
resulting in an estimated loss of 100 employees needed for veterans
claims processing and benefits administration. Unfortunantly, State and
Local Law Enforcement was also cut. State and local law enforcement is
funded at $500 million below the FY 2003 level, even though state and
local law enforcement are on the frontline in keeping our communities
safe--dealing with crime and homeland security.
The Omnibus funds the Manufacturing Extension Partnership at just $39
million, a sharp decrease from the FY 2003 level of $106 million. The
highly successful Manufacturing Extension Partnership offers small U.S.
manufacturers a range of services from plant modernization to employee
training. It particularly helps manufacturers adopt advanced
manufacturing technologies--based on the latest R&D. These
modernization efforts help our beleaguered small and mid-sized American
manufacturers stay competitive.
The conference agreement abandons the bipartisan agreement of both
bodies of Congress to block FCC regulations permitting broadcast
networks to expand. In June, the FCC relazed several media ownership
rules and raised the television station cap, saying
[[Page 32096]]
broadcast networks can buy more stations and expand their reach to 45
percent of the national audience, up from 35 percent. Both the House
and the Senate passed provisions to keep the cap at 35 percent, but the
conference agreement specifies that the TV station cap will be raised
to 39 percent of the national audience--allowing several networks to
expand their reach and consolidate the industry. However, Mr. Chairman,
even though I will not be supporting this bill, there are some very
good things in this bill. I am glad for the AIDS funding which:
Provides a total of $1.646 billion global assistance to combat HIV/
AIDs, tuberculosis and malaria, most of which is within the Child
Survival and Health Programs Fund. $754 million in global assistance is
anticipated in the Labor-HHS appropriations, bringing total funding to
$2.4 billion;
International HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria programs are funded at $754
million are increased $50 million over the request. I like the fact the
bill has the Ryan White AIDS program which is increased by $64 million
over FY03 with total funding of $2 billion; and
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) is funded at the
president's request of $297 million, $7 million above last year.
section 8 housing
Disabled Housing--Section 811--is funded at the requested level of
$250 million.
Includes $12.1 billion for Section 8 voucher renewals, $810 million
more than FY03 and $205 million more than the request. This will fully
fund all authorized vouchers based on a 96% lease up rate and the most
current cost estimates.
hope vi money
Appropriates $150,000,000 for the revitalization of severely
distressed public housing program (HOPE VI), instead of $195,115,000 as
proposed by the Senate and $50,000,000 as proposed by the House.
public housing money
Modernization for public housing is funded $2.7 billion, the same as
last year's level and $71 million above the request.
Public Housing Operating Subsidies are funded at $3.6 billion, $26
million above the request and $25 million above FY03.
community development block grants
The Community Services Block Grant Act is funded at $735,686,000
including for making payments for financing construction and
rehabilitation and loans or investments in private business enterprises
owned by community development corporations.
ethiopia
Under the ``Child Survival and Health Programs Fund'', $34,000,000
shall be made available for family planning, maternal and reproductive
health activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia,
Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Haiti, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Russia, Albania,
Romania, and Kazakhstan.
NASA
NASA is funded at the President's request of $15.5 billion, $80
million over last year.
veterans' health
Provides total resources of $28.6B for the Veterans Health
Administration: $17.9 billion plus $1.6 billion from the collections
fund for Medical Services; $5 billion for Medical Administration; $4
billion for Medical Facilities and $408 million for Medical Research--a
total of $1.57 over the budget request.
Fully funds the President's request for Veterans State Extended Care
Facilities bringing total funding to $102 million, $3 million above
last year's level.
The conference agreement includes $57,000,000 from local funds for
making refunds associated with disallowed Medicaid funding as proposed
by both the House and Senate.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Democrats were
locked out of the appropriations process and that the Democrats were
not able to participate, which is one of the many reasons why I cannot
support this legislation.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the conferees
direction regarding NASA at this critical time. In the wake of the
Columbia tragedy, NASA's practice of over-promising, over-marketing,
and under-estimating the costs for its programs cannot be tolerated any
longer.
I applaud Chairman Walsh for his commitment in getting NASA to
rethink its priorities relating to human space flight. We must now
ensure that the return to flight of the Space Shuttle is not a return
to business as usual. I support the Science Committee Chairman's
position that we cannot perpetuate the Space Shuttle and Space Station
indefinitely, and that any new program has to come with an affordable
price tag. I do believe, however, that we need a bold vision for NASA.
I think we should return to the Moon, but this time to stay.
When the notion of an Orbital Space Plane was introduced, I welcomed
it as a significant sea change in NASA's approach to space
transportation development. One year later, however, NASA is still
struggling with what it has touted as a simple design. According to
NASA, OSP doesn't replace the Shuttle, and it's not clear how OSP night
support any future mission. At an estimated cost of $18 billion over
the next decade, NASA should not go forward until there is consensus
between the Administration and the Hill concerning the direction of the
U.S. space program. For too long, we endured costly development
programs that failed to deliver results. Unfortunately, OSP is poised
to head down the same path. We have been down this road before.
Although the conference report calls for the NASA Administrator to
report to Congress on a ISS re-supply plan by June 2004, the conferees
do not go far enough in ensuring that Alternative Access to Station
Program (AAS) remains viable. Current funding for this program runs out
in January 2004, and the work of the private sector involved with this
program could be potentially lost. It has been my belief that this
program has the potential to address the national need for a viable,
near-term cargo transfer capability as an alternative to the Space
Shuttle. With the grounding of the Shuttle fleet, America is now at a
vital crossroad concerning its ability to access space. NASA seems to
be limiting its options in this regard to foreign launch capabilities.
And to think several years ago we were concerned with the Russians in
the Space Station Program's critical path. We must look to domestic,
commercial solutions to address the critical need to re-supply the
Space Station.
Given my concerns, however, the NASA portion of this appropriations
package is a good first step to help NASA prepare for the next chapter
in the American space experience.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the fiscal year 2004
conference agreement on Foreign Operations. The agreement as contained
in Division D of this omnibus package represents a bipartisan
agreement, and most importantly, provides critical funding for a host
of essential programs that are vital to our national security.
I want to thank Chairman Kolbe, and Senators McConnell and Leahy, for
working with me to finalize this agreement. The Foreign Operations
portion of this bill represents a fair agreement between the two Houses
that stays within our overall allocation of $17.235 billion.
The agreement provides a total of $1.64 billion for HIV/AIDS, an
increase over the House level of more than $200 million. We have
provided $400 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and
Malaria, as well as increased funding for bilateral programs. With the
$150 million for the Fund in the Labor HHS bill, the total U.S.
contribution to the Global Fund for 2004 will be $550 million.
Funds have been provided to the new Global AIDS coordinator, and we
have clarified the authorities under which AIDS funds are provided in
order to ensure that programs continue with a balanced approach to HIV/
AIDS prevention, awareness and treatment.
It is my understanding that the Labor HHS bill provides $443 million
in direct funding for AIDS programs, and an additional unspecified
amount in the National Institutes of Health budget for AIDS research. I
want to clarify that, while we will hear that total AIDS funding in
2004 will be $2.4 billion, my calculations put us at just over $2.3
billion.
The agreement increases Child Survival funding in every category from
amounts provided last year, and funds Basic Education at $326 million.
I want to thank Chairman Kolbe for joining with me to acknowledge the
importance of Basic Education. Unfortunately our priorities had shifted
away from Basic Education in the years leading up to September 11th.
This level of funding will continue the reversal of that unfortunate
trend by increasing funding by 30% over last year.
The agreement contains $650 million for the Millennium Challenge
Corporation and the attendant authorization. While this corporation
will be independent, we have built in requirements for the involvement
of the State Department and USAID for coordination and decision-making.
I have been opposed to the concept of creating a new independent
agency, and I remain concerned that little to no attention has been
paid to how these funds will be spent, monitored or audited.
The authorization provisions provide Congress with ample opportunity
to consult with the Chairman of the Corporation as the effort moves
forward.
An additional $350 million for the Millennium Challenge Corporation
was added to this bill at the request of the President, and will be
paid for with a combination of across-the-
[[Page 32097]]
board cuts and rescission of unexpended balances from FY 2003 and prior
supplementals.
I would like to note that there is no way that these additional
funds--bringing the total provided for the MCC to $1 billion--can be
spent wisely next year.
In putting together our recommendations for this bill, my top
priorities were the core development and health accounts. The President
has pledged that all funding for the Millennium Challenge Initiative
would be in the form of increases above current foreign aid spending.
Given that our 302(b) allocation was $1.7 billion below the President's
request, we had to make some critical choices. The bottom line is that
we could only afford $650 million for the Millennium Challenge
Corporation in our bill.
Apparently, if a program is a ``Presidential Initiative,'' it is not
subject to budget targets, or a rational approach to how much can
actually be spent wisely in a given year. The addition of the extra
$350 million clearly violates the President's pledge that all MCC
funding be additive.
As we go forward, I intend to ensure that the President's pledge is
kept. Outstanding White House commitments to increase other areas of
foreign aid spending and currently unknown requirements for Iraq and
Afghanistan will take foreign aid spending well over $20 billion next
year. We cannot allow funding for this yet-to-be-formed MCC to take
precedence over vital ongoing assistance programs.
The conference agreement contains funding for a host of different
countries and programs, which I fully support. I want to thank the
Chairman for including the requirement that organizations administering
refugee programs adhere to a ``sexual code of conduct.'' Together with
funds provided in the recent supplemental, we have made a total of $65
million available specifically for programs to meet the special needs
of Afghan women. In addition $11 million is made available for women's
leadership training.
With respect to the issues surrounding family planning and
reproductive health, I regret that the bill does not reverse the
current restrictive Bush Administration policies on family planning.
Many of us wanted simply to require that organizations providing
assistance in foreign countries not be subject to laws more restrictive
than the requirements of U.S. law.
Unfortunately, inclusion of this language would have drawn a
Presidential veto. The agreement does provide a total of $466 million
for family planning, which is a substantial increase above last year.
It also provides at least $34 million to the United Nations Population
Fund (UNFPA), based on a Presidential certification. I hope that we can
take the President at his word in terms of his commitment to work with
China. We should work to reverse its objectionable family planning
policies so that funds can flow to UNFPA and so that we do not punish
poor women around the world because of the policies of one country.
The agreement contains full funding for Israel, Egypt and Jordan and
appropriate conditions on Palestinian statehood and direct assistance.
We have also included language urging the United Nations Relief Works
Agency to implement the recommendations of the recent GAO report
regarding terrorism.
The bill restricts military training to Indonesia unless the
President certifies that the Indonesian military is fully cooperating
in the FBI investigations into the killing of American citizens in
Papua.
The bill funds the request for Colombia but requires certification on
compliance with human rights standards and the safety of chemicals used
in aerial spray eradication programs.
As with all conference reports, every element in the bill isn't
perfect. However, I want to again thank Chairman Kolbe for his
friendship and for working with me to accommodate many of my
priorities.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the conferees of the Fiscal
Year 2004 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration
and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for their support of a food
biotechnology education program. I am aware of the difficult challenges
the conferees faced while crafting this bill, and I am pleased that the
conferees included language in the conference report that takes us one
step closer to full implementation of this program.
I would like to specifically thank Chairman Bonilla, Ranking Member
Kaptur, Chairman Goodlatte, and Ranking Member Stenholm for their
cooperation and assistance during this process. I hope that we can
continue to work together to find funding for this much-needed
education program.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
express my opposition to the Omnibus Appropriation Bill on which we
will be voting today. This is an important bill. It funds 11 federal
agencies and appropriates more than $820 billion. And although it
contains many important provisions that I support, I regret to say that
the bad in this bill far outweighs the good. In process, it was
undemocratically constructed, often over-riding the will of the
majority in both houses. In substance, it is laden with individual pork
projects that benefit few, while it under-funds critical and vital
government programs that could benefit many more.
Let's first look at the process. A prohibition against the FCC change
in the rules for media ownership was significally weakened in this
Omnibus bill and the Labor Department's new overtime regulation was
dropped entirely, despite the fact that both were agreed to by solid
majorities in both Houses of Congress.
But these are not the only reasons I have decided to vote against
this bill. I oppose this bill both because of the priorities it
represents as well as for those it fails to represent.
Remember ``No Child Left Behind'', the President's education bill
that passed with such fanfare earlier this year? This Omnibus bill
provides a total of $24.5 billion for this program--$7.8 billion below
the amount the Republicans promised for Fiscal Year 2004.
In addition to this broken promise, the Majority has left our
veterans behind, too. The veterans medical programs portion of the bill
provides $230 million less than Republicans promised in their own
budget resolution and $1.7 billion below the amount proposed by
veterans' organizations.
This bill does serious damage to several veteran programs. The most
dramatic is the cut in funds needed to speed up the processing of
applications for these benefits. At the present time, the Department is
taking, on average, 157 days to process a claim. The Administration
request, which the Committee funded, would have added no additional
staff for processing claims. Veterans are not spared the 0.59 percent
across the board cut. The cut will reduce funding for the
administration of claims by $4 million, which will result in the
estimated loss of 100 employees needed for claims processing.
Although the Department of Homeland Security is not funded in this
legislation, Homeland Security will be significally affected by two
provisions in this bill. This legislation forces the rescission of $1.8
billion in prior year supplemental appropriations, including a
significant portion of funds for the Department of Homeland Security.
Homeland Security will feel the sting of the 0.59 percent across-the-
board cut and will have a dramatic impact on certain areas in
particular. The planned increase of 570 Customs and Immigration agents
for improving border protection will have to be cut by nearly two-
thirds.
It is true that passing appropriations bills is about making choices,
about identifying priorities. I happen to believe that funding
Veterans' Services and Homeland Security to protect our borders with
additional Customs and Border personnel is a critical piece to this
Nation's future.
The Omnibus fails to provide for our children's education. It shuns
our veterans in their time of need. It undermines the security of all
of our citizens. It was done behind closed doors and thwarts decisions
made earlier this year by both Houses.
This bill is a failure of process and substance. I fear this bill
will fail the American people. I would urge my colleagues to reject the
unfair process and the unwise policies that flawed process has
produced.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, In a recent speech, the President
described democracy as when ``governments respond to the will of the
people, and not the will of an elite.''
Well, Well.
For the past four years, the House has voted to end the ban on travel
by Americans to Cuba. This year, the Senate overwhelmingly supported an
identical provision.
But it's not in the bill before us now.
The President wants to keep the embargo intact, and believes that
respecting the right of Americans to travel to Cuba would be a
concession to Castro. A majority in both the House and Senate disagree.
Our fundamental rights as Americans should never be viewed as a
bargaining chip.
When the Congress clashes with the White House, the President can do
what he threatened to do: veto the bill. Sadly, his agents in Congress
took a more cowardly path.
Quietly and secretly, they took the conference report and had the
provision erased. No debate. No vote. No democracy. All so the
President doesn't have to decide whether to fulfill or break his
promises to veto the bill.
Recently, during his visit to Britain, the President said that
democratic governments honor the aspirations and dignity of their own
people. I submit that the best place to lead by example is in this
Capitol building.
This is now bigger than the Cuba debate. This is about the
fundamental credibility of the legislative branch of our government.
[[Page 32098]]
If the outcome is predetermined by the White House, no matter how
many rules get broken in the process, then let's suspend the sermons on
democracy. If the fix is in, let's stop pretending.
Senator Hagel has said the White House treats Congress like a
nuisance. I ask my colleagues, is that all we are?
If this institution is to be more than a mere nuisance, then allow
democracy to work. Here. And now. When the Congress votes to end the
Cuba travel ban, send the provision to the President. And let the
system work as the founding fathers intended.
That would show what democracy is really all about.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
H.R. 2673, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2003. Despite the adequate
funding provided for a number of district priorities, this legislation
contains countless flawed provisions which will harm American families.
The Administration's proposal to dramatically alter overtime rules
for American workers will make it substantially more difficult for
American workers to make ends meet. This provision will take money away
from Americans willing to work longer hours to provide for their
families.
This legislation also features severe cuts to critical national
priorities. State and local law enforcement is funded at $500 million
below current levels when we are asking these heroes to do more every
day to provide for our homeland security.
The bill also dramatically underfunds our educational needs. The No
Child Left Behind Act will receive $7.7 billion less than was
authorized by the Act thus there will be fewer resources for programs
in teacher training, bilingual education, and Safe and Drug Free
Schools. In my own district, the teachers and faculty of Primitivo
Garcia Elementary School, located in Westside Kansas City, have been
working hard to meet the demands of the No Child Left Behind Act. They
are already struggling to help their students succeed with limited
Title I resources. This legislation fails to offer the students and
faculty of Primitivo and schools across the country the Federal support
they need for our children. The measure also fails to address our
nation's higher education needs. Programs such as the Pell Grant which
offer higher education funding to the neediest American students will
not receive enough funding to meet current demands.
The Omnibus measures also does serious funding damage to veteran
programs. The most dramatic is the cut in funds needed to speed up the
processing of applications for veteran benefits. Currently there are
448,000 claims pending, of which 95,000 have been in the system for
more than 6 months without a disposition. On average the Department is
taking 157 days to process a claim. The administration request would
have added no additional staff for processing claims. The 0.59% across
the board cut will reduce funding for the administration of claims by
$4 million and that will result in the estimated loss of 100 employees
needed for claims processing. This comes at a time when the number of
claims is likely to skyrocket as Iraqi war veterans apply for benefits.
In my district, the Kansas City VA Medical Center provides quality
service to thousands of veterans each year. The hospital's need for
skilled health care professionals continues to grow. This bill fails to
provide adequate funding to meet these needs.
This legislation includes funding for a number of projects within the
Kansas City area. Among the programs and departments receiving funding
are a stormwater project in Belton, the Jackson County Sheriff's
Department, the Cabot Westside Clinic and the Liberty Memorial Museum,
which will use $100,000 for renovation and $50,000 for education. The
Omnibus spending bill also includes more than $7 million for
transportation projects, such as reconstruction of the Grandview
triangle and expansion of the Lewis and Clark Expressway. Other
recipients are the Kansas City Region Job Access Program, which will
receive $500,000 for their programs to link low income families and
welfare recipients to employment centers and employment related
services; and the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, which will
use $4.7 million in funding for replacement, upgrades and improvements
to basic transit infrastructure, including buses.
As much as I was encouraged that these items were included in the
bill, many important projects in Kansas City and around the nation were
left unfunded for partisan reasons. In my own district, funding for the
St. Vincent Family Service Center's Operation Breakthrough, the
Independence School District, and St. Mark's United Inner City
Services, all of which received previous Federal funding, were all
denied funding because of this partisan vendetta. This is a dangerous
precedent and I would urge the appropriators to consider the value of
projects independent of partisan politics. The American taxpayers
deserve no less.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation. We can do better. Let's work
together to protect the overtime of American workers, adequately
provide for our students and veterans, and give communities the support
they need.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this irresponsible
Omnibus spending bill. This Republican bill is a stealth attempt to
impose an extremist agenda on America--an agenda that most Americans
don't support. But, therein lies the Republican's deceitful strategy:
to hide numerous controversial provisions in the minutia and complexity
of a huge Omnibus bill, then ram it through with less than a few hours
of debate.
Let's take a moment to see what this bill actually includes.
It will deny workers their right to overtime. It gives President
Bush--despite all his false rhetoric about caring for working
families--the green light to impose government regulations denying
overtime pay to millions of hardworking Americans. That's right, it
takes away worker protections for fair pay.
Does the bill then at least make sure workers who can't find jobs
receive extended unemployment benefits? No. Nowhere in this bill is
there a dime for working Americans who are unemployed. Why? Well,
because Republicans simply refuse to extend unemployment benefits to
the over 2 million Americans who are suffering from long-term extended
unemployment. These are folks who have been out-of-work for 26 weeks or
more unable to find a job. His father, when he was President, extended
federal unemployment benefits for these people, but this President Bush
doesn't see any need to be that compassionate.
While the President talks about recent minimal job growth as if it
was ``mission accomplished'' on the economy, it isn't enough to make up
for the millions of jobs that have disappeared since he took office.
There are still 14 million Americans either out of work or making due
with part time employment. We must do more to help these families
survive. But, nothing is included in this last bill that Congress will
consider this year.
Of course this Republican Omnibus doesn't stop at making life harder
for working Americans or ignoring Americans out of work. It also goes
after America's veterans. It cuts the budget for the Veterans
Administration by $443 million. This includes a $15 million cut for
medical care. Putting veterans health care on a shoestring budget isn't
the way to reward those who have fought for this country or those who
have come back critically injured from their duty in Iraq.
This bill also hurts women's reproductive rights. It prevents federal
employees from accessing reproductive health services under the health
plans they pay into. It prohibits the District of Columbia from
offering assistance for low-income women to access needed reproductive
services. These women should not be singled out and prevented from
exercising their constitutional right to reproductive choice. But, that
is exactly the path this bill sets us on.
This bill shortchanges America's public schools. It does this by
taking a first step toward a federal program of vouchers for private
schools by creating a school voucher demonstration program for
Washington, DC. It doesn't matter that this demonstration will take
money away from the DC public school system which serves all DC's
students, while providing necessary funds for only a few students to
attend private schools.
This bill also undermines the diversity of our media marketplace by
opening the door for the concentration of corporate power and influence
over the public's airwaves. Even though the House and Senate each voted
to maintain the existing Federal Communication Commission limitations
on media ownership, this bill permits the FCC to allow greater
concentration of media ownership. It will diminish the diversity of
viewpoints and programming placing our very marketplace of ideas in the
hands of a few major media conglomerates.
With Republicans controlling the House, the Senate and the White
House, this type of appropriations process in which everything is
thrown into one, huge bill should be unnecessary. But, the facts is
that this bill exists because the Republican leadership could not get
their job done. Congress did not pass 7 of the nation's 13 spending
bills that are required to keep the government operating.
But, I also suspect that the Republican leadership has done this on
purpose--using the Omnibus bill to all their extreme objectives enacted
when they couldn't pass on their own. After all, the House already
voted down destroying overtime pay for America's workers. The Senate
had been unwilling to vote on school vouchers. And, both the House and
Senate voted down new media ownership
[[Page 32099]]
rules. Yet, they have all reared their ugly heads again in the Omnibus
bill that will be the final business the House will consider this year.
If most Americans were allowed to hear a real debate on this shameful
and irresponsible bill, they would urge us to vote it down. I urge my
colleagues to do just that.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242,
nays 176, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 676]
YEAS--242
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (IN)
Carter
Case
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Oxley
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Rush
Sabo
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spratt
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tauzin
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NAYS--176
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boyd
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Castle
Chabot
Clay
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeMint
Deutsch
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Duncan
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Flake
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gephardt
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hensarling
Hill
Hinchey
Honda
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Moran (VA)
Musgrave
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Rangel
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--17
Burton (IN)
Carson (OK)
Cubin
Doggett
Filner
Fletcher
Gallegly
Janklow
Lantos
Lynch
Miller, George
Nadler
Pascrell
Taylor (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Young (AK)
{time} 1523
Ms. KILPATRICK, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. ROYCE, and Mr. TOOMEY changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. GREEN of Texas, and Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 676, due to urgent
constituent support commitments in my Congressional District, I missed
the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 850
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have
my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 850.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
____________________
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--CIRCUMVENTING THE WILL OF THE HOUSE BY HOLDING
VOTES OPEN BEYOND A REASONABLE PERIOD
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege of the
House and submit a resolution which is at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
Privileged Resolution
Whereas on November 22nd, the Republican Leadership held
open the vote on rollcall No. 669 on H.R. 1, the Prescription
Drug Conference Report, for nearly three hours, the longest
period of time in the history of electronic voting in the
U.S. House of Representatives;
Whereas the normal period of time for a recorded vote is 15
minutes, and the Speaker of the House reiterated that policy
on January 7, 2003 saying ``The Chair wishes to enunciate a
clear policy with respect to the conduct of electronic votes
. . . The Chair announced, and then strictly enforced, a
policy of closing electronic votes as soon as possible after
the guaranteed period of 15 minutes'', and in addition the
Speaker pro tempore on November 22nd announced prior to the
vote on Prescription Drugs that it would be a 15-minute vote;
Whereas the amount of time for the vote on H.R. 1 went far
beyond anytime considered reasonable under established House
practices and customs, and was a deliberate attempt to
undermine the will of the House;
Whereas the opponents of H.R. 1, both Republicans and
Democrats, were on the prevailing side for more than two and
one-half hours and proponents never once held the lead during
this period of time, and the sole purpose of holding this
vote open was to reverse the position that a majority of the
House of Representatives had already taken;
Whereas, according to press reports, a Member of Congress
who is retiring was told on the House floor during this
extended vote that ``business interests would give his son
[[Page 32100]]
(who seeks to replace him) $100,000 in return for his
father's vote. When he still declined, fellow Republican
House members told him they would make sure Brad Smith never
came to Congress'', and such an act is in violation of
Section 201 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which
prohibits bribery of public officials;
Whereas these actions impugn the dignity and integrity of
House proceedings, bring dishonor on Members of Congress, and
were a gross violation of the rights of Members who opposed
this legislation: Therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House denounces this action in the
strongest terms possible, rejects the practice of holding
votes open beyond a reasonable period of time for the sole
purpose of circumventing the will of the House, and directs
the Speaker to take such steps as necessary to prevent any
further abuse.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution constitutes a question of the
privileges of the House under rule IX.
The minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi),
will be recognized for 30 minutes. It is the Chair's understanding that
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) will be the designee of
the majority leader and will also be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi),
the minority leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, for more than 200 years, and 200 years ago, the Founding
Fathers designed this House of Representatives to serve as the people's
House. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote that it is
essential to liberty that this House have an intimate sympathy with the
people. In the century since, this body has earned its status as the
greatest legislative body in the world. Yet perhaps never before have
the actions of this body fallen so far short of both the ideals
envisioned by the Founders and the sympathies of the people as during
last month's vote on the Medicare prescription drug conference report,
a vote that will surely be remembered as one of the lowest moments in
the history of this august institution.
The American people expected a fair and open airing of issues
affecting 40 million older Americans on Medicare, our mothers, our
fathers, grandmothers, and grandfathers. Yet Republicans locked House
Democrats out of the conference negotiations and, in doing so, locked
out the 130 million Americans we represent.
This is a diverse country, but the Democratic Caucus is the only
diverse caucus. By shutting out the Democrats, they deny the conference
negotiators of the benefit of the thinking of the representatives of
the African American community, Hispanic community, the Asian Pacific
American community, the whole philosophical diversity within our caucus
from the Blue Dogs to the New Dogs to our Progressive Democrats.
{time} 1530
The American people expected genuine debate. Yet, Republicans limited
floor discussion on the one of the most dramatic changes to Medicare in
its history to a mere 2 hours, 2 hours. And this behavior is not
limited and confined to the vote on Medicare.
For some reason, and I think it should be obvious what it is, the
Republicans insist on having votes that are of great import to the
American people, but where they are clearly on the wrong side of the
issue, have these votes taken in the middle of the night.
On a Friday in March at 2:54 a.m., the House cut veterans benefits by
three votes. At 2:39 a.m. on a Friday in April, House Republicans
slashed education and health care by five votes. At 1:56 a.m. on a
Friday in May, the House passed the ``leave no millionaire behind'' tax
cut bill by a handful of votes. And at 3:30 a.m. on a Friday in June,
the House GOP passed the Medicare privatization and prescription drug
bill by one vote. At 12:57 a.m. on a Friday in July, the House passed a
Head Start bill by one single vote. And that Head Start bill was to
undermine and unravel a very successful Head Start initiative. And then
after returning from a summer recess, at 12:12 a.m. on a Friday in
October, the House voted $87 billion for Iraq, an issue the Democrats
and Republicans were on both sides of the issue. So were the American
people. They deserve to hear the debate in the light of day.
I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for this information.
It degrades our democracy when Democrats have no role in the
legislation. This legislation affects millions of Americans. No role in
the conference negotiations. No chance to offer amendments. No
alternatives and limited debates or discussion. It degrades our
democracy when secret negotiations, such as those on the energy
legislation, rip up provisions supported by both Houses and insert new
provisions approved by neither House.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the House our Founders envisioned. Such
behavior is unfair. It is un-American, and it is unacceptable. It is
not for this that our Founding Fathers sacrificed their lives, their
liberty and their sacred honor, so that we could have government of the
few, by the few, for the few, behind closed doors.
Why are the Republicans so afraid to subject their agenda to the
normal rules of debate? Republicans are afraid of fair and open debate
because they know that the American people reject their radical agenda.
As President Kennedy said, ``A nation that is afraid to let its people
judge the truth and falsehood in an open market, is a nation that is
afraid of its people.''
So afraid of the people were they that, again, this went into the
dark of night when we even took the first vote at 3 o'clock in the
morning.
A member of the majority in the other body, that would be a
Republican in the other party, warned recently, ``If you have to twist
people's arms over and over to vote for you on issue after issue, then
you would be wise to reevaluate your positions.''
Of course, Republicans have no intention of reevaluating their
reckless positions. As one newspaper editorial observed recently, ``It
appears the Republicans want to govern the Nation by themselves.''
A government of the few, by the few, for the few.
The ancient Greeks had a word for such audacity, hubris. Hubris, the
wanton arrogance that leads to the violation of accepted rules of
conduct.
In the tragedies of antiquity, mortals who defy the Gods in this
manner were punished for their hubris. Indeed, if there were ever an
argument for why Republicans must get their punishment at the polls and
be defeated at the polls next year, we need only look to their
unprecedented abuse of power and their neglect of the will of the
people.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats will not stand by while our democracy is
denigrated. We will not be silenced. We will not be rolled over. As we
preach democracy to the rest of the world and we talk about in glowing
terms about our own democracy, we must also speak about the power of
example, the example we set in the conduct of our legislative business
for the rest of the world.
The Republicans are not setting a good example of democracy for the
rest of the world. Republicans must know we will fight this abuse in
the committees. We will fight this abuse on the floor. We will fight it
every day and every way we can. We will carry this fight all the way to
election day. On that day, the American people will reject the
Republican's special interest and their shameless abuse of power.
With all regard that I have for the distinguished colleagues on the
other side of the aisle who appear to be at the microphones, and I know
that the time will be led by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs.
Johnson), why is not a member of this House leadership on the
Republican side on the floor to respond to this privileged resolution
about how the leadership has conducted its business?
We all have a great deal of respect for the Speaker of the House. The
majority leader is a forceful personality. The two of those
orchestrated what happened that night. We would like them to at least
extend the courtesy to Members to be present on the floor as the leader
of this party on this floor to respond to the people's need to know as
to why, why the will of the majority is not respected here.
We will return the people's House to the American people, and we will
once again make this the revered institution worthy of its status as
the greatest legislative body in the world.
[[Page 32101]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) is the designee of the majority leader.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that the gentlewoman does not consider me a
forceful personality or a leader. But I am here to say that, as
chairman of one of the major subcommittees that wrote this bill, I
consider myself both a leader on Medicare modernization and reform and
a forceful personality, because I am dedicated to this issue. I have
worked hard on it. And I believe that I am better to be here than any
of my leadership.
This was a joint effort. It was late at night. No question. It was a
long vote. And it did inconvenience Members. No question. But the
stakes were very high. The need of America's seniors for prescription
drugs and a modernized Medicare that could deliver state of the art
disease management to help those with chronic illness prevent their
diseases from progressing. Yes, their need was urgent and intense. The
opportunity was enormous. We could not abandon our responsibility to
pass real Medicare prescription drug reform and modernization of
Medicare's ability to keep pace with quality health care initiatives.
And so, yes, we allowed ourselves to be masters of time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
I would like to pay respects to my California colleague, the very
distinguished minority leader, and I certainly respect her right to
come forward with this privileged resolution. I would also like to
thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), for
the stellar leadership she has provided, ensuring that we would not
only bring about reform of Medicare, but make sure that we are able to
provide access for our seniors to affordable prescription drugs.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to note a couple of items.
First, on the 2nd of April, 1789, the day after the first Congress was
put into place, James Madison who was, in fact, a member of that first
Committee on Rules, and I believe that as he talked about what my
friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) referred to, that
intimate sympathy with the people, he did appropriately refer to the
fact that this is the greatest deliberative body known to man. And we
do have an extraordinary responsibility here to implement the will of
the people through this structure we have of a representative
democracy.
Now, what I would like to say is that as we look back on that debate,
that both of my friends, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi)
and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) have just
addressed, I think it is important to note that our friend, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) came before the Committee on
Rules and made a request that we extend the time that is provided under
the rules of the House for the debate of a conference report.
Every single Member of this House is well aware of the fact that when
a conference report is voted upon, there is a 1-hour provision for
debate on that conference report. Now, request was made to extend that.
And my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), as she
knows, made a rare appearance before the Committee on Rules and
requested that we increase the amount of time for debate on that
conference report. And in response to her request, the Committee on
Rules chose to double the amount of time allowed for the conference
report. That amount of time was granted.
I think it is also important to note that the 15-minute provision
according to clause 2(a) of rule XX, Mr. Speaker, specifically says the
minimum time for a record vote or a quorum call by electronic device
shall be 15 minutes. And so I think that there is no one who is
claiming that there was a violation of the rules of the House because
this was, in fact, in compliance with the rules of the House. And I
think that there needs to be recognition that during that 2 hour and 50
minute period a number of votes were changed. And I think it is
important for the record to note for the record, Mr. Speaker, that the
last three votes that were cast on that bill were, in fact, cast by
members of the minority.
I would like to thank my friend for yielding me this time. What I
have simply chosen to do here, Mr. Speaker, is make the record clear as
to exactly what the rules of the House consist of on this matter.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, since the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Rules is in the well, I just wish to mention one thing, because in my
comments I read a litany of concerns about very important votes were
won by a handful or fewer votes in the dark of night. One of these I
did not mention was the rule on the FAA bill that came to the floor,
and I would like to ask the gentleman if he is proud of the way the
Committee on Rules conducted itself on the FAA bill where it burned the
book on rule making in this House.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would respond to my friend by saying that I made it
very clear in the record, when our friends were before the Committee on
Rules, that I believe that it was wrong for us to proceed with
consideration of the FAA conference report in the manner in which we
did proceed with. And I said there, and the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar) has recognized here on the floor that I said, we will do
everything possible to ensure that that does not happen again. And the
majority leader, in the colloquy that he had with the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) later that week, made it clear that he also wanted
to ensure that it would not happen again.
I appreciate my friend for bringing that issue to the forefront.
Ms. PELOSI. Indeed, that rule was an abomination, and I am pleased
that the gentleman recognizes that it was wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised that the eloquent
chairman of the Committee on Rules with all of the power of words and
influence he has, that after a seething attack on the majority, that he
would come into the well and say, but it is all in the rules.
What our leader is talking about is more important than the Medicare
bill. She is talking about the civility in this House of
Representatives. Every one of us here today are not here just because
we are so bright and so intelligent. We are here because some group of
Americans have thought that we would represent their interests. They
were not talking about blacks and whites or Jews or gentiles or Asian
Americans or Hispanics. They were talking about Representatives in the
House of Representatives. And they invested in us the right to make
judgments as to what would be in their best interest.
How in the world can you come to this floor and take this privilege
which has been given to us to protect, not for ourselves but for the
next group that will inherit the seats that we are privileged to serve
in, and to say when the Speaker of this great House of Representatives,
here where we truly represent the people, it is not based on every
district being entitled to something because it is a State, it means
that they come together. They fight. They argue. And they elect.
{time} 1545
And then the Speaker decides who would be appointed to serve on the
conference committee so that our voices would be heard with that of the
other body. And when you have the votes, you have the votes; and that
is the way it goes. If you do not like it, wait until November and then
change it. But the audacity of the majority to say that
[[Page 32102]]
when the Speaker appoints you to the conference it makes no difference
what rank you are, it makes no difference if you are the dean of the
House, it makes no difference if you are the senior member of the
committee of jurisdiction, it makes no difference if the minority
leader appoints you to represent, who, us? No, to represent the
millions of people that we have been sent here to represent.
And to have the conference committee, to call it a bipartisan
conference when they from time to time will let a staff person come in,
is not only arrogance but it offends the very office of the
Constitution to be able to say it. Now, I have the utmost respect for
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) because she has said it
right; she thought this precious bill was so important that the rules
did not matter. It had to go through the middle of the night, whether
there was a conference or not. We had to get this thing through.
Sure, my colleagues had to get it through because there was a goal
beyond prescription drugs. And if that is what you want to do with
Social Security, if that is what you want to do with health care, I can
understand that; and that is why I am not a Republican. But for God's
sake, do not disrupt the system. Do not tear away what was left to us.
When you got the votes, by golly, use those votes and do what you want
to do to your own Members; that does not offend me. But it does offend
me if newer Members of Congress believe that is the way this House is
supposed to operate.
Sometimes when I go on the other side and I sit with a friend that
came here many, many years ago when I did, young Democratic Members
say, what are you talking to them for? And I suspect that some of the
Republicans that have been here a little while, when they come over
here, some of the younger Republican Members would say, why are you
talking to a Democrat? And what we would say is, we are talking about
our kids or we are talking about our grandkids. We will fight in the
committee and we will fight on the floor, but we respect each other.
It is a lack of respect not to me, you can look at me and know how
many doors have been closed to me; it does not even bother me. Because
in this great country, in this Republic, I can fight and I can win. But
when you stack the rules against those who follow me and those who
respect this institution; when you start saying it makes no difference
who the Speaker assigns to a conference, because we decided that it is
too important for us to let Democrats in, well, take a look and see who
the Democrats are. Take a look at the diversity on this side. We did
not make it this way. Democrats did.
Do you think there is a Republican way for solid health care? Do you
think there is a Republican way for Social Security? A Republican way
for a better America? Of course not. It is for us together to be
working together to try to do it. Would Democrats have contaminated the
precious bill, I ask the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson)?
Would we have diverted so much attention for what you were doing, this
brilliant piece of work that you did in the darkness of night, brought
here early in the morning to have us out here waiting until you could
scrub up enough votes?
It was wrong for this Congress, and it would be wrong for any
Congress.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume, and I would respond to the gentleman from New York that
I do think it is extremely important when half the women, retired
women, in America have the opportunity for the peace of mind of knowing
that they will pay no more than $1 or $2 for a generic and $3 to $5 for
a brand-name prescription and that is all, no matter how many or how
high their drug bills go. Yes, I think it is very important not to let
the clock outweigh the interest of half of America's retired senior
women.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for
yielding me this time; and, Mr. Speaker, let me first say that this has
been a multiyear process. When we began our work in the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, we entitled it Patients First, because essentially
we wanted to make sure everything we did in the health care agenda
thought about patients and did what we could to make patients' lives
better in this country.
I recall when we got to the point where we began drafting and working
on the Medicare prescription drug bill, when we talked across the
aisle, as we often do in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, about
whether we could build a consensus bill at the committee level or not,
it was pretty clear that we could not; that there was a great
difference of opinion as to how to shape Medicare reform and
prescription drug legislation. And because there was this huge great
difference of opinion, the ranking Democrat, my friend, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and I agreed we would have a great debate,
and we did. We had many, many hours of debate. We had a 23-hour markup;
23 hours of markup and amendments that went on for a huge amount of
time. And that literally, finally produced the Medicare bill that came
to the floor along with the Committee on Ways and Means effort that
became part of the conference report that we voted on.
This was not a one-night effort. This was not a 3\1/2\ hour effort in
the middle of the evening. This was a multiyear, very greatly debated
issue from top to bottom where we were deeply separated on approach.
And I think my mother summed it up best when I talked to her about it
after we passed the bill. The approach that we took, that we understand
some of the other side did not agree with, and that is a legitimate
difference of opinion, the approach we took was that we ought to
empower seniors to make choices for themselves about how they got
prescription drug coverage; to make choices for themselves about how
the health care that they would need in their senior years would be
delivered to them and how they would take this new benefit.
There were those on the other side who thought there ought to be one
choice only, the Medicare choice. There were those on this side, on our
side of the aisle, who believed that Medicare choice ought to be
available, and we made sure that it is available, but other choices
ought to come.
Now, that is what happened. We can argue about process and procedure
all we want. The bottom line is we were separated by a great division,
it was settled, and the American public are better for it.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
note that it is interesting to hear Republican colleagues talk about
how urgent this bill was to pass. Then why does it not become effective
until 2006? Mr. Speaker, was it so urgent that the rumor had to be
around there that they were offering $100,000 to Members to vote with
them on the bill? Was it ever that urgent?
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our very distinguished whip, a champion for
America's seniors, who fought, fought, fought for them on the floor of
this House to defeat this Medicare bill. And defeat it he did, for 3
hours, until outside influences weighed in to reverse that outcome.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the minority leader for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, there are many of my colleagues who are new to this
House and who do not know its history and do not know perhaps the words
of your side of the aisle. So I want to give you a little history. I
want to take you back to October 28, 1987. The House was considering a
controversial Democratic budget reconciliation bill, which I tell the
gentlewoman from Connecticut that we thought was very important. The
vote stood at 206 to 205. Twenty-four Members had not voted.
The Speaker of the House, in attempting to pass what he believed to
be a very important bill, kept the clock going for less than 30
minutes, a little more than 25; and a vote changed, and we prevailed.
Your side was outraged.
[[Page 32103]]
Let me remind you of some of the quotes.
I am the minority leader. Excuse me, I am the minority whip. I
understand that. The minority whip at that time is now the Vice
President of the United States, Dick Cheney. He was angry. The vote was
206 to 205. This bill, for over 2 hours, had an absolute majority of
the House of Representatives supporting it, with 218 Members opposing
the bill, the proposition that we fought for.
Thirty minutes. And here is what Mr. Cheney said about keeping the
ballot open: ``The Democrats' tactics are the most grievous insult
inflicted on the Republicans in my time in the House.'' October 1987.
He was quoted as saying something else. ``It was,'' he said, ``the most
arrogant, heavy-handed abuse of power I have ever seen in the 10 years
I have been here.''
Less than 30 minutes, 206 to 205. The Vice President of the United
States. The most arrogant abuse of power he had seen. And then the
Republican minority whip referred to the Speaker as follows, and
listen, my colleagues, particularly those who are new. Referring to the
Speaker of the House, he said, ``He's a heavy-handed,'' and he used an
epithet that we know as SOB, except he fully articulated it, ``and he
doesn't know any other way to operate. And he will do anything he can
to win at any price. There is no sense of comity left,'' said Dick
Cheney.
I tell the gentlewoman from Connecticut, this was an important bill,
but so was the bill that Speaker Wright was following and trying to
pass. Dick Cheney, with less than 30 minutes, ``There is no comity
left. The most heavy-handed arrogant abuse of power.''
That is what this is about, treating one another with respect and
treating the American public with respect. My colleagues had an
opportunity to offer their bill. It was offered, we voted on it; and
218 people voted no, and they stuck no for over 2 hours. But my
colleagues refused to accept the judgment of democracy. You refused to
accept the judgment of this House.
Bob Walker said, ``We found out the majority is perfectly willing to
change its rules to crush the minority.'' I know this is not a rule, I
say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier); but I also know that
at the beginning of this session, the Speaker, whom I respect and would
never demean by addressing him in the terms that Dick Cheney addressed
our Speaker, this House's Speaker, said this at the beginning of this
session: ``The Speaker's policy announced on January 4, 1995, will
continue through the 108th Congress.'' That was Newt Gingrich.
On that occasion, referring to October 30, 1991, the House was
considering a bill in the Committee of the Whole under a special rule
that placed an overall time limit on the amendment process. We did it
in 15 minutes. The Speaker concluded at the beginning of this session,
``Each occupant of the Chair will have the full support of the Speaker
in striving to close each electronic vote at the earliest
opportunity.'' In this instance it was almost 3 hours. Not 15 minutes,
not 17 minutes, not 27 minutes, but 3 hours.
``I just want to serve notice,'' this gentleman said, ``if the
majority, which clearly has the rights under sheer voting power,
insists on stripping the right away from the minority, then we have an
absolute obligation to take the necessary steps to communicate our
dissatisfaction with that kind of legislative process and do everything
possible to stop it.'' Newt Gingrich, August 5, 1991.
{time} 1600
Those of you who are new to this House who believe in democracy, who
believe that this is the people's House, ought to accord to every one
of us, Democrats and Republicans, the respect due a person chosen to
represent 650,000-plus Americans in this House, to put up our votes on
that board, to have the majority prevail, but to have them prevail in a
time frame that does not, as Mr. Cheney referred to it, reflect ``the
most arrogant, most heavy-handed abuse of power I have ever seen in my
10 years.''
My Republican friends, let me ask something: If keeping the ballot
open for 25 minutes is the most arrogant abuse of power that Mr. Cheney
had ever seen, what is keeping it open 3 hours? Ask yourself that
question, and then understand why this resolution is on this floor.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
About 5 hours ago, I had what I consider to be one of the greatest
moments of my 11-year congressional career as I got to watch the
President of the United States sign into law a Medicare reform bill
that will finally provide a prescription drug benefit to our seniors
and our disabled.
For 38 years, every Congress, Republican, Democrat, every
administration, Republican, Democrat, had failed to accomplish this. It
was not because most Members of Congress did not want to do it. I dare
say every single Democrat sitting in this House and serving in this
House wanted to make sure that we got a prescription drug benefit
delivered to our elderly and our disabled, and most Republicans wanted
to do it for many years. And why did Congress fail year after year? Not
because of lack of desire to get the job done, but because the job is
extraordinarily difficult.
It is extraordinarily difficult to craft a bill that is conservative
enough to get most Republicans and liberal enough to attract some
Democrats. It is very, very hard to do. We had to thread a needle, we
had to say to the liberal-most Members of Congress, we cannot make you
happy, we cannot spend that much money. And we had to say to the most
conservative Members of our party, we cannot make you happy. We had to
say we are going to do this entitlement, we are going to expand this
entitlement, and it is not going to make you happy. We had to thread
the needle, and the eye of the needle in this case was so narrow and
the size of what we were trying to accomplish so large that yes, it
took us an extraordinary amount of time to get this vote done.
The Speaker did not violate a rule of the House. The Speaker is
entitled to take as much time as he wishes for a vote. And in this
case, in this case, the stakes were high, the cause was great. The
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) said she will take this
message to the election. This is an election-year issue. I say to the
gentlewoman, take that message; we will take the message that we
provided seniors a benefit.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if it is an election-year issue and the other side of
the aisle is so proud of their work, why do they not make it effective
now, just as they make their reckless tax cuts effective immediately
and retroactively?
Mr. Speaker, the customs and traditions of this House have been
violated, and there is no person in the leadership of this House to
come here to defend the actions taken in this Chamber on November 22. I
will say more about that in a moment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Clyburn), the vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time, and I thank her for her leadership on this and other issues
in this great body.
Mr. Speaker, I was elected 11 years ago. Today I represent a
congressional district of 668,000 people. It is an interesting
congressional district, about half and half urban and rural. There are
people who run the gamut. I represent the poor precincts and census
tracts in the congressional district, and I also represent some of the
wealthiest.
Last week when I went back home after our Medicare prescription drug
vote, and I was asked questions by my constituents, they were asking me
things like is it true that in this prescription drug bill the
Secretary of HHS is prevented from negotiating on
[[Page 32104]]
my behalf for lower drug costs? And, of course, I answered them, That
is my understanding of the bill. And they have been asking, Is it true
that I cannot use my Medigap insurance to cover any shortfalls that may
come as a result of prescription drug costs? And, of course, I answered
them, It is my understanding that that is true.
And then they want to know from me, Why is it that I did not hear
from you about the possibility of these issues before you cast a vote?
You are there to represent my interests, and I would like to hear from
you about these kinds of things before they come to a vote.
Then I was obliged to tell them that the bill was completed around
1:30 a.m. in the morning, and I was given less than a day to take a
look at it, and we finally voted on this after they had gone to bed the
next night around 3 a.m. in the morning. Then they want to know the
ultimate: If this bill is not to be effective until 2006, what was the
rush? What was the rush? There is no good answer for many of us to that
question.
I just want to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I am
the eldest son of a fundamentalist minister who taught me that it is
important to maintain balance in one's life, as well as one's efforts.
He taught me to be conservative. He said to me very often, if you make
a dollar, you ought to be able to save a nickel. He taught me when you
leave a room, you turn out the light, you conserve energy. But he also
taught me from those Sunday mornings when he stood before his
congregation and asked for an offering, he asked them to give
liberally. And so I learned that we must balance our liberalism with
conservatism, and our conservatism with liberalism, and with proper
balance and proper discussions, with proper input from all sides, we
will yield much better legislation and much better results. We did not
have that opportunity with this bill to have input from all sides to
try to get a better and more balanced result.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the failure on the part of this body to
do that sets us up, as the gentlewoman has said, for a very interesting
election year, and I am hopeful that this legislation will become the
centerpiece of our discussions next year because then we will have a
better result.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is because we felt the urgency of the need the
preceding Member alluded to so eloquently, that not only did we have to
pass this bill, but we had included in this bill a discount card that
will mean that one-half of all low-income seniors all across America
will get 100 percent of their drugs paid for in 6 months. There is
urgency for this bill because the need for the subsidies are so great,
and because of the average spending, we know that within 6 months, one-
half of low-income seniors will be 100 percent protected.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Shaw), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and chairman of the
Subcommittee on Social Security.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the minority leader, who has
pounded on that 2006 date several times, every one of the Democrat
bills that was out there had that same date. Why does it have that
date? It has that date because it takes that long to gear up in order
to get a bill moving, whether the Democratic bill or the Republican
bill.
What is the urgency? I think the gentlewoman from Connecticut pointed
this out, and that is within 6 months, low-income people are going to
be getting a card that will help them.
This morning when the President signed this bill, he said this bill
is going to help those who need help the most. That is exactly what it
does. That is exactly what it does. That is the way it ought to be.
When one goes into a court of law, a court of equity, there is an
expression, to seek equity, you must do equity. In other words, you
have to go into court with clean hands. We have heard during this
debate such terms as representing their constituents, neglecting the
will of the people, and abuse of office. They have to come here with
clean hands if they are to complain.
Did not the minority leader threaten their Members? Why was it one of
the Members on the other side of the aisle who was holding out for 3
hours was completely surrounded every single moment by Members of the
Democratic Party because he had not yet voted? Why is it that after the
time was finally called, four Democrat Members came down to the well of
the House and changed their vote?
If you want equity, you have to come with clean hands, and that was
not done. We should have passed this bill last year, but the other body
refused to take it up because it was under Democratic leadership.
What is the urgency of this bill? If one is a senior, poor, or if you
have huge drug expenses and you cannot afford to buy your drugs, by God
to that person it is urgent. It is urgent. I would have stayed here 2
or 3 more days if the clock was to be left open, because that is
exactly how I felt. I felt this was so important to those people who
desperately need this coverage.
I would guess we would have won way over the top within 15 minutes if
the minority leader had simply told her Members, you are free on this
vote, come here and represent the people, vote for the people, and the
gentlewoman's very words, vote for those you represent. That is what we
want. That is what we should have gotten; and if we had, we would have
been out of here at 3:15, and that is the way it should have been.
I praise the Speaker and those of our leadership who kept the clock
open. I understand why those who tried to suppress the vote on their
own side and failed are upset. And it did take 3 hours to enlighten
some of the Members; but it is important that Democrats came back and
changed their vote also.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House a
little over 5 years, and we have managed three times in the House of
Representatives to pass a prescription drug bill.
Finally, this year the Senate passed a bill, too, which gave us a
historic opportunity to provide a desperately-needed benefit for the
people that I represent, and the people that we all represent.
{time} 1615
The truth is that Medicare is stuck in a 1960s model of health care,
a system that will pay claims instead of improve the quality of
people's health. We have a health care system that had to be changed
because it will pay $28,000 to amputate the feet of a diabetic and will
not pay $29.95 a month for the Glucophage so that they can keep their
feet. This system needed reform desperately because the people who rely
on it need that medicine. That meant that we had to work hard to find
the common ground that could make it through the House and the Senate.
But it was about time. It was about time for a voluntary prescription
drug benefit added to Medicare, supported by dozens of interest groups
in this country, to provide some equity and some help, particularly to
low-income folks who cannot afford their medicine and those who are
very sick. That is what we did. This House as a whole and this
institution will look back on this day when the President of the United
States signed that bill as a tremendous change for health care for
seniors in this country, and I thank God for it.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues from the other side of
the aisle that just as in childbirth, our labors in the Congress often
start in the morning sunshine and after long hours
[[Page 32105]]
of painful work in the full light of day then result in a delivery of a
beautiful baby in the dark of night. Had this debate commenced in the
dark of night, then the delivery would no doubt have been in the light
of day.
In any regard, Mr. Speaker, in passage of the Medicare Modernization
and Prescription Drug Act of 2003, this President and the leadership of
this House have delivered on a promise made to our beloved seniors.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we, the Republican majority, are the promise
keepers on this issue. I am proud to have voted as a physician Member
of this body in the affirmative.
The gentleman from South Carolina talked about hearing from his
constituents. Mr. Speaker, I have heard from my constituents as well,
things like is it true that in this bill the neediest of our seniors,
those who are living at or near the poverty level, are helped the most?
Is it true that the new Medicare beneficiaries will begin to receive
for the first time ever a complete physical examination? Is it true
that in order to help save Medicare for our children and grandchildren,
the wealthiest seniors will have to pay for the first time more of
their part B premium? And finally, Mr. Speaker, is it true that it has
taken 38 years to finally provide seniors with prescription drug
coverage?
I answer to those seniors a resounding guilty as charged. I am proud
of this bill. I thank the gentlewoman for giving me the opportunity to
speak.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very
distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the majority party is running
the Congress the way the Russians run basketball. You remember in 1972
in the Olympic championship in Munich where Americans won the game. We
were ahead when the game was over and the clock had run down to zero.
But then the Russians prevailed on saying, let's just put a little more
time back on the clock. Just like the Republicans when this clock ran
down to zero said, let's just put another 3 hours back down on the
clock. When they asked the Russian coach how he could justify that
outrage, he said, because it was an important game and we wanted to
win. That is the explanation we get from the majority party when you
corrupted the basic values of this House.
We have been searching for ways to describe this and you can say
disappointing, you can say belittling; but the honest thing is it is a
corruption of the traditions of this House, and it stinks to high
heaven like a mackerel in the moonlight. Your Members need to come to
the floor and explain this situation that not only were we violating
the rules and the traditions regarding time, but that potentially there
was bribery on the floor of this House. We need to get to the bottom of
this and end this tyranny and corruption.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans also run this Congress like
the Republicans run Florida. They cannot accept the result of a vote.
With that, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, the 3-hour wheel of fortune that we
witnessed the other day is reflective of the 3-week wheel of fortune,
where the public interest and the public trust had been turned into a
piggy bank for the special interests. There are 635 pharmaceutical
industry lobbyists, a lobbyist and a half for every Member of Congress.
If you walked down the hall, they were usually your shadow in this
place. The reason we are talking about the process today is because the
process was reflective of the policy and what happened and produced in
this legislation, that is, the pharmaceutical industry when it came to
dealing with the issue of price and affordability of prescription
drugs, the will of the pharmaceutical industry was reflected but not
the will of either our taxpayers or our senior citizens who are being
forced into a system that requires that they pay 40 percent more than
anybody in Canada and Europe.
What we can do for our veterans, we can do for our seniors and get
them to use bulk negotiations, which is a free market. Everybody on
this side always says, I wish the government would act more like a
business. We try to get it to act like a business, and what do you do?
You turn your back on it. We can use either way to affect the price
here.
This is a debate that has now taken the public interest and the
public trust and has turned it into a piggy bank for the special
interests.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
Mr. FERGUSON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, today was a historic day. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) mentioned earlier that President Bush
signed into law the most sweeping improvements that our Medicare
program has seen in almost 40 years. Soon, because of this legislation,
millions of seniors will be able to afford the prescription medications
which will dramatically change, improve, yes, and sometimes even save
their lives. We should celebrate today that this bill has been signed
into law and that finally after years of inaction and obstruction, the
leadership of this Republican majority and the several thoughtful
Democrats who joined us have kept our promise to our seniors.
But on this historic day, instead of high-minded debate and
additional work to benefit our seniors and other Americans, what do we
hear from some Members of this body? We hear complaining. We hear
complaining because of an inconvenience. It would be an understatement
to say that an elderly person who relies on their prescription
medications struggles as they try to work through chemotherapy
treatment for cancer. Similarly, one could say that it is a big
inconvenience for a low-income senior who has to make decisions each
month as to whether they will buy their prescription medication or buy
their groceries. Indeed, I think each one of us would agree that it is
inconvenient, really inconvenient for the 70-year-old woman who works
not because she chooses to but because she cannot afford to retire and
she continues to work because she needs to pay for her diabetes
medication.
Yet the complaint today is not that rules were broken because, of
course, we followed the rules of this House. But now what we hear is
that it was inconvenient for us to be here working through the night,
to be voting until almost 6 a.m. and to stay up all night. And, of
course, it is inconvenient for us to do so. It is inconvenient to work
all night. It is really inconvenient, of course, to lose a vote on a
major piece of legislation. But I think it was worth some of the
inconvenience on our part. I think it was worth some of the
inconvenience to help some of the neediest and indeed some of the most
vulnerable in our society, older Americans who have worked hard and who
have sacrificed and who have paid their taxes and paid their dues and
made sacrifices to create opportunities for every single one of us. Is
it not worth a little bit of inconvenience for us to keep our promises
to them? Inconvenient for us, yes. But is it worth it to keep our
promises to our seniors? I say yes.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut
for yielding me this time. I, having been a minority leader in the
Georgia legislature for a long time, understand that role. But I have
to clarify the opening remarks that were made by the leader from my
perspective about the time, about the hours of the night and about the
comment; and I think I have got it about right, that in the dark of
night we passed legislation that benefited a few, referring, I think,
to the tax legislation in the past.
Mr. Speaker, at 12:12, 12:15, 2:45, 3 a.m., and 6:45 in the morning,
any morning, fishermen leave the wharves of San Francisco, California,
to go fish for a living and pay taxes. In the district of the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel), in the garment district they work in those
hours for the prime time of the evening to feed their families and pay
taxes. In every one of our districts in those hours of the dark of
[[Page 32106]]
night, Americans who finance this country and run it work doing an
important job.
I will submit to you, if you ask them, reforming a Medicare system is
important. I think if you asked them if dealing with prescription drugs
for their parents and their seniors is important, they would tell you.
I do not think any one of us on the campaign trail would ever belittle
a fisherman at 6:45 on San Francisco's wharf or someone in the garment
district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). We can have our
partisan arguments over procedure, but let us not ever belittle hard
work for a good purpose because it is the American people that do that
on the night shift every night that finance this country and allow you
and I to be here.
I am proud to have stood up to cut their taxes and provide benefits
to their parents.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a great day for America. The American people are
celebrating today because the President has signed into law one of the
most, if not the most, dramatic improvements to the Medicare program
since its inception. Finally, Mr. Speaker, seniors across this country
will have an option of a prescription drug benefit. Finally, Mr.
Speaker, seniors will be given a choice in designing and selecting a
benefit of health care delivery under Medicare. And finally, Mr.
Speaker, American families across this country will be able to benefit
from health savings accounts, providing them an environment and
incentive to save for their own family's health care needs in a tax-
free environment.
No, Mr. Speaker, this is not about a system that is broken or a
process that has gone awry. This debate today on the floor is about a
Republican success, of a vision of how to improve health care for our
senior citizens across this great Nation. This bill is about doing what
is best for our constituents, in particular, our seniors, Mr. Speaker.
America's largest senior advocacy group, the AARP, has endorsed this
bill because it sees this bill as a way to move us forward and to bring
Medicare into the modern era and provide our seniors with a greater
health benefit.
{time} 1630
Mr. Speaker, it is Republican-led policies that move this Nation
forward today, not Democrat politics that we are witnessing on the
floor this evening.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
his eloquent remarks.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, when I came here in 1993, the Republican
majority, then the Republican minority, spoke about a balanced budget
amendment and that we had to balance the budget not on the backs of
future generations. We no longer hear about a balanced budget
amendment. They came and they said if they would become the majority
that we would have term limits so that Members of Congress could be
people legislators and not stay here all of their lives. They no longer
talk about term limits.
But astonishingly that night, I could understand those changes.
Philosophically and politically they changed their mind and said it was
okay to run deficits, it was okay to bust the budget, that these were
okay things to do; that it was okay to tell the people that they were
only to come here for three terms, 6 years, and then return to their
districts, and that was okay but they had a change of mind.
But what happened that night was different because I never recall a
single instance in which a member of the Republican majority said that
I was offered a $100,000 bribe in order to break my promise to the
people, to change my position on a public policy issue. And that is
what the debate should be here about tonight, and until we get to the
bottom of that matter, it is a shame and a blemish on this House.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
This is a great day for America. Today President Bush signed a
prescription drug bill that will deliver on a promise that this
Congress has talked about for 4 years and has passed three different
bills to try to achieve it.
Last year after we passed our second bill, the Senate, controlled by
the Democrats, would not even allow a vote, would not even allow a
vote. That is why when we had the opportunity to pass a bill that would
provide, deliver, prescription drugs as a part of Medicare on the basis
of voluntary participation to all seniors all across America, we were
determined to take it. Furthermore, it is the first bill that counted
all seniors in America as Medicare and seniors first and poor second.
That is why we are taking all seniors off Medicaid, bringing them on
Medicare's drug benefit so they will get the same benefit all across
the country because they are seniors first and poor only second. The
Senate bill did not do that. Our bill did that.
And we passed this bill and pushed it through and held the vote open
because we wanted to make sure that that half of women retired, living
on very low incomes, would get what this bill promises them, $1 or $2
copayments on generics and $3 or $5 on prescriptions, that is all.
But we had to pass this bill for another reason. It does more to
improve payments for rural health care providers and to link rural
health care to sophisticated medical centers than any legislative
initiative from this body ever has done, and without it the physicians
out now in the rural towns, who are my husband's age and who are about
to retire, will not be replaceable. We will not be able to attract the
next generation of physicians to rural health care without the really
rather arbitrary policy changes in this bill that reflect our
experience in rural health and its inability to attract providers. So
we saved rural seniors from not having access to doctors, home health
agencies, and hospitals. And, furthermore, we link through these
regional health plans rural medicine more tightly into sophisticated
medical centers. And, lastly, we passed disease management in this bill
for the plans on a mandatory basis and for Medicare as an integral part
of it in the years to come, and, thereby, for the first time, built
preventative health care into the Medicare structure. It is currently,
now, solely an illness treatment program.
With the new reforms the President signed today, and with great
leadership from Secretary Tommy Thompson, who deserves tremendous
credit, both for understanding the need for rural health to be linked
into the modern delivery capability of technology, and who understood
also the power that disease management is going to give us to help
seniors with chronic illness prevent their chronic illnesses from
progressing, and how urgent it is that when a plan like Medicare has
one-third of its seniors with five chronic illnesses using 80 percent
of program dollars that we do something about it, that we act. For 4
years we have talked and not acted. If acting required holding that
vote open, and then we saw at the end, two Republicans changed to
``yes'' and two changed to ``no.'' What happened was that my friends on
the other side of the aisle who understood the importance of this bill
both to the quality of care seniors could achieve and to the
revitalization of rural medicine then were free to lay their votes on
table, and it was those additional votes that made the difference, and
I thank them because bipartisanship is hard in this environment, and I
understand it. But we did it for America's seniors. We did it together.
The President signed it today, and it is an enormous victory for senior
health care and the greatest step forward in women's health that this
body has ever passed. And I am proud to stand here and say this
Congress passed the modernization of Medicare and the inclusion of
prescription drugs for our seniors with the President's help, and I
thank him.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page 32107]]
It is clear that the conduct of the Medicare prescription drug bill
is indefensible, and that is why not one member of the elected
leadership of the majority could show his face on this floor today to
defend that behavior. It is clear.
If we had so much time that night that we could wait, why could we
not have time to debate? We had asked the Committee on Rules for more
time for debate. Were the Republicans afraid that the American people
would find out with further debate that they have a prohibition in the
bill from this government negotiating for lower prices for prescription
drugs for our seniors? Were they afraid that they would find out if
they make $13,470 a year that they pay $4,000 of their first $5,000 for
prescription drug benefits, $4,000 of their first $5,000?
I brought this privileged resolution to the floor not because the
Republicans had once again abused their power and once again had abused
their customs and traditions of this House. I brought this privileged
resolution to the House because there were newspaper publications of
rumors of bribery, of $100,000 on the floor of this House to a Member
of Congress and a threat to that Member of Congress that his son would
never come to Congress unless he voted with the Republicans.
The public deserves answers to that question. We will not let this
rest. The Republican leadership can run, but they cannot hide from that
rumor of bribery taking place on this floor of the House. The Member
himself has asserted that, but we could not come to the floor until we
had a written documentation of that assertion. That assertion is now
documented.
Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the President's signing this
historic legislation today. This is not historic legislation. This is
an historic missed opportunity to do what is right for America's
seniors. It is historic in this respect: 40 years ago when the
Democratic Congress and the Democratic President made Medicare the law
of the land, only 13 Republicans voted for the Medicare bill. They had
been waging war. The Republicans had been waging war on Medicare for 40
years. They had their opportunity to have a full airing of the debate
that night so the public could hear what they were up to with their
Trojan horse of a piece of legislation. They did not have time to
debate. They could not honor our request for more time to discuss this
very historic and important legislation. They did have time for bribery
on the floor of the House of Representatives.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is an issue about how we conduct the people's
business, how we set an example for the rest of the world. It is an
example of how people are not accountable for their behavior on this
floor by having business conducted here in a way that brings shame and
dishonor to this House and not even coming to this floor to listen to
the debate or to defend that conduct. This is a very historic day
indeed because this is a day when the American people are finding out
that the Republicans will go to any length to be the handmaidens of the
pharmaceutical industry. They will go to any length to be beholden to
the HMOs and the insurance industry, that the Republicans will go to
any length to justify the wrong actions that they are taking. So
convinced of the correctness of their position that they think that any
action is justified. Let that not be the rule that applies to any of us
on either side of the aisle.
So, Mr. Speaker, with that I urge my colleagues to support our
privileged resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Motion to Table Offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut moves that the resolution be
laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is not debatable.
The question is on the motion to table offered by the gentlewoman by
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 207,
nays 182, not voting 45, as follows:
[Roll No. 677]
YEAS--207
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Buyer
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--182
Abercrombie
Alexander
Allen
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
[[Page 32108]]
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--45
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baker
Berman
Boucher
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Capuano
Carson (OK)
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Duncan
Everett
Filner
Fletcher
Gallegly
Gephardt
Gerlach
Istook
Janklow
Kennedy (RI)
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lynch
Manzullo
Menendez
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Nadler
Oxley
Pascrell
Quinn
Rohrabacher
Schiff
Stark
Thornberry
Vitter
Waxman
Wexler
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette)(during the vote). Members
are advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1704
Messrs. FRANK of Massachusetts, DAVIS of Illinois, and HALL changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. OSBORNE, RYUN of Kansas, GREENWOOD, AKIN, BEAUPREZ, and
TANCREDO, and Ms. HART changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 677, due to urgent
constituent support commitments in my congressional district, I missed
the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, the conference report for H.R. 2673 allows
disastrous overtime regulations to go through, bows to pressure on FCC
media ownership regulations, contains inadequate funding for the
manufacturing extension partnership, and includes a flawed public
school vouchers program. I have opposed all of these provisions in past
votes. While I have strong concerns about these and other provisions
contained in and left out of this omnibus appropriations bill, had I
been in attendance, I would have cast an ``aye'' vote on rollcall No.
676 in support of the many important programs this bill funds.
I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 677, the motion to table
the Democratic Leader's Privileged Resolution.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, due to official business outside
the Washington, DC, area, I was unable to be present during rollcall
votes 673-677. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' for rollcall
votes 673-677.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE OF TWO MEMBERS TO INFORM THE PRESIDENT THAT
THE HOUSE HAS COMPLETED ITS BUSINESS OF THE SESSION
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 476)
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 476
Resolved, That a committee of two Members of the House be
appointed to wait upon the President of the United States and
inform him that the House of Representatives has completed
its business of the session and is ready to adjourn, unless
the President has some other communication to make to them.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 476, the Chair
appoints the following Members of the House to the Committee to Notify
the President:
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay);
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
____________________
AUTHORIZING THE SPEAKER, MAJORITY LEADER, AND MINORITY LEADER TO ACCEPT
RESIGNATIONS AND TO MAKE APPOINTMENTS AUTHORIZED BY LAW OR BY THE HOUSE
FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE 108TH CONGRESS
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that for the
remainder of the 108th Congress, the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and
the Minority Leader be authorized to accept resignations and to make
appointments authorized by law or by the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
____________________
GRANTING MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE PRIVILEGE TO EXTEND AND REVISE REMARKS IN
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD UNTIL LAST EDITION IS PUBLISHED
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have
until publication of the last edition of the Congressional Record
authorized for the first session of the 108th Congress by the Joint
Committee on Printing to revise and extend their remarks and to include
brief, related extraneous material on any matter occurring before the
adjournment of the first session sine die.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 3507
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name
removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3507.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H. Res. 462
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name
removed as a cosponsor of H. Res. 462.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Nebraska?
There was no objection.
____________________
CONTROLLING THE ASSAULT OF NON-SOLICITED PORNOGRAPHY AND MARKET ACT OF
2003
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 877) to regulate interstate
commerce by imposing limitations and penalties on the transmission of
unsolicited commercial electronic mail via the Internet, with a Senate
amendment to the House amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate
amendment to the House amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment, as
follows:
Senate amendment to House amendment:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House amendment to
the text of the bill, insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Controlling the Assault of
Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003'', or the
``CAN-SPAM Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND POLICY.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Electronic mail has become an extremely important and
popular means of communication, relied on by millions of
Americans on a daily basis for personal and commercial
purposes. Its low cost and global reach make it extremely
convenient and efficient, and offer unique opportunities for
the development and growth of frictionless commerce.
(2) The convenience and efficiency of electronic mail are
threatened by the extremely rapid growth in the volume of
unsolicited commercial electronic mail. Unsolicited
commercial electronic mail is currently estimated to account
for over half of all electronic mail traffic, up from an
estimated 7 percent in 2001, and the volume continues to
rise. Most of these messages are fraudulent or deceptive in
one or more respects.
(3) The receipt of unsolicited commercial electronic mail
may result in costs to recipients who cannot refuse to accept
such mail and who incur costs for the storage of such mail,
or for the time spent accessing, reviewing, and discarding
such mail, or for both.
[[Page 32109]]
(4) The receipt of a large number of unwanted messages also
decreases the convenience of electronic mail and creates a
risk that wanted electronic mail messages, both commercial
and noncommercial, will be lost, overlooked, or discarded
amidst the larger volume of unwanted messages, thus reducing
the reliability and usefulness of electronic mail to the
recipient.
(5) Some commercial electronic mail contains material that
many recipients may consider vulgar or pornographic in
nature.
(6) The growth in unsolicited commercial electronic mail
imposes significant monetary costs on providers of Internet
access services, businesses, and educational and nonprofit
institutions that carry and receive such mail, as there is a
finite volume of mail that such providers, businesses, and
institutions can handle without further investment in
infrastructure.
(7) Many senders of unsolicited commercial electronic mail
purposefully disguise the source of such mail.
(8) Many senders of unsolicited commercial electronic mail
purposefully include misleading information in the messages'
subject lines in order to induce the recipients to view the
messages.
(9) While some senders of commercial electronic mail
messages provide simple and reliable ways for recipients to
reject (or ``opt-out'' of) receipt of commercial electronic
mail from such senders in the future, other senders provide
no such ``opt-out'' mechanism, or refuse to honor the
requests of recipients not to receive electronic mail from
such senders in the future, or both.
(10) Many senders of bulk unsolicited commercial electronic
mail use computer programs to gather large numbers of
electronic mail addresses on an automated basis from Internet
websites or online services where users must post their
addresses in order to make full use of the website or
service.
(11) Many States have enacted legislation intended to
regulate or reduce unsolicited commercial electronic mail,
but these statutes impose different standards and
requirements. As a result, they do not appear to have been
successful in addressing the problems associated with
unsolicited commercial electronic mail, in part because,
since an electronic mail address does not specify a
geographic location, it can be extremely difficult for law-
abiding businesses to know with which of these disparate
statutes they are required to comply.
(12) The problems associated with the rapid growth and
abuse of unsolicited commercial electronic mail cannot be
solved by Federal legislation alone. The development and
adoption of technological approaches and the pursuit of
cooperative efforts with other countries will be necessary as
well.
(b) Congressional Determination of Public Policy.--On the
basis of the findings in subsection (a), the Congress
determines that--
(1) there is a substantial government interest in
regulation of commercial electronic mail on a nationwide
basis;
(2) senders of commercial electronic mail should not
mislead recipients as to the source or content of such mail;
and
(3) recipients of commercial electronic mail have a right
to decline to receive additional commercial electronic mail
from the same source.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Affirmative consent.--The term ``affirmative consent'',
when used with respect to a commercial electronic mail
message, means that--
(A) the recipient expressly consented to receive the
message, either in response to a clear and conspicuous
request for such consent or at the recipient's own
initiative; and
(B) if the message is from a party other than the party to
which the recipient communicated such consent, the recipient
was given clear and conspicuous notice at the time the
consent was communicated that the recipient's electronic mail
address could be transferred to such other party for the
purpose of initiating commercial electronic mail messages.
(2) Commercial electronic mail message.--
(A) In general.--The term ``commercial electronic mail
message'' means any electronic mail message the primary
purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion
of a commercial product or service (including content on an
Internet website operated for a commercial purpose).
(B) Transactional or relationship messages.--The term
``commercial electronic mail message'' does not include a
transactional or relationship message.
(C) Regulations regarding primary purpose.--Not later than
12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Commission shall issue regulations pursuant to section 13
defining the relevant criteria to facilitate the
determination of the primary purpose of an electronic mail
message.
(D) Reference to company or website.--The inclusion of a
reference to a commercial entity or a link to the website of
a commercial entity in an electronic mail message does not,
by itself, cause such message to be treated as a commercial
electronic mail message for purposes of this Act if the
contents or circumstances of the message indicate a primary
purpose other than commercial advertisement or promotion of a
commercial product or service.
(3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Trade Commission.
(4) Domain name.--The term ``domain name'' means any
alphanumeric designation which is registered with or assigned
by any domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other
domain name registration authority as part of an electronic
address on the Internet.
(5) Electronic mail address.--The term ``electronic mail
address'' means a destination, commonly expressed as a string
of characters, consisting of a unique user name or mailbox
(commonly referred to as the ``local part'') and a reference
to an Internet domain (commonly referred to as the ``domain
part''), whether or not displayed, to which an electronic
mail message can be sent or delivered.
(6) Electronic mail message.--The term ``electronic mail
message'' means a message sent to a unique electronic mail
address.
(7) FTC act.--The term ``FTC Act'' means the Federal Trade
Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.).
(8) Header information.--The term ``header information''
means the source, destination, and routing information
attached to an electronic mail message, including the
originating domain name and originating electronic mail
address, and any other information that appears in the line
identifying, or purporting to identify, a person initiating
the message.
(9) Initiate.--The term ``initiate'', when used with
respect to a commercial electronic mail message, means to
originate or transmit such message or to procure the
origination or transmission of such message, but shall not
include actions that constitute routine conveyance of such
message. For purposes of this paragraph, more than one person
may be considered to have initiated a message.
(10) Internet.--The term ``Internet'' has the meaning given
that term in the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 nt).
(11) Internet access service.--The term ``Internet access
service'' has the meaning given that term in section
231(e)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
231(e)(4)).
(12) Procure.--The term ``procure'', when used with respect
to the initiation of a commercial electronic mail message,
means intentionally to pay or provide other consideration to,
or induce, another person to initiate such a message on one's
behalf.
(13) Protected computer.--The term ``protected computer''
has the meaning given that term in section 1030(e)(2)(B) of
title 18, United States Code.
(14) Recipient.--The term ``recipient'', when used with
respect to a commercial electronic mail message, means an
authorized user of the electronic mail address to which the
message was sent or delivered. If a recipient of a commercial
electronic mail message has one or more electronic mail
addresses in addition to the address to which the message was
sent or delivered, the recipient shall be treated as a
separate recipient with respect to each such address. If an
electronic mail address is reassigned to a new user, the new
user shall not be treated as a recipient of any commercial
electronic mail message sent or delivered to that address
before it was reassigned.
(15) Routine conveyance.--The term ``routine conveyance''
means the transmission, routing, relaying, handling, or
storing, through an automatic technical process, of an
electronic mail message for which another person has
identified the recipients or provided the recipient
addresses.
(16) Sender.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term ``sender'', when used with respect to a commercial
electronic mail message, means a person who initiates such a
message and whose product, service, or Internet web site is
advertised or promoted by the message.
(B) Separate lines of business or divisions.--If an entity
operates through separate lines of business or divisions and
holds itself out to the recipient throughout the message as
that particular line of business or division rather than as
the entity of which such line of business or division is a
part, then the line of business or the division shall be
treated as the sender of such message for purposes of this
Act.
(17) Transactional or relationship message.--
(A) In general.--The term ``transactional or relationship
message'' means an electronic mail message the primary
purpose of which is--
(i) to facilitate, complete, or confirm a commercial
transaction that the recipient has previously agreed to enter
into with the sender;
(ii) to provide warranty information, product recall
information, or safety or security information with respect
to a commercial product or service used or purchased by the
recipient;
(iii) to provide--
(I) notification concerning a change in the terms or
features of;
(II) notification of a change in the recipient's standing
or status with respect to; or
(III) at regular periodic intervals, account balance
information or other type of account statement with respect
to,
a subscription, membership, account, loan, or comparable
ongoing commercial relationship involving the ongoing
purchase or use by the recipient of products or services
offered by the sender;
(iv) to provide information directly related to an
employment relationship or related benefit plan in which the
recipient is currently involved, participating, or enrolled;
or
(v) to deliver goods or services, including product updates
or upgrades, that the recipient is entitled to receive under
the terms of a transaction that the recipient has previously
agreed to enter into with the sender.
(B) Modification of definition.--The Commission by
regulation pursuant to section 13
[[Page 32110]]
may modify the definition in subparagraph (A) to expand or
contract the categories of messages that are treated as
transactional or relationship messages for purposes of this
Act to the extent that such modification is necessary to
accommodate changes in electronic mail technology or
practices and accomplish the purposes of this Act.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION AGAINST PREDATORY AND ABUSIVE COMMERCIAL
E-MAIL.
(a) Offense.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 1037. Fraud and related activity in connection with
electronic mail
``(a) In General.--Whoever, in or affecting interstate or
foreign commerce, knowingly--
``(1) accesses a protected computer without authorization,
and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple
commercial electronic mail messages from or through such
computer,
``(2) uses a protected computer to relay or retransmit
multiple commercial electronic mail messages, with the intent
to deceive or mislead recipients, or any Internet access
service, as to the origin of such messages,
``(3) materially falsifies header information in multiple
commercial electronic mail messages and intentionally
initiates the transmission of such messages,
``(4) registers, using information that materially
falsifies the identity of the actual registrant, for five or
more electronic mail accounts or online user accounts or two
or more domain names, and intentionally initiates the
transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages
from any combination of such accounts or domain names, or
``(5) falsely represents oneself to be the registrant or
the legitimate successor in interest to the registrant of 5
or more Internet Protocol addresses, and intentionally
initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic
mail messages from such addresses,
or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in
subsection (b).
``(b) Penalties.--The punishment for an offense under
subsection (a) is--
``(1) a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more
than 5 years, or both, if--
``(A) the offense is committed in furtherance of any felony
under the laws of the United States or of any State; or
``(B) the defendant has previously been convicted under
this section or section 1030, or under the law of any State
for conduct involving the transmission of multiple commercial
electronic mail messages or unauthorized access to a computer
system;
``(2) a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more
than 3 years, or both, if--
``(A) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(1);
``(B) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) and
involved 20 or more falsified electronic mail or online user
account registrations, or 10 or more falsified domain name
registrations;
``(C) the volume of electronic mail messages transmitted in
furtherance of the offense exceeded 2,500 during any 24-hour
period, 25,000 during any 30-day period, or 250,000 during
any 1-year period;
``(D) the offense caused loss to one or more persons
aggregating $5,000 or more in value during any 1-year period;
``(E) as a result of the offense any individual committing
the offense obtained anything of value aggregating $5,000 or
more during any 1-year period; or
``(F) the offense was undertaken by the defendant in
concert with 3 or more other persons with respect to whom the
defendant occupied a position of organizer or leader; and
``(3) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more
than 1 year, or both, in any other case.
``(c) Forfeiture.--
``(1) In general.--The court, in imposing sentence on a
person who is convicted of an offense under this section,
shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States--
``(A) any property, real or personal, constituting or
traceable to gross proceeds obtained from such offense; and
``(B) any equipment, software, or other technology used or
intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission
of such offense.
``(2) Procedures.--The procedures set forth in section 413
of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853), other than
subsection (d) of that section, and in Rule 32.2 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, shall apply to all
stages of a criminal forfeiture proceeding under this
section.
``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Loss.--The term `loss' has the meaning given that
term in section 1030(e) of this title.
``(2) Materially.--For purposes of paragraphs (3) and (4)
of subsection (a), header information or registration
information is materially falsified if it is altered or
concealed in a manner that would impair the ability of a
recipient of the message, an Internet access service
processing the message on behalf of a recipient, a person
alleging a violation of this section, or a law enforcement
agency to identify, locate, or respond to a person who
initiated the electronic mail message or to investigate the
alleged violation.
``(3) Multiple.--The term `multiple' means more than 100
electronic mail messages during a 24-hour period, more than
1,000 electronic mail messages during a 30-day period, or
more than 10,000 electronic mail messages during a 1-year
period.
``(4) Other terms.--Any other term has the meaning given
that term by section 3 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``Sec.
``1037. Fraud and related activity in connection with electronic
mail.''.
(b) United States Sentencing Commission.--
(1) Directive.--Pursuant to its authority under section
994(p) of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance
with this section, the United States Sentencing Commission
shall review and, as appropriate, amend the sentencing
guidelines and policy statements to provide appropriate
penalties for violations of section 1037 of title 18, United
States Code, as added by this section, and other offenses
that may be facilitated by the sending of large quantities of
unsolicited electronic mail.
(2) Requirements.--In carrying out this subsection, the
Sentencing Commission shall consider providing sentencing
enhancements for--
(A) those convicted under section 1037 of title 18, United
States Code, who--
(i) obtained electronic mail addresses through improper
means, including--
(I) harvesting electronic mail addresses of the users of a
website, proprietary service, or other online public forum
operated by another person, without the authorization of such
person; and
(II) randomly generating electronic mail addresses by
computer; or
(ii) knew that the commercial electronic mail messages
involved in the offense contained or advertised an Internet
domain for which the registrant of the domain had provided
false registration information; and
(B) those convicted of other offenses, including offenses
involving fraud, identity theft, obscenity, child
pornography, and the sexual exploitation of children, if such
offenses involved the sending of large quantities of
electronic mail.
(c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) Spam has become the method of choice for those who
distribute pornography, perpetrate fraudulent schemes, and
introduce viruses, worms, and Trojan horses into personal and
business computer systems; and
(2) the Department of Justice should use all existing law
enforcement tools to investigate and prosecute those who send
bulk commercial e-mail to facilitate the commission of
Federal crimes, including the tools contained in chapters 47
and 63 of title 18, United States Code (relating to fraud and
false statements); chapter 71 of title 18, United States Code
(relating to obscenity); chapter 110 of title 18, United
States Code (relating to the sexual exploitation of
children); and chapter 95 of title 18, United States Code
(relating to racketeering), as appropriate.
SEC. 5. OTHER PROTECTIONS FOR USERS OF COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC
MAIL.
(a) Requirements for Transmission of Messages.--
(1) Prohibition of false or misleading transmission
information.--It is unlawful for any person to initiate the
transmission, to a protected computer, of a commercial
electronic mail message, or a transactional or relationship
message, that contains, or is accompanied by, header
information that is materially false or materially
misleading. For purposes of this paragraph--
(A) header information that is technically accurate but
includes an originating electronic mail address, domain name,
or Internet Protocol address the access to which for purposes
of initiating the message was obtained by means of false or
fraudulent pretenses or representations shall be considered
materially misleading;
(B) a ``from'' line (the line identifying or purporting to
identify a person initiating the message) that accurately
identifies any person who initiated the message shall not be
considered materially false or materially misleading; and
(C) header information shall be considered materially
misleading if it fails to identify accurately a protected
computer used to initiate the message because the person
initiating the message knowingly uses another protected
computer to relay or retransmit the message for purposes of
disguising its origin.
(2) Prohibition of deceptive subject headings.--It is
unlawful for any person to initiate the transmission to a
protected computer of a commercial electronic mail message if
such person has actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied
on the basis of objective circumstances, that a subject
heading of the message would be likely to mislead a
recipient, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a
material fact regarding the contents or subject matter of the
message (consistent with the criteria used in enforcement of
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.
45)).
(3) Inclusion of return address or comparable mechanism in
commercial electronic mail.--
(A) In general.--It is unlawful for any person to initiate
the transmission to a protected computer of a commercial
electronic mail message that does not contain a functioning
return electronic mail address or other Internet-based
mechanism, clearly and conspicuously displayed, that--
(i) a recipient may use to submit, in a manner specified in
the message, a reply electronic mail message or other form of
Internet-based communication requesting not to receive future
commercial electronic mail messages from that sender at the
electronic mail address where the message was received; and
[[Page 32111]]
(ii) remains capable of receiving such messages or
communications for no less than 30 days after the
transmission of the original message.
(B) More detailed options possible.--The person initiating
a commercial electronic mail message may comply with
subparagraph (A)(i) by providing the recipient a list or menu
from which the recipient may choose the specific types of
commercial electronic mail messages the recipient wants to
receive or does not want to receive from the sender, if the
list or menu includes an option under which the recipient may
choose not to receive any commercial electronic mail messages
from the sender.
(C) Temporary inability to receive messages or process
requests.--A return electronic mail address or other
mechanism does not fail to satisfy the requirements of
subparagraph (A) if it is unexpectedly and temporarily unable
to receive messages or process requests due to a technical
problem beyond the control of the sender if the problem is
corrected within a reasonable time period.
(4) Prohibition of transmission of commercial electronic
mail after objection.--
(A) In general.--If a recipient makes a request using a
mechanism provided pursuant to paragraph (3) not to receive
some or any commercial electronic mail messages from such
sender, then it is unlawful--
(i) for the sender to initiate the transmission to the
recipient, more than 10 business days after the receipt of
such request, of a commercial electronic mail message that
falls within the scope of the request;
(ii) for any person acting on behalf of the sender to
initiate the transmission to the recipient, more than 10
business days after the receipt of such request, of a
commercial electronic mail message with actual knowledge, or
knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective
circumstances, that such message falls within the scope of
the request;
(iii) for any person acting on behalf of the sender to
assist in initiating the transmission to the recipient,
through the provision or selection of addresses to which the
message will be sent, of a commercial electronic mail message
with actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied on the
basis of objective circumstances, that such message would
violate clause (i) or (ii); or
(iv) for the sender, or any other person who knows that the
recipient has made such a request, to sell, lease, exchange,
or otherwise transfer or release the electronic mail address
of the recipient (including through any transaction or other
transfer involving mailing lists bearing the electronic mail
address of the recipient) for any purpose other than
compliance with this Act or other provision of law.
(B) Subsequent affirmative consent.--A prohibition in
subparagraph (A) does not apply if there is affirmative
consent by the recipient subsequent to the request under
subparagraph (A).
(5) Inclusion of identifier, opt-out, and physical address
in commercial electronic mail.--
(A) It is unlawful for any person to initiate the
transmission of any commercial electronic mail message to a
protected computer unless the message provides--
(i) clear and conspicuous identification that the message
is an advertisement or solicitation;
(ii) clear and conspicuous notice of the opportunity under
paragraph (3) to decline to receive further commercial
electronic mail messages from the sender; and
(iii) a valid physical postal address of the sender.
(B) Subparagraph (A)(i) does not apply to the transmission
of a commercial electronic mail message if the recipient has
given prior affirmative consent to receipt of the message.
(6) Materially.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the term
``materially'', when used with respect to false or misleading
header information, includes the alteration or concealment of
header information in a manner that would impair the ability
of an Internet access service processing the message on
behalf of a recipient, a person alleging a violation of this
section, or a law enforcement agency to identify, locate, or
respond to a person who initiated the electronic mail message
or to investigate the alleged violation, or the ability of a
recipient of the message to respond to a person who initiated
the electronic message.
(b) Aggravated Violations Relating to Commercial Electronic
Mail.--
(1) Address harvesting and dictionary attacks.--
(A) In general.--It is unlawful for any person to initiate
the transmission, to a protected computer, of a commercial
electronic mail message that is unlawful under subsection
(a), or to assist in the origination of such message through
the provision or selection of addresses to which the message
will be transmitted, if such person had actual knowledge, or
knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective
circumstances, that--
(i) the electronic mail address of the recipient was
obtained using an automated means from an Internet website or
proprietary online service operated by another person, and
such website or online service included, at the time the
address was obtained, a notice stating that the operator of
such website or online service will not give, sell, or
otherwise transfer addresses maintained by such website or
online service to any other party for the purposes of
initiating, or enabling others to initiate, electronic mail
messages; or
(ii) the electronic mail address of the recipient was
obtained using an automated means that generates possible
electronic mail addresses by combining names, letters, or
numbers into numerous permutations.
(B) Disclaimer.--Nothing in this paragraph creates an
ownership or proprietary interest in such electronic mail
addresses.
(2) Automated creation of multiple electronic mail
accounts.--It is unlawful for any person to use scripts or
other automated means to register for multiple electronic
mail accounts or online user accounts from which to transmit
to a protected computer, or enable another person to transmit
to a protected computer, a commercial electronic mail message
that is unlawful under subsection (a).
(3) Relay or retransmission through unauthorized access.--
It is unlawful for any person knowingly to relay or
retransmit a commercial electronic mail message that is
unlawful under subsection (a) from a protected computer or
computer network that such person has accessed without
authorization.
(c) Supplementary Rulemaking Authority.--The Commission
shall by regulation, pursuant to section 13--
(1) modify the 10-business-day period under subsection
(a)(4)(A) or subsection (a)(4)(B), or both, if the Commission
determines that a different period would be more reasonable
after taking into account--
(A) the purposes of subsection (a);
(B) the interests of recipients of commercial electronic
mail; and
(C) the burdens imposed on senders of lawful commercial
electronic mail; and
(2) specify additional activities or practices to which
subsection (b) applies if the Commission determines that
those activities or practices are contributing substantially
to the proliferation of commercial electronic mail messages
that are unlawful under subsection (a).
(d) Requirement To Place Warning Labels on Commercial
Electronic Mail Containing Sexually Oriented Material.--
(1) In general.--No person may initiate in or affecting
interstate commerce the transmission, to a protected
computer, of any commercial electronic mail message that
includes sexually oriented material and--
(A) fail to include in subject heading for the electronic
mail message the marks or notices prescribed by the
Commission under this subsection; or
(B) fail to provide that the matter in the message that is
initially viewable to the recipient, when the message is
opened by any recipient and absent any further actions by the
recipient, includes only--
(i) to the extent required or authorized pursuant to
paragraph (2), any such marks or notices;
(ii) the information required to be included in the message
pursuant to subsection (a)(5); and
(iii) instructions on how to access, or a mechanism to
access, the sexually oriented material.
(2) Prior affirmative consent.--Paragraph (1) does not
apply to the transmission of an electronic mail message if
the recipient has given prior affirmative consent to receipt
of the message.
(3) Prescription of marks and notices.--Not later than 120
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Commission in consultation with the Attorney General shall
prescribe clearly identifiable marks or notices to be
included in or associated with commercial electronic mail
that contains sexually oriented material, in order to inform
the recipient of that fact and to facilitate filtering of
such electronic mail. The Commission shall publish in the
Federal Register and provide notice to the public of the
marks or notices prescribed under this paragraph.
(4) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``sexually
oriented material'' means any material that depicts sexually
explicit conduct (as that term is defined in section 2256 of
title 18, United States Code), unless the depiction
constitutes a small and insignificant part of the whole, the
remainder of which is not primarily devoted to sexual
matters.
(5) Penalty.--Whoever knowingly violates paragraph (1)
shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or
imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
SEC. 6. BUSINESSES KNOWINGLY PROMOTED BY ELECTRONIC MAIL WITH
FALSE OR MISLEADING TRANSMISSION INFORMATION.
(a) In General.--It is unlawful for a person to promote, or
allow the promotion of, that person's trade or business, or
goods, products, property, or services sold, offered for
sale, leased or offered for lease, or otherwise made
available through that trade or business, in a commercial
electronic mail message the transmission of which is in
violation of section 5(a)(1) if that person--
(1) knows, or should have known in the ordinary course of
that person's trade or business, that the goods, products,
property, or services sold, offered for sale, leased or
offered for lease, or otherwise made available through that
trade or business were being promoted in such a message;
(2) received or expected to receive an economic benefit
from such promotion; and
(3) took no reasonable action--
(A) to prevent the transmission; or
(B) to detect the transmission and report it to the
Commission.
(b) Limited Enforcement Against Third Parties.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
person (hereinafter referred to as the ``third party'') that
provides goods, products, property, or services to another
person that violates subsection (a) shall not be held liable
for such violation.
(2) Exception.--Liability for a violation of subsection (a)
shall be imputed to a third party
[[Page 32112]]
that provides goods, products, property, or services to
another person that violates subsection (a) if that third
party--
(A) owns, or has a greater than 50 percent ownership or
economic interest in, the trade or business of the person
that violated subsection (a); or
(B)(i) has actual knowledge that goods, products, property,
or services are promoted in a commercial electronic mail
message the transmission of which is in violation of section
5(a)(1); and
(ii) receives, or expects to receive, an economic benefit
from such promotion.
(c) Exclusive Enforcement by FTC.--Subsections (f) and (g)
of section 7 do not apply to violations of this section.
(d) Savings Provision.--Except as provided in section
7(f)(8), nothing in this section may be construed to limit or
prevent any action that may be taken under this Act with
respect to any violation of any other section of this Act.
SEC. 7. ENFORCEMENT GENERALLY.
(a) Violation Is Unfair or Deceptive Act or Practice.--
Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act shall be
enforced by the Commission as if the violation of this Act
were an unfair or deceptive act or practice proscribed under
section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
(b) Enforcement by Certain Other Agencies.--Compliance with
this Act shall be enforced--
(1) under section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act
(12 U.S.C. 1818), in the case of--
(A) national banks, and Federal branches and Federal
agencies of foreign banks, by the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency;
(B) member banks of the Federal Reserve System (other than
national banks), branches and agencies of foreign banks
(other than Federal branches, Federal agencies, and insured
State branches of foreign banks), commercial lending
companies owned or controlled by foreign banks, organizations
operating under section 25 or 25A of the Federal Reserve Act
(12 U.S.C. 601 and 611), and bank holding companies, by the
Board;
(C) banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (other than members of the Federal Reserve
System) insured State branches of foreign banks, by the Board
of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;
and
(D) savings associations the deposits of which are insured
by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, by the Director
of the Office of Thrift Supervision;
(2) under the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1751 et
seq.) by the Board of the National Credit Union
Administration with respect to any Federally insured credit
union;
(3) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78a et seq.) by the Securities and Exchange Commission with
respect to any broker or dealer;
(4) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C.
80a-1 et seq.) by the Securities and Exchange Commission with
respect to investment companies;
(5) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C.
80b-1 et seq.) by the Securities and Exchange Commission with
respect to investment advisers registered under that Act;
(6) under State insurance law in the case of any person
engaged in providing insurance, by the applicable State
insurance authority of the State in which the person is
domiciled, subject to section 104 of the Gramm-Bliley-Leach
Act (15 U.S.C. 6701), except that in any State in which the
State insurance authority elects not to exercise this power,
the enforcement authority pursuant to this Act shall be
exercised by the Commission in accordance with subsection
(a);
(7) under part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States
Code, by the Secretary of Transportation with respect to any
air carrier or foreign air carrier subject to that part;
(8) under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C.
181 et seq.) (except as provided in section 406 of that Act
(7 U.S.C. 226, 227)), by the Secretary of Agriculture with
respect to any activities subject to that Act;
(9) under the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 U.S.C. 2001 et
seq.) by the Farm Credit Administration with respect to any
Federal land bank, Federal land bank association, Federal
intermediate credit bank, or production credit association;
and
(10) under the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et
seq.) by the Federal Communications Commission with respect
to any person subject to the provisions of that Act.
(c) Exercise of Certain Powers.--For the purpose of the
exercise by any agency referred to in subsection (b) of its
powers under any Act referred to in that subsection, a
violation of this Act is deemed to be a violation of a
Federal Trade Commission trade regulation rule. In addition
to its powers under any provision of law specifically
referred to in subsection (b), each of the agencies referred
to in that subsection may exercise, for the purpose of
enforcing compliance with any requirement imposed under this
Act, any other authority conferred on it by law.
(d) Actions by the Commission.--The Commission shall
prevent any person from violating this Act in the same
manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction,
powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and
provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41
et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this Act.
Any entity that violates any provision of that subtitle is
subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and
immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act in
the same manner, by the same means, and with the same
jurisdiction, power, and duties as though all applicable
terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were
incorporated into and made a part of that subtitle.
(e) Availability of Cease-and-Desist Orders and Injunctive
Relief Without Showing of Knowledge.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this Act, in any proceeding or action
pursuant to subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this section
to enforce compliance, through an order to cease and desist
or an injunction, with section 5(a)(1)(C), section 5(a)(2),
clause (ii), (iii), or (iv) of section 5(a)(4)(A), section
5(b)(1)(A), or section 5(b)(3), neither the Commission nor
the Federal Communications Commission shall be required to
allege or prove the state of mind required by such section or
subparagraph.
(f) Enforcement by States.--
(1) Civil action.--In any case in which the attorney
general of a State, or an official or agency of a State, has
reason to believe that an interest of the residents of that
State has been or is threatened or adversely affected by any
person who violates paragraph (1) or (2) of section 5(a), who
violates section 5(d), or who engages in a pattern or
practice that violates paragraph (3), (4), or (5) of section
5(a), of this Act, the attorney general, official, or agency
of the State, as parens patriae, may bring a civil action on
behalf of the residents of the State in a district court of
the United States of appropriate jurisdiction--
(A) to enjoin further violation of section 5 of this Act by
the defendant; or
(B) to obtain damages on behalf of residents of the State,
in an amount equal to the greater of--
(i) the actual monetary loss suffered by such residents; or
(ii) the amount determined under paragraph (3).
(2) Availability of injunctive relief without showing of
knowledge.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
in a civil action under paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection,
the attorney general, official, or agency of the State shall
not be required to allege or prove the state of mind required
by section 5(a)(1)(C), section 5(a)(2), clause (ii), (iii),
or (iv) of section 5(a)(4)(A), section 5(b)(1)(A), or section
5(b)(3).
(3) Statutory damages.--
(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii), the
amount determined under this paragraph is the amount
calculated by multiplying the number of violations (with each
separately addressed unlawful message received by or
addressed to such residents treated as a separate violation)
by up to $250.
(B) Limitation.--For any violation of section 5 (other than
section 5(a)(1)), the amount determined under subparagraph
(A) may not exceed $2,000,000.
(C) Aggravated damages.--The court may increase a damage
award to an amount equal to not more than three times the
amount otherwise available under this paragraph if--
(i) the court determines that the defendant committed the
violation willfully and knowingly; or
(ii) the defendant's unlawful activity included one or more
of the aggravating violations set forth in section 5(b).
(D) Reduction of damages.--In assessing damages under
subparagraph (A), the court may consider whether--
(i) the defendant has established and implemented, with due
care, commercially reasonable practices and procedures
designed to effectively prevent such violations; or
(ii) the violation occurred despite commercially reasonable
efforts to maintain compliance the practices and procedures
to which reference is made in clause (i).
(4) Attorney fees.--In the case of any successful action
under paragraph (1), the court, in its discretion, may award
the costs of the action and reasonable attorney fees to the
State.
(5) Rights of federal regulators.--The State shall serve
prior written notice of any action under paragraph (1) upon
the Federal Trade Commission or the appropriate Federal
regulator determined under subsection (b) and provide the
Commission or appropriate Federal regulator with a copy of
its complaint, except in any case in which such prior notice
is not feasible, in which case the State shall serve such
notice immediately upon instituting such action. The Federal
Trade Commission or appropriate Federal regulator shall have
the right--
(A) to intervene in the action;
(B) upon so intervening, to be heard on all matters arising
therein;
(C) to remove the action to the appropriate United States
district court; and
(D) to file petitions for appeal.
(6) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil
action under paragraph (1), nothing in this Act shall be
construed to prevent an attorney general of a State from
exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general by
the laws of that State to--
(A) conduct investigations;
(B) administer oaths or affirmations; or
(C) compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of
documentary and other evidence.
(7) Venue; service of process.--
(A) Venue.--Any action brought under paragraph (1) may be
brought in the district court of the United States that meets
applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391
of title 28, United States Code.
(B) Service of process.--In an action brought under
paragraph (1), process may be served in any district in which
the defendant--
(i) is an inhabitant; or
[[Page 32113]]
(ii) maintains a physical place of business.
(8) Limitation on state action while federal action is
pending.--If the Commission, or other appropriate Federal
agency under subsection (b), has instituted a civil action or
an administrative action for violation of this Act, no State
attorney general, or official or agency of a State, may bring
an action under this subsection during the pendency of that
action against any defendant named in the complaint of the
Commission or the other agency for any violation of this Act
alleged in the complaint.
(9) Requisite scienter for certain civil actions.--Except
as provided in section 5(a)(1)(C), section 5(a)(2), clause
(ii), (iii), or (iv) of section 5(a)(4)(A), section
5(b)(1)(A), or section 5(b)(3), in a civil action brought by
a State attorney general, or an official or agency of a
State, to recover monetary damages for a violation of this
Act, the court shall not grant the relief sought unless the
attorney general, official, or agency establishes that the
defendant acted with actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly
implied on the basis of objective circumstances, of the act
or omission that constitutes the violation.
(g) Action by Provider of Internet Access Service.--
(1) Action authorized.--A provider of Internet access
service adversely affected by a violation of section 5(a)(1),
5(b), or 5(d), or a pattern or practice that violates
paragraph (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 5(a), may bring a
civil action in any district court of the United States with
jurisdiction over the defendant--
(A) to enjoin further violation by the defendant; or
(B) to recover damages in an amount equal to the greater
of--
(i) actual monetary loss incurred by the provider of
Internet access service as a result of such violation; or
(ii) the amount determined under paragraph (3).
(2) Special definition of ``procure''.--In any action
brought under paragraph (1), this Act shall be applied as if
the definition of the term ``procure'' in section 3(12)
contained, after ``behalf'' the words ``with actual
knowledge, or by consciously avoiding knowing, whether such
person is engaging, or will engage, in a pattern or practice
that violates this Act''.
(3) Statutory damages.--
(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii), the
amount determined under this paragraph is the amount
calculated by multiplying the number of violations (with each
separately addressed unlawful message that is transmitted or
attempted to be transmitted over the facilities of the
provider of Internet access service, or that is transmitted
or attempted to be transmitted to an electronic mail address
obtained from the provider of Internet access service in
violation of section 5(b)(1)(A)(i), treated as a separate
violation) by--
(i) up to $100, in the case of a violation of section
5(a)(1); or
(ii) up to $25, in the case of any other violation of
section 5.
(B) Limitation.--For any violation of section 5 (other than
section 5(a)(1)), the amount determined under subparagraph
(A) may not exceed $1,000,000.
(C) Aggravated damages.--The court may increase a damage
award to an amount equal to not more than three times the
amount otherwise available under this paragraph if--
(i) the court determines that the defendant committed the
violation willfully and knowingly; or
(ii) the defendant's unlawful activity included one or more
of the aggravated violations set forth in section 5(b).
(D) Reduction of damages.--In assessing damages under
subparagraph (A), the court may consider whether--
(i) the defendant has established and implemented, with due
care, commercially reasonable practices and procedures
designed to effectively prevent such violations; or
(ii) the violation occurred despite commercially reasonable
efforts to maintain compliance with the practices and
procedures to which reference is made in clause (i).
(4) Attorney fees.--In any action brought pursuant to
paragraph (1), the court may, in its discretion, require an
undertaking for the payment of the costs of such action, and
assess reasonable costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, against any party.
SEC. 8. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.
(a) Federal Law.--(1) Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of
the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223 or 231,
respectively), chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110
(relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18,
United States Code, or any other Federal criminal statute.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect in any
way the Commission's authority to bring enforcement actions
under FTC Act for materially false or deceptive
representations or unfair practices in commercial electronic
mail messages.
(b) State Law.--
(1) In general.--This Act supersedes any statute,
regulation, or rule of a State or political subdivision of a
State that expressly regulates the use of electronic mail to
send commercial messages, except to the extent that any such
statute, regulation, or rule prohibits falsity or deception
in any portion of a commercial electronic mail message or
information attached thereto.
(2) State law not specific to electronic mail.--This Act
shall not be construed to preempt the applicability of--
(A) State laws that are not specific to electronic mail,
including State trespass, contract, or tort law; or
(B) other State laws to the extent that those laws relate
to acts of fraud or computer crime.
(c) No Effect on Policies of Providers of Internet Access
Service.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any
effect on the lawfulness or unlawfulness, under any other
provision of law, of the adoption, implementation, or
enforcement by a provider of Internet access service of a
policy of declining to transmit, route, relay, handle, or
store certain types of electronic mail messages.
SEC. 9. DO-NOT-E-MAIL REGISTRY.
(a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall transmit to the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and
the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce
a report that--
(1) sets forth a plan and timetable for establishing a
nationwide marketing Do-Not-E-Mail registry;
(2) includes an explanation of any practical, technical,
security, privacy, enforceability, or other concerns that the
Commission has regarding such a registry; and
(3) includes an explanation of how the registry would be
applied with respect to children with e-mail accounts.
(b) Authorization To Implement.--The Commission may
establish and implement the plan, but not earlier than 9
months after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 10. STUDY OF EFFECTS OF COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL.
(a) In General.--Not later than 24 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Commission, in consultation
with the Department of Justice and other appropriate
agencies, shall submit a report to the Congress that provides
a detailed analysis of the effectiveness and enforcement of
the provisions of this Act and the need (if any) for the
Congress to modify such provisions.
(b) Required Analysis.--The Commission shall include in the
report required by subsection (a)--
(1) an analysis of the extent to which technological and
marketplace developments, including changes in the nature of
the devices through which consumers access their electronic
mail messages, may affect the practicality and effectiveness
of the provisions of this Act;
(2) analysis and recommendations concerning how to address
commercial electronic mail that originates in or is
transmitted through or to facilities or computers in other
nations, including initiatives or policy positions that the
Federal Government could pursue through international
negotiations, fora, organizations, or institutions; and
(3) analysis and recommendations concerning options for
protecting consumers, including children, from the receipt
and viewing of commercial electronic mail that is obscene or
pornographic.
SEC. 11. IMPROVING ENFORCEMENT BY PROVIDING REWARDS FOR
INFORMATION ABOUT VIOLATIONS; LABELING.
The Commission shall transmit to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of
Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce--
(1) a report, within 9 months after the date of enactment
of this Act, that sets forth a system for rewarding those who
supply information about violations of this Act, including--
(A) procedures for the Commission to grant a reward of not
less than 20 percent of the total civil penalty collected for
a violation of this Act to the first person that--
(i) identifies the person in violation of this Act; and
(ii) supplies information that leads to the successful
collection of a civil penalty by the Commission; and
(B) procedures to minimize the burden of submitting a
complaint to the Commission concerning violations of this
Act, including procedures to allow the electronic submission
of complaints to the Commission; and
(2) a report, within 18 months after the date of enactment
of this Act, that sets forth a plan for requiring commercial
electronic mail to be identifiable from its subject line, by
means of compliance with Internet Engineering Task Force
Standards, the use of the characters ``ADV'' in the subject
line, or other comparable identifier, or an explanation of
any concerns the Commission has that cause the Commission to
recommend against the plan.
SEC. 12. RESTRICTIONS ON OTHER TRANSMISSIONS.
Section 227(b)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 227(b)(1)) is amended, in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, or any person outside the
United States if the recipient is within the United States''
after ``United States''.
SEC. 13. REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Commission may issue regulations to
implement the provisions of this Act (not including the
amendments made by sections 4 and 12). Any such regulations
shall be issued in accordance with section 553 of title 5,
United States Code.
(b) Limitation.--Subsection (a) may not be construed to
authorize the Commission to establish a requirement pursuant
to section 5(a)(5)(A) to include any specific words,
characters, marks, or labels in a commercial electronic mail
message, or to include the identification required by section
5(a)(5)(A) in any particular
[[Page 32114]]
part of such a mail message (such as the subject line or
body).
SEC. 14. APPLICATION TO WIRELESS.
(a) Effect on Other Law.--Nothing in this Act shall be
interpreted to preclude or override the applicability of
section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227)
or the rules prescribed under section 3 of the Telemarketing
and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6102).
(b) FCC Rulemaking.--The Federal Communications Commission,
in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, shall
promulgate rules within 270 days to protect consumers from
unwanted mobile service commercial messages. The Federal
Communications Commission, in promulgating the rules, shall,
to the extent consistent with subsection (c)--
(1) provide subscribers to commercial mobile services the
ability to avoid receiving mobile service commercial messages
unless the subscriber has provided express prior
authorization to the sender, except as provided in paragraph
(3);
(2) allow recipients of mobile service commercial messages
to indicate electronically a desire not to receive future
mobile service commercial messages from the sender;
(3) take into consideration, in determining whether to
subject providers of commercial mobile services to paragraph
(1), the relationship that exists between providers of such
services and their subscribers, but if the Commission
determines that such providers should not be subject to
paragraph (1), the rules shall require such providers, in
addition to complying with the other provisions of this Act,
to allow subscribers to indicate a desire not to receive
future mobile service commercial messages from the provider--
(A) at the time of subscribing to such service; and
(B) in any billing mechanism; and
(4) determine how a sender of mobile service commercial
messages may comply with the provisions of this Act,
considering the unique technical aspects, including the
functional and character limitations, of devices that receive
such messages.
(c) Other Factors Considered.--The Federal Communications
Commission shall consider the ability of a sender of a
commercial electronic mail message to reasonably determine
that the message is a mobile service commercial message.
(d) Mobile Service Commercial Message Defined.--In this
section, the term ``mobile service commercial message'' means
a commercial electronic mail message that is transmitted
directly to a wireless device that is utilized by a
subscriber of commercial mobile service (as such term is
defined in section 332(d) of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 332(d))) in connection with such service.
SEC. 15. SEPARABILITY.
If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to
any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of
this Act and the application of such provision to other
persons or circumstances shall not be affected.
SEC. 16. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The provisions of this Act, other than section 9, shall
take effect on January 1, 2004.
Mr. TAUZIN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate amendment to the House amendment be considered as read
and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill S. 877,
as returned by the Senate with technical changes. I urge my colleagues
to pass once more and send it on to the President.
The House of Representatives passed this legislation previously on
November 21, 2003. The changes made herein to the language are not
substantive departures from what previously passed the House, but are
merely necessary to correct minor errors in the drafting to accurately
reflect the will of Congress.
Taking the final legislative step today necessary to put into law a
unified federal approach to the problem of unsolicited commercial email
or ``spam'' represents an important moment in protecting children and
the ``in-boxes'' of millions of Americans.
The bill provides consumers with more information and choices to stop
receiving all forms of unwanted commercial email and provides federal
and state officials and providers on Internet access with the tools to
go after spammers. As I noted previously, the criminal provisions
contained in this legislation are central to its purpose. In order to
provide a credible deterrent against spamming, this legislation
establishes enhanced criminal penalties for predatory spamming and
provides law enforcement personnel far more authority to prosecute
spammers whose electronic presence can shift with a keystroke.
I believe this legislation will take a bite out of spam and spammers,
and it will have some effect in reducing the type and amount of spam
that online users deal with today. However, it is not a panacea. In the
midst of speaking about the positive things that S. 877 does, it is
important to put all concerned on notice that no legislation, no matter
how severe, can stop spam entirely. The most hard core group of
problematic spammers already operate sometimes in defiance of multiple
laws and it will take time and effort to track down even those within
the reach of U.S. jurisdiction. Furthermore, policy makers should be
wary of any ``soundbite'' legislative or regulatory approach to this
problem that promises to end all spam--because such an approach would
surely have drastic consequences for free speech and the legitimate
forms of e-mail that consumers want and use.
Consumers and their Internet service providers can do far more to
protect the nation's inboxes from unsolicited e-mail than any law that
can be passed here or in state capitals. Already, consumers who take
full advantage of existing firewalls, blocking software, and
``challenge/response'' protocols enjoy a dramatically reduced amount of
spam--and many of these options are free or included in the package of
services offered by their Internet access provider.
Ultimately, spam will be stopped by a combination of new technology,
consumer awareness, ISP filtering, and trusted sender systems for
legitimate senders of commercial e-mail--with laws and regulation
merely setting the outer boundaries of illegitimate e-mail practices.
In the interim, this legislation will help fill the gap. I encourage
those plagued by unwanted e-mail today to take advantage of the
practices and technologies that are proven to reduce spam as well as
the remedies provided under this law and others.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House today is sending the final
version of this important anti-fraud and consumer protection measure on
to the President, and the President has indicated he will sign the
bill. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 877, spam
legislation that we bring to the House Floor today in a final version
that incorporates technical and other changes since the House sent to
the Senate a compromise bill on November 21.
Mr. Speaker, as I noted in remarks back in November, this legislation
reflects a series of agreements between advocates for the two
alternative House spam bills--one offered by Chairman Tauzin, and the
other offered by Ms. Wilson and Mr. Green of which I am an original
cosponsor, as well as a series of compromises with our Senate
counterparts. While not a perfect bill, I believe it merits support.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation now contains the Markey amendment on
wireless spam, which originated in the House amendments to the Senate-
passed bill. The reason I offered this amendment for inclusion in the
House-passed bill is that I wanted wireless consumers to have greater
protection than that which was accorded in the version of S. 877 which
the Senate passed previously.
Indeed, during the summer the Energy and Commerce Committee held a
hearing on spam at which I raised the prospect of wireless spam and the
likelihood that it was a problem wireless consumers were beginning to
see. At that time, neither the Tauzin-Burr spam bill, nor the Wilson-
Green spam bill, continued wireless specific provisions to address this
issue head-on.
Unsolicited wireless text messages have plagued wireless users in
Europe, South Korea, and Japan over the last few years as wireless
companies in such countries have offered wireless messaging services.
According to published reports that came to our attention as we were
deliberating upon the spam issue, NTT DoCoMo estimated that its
wireless network processes some 800 million wireless spam messages a
day.
As cumbersome and annoying as spam to a desktop computer is, at least
a consumer can turn off their computer and walk away. Wireless spam is
even more intrusive because spam to wireless phones is the kind of spam
that follows you wherever you go and according to U.S. wireless
carriers, is already on the rise.
For this reason, in order to safeguard consumer privacy in a way that
reflects the more intrusive nature of wireless spam to the user than
spam is to a desktop computer, which is immobile and for which the user
may pay some type of ``per message'' fee, the bill tasks the FCC with
tackling this issue now, before it overwhelms users and network
operators alike. The same type of rules that are applicable to
commercial e-mail messages sent to personal computers will clearly also
apply to those sent to wireless devices, including mobile phones, and
the general provisions of the bill would apply to wireless messages as
they would to similar messages sent to a desktop computer. Section 14
of the bill builds upon this legislative foundation and puts in place
additional protections and modifications. It requires an FCC rulemaking
to assess and put in place additional consumer protections. The
[[Page 32115]]
bill doesn't needlessly or unduly burden wireline network operators--
and wireless carriers should not see such burdens implemented as part
of Section 14 to the extent to which they are acting as carriers. Of
course, these same wireless carriers may also be senders of spam
themselves, and the bill spells out how such messages should be dealt
with and includes the FCC proceeding in Section 14 to address issues
particular to wireless services.
Again, Mr. Speaker, Federal spam legislation ought to reflect the
particular characteristics of wireless technology and use, and this
bill will allow the FCC to promulgate rules requiring a consumer ``opt-
in'' for certain wireless e-mail messages. In addition, this proceeding
permits the FCC to examine the nature of a consumer's relationship with
their wireless phone and service to take into account the potentially
unique technical characteristics which may warrant wireless-specific
rules.
In addition, the wireless spam provision requests that the FCC
consider the ability of an initiator of spam to reasonably determine
whether an electronic mail message is a mobile service commercial
message. Obviously, as wireless service evolves, more and more
consumers will receive Internet e-mails via their commercial mobile
service provider's network and directly to their wireless device. If a
person has an e-mail address from their commercial mobile service
provider and it can be readily identified as a wireless address, such
as [email protected] or [email protected], then the reasonable
ability of a potential spammer to recognize that as such is relatively
easy. Hopefully, commercial mobile service providers--and consumers--
will see the benefit of having an e-mail address that can be reasonably
determined to be a wireless address, so that the prospect of massive
amounts of spam to consumers over wireless networks can be thwarted and
consumers can enjoy the benefits of entities needing their express
prior authorization before sending them wireless spam.
Spam sent to a desktop computer e-mail address, and which is then
forwarded over a wireless network to a wireless device, i.e., delivered
``indirectly'' from the initiator to the wireless device, would be
treated by the rest of this bill and not by the additional Section 14
wireless-specific provisions we subject to an FCC rulemaking.
This legislation also represents an improvement in other areas over
the Senate-passed bill. For example, the compromise doubles the damage
caps in the Senate bill. It also eliminates the knowledge standards for
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) and state Attorney General injunctive relief. The bill
provides for rulemaking authority to clarify and tighten the definition
of what constitutes a ``commercial e-mail.'' Requires that identifiers
and a postal address must be on all commercial e-mails to desktop
computers. Finally, the bill also shortens the time frame from which an
``opt-out'' request would become enforceable.
All of these represent important improvements over the Senate bill.
I want to commend Chairman Tauzin and Ranking Member Dingell for
their excellent work in this area. I want to salute Representatives
Heather Wilson and Gene Green for spearheading House spam efforts in
this session as well as in the previous Congress as the lead sponsors
of the House bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the original request
of the gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on S. 877.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
____________________
DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT REAUTHORIZATION OF 2003
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1680), to reauthorize the Defense
Production Act of 1950, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment
to the House amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment to
the House amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment, as
follows:
Senate amendment to House amendment:
Page 6, strike line 1 and all that follows over to and
including line 2 on page 7, of the House engrossed amendment,
and insert:
SEC. 7. REPORT ON IMPACT OF OFFSETS ON DOMESTIC CONTRACTORS
AND LOWER TIER SUBCONTRACTORS.
(a) Examination of Impact Required.--
(1) In general.--As part of the annual report required
under section 309(a) of the Defense Production Act of 1950
(50 U.S.C. App. 2099(a)), the Secretary of Commerce (in this
section referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall--
(A) detail the number of foreign contracts involving
domestic contractors that use offsets, industrial
participation agreements, or similar arrangements during the
preceding 5-year period;
(B) calculate the aggregate, median, and mean values of the
contracts and the offsets, industrial participation
agreements, and similar arrangements during the preceding 5-
year period; and
(C) describe the impact of international or foreign sales
of United States defense products and related offsets,
industrial participation agreements, and similar arrangements
on domestic prime contractors and, to the extent practicable,
the first 3 tiers of domestic contractors and subcontractors
during the preceding 5-year period in terms of domestic
employment, including any job losses, on an annual basis.
(2) Use of internal documents.--To the extent that the
Department of Commerce is already in possession of relevant
data, the Department shall use internal documents or existing
departmental records to carry out paragraph (1).
(3) Information from non-federal entities.--
(A) Existing information.--In carrying out paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall only require a non-Federal entity to
provide information that is available through the existing
data collection and reporting systems of that non-Federal
entity.
(B) Format.--The Secretary may require a non-Federal entity
to provide information to the Secretary in the same form that
is already provided to a foreign government in fulfilling an
offset arrangement, industrial participation agreement, or
similar arrangement.
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--Before the end of the 8-month period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report containing the findings and
conclusions of the Secretary with regard to the examination
made pursuant to subsection (a).
(2) Copies of report.--The Secretary shall also transmit
copies of the report prepared under paragraph (1) to the
United States Trade Representative and the interagency team
established pursuant to section 123(c) of the Defense
Production Act Amendments of 1992 (50 U.S.C. App. 2099 note).
(c) Responsibilities Regarding Consultation With Foreign
Nations.--Section 123(c) of the Defense Production Act
Amendments of 1992 (50 U.S.C. App. 2099 note) is amended to
read as follows:
``(c) Negotiations.--
``(1) Interagency team.--
``(A) In general.--It is the policy of Congress that the
President shall designate a chairman of an interagency team
comprised of the Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Defense,
United States Trade Representative, Secretary of Labor, and
Secretary of State to consult with foreign nations on
limiting the adverse effects of offsets in defense
procurement without damaging the economy or the defense
industrial base of the United States or United States defense
production or defense preparedness.
``(B) Meetings.--The President shall direct the interagency
team to meet on a quarterly basis.
``(C) Reports.--The President shall direct the interagency
team to submit to Congress an annual report, to be included
as part of the report required under section 309(a) of the
Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2099(a)), that
describes the results of the consultations of the interagency
team under subparagraph (A) and the meetings of the
interagency team under subparagraph (B).
``(2) Recommendations for modifications.--The interagency
team shall submit to the President any recommendations for
modifications of any existing or proposed memorandum of
understanding between officials acting on behalf of the
United States and 1 or more foreign countries (or any
instrumentality of a foreign country) relating to--
``(A) research, development, or production of defense
equipment; or
``(B) the reciprocal procurement of defense items.''.
Mr. NEY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate amendment to the House amendment be considered as read
and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the initial request of
the gentleman from Ohio?
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, because I
believe
[[Page 32116]]
we are getting near the end of the business of this session of
Congress, and at least on this side, we are not aware of whether the
majority will allow unanimous consent requests in regard to the
unemployment compensation extensions.
As my colleagues know, at the end of this month, we will expire the
Federal Unemployment Compensation Program, and 80,000 to 90,000
individuals a week will exhaust their State unemployment benefits and
will not be entitled to any Federal relief.
So I was wondering if the gentleman could just advise us as to
whether the majority is prepared to allow unanimous consent requests,
since there are no further recorded votes, I believe, anticipated
today, so that we could at least bring up the extension of the
unemployment compensation benefits to deal with the people who cannot
find employment.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, on this particular issue I am actually standing
in for the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) on this particular
unanimous consent bill. As far as the rest, that goes above my pay
grade, but I am sure that our side will be more than happy to talk to
your side.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1680, the
Defense Production Act Reauthorization of 2003, and urge its adoption.
The bill before the House is largely the same as H.R. 1280, and passed
last spring by the Committee on Financial Services, and is the result
of broad bipartisan and bicameral efforts to reauthorize and update
this important Act.
Mr. Speaker, when the House acts today to send the bill to the
President, it will be completing Congressional action that should have
taken place no later than the end of September. The authorities in this
Act are too important for the Nation to have been without them for the
nine weeks.
That said, Mr. Speaker, what is before the House today is a very good
product. First and foremost, it reauthorizes the Defense Production Act
for five years. This is important for two reasons: Firstly, as the
nation faces the uncertain times ahead, it will be important for the
President to have the authorities in the Act, and secondly, because it
will give Congress an opportunity to consider some much-needed
modernization of the DPA decoupled from reauthorization cycle. It is my
intent to ask the President to take the next year to ponder what sorts
of modernization of the DPA is necessary, with the idea that any action
on those or other recommendations would take place in the first session
of the next Congress.
The bill we are considering today also adds as a specific goal of the
DPA the protection of the nation's critical infrastructure. Given the
increasing dependence of the nation's defense, financial services and
in fact the fabric of our daily lives on our critical infrastructure, I
believe this addition is both wise and important.
Finally, in addition to some other minor additions, the bill before
us increases on a one-time basis the funding ceiling for a program to
enhance the nation's ability to produce radiation-hardened electronics
for use in, for example, defense satellites. This program is an example
of one of the most important aspects of the DPA: creating a U.S.
defense production capability where none now exists.
Most important of all of these, Mr. Speaker, is the reauthorization
itself. The DPA is the tool that the President uses to meet a specific
national security need--protective gear for our troops overseas, or
specialized communications equipment--should we have a shortfall in
supplies. The DPA is also one of the President's prime tools should
there be another terrorist attack, and can be important in the case of
natural disasters.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we can undertake any needed reforms of the
Act at the beginning of the first session of the next Congress, and
then extend the authorization beyond 2008 at that point, so that these
important authorities remain available to protect America, Americans
and, and American interests, uninterrupted.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the excellent and
diligent work of the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), Chairman of
the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade
and Technology, the gentlelady from New York, (Mrs. Maloney), and the
ranking member of the full Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank), for their assistance in passing this important bill. With
that, I yield back the balance of my time and urge immediate passage of
S. 1680.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection at
this point, and maybe we will have a chance a little bit later to talk
about this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the original request
of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary
inquiry.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. If the majority leadership agrees with our
leadership to bring the unemployment extension bill under unanimous
consent, would such a bill be in order for consideration today?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the guidelines consistently issued by
successive Speakers, as recorded on page 729 of the House Rules Manual,
the Chair is constrained not to entertain the gentlewoman's request
until it has been cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee
leaderships.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, continuing my inquiry, it is my
understanding that the leadership on our side of the aisle would agree
to such a unanimous consent agreement on considering an unemployment
bill. Can the Chair tell us if the majority leadership has taken a
similar position?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not aware of any clearance by
the bipartisan leaderships.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Chair to recognize me to
make a unanimous consent request for the House to consider H.R. 3568,
the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act, recognizing that families
will begin to lose unemployment benefits a few days after Christmas
unless Congress acts today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will repeat, under the guidelines
consistently issued by successive Speakers, as recorded on page 729 of
the House Rules Manual, the Chair is constrained not to entertain the
gentlewoman's request until it has been cleared by the bipartisan floor
and committee leaderships.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on S. 1680.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
____________________
AUTHORIZING PRINTING AS HOUSE DOCUMENT TRANSCRIPTS OF PROCEEDINGS OF
``THE CHANGING NATURE OF THE HOUSE SPEAKERSHIP: THE CANNON CENTENARY
CONFERENCE''
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 345) authorizing the printing as a
House document of the transcripts of the proceedings of ``The Changing
Nature of the House Speakership: The Cannon Centenary Conference,''
sponsored by the Congressional Research Service on November 12, 2003,
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 345
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring),
SECTION 1. PRINTING OF DOCUMENT.
(a) In General.--The transcripts of the proceedings of
``The Changing Nature of the House Speakership: The Cannon
Centenary Conference'', sponsored by the Congressional
[[Page 32117]]
Research Service on November 12, 2003, shall be printed as a
House document, in a style and manner determined by the Joint
Committee on Printing.
(b) Additonal Copies for House and Senate.--There shall be
printed for the use of the House of Representatives and the
Senate such aggregate number of copies of the document
printed under subsection (a) as the Joint Committee on
Printing determines to be appropriate, except that the
maximum number of copies which may be printed shall be the
number for which the aggregate printing cost does not exceed
$65,000.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the
concurrent resolution sponsored by the distinguished Chairman of the
Joint Committee on Printing and the House Administration Committee, the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney]. On November 12, 2003, it was my pleasure
to attend the Congressional Research Service's conference exploring the
transformation of the House speakership during the last 100 years. I
was able to attend nearly all of this very interesting conference and
was able to gain a much greater understanding of the way the
speakership has changed over the years as well as the history of this
great institution. I am hopeful that by printing the remarks made at
this event and distributing copies to our colleagues, they will also be
able to similarly benefit from it as well.
Entitled ``The Changing Nature of the House Speakership: The Cannon
Centenary Conference,'' the symposium offered those of us keenly
interested in the history of this institution a remarkable insight into
the development of the speakership in the modern period. Under the
leadership of Daniel Mulhollan, the Director of the Congressional
Research Service, participants enjoyed remarks by our distinguished
present speaker [Mr. Hastert], and all the living former speakers, Newt
Gingrich, Tom Foley, and Jim Wright. Several other former members of
the House, and a number of scholars, delivered remarks, including Dr.
Robert Remini, author of the preeminent biographer of Henry Clay, a
seminar figure in the development of the speakership during the 19th
Century. Dr. Remini's presentation was, as always, especially
thoughtful and entertaining, whetting the appetite of all of us eager
to read the congressionally authorized history of the House, which he
is now writing.
The resolution provides for the printing of the transcript of the
conference as a House document, thus ensuring that the remarks and
other materials discussed in this historic event will remain available
for present and future Members, scholars, and others intrigued by the
ongoing history of this honorable institution in which we have the
pleasure to serve today.
I want to thank Dan Mulhollan and CRS for organizing the conference,
and all who participated. I would also like to commend the chairman and
his very able majority staff director for the Joint Committee on
Printing, Maria Sophia Robinson, for introducing this printing
resolution. I would also like to note the hard work of Mike Harrison
who covers Joint Committee on Printing matters for me and whom I
consider to be the minority staff director of the Joint Committee for
the House. Just last month we expedited a housekeeping bill to resolve
a longstanding problem affecting the Congressional Record Index Office.
I am delighted that we have again moved so quickly to take up another
issue under our joint committee's jurisdiction, I would like to call on
my colleagues to join in urging the passage of this resolution.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the subject of H. Con. Res. 345.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
____________________
MENTAL HEALTH PARITY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2003
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1929) to amend the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Public Health
Service Act to extend the mental health benefits parity provisions for
an additional year, and ask for its immediate consideration in the
House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Renzi). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, although I do
not intend to object, but I respectfully ask the gentleman to explain
his request, and I yield to him for that purpose.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I am pleased to be here to manage House passage of S. 1929, the
Mental Health Parity Reauthorization Act of 2003. As chairman of the
Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations with jurisdiction over
employer-provided health care, the issue of mental health parity falls
within the purview of this subcommittee. In fact, almost 2 years ago,
we held the first House hearing on the issue of mental health.
In 1996, Congress enacted the Mental Health Parity Act to prevent
employers and health insurers from establishing annual and lifetime
limits on health insurance coverage for mental health benefits, unless
similar limits were also established for medical and surgical health
coverage. Today, the House will take an important step to extend mental
health parity benefits for another year by passing this bipartisan
reauthorization legislation, which will be ready for President Bush's
signature once we pass it.
Over the past 7 years, the parity law has made significant
improvements in mental health coverage. It has done so by striking a
good balance, providing important mental health benefits to patients
without placing unworkable mandates on employers. The legislation we
pass today will preserve current law mental health parity benefits for
another year, through December 31, 2004.
{time} 1715
Mental health parity benefits offered through the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, ERISA, and Public Health Services Act, were set to
expire this December 31. In the coming year, my subcommittee will
continue to examine the issue of mental health parity, as expanding
this law is one of the many substantive changes proposed for our
Nation's health care system.
Before endorsing any changes to current law, the House must carefully
study the issue and consequences it may have on our Nation's employer-
provided health care system. Any changes to the mental health parity
law must be made in a balanced manner that does not jeopardize workers'
existing health care benefits or discourage employers from voluntarily
providing quality benefits to their employees. Because, as we all know,
when employers' costs go up, workers often lose coverage. If the
expanded mental health parity law is too burdensome and expensive, it
is very likely employers will simply stop offering any type of mental
health coverage.
Health insurance costs rose by 15 percent, the highest increase in a
decade. In this environment, it is incumbent upon the Congress to
carefully study the impact of new mandates before moving forward.
However, reauthorization of the 1996 act is an important step to ensure
that patients continue to have access to mental health care if they
need it. Because of this, I am pleased to offer my strong support to S.
1929. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam
Johnson) for his explanation. And continuing under my reservation, I
rise in strong support of S. 1929, which extends the Mental Health
Parity Act of 1996 for another year.
The original bill was pioneered and introduced by a great champion of
mental health, a person of compassion and vision, the late Senator Paul
Wellstone.
This legislation is based on a very simple idea: all health insurance
plans should provide the same degree of coverage for mental health
benefits as provided for medical and surgical benefits. The 1996 act
did not require employers to offer mental health benefits; but it was,
nevertheless, a huge step forward in the fight to ensure access for all
Americans to comprehensive health care. Under the 1996 act, if mental
[[Page 32118]]
health care benefits are provided, they have to be equal to those
offered for medical care.
In particular, both aggregate lifetime caps and annual caps on mental
health benefits had to be equal to those caps for the medical and
surgical benefits, but if, and only if, the employer offered mental
health benefits.
The 1996 act applies to both fully insured state-regulated health
plans and self-insured plans. The act does not preempt State statutes
that may provide stronger protections for mental health parity.
The 1996 act did not provide a complete parity. Employers and
insurers can still restrict mental health benefits by imposing higher
copayments and deductibles for mental health benefits than for medical
benefits. There remains much room for improvement. We need to expand
mental health parity to cover substance abuse disorders, to stop
employers from charging different deductibles and co-payments to mental
health services, and to stop employers from imposing different limits
for inpatient stays and outpatient visits for mental health benefits.
Much work remains to be done; but without this action today, the Mental
Health Parity Act will expire on December 31.
I urge my colleagues to support this reauthorization of the Mental
Health Parity Act, extend these provisions for at least another year;
and I urge us to all redouble our efforts to pass comprehensive mental
health care parity in the coming year.
Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, continuing the objection, I do
not intend to maintain my objection. I thank the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), and I thank the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). I simply want to add my support
to what we are doing here today.
I come from Texas; but I know all of our colleagues, wherever they
come from, realize that the lack of mental health services and
intervention services is really a silent killer. The fact that we are
extending the mental health benefits and the mental health parity
provision is extremely important to those families who live in silence,
suffering, a loved one with mental illness in need of mental health
services or the individual themselves.
And I will simply say that we can do no less than to pay tribute to
our fallen colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, who lived his legislative
career around the ideas of providing more legislative assistance in
creating mental health parity. I hope that we will work in the next
year for a comprehensive mental health parity package for all of
America.
Let me just simply say on behalf of the work of the Mental Health
Association, let me thank them for pressing the point about these
needs. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that as we support this particular
legislation today, it will give us enough momentum and enough
inspiration to realize that these individuals with broken lives cannot
survive without our assistance and without intervention and mental
health services.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to object, and I yield back to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), removing my objection.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Renzi). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:
S. 1929
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Mental Health Parity
Reauthorization Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF MENTAL HEALTH PROVISIONS.
(a) ERISA.--Section 712(f) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1185a(f)) is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2003'' and inserting ``December
31, 2004''.
(b) PHSA.--Section 2705(f) of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 300gg-5(f)) is amended by striking ``December 31,
2003'' and inserting ``December 31, 2004''.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks on and include extraneous material on S. 1929.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
____________________
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PAY AND BENEFITS PARITY ACT OF 2003
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the Committee on Government Reform be discharged from further
consideration of the Senate bill (S. 1683) to provide for a report on
the parity of pay and benefits among Federal law enforcement officers
and to establish an exchange program between Federal law enforcement
employees and State and local law enforcement employees, and ask for
its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill as follows:
S. 1683
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Law Enforcement Pay
and Benefits Parity Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. LAW ENFORCEMENT PAY AND BENEFITS PARITY REPORT.
(a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``law
enforcement officer'' means an individual--
(1)(A) who is a law enforcement officer defined under
section 8331 or 8401 of title 5, United States Code; or
(B) the duties of whose position include the investigation,
apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected or
convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United
States; and
(2) who is employed by the Federal Government.
(b) Report.--Not later than April 30, 2004, the Office of
Personnel Management shall submit a report to the President
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives
and the appropriate committees and subcommittees of Congress
that includes--
(1) a comparison of classifications, pay, and benefits
among law enforcement officers across the Federal Government;
and
(2) recommendations for ensuring, to the maximum extent
practicable, the elimination of disparities in
classifications, pay and benefits for law enforcement
officers throughout the Federal Government.
[[Page 32119]]
SEC. 3. EMPLOYEE EXCHANGE PROGRAM BETWEEN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
AND EMPLOYEES OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``employing agency'' means the Federal, State,
or local government agency with which the participating
employee was employed before an assignment under the Program;
(2) the term ``participating employee'' means an employee
who is participating in the Program; and
(3) the term ``Program'' means the employee exchange
program established under subsection (b).
(b) Establishment.--The President shall establish an
employee exchange program between Federal agencies that
perform law enforcement functions and agencies of State and
local governments that perform law enforcement functions.
(c) Conduct of Program.--The Program shall be conducted in
accordance with subchapter VI of chapter 33 of title 5,
United States Code.
(d) Qualifications.--An employee of an employing agency who
performs law enforcement functions may be selected to
participate in the Program if the employee--
(1) has been employed by that employing agency for a period
of more than 3 years;
(2) has had appropriate training or experience to perform
the work required by the assignment;
(3) has had an overall rating of satisfactory or higher on
performance appraisals from the employing agency during the
3-year period before being assigned to another agency under
this section; and
(4) agrees to return to the employing agency after
completing the assignment for a period not less than the
length of the assignment.
(e) Written Agreement.--An employee shall enter into a
written agreement regarding the terms and conditions of the
assignment before beginning the assignment with another
agency.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann
Davis) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that this is an identical bill to
one that I also introduced into the House, and I am very pleased that
we are taking up the Senate bill so that we can get it out and do what
is right for the law enforcement officers.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of S. 1683 a bill
introduced by Senator George Voinovich to require the Federal
Government to conduct study reviewing the pay and benefits for our
128,000 federal law enforcement officers.
This legislation is identical to a bill I introduced this year, H.R.
3205. We are considering the Senate version of this bill, ``The Federal
Law Enforcement Pay and Benefits Parity Act of 2003,'' which was
approved by the Senate shortly before Thanksgiving, in an effort to
speed up enactment of this important piece of legislation. I want to
thank the leadership for bringing this matter to the floor today.
It has become obvious over the last 2 years, but bears repeating:
Federal law enforcement officers are part of our first line of defense
in defending the Nation.
The legislation would require that the government reexamine how we
compensate these brave men and women--with the goals of eliminating
disparities among various law enforcement agencies, improving
recruitment and retention, and ensuring that the Federal Government is
keeping pace with State and local law enforcement agencies in terms of
compensation.
For an example of why we need to investigate this matter, look no
farther than the creation of the Transportation Security
Administration, following the September 11th terrorist attacks.
The TSA needed to hire tens of thousands of people very quickly, and
the agency wound up cherry picking from other federal agencies, luring
law enforcement officers with offers of better pay and benefits. This
left the other agencies short-handed, and many still report recruiting
problems.
And very shortly, the Homeland Security Department is slated to
establish its new pay system, which could once again attract law
enforcement officers away from other agencies.
The Civil Service and Agency Organization Subcommittee, which I
chair, held a hearing on July 23rd on the subject of law enforcement
compensation. It became clear to us that the Federal Government is
facing a serious problem in recruiting, retaining and rewarding its law
enforcement personnel.
Having the Office of Personnel Management conduct a detailed analysis
of the problem and offer some possible solutions is the first step
toward fixing this problem.
In addition to requiring OPM to review the classification,
compensation and benefits of federal law enforcement officers, S. 1683
also requires the establishment of an employee exchange program
involving Federal, State and local law enforcement agents as a way of
sharing best practices and maintaining a well-trained force.
Once again, I want to thank the leadership for bringing this bill to
the floor today. I urge passage of S. 1683, ``The Federal Law
Enforcement Pay and Benefits Parity Act of 2003.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2004
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Appropriations be discharged from further consideration of
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 82) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes, and
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do so for the
purpose of yielding to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) so that
he may explain what changes this entails to the continuing resolution.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. And I would say technically this vehicle is a continuing
resolution that goes to January 31, which is the same date as the
existing CR. The difference is there were two anomalies that the
administration needed to be included, so we would use this as a
vehicle.
The two anomalies are these: the first CR is a loan limitation at
$3.8 billion for FHA loan commitments. The administration basically
ignored this ceiling and committed $5 billion in new mortgage loan
guarantees. The program shut down last week because the guaranteed
limitation was exceeded. This resolution would set a new guarantee
limitation at $7.7 billion, the fiscal year 2003 level.
[[Page 32120]]
Exceeding the guarantee limitation level represents an antideficiency
act violation. Language is included in the resolution to require
certification from the director of the Office of Management and Budget
regarding compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in the
first CR.
The second anomaly deals with the FAA operations account staff
offices. The resolution would allow operations at an annual rate of
$141.4 million for the FAA office of security and investigations.
Without this authority, furlows of some of the 443 staff would be
necessary. The office did not receive a direct fiscal year 2003
appropriation, therefore this special authority is necessary under a
CR. The office is responsible for enforcement programs working with
ONDCP, TSA, and State and local governments and performs credential and
background investigations of employees and contractors in support of
the FHA mission.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:
H.J. Res. 82
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section
121 of Public Law 108-84 is amended by striking
``$3,800,000,000'' and inserting ``$7,667,000,000'':
Provided, That the amendment made by this section shall take
effect only after a certification by the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget is submitted to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate that the use of the authority provided
pursuant to this section will not result in commitments to
guarantee new loans for the entire fiscal year at a level in
excess of the limitation set forth in the fiscal year 2003
appropriations Act and that the apportionment of loan
commitment authority provided for the Federal Housing
Administration, General and Special Risk Insurance Fund and
the Federal Housing Administration, Mutual Mortgage Insurance
Fund is in compliance with the terms and conditions set forth
in Public Law 108-84: Provided further, That the authority
provided under the amendment made by this section shall only
apply to new commitments issued after enactment of this
section: Provided further, That nothing in this section may
be construed to pardon or release an officer or employee of
the United States Government for an act or acts in violation
of section 1341 of title 31, United States Code (the
Antideficiency Act) or any other applicable law that occurred
prior to enactment of this section.
Sec. 2. Public Law 108-84, as amended, is further amended
by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 131. Subject to sections 107(c) and 108 of this
joint resolution, for the Federal Aviation Administration
Operations Account Staff Offices line of business, at a rate
of operations not to exceed $141,411,000.''.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider
was laid on the table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and that I may include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 82.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
____________________
PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM TO HAVE UNTIL DECEMBER
19, 2003, TO FILE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the Committee on Government Reform be permitted to file an
investigative report by December 19, 2003.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
____________________
CARTER G. WOODSON HOME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE ACT
Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1012) to establish the Carter G. Woodson
Home National Historic Site in the District of Columbia, and for other
purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate
amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:
Senate Amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Carter G. Woodson Home
National Historic Site Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) Carter g. woodson home.--The term ``Carter G. Woodson
Home'' means the property located at 1538 Ninth Street,
Northwest, in the District of Columbia, as depicted on the
map.
(2) Historic site.--The term ``historic site'' means the
Carter G. Woodson Home National Historic Site.
(3) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Carter
G. Woodson Home National Historic Site'', numbered 876/82338-
A and dated July 22, 2003.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 3. CARTER G. WOODSON HOME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE.
(a) Establishment.--Upon acquisition by the Secretary of
the Carter G. Woodson Home, or interests therein, the
Secretary shall establish the historic site as a unit of the
National Park System by publication of a notice to that
effect in the Federal Register.
(b) Additions to Historic Site.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may acquire any of the 3
properties immediately north of the Carter G. Woodson Home
located at 1540, 1542, and 1544 Ninth Street, Northwest,
described on the map as ``Potential Additions to National
Historic Site'', for addition to the historic site.
(2) Boundary revision.--Upon the acquisition of any of the
properties described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
revise the boundaries of the historic site to include the
property.
(c) Availability of Map.--The map shall be available for
public inspection in the appropriate offices of the National
Park Service, Department of the Interior.
(d) Acquisition Authority.--The Secretary may acquire the
Carter G. Woodson Home or any of the properties described in
subsection (b)(1), including interests therein, and any
improvements to the land by donation, purchase from a willing
seller with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange.
(e) Administration.--(1) The Secretary shall administer the
historic site in accordance with this Act and with laws
generally applicable to units of the National Park System,
including the Act of August 25, 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1, 2-4) and
the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).
(2) General management plan.--The Secretary shall prepare a
general management plan for the historic site not later than
three years after the date on which funds are made available
for that purpose.
SEC. 4. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may enter into cooperative
agreements with public or private entities to provide public
interpretation and education of African-American heritage in
the Shaw area of the District of Columbia.
(b) Rehabilitation.--In order to achieve cost efficiencies
in the restoration of properties within the historic site,
the Secretary may enter into an agreement with public or
private entities to restore and rehabilitate the Carter G.
Woodson Home and other properties within the boundary of the
historic site, subject to such terms and conditions as the
Secretary deems necessary.
(c) Agreement With the Association for the Study of
African-American Life and History.--In order to reestablish
the historical connection between the Carter G. Woodson Home
and the association Dr. Woodson founded, and to facilitate
interpretation of Dr. Woodson's achievements, the Secretary
may enter into an agreement with The Association for the
Study of African-American Life and History that allows the
association to use a portion of the historic site for its own
administrative purposes. Such agreement shall ensure that the
association's use of a portion of the historic site is
consistent with the administration of the historic site,
including appropriate public access and rent, and such other
terms and conditions as the Secretary deems necessary.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
Mr. RENZI (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the original request
of the gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page 32121]]
____________________
CAPTIVE WILDLIFE SAFETY ACT
Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1006) to amend the Lacey Act Amendments
of 1981 to further the conservation of certain wildlife species, with
Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:
Senate Amendments:
(1)Page 2, strike out lines 11 through 14 and insert:
``(g) Prohibited Wildlife Species.--The term `prohibited
wildlife species' means any live species of lion, tiger,
leopard, cheetah, jaguar, or cougar or any hybrid of such
species.''.
(2)Page 3, line 1, strike out [live animal of a]
(3)Page 3, strike out lines 20 through 22 and insert:
``(A) is licensed or registered, and inspected, by the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service or any other
Federal agency with respect to that species;
(4)Page 4, line 12, after ``animals'' insert: listed in
section 2(g)
(5)Page 4, line 14, after ``animals'' insert: listed in
section 2(g)
(6)Page 5, line 3, strike out all after ``State.''
(7)Page 5, after line 3, insert:
``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out subsection (a)(2)(C)
$3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.''.
Mr. RENZI (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate amendments be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the original request
of the gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
EXCHANGE OF CERTAIN LANDS IN THE COCONINO AND TONTO NATIONAL FORESTS IN
ARIZONA
Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 622) to provide for the exchange of
certain lands in the Coconino and Tonto National Forests in Arizona,
and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in
the Senate amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:
Senate Amendments:
(1)Page 3, line 23, after ``1976'' insert: (43 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.)
(2)Page 4, line 17, after ``Non-Federal'' insert: Land
(3)Page 5, line 6, after ``16,'' insert: and
(4)Page 5, line 17, strike out [of the] and insert: of
(5)Page 5, line 22, after ``FLPMA'' insert: (43 U.S.C.
1716(b))
(6)Page 7, line 3, strike out [a map] and insert: the map
(7)Page 10, line 1, after ``to'' insert: National
(8)Page 10, line 3, strike out [3(d)(1)] and insert: 3(b)(1)
Mr. RENZI (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate amendments be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the original request
of the gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H.R. 1012, H.R. 1006, and H.R. 622.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
____________________
PRESERVING INDEPENDENCE OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EXAMINATIONS ACT OF
2003
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of
the Senate bill (S. 1947) to prohibit the offer of credit by a
financial institution to a financial institution examiner, and for
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:
S. 1947
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Preserving Independence of
Financial Institution Examinations Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE OF CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended
by striking sections 212 and 213 and inserting the following:
``Sec. 212. Offer of loan or gratuity to financial
institution examiner
``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
whoever, being an officer, director or employee of a
financial institution, makes or grants any loan or gratuity,
to any examiner or assistant examiner who examines or has
authority to examine such bank, branch, agency, organization,
corporation, association, or institution--
``(1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more
than 1 year, or both; and
``(2) may be fined a further sum equal to the money so
loaned or gratuity given.
``(b) Regulations.--A Federal financial institution
regulatory agency may prescribe regulations establishing
additional limitations on the application for and receipt of
credit under this section and on the application and receipt
of residential mortgage loans under this section, after
consulting with each other Federal financial institution
regulatory agency.
``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Examiner.--The term `examiner' means any person--
``(A) appointed by a Federal financial institution
regulatory agency or pursuant to the laws of any State to
examine a financial institution; or
``(B) elected under the law of any State to conduct
examinations of any financial institutions.
``(2) Federal financial institution regulatory agency.--The
term `Federal financial institution regulatory agency'
means--
``(A) the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency;
``(B) the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System;
``(C) the Office of Thrift Supervision;
``(D) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;
``(E) the Federal Housing Finance Board;
``(F) the Farm Credit Administration;
``(G) the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation; and
``(H) the Small Business Administration.
``(3) Financial institution.--The term `financial
institution' does not include a credit union, a Federal
Reserve Bank, a Federal home loan bank, or a depository
institution holding company.
``(4) Loan.--The term `loan' does not include any credit
card account established under an open end consumer credit
plan or a loan secured by residential real property that is
the principal residence of the examiner, if--
``(A) the applicant satisfies any financial requirements
for the credit card account or residential real property loan
that are generally applicable to all applicants for the same
type of credit card account or residential real property
loan;
``(B) the terms and conditions applicable with respect to
such account or residential real property loan, and any
credit extended to the examiner under such account or
residential real property loan, are no more favorable
generally to the examiner than the terms and conditions that
are generally applicable to credit card accounts or
residential real property loans offered by the same financial
institution to other borrowers cardholders in comparable
circumstances under open end consumer credit plans or for
residential real property loans; and
``(C) with respect to residential real property loans, the
loan is with respect to the primary residence of the
applicant.
``Sec. 213. Acceptance of loan or gratuity by financial
institution examiner
``(a) In General.--Whoever, being an examiner or assistant
examiner, accepts a loan or gratuity from any bank, branch,
agency, organization, corporation, association, or
institution examined by the examiner or from any person
connected with it, shall--
``(1) be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1
year, or both;
``(2) may be fined a further sum equal to the money so
loaned or gratuity given; and
``(3) shall be disqualified from holding office as an
examiner.
[[Page 32122]]
``(b) Definitions.--In this section, the terms `examiner',
`Federal financial institution regulatory agency', `financial
institution', and `loan' have the same meanings as in section
212.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections of chapter 11 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking the matter relating to sections 212 and
213 and inserting the following:
``212. Offer of loan or gratuity to financial institution examiner.
``213. Acceptance of loan or gratuity by financial institution
examiner.''.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on November 24, 2003, the Senate
passed unanimously S. 1947, the ``Preserving Independence of Financial
Institution Examinations Act of 2003.'' This bipartisan legislation was
introduced by Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy, the Chairman and ranking
Member on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill would update two
provisions of the Federal Criminal Code enacted in the mid-1900s.
As the Nation's banking system has consolidated, it has become
extremely difficult for bank examiners to obtain credit cards or
mortgages for themselves because of these outdated provisions. This
affects the hiring, retention, morale, and work of our Nation's bank
examiners.
To alleviate this problem, the bill would amend sections 212 and 213
of title 18 of the United States Code to reflect the changes in our
Nation's banking system. Under current law, these sections prohibit
examiners from borrowing from banks they have examined, and prohibit a
financial institution from extending credit to anyone who examines or
has authority to examine that institution. These provisions have been
interpreted to cover all kinds of borrowing, including standard credit
cards and mortgages.
In a December 4, 2003, letter the Legal Division of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System explained that:
[under current law] . . . an examiner could commit a crime by
obtaining a department store credit card that is ultimately
issued by a bank the examiner examined five years ago.
Examiners also have encountered difficulty in obtaining home
mortgage and other loans at the best available rates because
of restrictions on the range of permissible lenders.
The proposed legislation updates the Criminal Code allowing for
narrow exceptions to the statutes for bank examiners who hold credit
cards and residential home mortgage loans on standard terms from the
banks they are examining.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous materials on S. 1947.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
____________________
ARCHERY REVENUE REFORM AND OPPORTUNITY FOR WORKERS ACT
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Ways and Means be discharged from further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3652) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
modify the taxation of imported archery products, and ask for its
immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
H.R. 3652
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Archery Revenue Reform and
Opportunity for Workers Act''.
SEC. 2. MODIFIED TAXATION OF IMPORTED ARCHERY PRODUCTS.
(a) Bows.--Paragraph (1) of section 4161(b) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to bows) is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) Bows.--
``(A) In general.--There is hereby imposed on the sale by
the manufacturer, producer, or importer of any bow which has
a peak draw weight of 30 pounds or more, a tax equal to 11
percent of the price for which so sold.
``(B) Archery equipment.--There is hereby imposed on the
sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer--
``(i) of any part or accessory suitable for inclusion in or
attachment to a bow described in subparagraph (A), and
``(ii) of any quiver or broadhead suitable for use with an
arrow described in paragraph (2),
a tax equal to 11 percent of the price for which so sold.''.
(b) Arrows.--Subsection (b) of section 4161 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to bows and arrows, etc.) is
amended by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) and
inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Arrows.--
``(A) In general.--There is hereby imposed on the sale by
the manufacturer, producer, or importer of any arrow, a tax
equal to 12 percent of the price for which so sold.
``(B) Exception.--In the case of any arrow of which the
shaft or any other component has been previously taxed under
paragraph (1) or (2)--
``(i) section 6416(b)(3) shall not apply, and
``(ii) the tax imposed by subparagraph (A) shall be an
amount equal to the excess (if any) of--
``(I) the amount of tax imposed by this paragraph
(determined without regard to this subparagraph), over
``(II) the amount of tax paid with respect to the tax
imposed under paragraph (1) or (2) on such shaft or
component.
``(C) Arrow.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term
`arrow' means any shaft described in paragraph (2) to which
additional components are attached.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 4161(b)(2) of the
Internal Revenue Code is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(other than broadheads)'' after
``point'', and
(2) by striking ``Arrows.--'' in the heading and inserting
``Arrow components.--''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to articles sold by the manufacturer, producer,
or importer after February 15, 2004.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, along with my colleague,
Representative Matheson, I am pleased to introduce the Archery Revenue
Reform and Opportunity for Workers Act of 2003 (ARROW Act).
Our bill will protect Americans jobs by fixing a mistake in the tax
code that allows archery equipment to be imported into the United
States without paying the excise tax that American manufacturers pay.
Our bill will close this loophole now.
The excise tax on domestically produced arrows is 12.4 percent. The
revenue from this excise tax is dedicated to the Pittman-Robertson Aid
for Wildlife Restoration Fund that finances the States' wildlife
conservation and habitat restoration programs. In 1997, a change in the
excise tax inadvertently created a loophole that allows arrows
manufactured outside of the United States to be sold in the United
States without paying the tax paid by American manufacturers.
Sales of imported arrows and arrow shafts have increased from less
than $1 million in 1997 to over $12 million in 2002. By avoiding the
excise tax, foreign manufacturers have displaced more than one-third of
our domestic production.
The loss of U.S. jobs and the negative impact on domestic small
businesses will continue to accelerate, as year-to-date imports through
June 30 have increased 35 percent over the same time period in 2002. In
addition to the loss of jobs, this loophole is draining funding from
the States' conservation and game management programs.
This legislation will close the loophole that allows imported arrows
to avoid the excise tax paid by domestic manufacturers. While keeping
the current 12.4 percent tax on arrow components, the proposal will
impose a tax of 12 percent on the first sale of an arrow assembled from
untaxed components. U.S. manufacturers and foreign manufacturers will
be treated equally.
Current law also taxes non-hunters, contrary to congressional intent.
To relieve non-hunters from the requirement to pay for wildlife
management, the legislation would eliminate the current-law tax on bows
with draw weights of less than 30 pounds. Those bows are not suitable
or, in many States, legal for hunting. To preserve the revenue for the
Wildlife Restoration Fund, the bill would retain the current tax on
bows that are suitable for hunting.
Finally, the ARROW Act will clarify that broadheads are an accessory
taxed at 11 percent rather than as an arrow component taxed at 12.4
percent. This will correct the ambiguity in the 1997 act that led to
the misclassification of broadheads.
I urge my colleagues to pass the Archery Revenue Reform and
Opportunity for Workers
[[Page 32123]]
Act today. This bill will save American jobs and protect funding for
the Wildlife Restoration Program (the Pittman-Robertson fund) by
simplifying administration and compliance with the excise tax and
closing the unintended loophole that allows arrows assembled outside
the United States to avoid the excise tax imposed on domestic
manufacturers.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3652.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
____________________
{time} 1730
SERVICEMEMBERS CIVIL RELIEF ACT
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 100) to restate, clarify, and
revise the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, with a
Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:
Senate Amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. RESTATEMENT OF ACT.
The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 (50
U.S.C. App. 501 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:
``SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
``(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
`Servicemembers Civil Relief Act'.
``(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
``Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
``Sec. 2. Purpose.
``TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
``Sec. 101. Definitions.
``Sec. 102. Jurisdiction and applicability of Act.
``Sec. 103. Protection of persons secondarily liable.
``Sec. 104. Extension of protections to citizens serving with allied
forces.
``Sec. 105. Notification of benefits.
``Sec. 106. Extension of rights and protections to Reserves ordered to
report for military service and to persons ordered to
report for induction.
``Sec. 107. Waiver of rights pursuant to written agreement.
``Sec. 108. Exercise of rights under Act not to affect certain future
financial transactions.
``Sec. 109. Legal representatives.
``TITLE II--GENERAL RELIEF
``Sec. 201. Protection of servicemembers against default judgments.
``Sec. 202. Stay of proceedings when servicemember has notice.
``Sec. 203. Fines and penalties under contracts.
``Sec. 204. Stay or vacation of execution of judgments, attachments,
and garnishments.
``Sec. 205. Duration and term of stays; codefendants not in service.
``Sec. 206. Statute of limitations.
``Sec. 207. Maximum rate of interest on debts incurred before military
service.
``TITLE III--RENT, INSTALLMENT CONTRACTS, MORTGAGES, LIENS, ASSIGNMENT,
LEASES
``Sec. 301. Evictions and distress.
``Sec. 302. Protection under installment contracts for purchase or
lease.
``Sec. 303. Mortgages and trust deeds.
``Sec. 304. Settlement of stayed cases relating to personal property.
``Sec. 305. Termination of residential or motor vehicle leases.
``Sec. 306. Protection of life insurance policy.
``Sec. 307. Enforcement of storage liens.
``Sec. 308. Extension of protections to dependents.
``TITLE IV--LIFE INSURANCE
``Sec. 401. Definitions.
``Sec. 402. Insurance rights and protections.
``Sec. 403. Application for insurance protection.
``Sec. 404. Policies entitled to protection and lapse of policies.
``Sec. 405. Policy restrictions.
``Sec. 406. Deduction of unpaid premiums.
``Sec. 407. Premiums and interest guaranteed by United States.
``Sec. 408. Regulations.
``Sec. 409. Review of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
``TITLE V--TAXES AND PUBLIC LANDS
``Sec. 501. Taxes respecting personal property, money, credits, and
real property.
``Sec. 502. Rights in public lands.
``Sec. 503. Desert-land entries.
``Sec. 504. Mining claims.
``Sec. 505. Mineral permits and leases.
``Sec. 506. Perfection or defense of rights.
``Sec. 507. Distribution of information concerning benefits of title.
``Sec. 508. Land rights of servicemembers.
``Sec. 509. Regulations.
``Sec. 510. Income taxes.
``Sec. 511. Residence for tax purposes.
``TITLE VI--ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
``Sec. 601. Inappropriate use of Act.
``Sec. 602. Certificates of service; persons reported missing.
``Sec. 603. Interlocutory orders.
``TITLE VII--FURTHER RELIEF
``Sec. 701. Anticipatory relief.
``Sec. 702. Power of attorney.
``Sec. 703. Professional liability protection.
``Sec. 704. Health insurance reinstatement.
``Sec. 705. Guarantee of residency for military personnel.
``Sec. 706. Business or trade obligations.
``SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
``The purposes of this Act are--
``(1) to provide for, strengthen, and expedite the national
defense through protection extended by this Act to
servicemembers of the United States to enable such persons to
devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the
Nation; and
``(2) to provide for the temporary suspension of judicial
and administrative proceedings and transactions that may
adversely affect the civil rights of servicemembers during
their military service.
``TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
``SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.
``For the purposes of this Act:
``(1) Servicemember.--The term `servicemember' means a
member of the uniformed services, as that term is defined in
section 101(a)(5) of title 10, United States Code.
``(2) Military service.--The term `military service'
means--
``(A) in the case of a servicemember who is a member of the
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard--
``(i) active duty, as defined in section 101(d)(1) of title
10, United States Code, and
``(ii) in the case of a member of the National Guard,
includes service under a call to active service authorized by
the President or the Secretary of Defense for a period of
more than 30 consecutive days under section 502(f) of title
32, United States Code, for purposes of responding to a
national emergency declared by the President and supported by
Federal funds;
``(B) in the case of a servicemember who is a commissioned
officer of the Public Health Service or the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, active service; and
``(C) any period during which a servicemember is absent
from duty on account of sickness, wounds, leave, or other
lawful cause.
``(3) Period of military service.--The term `period of
military service' means the period beginning on the date on
which a servicemember enters military service and ending on
the date on which the servicemember is released from military
service or dies while in military service.
``(4) Dependent.--The term `dependent', with respect to a
servicemember, means--
``(A) the servicemember's spouse;
``(B) the servicemember's child (as defined in section
101(4) of title 38, United States Code); or
``(C) an individual for whom the servicemember provided
more than one-half of the individual's support for 180 days
immediately preceding an application for relief under this
Act.
``(5) Court.--The term `court' means a court or an
administrative agency of the United States or of any State
(including any political subdivision of a State), whether or
not a court or administrative agency of record.
``(6) State.--The term `State' includes--
``(A) a commonwealth, territory, or possession of the
United States; and
``(B) the District of Columbia.
``(7) Secretary concerned.--The term `Secretary
concerned'--
``(A) with respect to a member of the armed forces, has the
meaning given that term in section 101(a)(9) of title 10,
United States Code;
``(B) with respect to a commissioned officer of the Public
Health Service, means the Secretary of Health and Human
Services; and
``(C) with respect to a commissioned officer of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, means the
Secretary of Commerce.
``(8) Motor vehicle.--The term `motor vehicle' has the
meaning given that term in section 30102(a)(6) of title 49,
United States Code.
``SEC. 102. JURISDICTION AND APPLICABILITY OF ACT.
``(a) Jurisdiction.--This Act applies to--
``(1) the United States;
``(2) each of the States, including the political
subdivisions thereof; and
``(3) all territory subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States.
``(b) Applicability to Proceedings.--This Act applies to
any judicial or administrative proceeding commenced in any
court or agency in any jurisdiction subject to this Act. This
Act does not apply to criminal proceedings.
``(c) Court in Which Application May Be Made.--When under
this Act any application is required to be made to a court in
which no proceeding has already been commenced with respect
to the matter, such application may be made to any court
which would otherwise have jurisdiction over the matter.
[[Page 32124]]
``SEC. 103. PROTECTION OF PERSONS SECONDARILY LIABLE.
``(a) Extension of Protection When Actions Stayed,
Postponed, or Suspended.--Whenever pursuant to this Act a
court stays, postpones, or suspends (1) the enforcement of an
obligation or liability, (2) the prosecution of a suit or
proceeding, (3) the entry or enforcement of an order, writ,
judgment, or decree, or (4) the performance of any other act,
the court may likewise grant such a stay, postponement, or
suspension to a surety, guarantor, endorser, accommodation
maker, comaker, or other person who is or may be primarily or
secondarily subject to the obligation or liability the
performance or enforcement of which is stayed, postponed, or
suspended.
``(b) Vacation or Set-Aside of Judgments.--When a judgment
or decree is vacated or set aside, in whole or in part,
pursuant to this Act, the court may also set aside or vacate,
as the case may be, the judgment or decree as to a surety,
guarantor, endorser, accommodation maker, comaker, or other
person who is or may be primarily or secondarily liable on
the contract or liability for the enforcement of the judgment
or decree.
``(c) Bail Bond Not To Be Enforced During Period of
Military Service.--A court may not enforce a bail bond during
the period of military service of the principal on the bond
when military service prevents the surety from obtaining the
attendance of the principal. The court may discharge the
surety and exonerate the bail, in accordance with principles
of equity and justice, during or after the period of military
service of the principal.
``(d) Waiver of Rights.--
``(1) Waivers not precluded.--This Act does not prevent a
waiver in writing by a surety, guarantor, endorser,
accommodation maker, comaker, or other person (whether
primarily or secondarily liable on an obligation or
liability) of the protections provided under subsections (a)
and (b). Any such waiver is effective only if it is executed
as an instrument separate from the obligation or liability
with respect to which it applies.
``(2) Waiver invalidated upon entrance to military
service.--If a waiver under paragraph (1) is executed by an
individual who after the execution of the waiver enters
military service, or by a dependent of an individual who
after the execution of the waiver enters military service,
the waiver is not valid after the beginning of the period of
such military service unless the waiver was executed by such
individual or dependent during the period specified in
section 106.
``SEC. 104. EXTENSION OF PROTECTIONS TO CITIZENS SERVING WITH
ALLIED FORCES.
``A citizen of the United States who is serving with the
forces of a nation with which the United States is allied in
the prosecution of a war or military action is entitled to
the relief and protections provided under this Act if that
service with the allied force is similar to military service
as defined in this Act. The relief and protections provided
to such citizen shall terminate on the date of discharge or
release from such service.
``SEC. 105. NOTIFICATION OF BENEFITS.
``The Secretary concerned shall ensure that notice of the
benefits accorded by this Act is provided in writing to
persons in military service and to persons entering military
service.
``SEC. 106. EXTENSION OF RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS TO RESERVES
ORDERED TO REPORT FOR MILITARY SERVICE AND TO
PERSONS ORDERED TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION.
``(a) Reserves Ordered To Report for Military Service.--A
member of a reserve component who is ordered to report for
military service is entitled to the rights and protections of
this title and titles II and III during the period beginning
on the date of the member's receipt of the order and ending
on the date on which the member reports for military service
(or, if the order is revoked before the member so reports, or
the date on which the order is revoked).
``(b) Persons Ordered To Report for Induction.--A person
who has been ordered to report for induction under the
Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.)
is entitled to the rights and protections provided a
servicemember under this title and titles II and III during
the period beginning on the date of receipt of the order for
induction and ending on the date on which the person reports
for induction (or, if the order to report for induction is
revoked before the date on which the person reports for
induction, on the date on which the order is revoked).
``SEC. 107. WAIVER OF RIGHTS PURSUANT TO WRITTEN AGREEMENT.
``(a) In General.--A servicemember may waive any of the
rights and protections provided by this Act. In the case of a
waiver that permits an action described in subsection (b),
the waiver is effective only if made pursuant to a written
agreement of the parties that is executed during or after the
servicemember's period of military service. The written
agreement shall specify the legal instrument to which the
waiver applies and, if the servicemember is not a party to
that instrument, the servicemember concerned.
``(b) Actions Requiring Waivers in Writing.--The
requirement in subsection (a) for a written waiver applies to
the following:
``(1) The modification, termination, or cancellation of--
``(A) a contract, lease, or bailment; or
``(B) an obligation secured by a mortgage, trust, deed,
lien, or other security in the nature of a mortgage.
``(2) The repossession, retention, foreclosure, sale,
forfeiture, or taking possession of property that--
``(A) is security for any obligation; or
``(B) was purchased or received under a contract, lease, or
bailment.
``(c) Coverage of Periods After Orders Received.--For the
purposes of this section--
``(1) a person to whom section 106 applies shall be
considered to be a servicemember; and
``(2) the period with respect to such a person specified in
subsection (a) or (b), as the case may be, of section 106
shall be considered to be a period of military service.
``SEC. 108. EXERCISE OF RIGHTS UNDER ACT NOT TO AFFECT
CERTAIN FUTURE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS.
``Application by a servicemember for, or receipt by a
servicemember of, a stay, postponement, or suspension
pursuant to this Act in the payment of a tax, fine, penalty,
insurance premium, or other civil obligation or liability of
that servicemember shall not itself (without regard to other
considerations) provide the basis for any of the following:
``(1) A determination by a lender or other person that the
servicemember is unable to pay the civil obligation or
liability in accordance with its terms.
``(2) With respect to a credit transaction between a
creditor and the servicemember--
``(A) a denial or revocation of credit by the creditor;
``(B) a change by the creditor in the terms of an existing
credit arrangement; or
``(C) a refusal by the creditor to grant credit to the
servicemember in substantially the amount or on substantially
the terms requested.
``(3) An adverse report relating to the creditworthiness of
the servicemember by or to a person engaged in the practice
of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information.
``(4) A refusal by an insurer to insure the servicemember.
``(5) An annotation in a servicemember's record by a
creditor or a person engaged in the practice of assembling or
evaluating consumer credit information, identifying the
servicemember as a member of the National Guard or a reserve
component.
``(6) A change in the terms offered or conditions required
for the issuance of insurance.
``SEC. 109. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.
``(a) Representative.--A legal representative of a
servicemember for purposes of this Act is either of the
following:
``(1) An attorney acting on the behalf of a servicemember.
``(2) An individual possessing a power of attorney.
``(b) Application.--Whenever the term `servicemember' is
used in this Act, such term shall be treated as including a
reference to a legal representative of the servicemember.
``TITLE II--GENERAL RELIEF
``SEC. 201. PROTECTION OF SERVICEMEMBERS AGAINST DEFAULT
JUDGMENTS.
``(a) Applicability of Section.--This section applies to
any civil action or proceeding in which the defendant does
not make an appearance.
``(b) Affidavit Requirement.--
``(1) Plaintiff to file affidavit.--In any action or
proceeding covered by this section, the court, before
entering judgment for the plaintiff, shall require the
plaintiff to file with the court an affidavit--
``(A) stating whether or not the defendant is in military
service and showing necessary facts to support the affidavit;
or
``(B) if the plaintiff is unable to determine whether or
not the defendant is in military service, stating that the
plaintiff is unable to determine whether or not the defendant
is in military service.
``(2) Appointment of attorney to represent defendant in
military service.--If in an action covered by this section it
appears that the defendant is in military service, the court
may not enter a judgment until after the court appoints an
attorney to represent the defendant. If an attorney appointed
under this section to represent a servicemember cannot locate
the servicemember, actions by the attorney in the case shall
not waive any defense of the servicemember or otherwise bind
the servicemember.
``(3) Defendant's military status not ascertained by
affidavit.--If based upon the affidavits filed in such an
action, the court is unable to determine whether the
defendant is in military service, the court, before entering
judgment, may require the plaintiff to file a bond in an
amount approved by the court. If the defendant is later found
to be in military service, the bond shall be available to
indemnify the defendant against any loss or damage the
defendant may suffer by reason of any judgment for the
plaintiff against the defendant, should the judgment be set
aside in whole or in part. The bond shall remain in effect
until expiration of the time for appeal and setting aside of
a judgment under applicable Federal or State law or
regulation or under any applicable ordinance of a political
subdivision of a State. The court may issue such orders or
enter such judgments as the court determines necessary to
protect the rights of the defendant under this Act.
``(4) Satisfaction of requirement for affidavit.--The
requirement for an affidavit under paragraph (1) may be
satisfied by a statement, declaration, verification, or
certificate, in writing, subscribed and certified or declared
to be true under penalty of perjury.
``(c) Penalty for Making or Using False Affidavit.--A
person who makes or uses an affidavit permitted under
subsection (b) (or a
[[Page 32125]]
statement, declaration, verification, or certificate as
authorized under subsection (b)(4)) knowing it to be false,
shall be fined as provided in title 18, United States Code,
or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
``(d) Stay of Proceedings.--In an action covered by this
section in which the defendant is in military service, the
court shall grant a stay of proceedings for a minimum period
of 90 days under this subsection upon application of counsel,
or on the court's own motion, if the court determines that--
``(1) there may be a defense to the action and a defense
cannot be presented without the presence of the defendant; or
``(2) after due diligence, counsel has been unable to
contact the defendant or otherwise determine if a meritorious
defense exists.
``(e) Inapplicability of Section 202 Procedures.--A stay of
proceedings under subsection (d) shall not be controlled by
procedures or requirements under section 202.
``(f) Section 202 Protection.--If a servicemember who is a
defendant in an action covered by this section receives
actual notice of the action, the servicemember may request a
stay of proceeding under section 202.
``(g) Vacation or Setting Aside of Default Judgments.--
``(1) Authority for court to vacate or set aside
judgment.--If a default judgment is entered in an action
covered by this section against a servicemember during the
servicemember's period of military service (or within 60 days
after termination of or release from such military service),
the court entering the judgment shall, upon application by or
on behalf of the servicemember, reopen the judgment for the
purpose of allowing the servicemember to defend the action if
it appears that--
``(A) the servicemember was materially affected by reason
of that military service in making a defense to the action;
and
``(B) the servicemember has a meritorious or legal defense
to the action or some part of it.
``(2) Time for filing application.--An application under
this subsection must be filed not later than 90 days after
the date of the termination of or release from military
service.
``(h) Protection of Bona Fide Purchaser.--If a court
vacates, sets aside, or reverses a default judgment against a
servicemember and the vacating, setting aside, or reversing
is because of a provision of this Act, that action shall not
impair a right or title acquired by a bona fide purchaser for
value under the default judgment.
``SEC. 202. STAY OF PROCEEDINGS WHEN SERVICEMEMBER HAS
NOTICE.
``(a) Applicability of Section.--This section applies to
any civil action or proceeding in which the defendant at the
time of filing an application under this section--
``(1) is in military service or is within 90 days after
termination of or release from military service; and
``(2) has received notice of the action or proceeding.
``(b) Stay of Proceedings.--
``(1) Authority for stay.--At any stage before final
judgment in a civil action or proceeding in which a
servicemember described in subsection (a) is a party, the
court may on its own motion and shall, upon application by
the servicemember, stay the action for a period of not less
than 90 days, if the conditions in paragraph (2) are met.
``(2) Conditions for stay.--An application for a stay under
paragraph (1) shall include the following:
``(A) A letter or other communication setting forth facts
stating the manner in which current military duty
requirements materially affect the servicemember's ability to
appear and stating a date when the servicemember will be
available to appear.
``(B) A letter or other communication from the
servicemember's commanding officer stating that the
servicemember's current military duty prevents appearance and
that military leave is not authorized for the servicemember
at the time of the letter.
``(c) Application Not a Waiver of Defenses.--An application
for a stay under this section does not constitute an
appearance for jurisdictional purposes and does not
constitute a waiver of any substantive or procedural defense
(including a defense relating to lack of personal
jurisdiction).
``(d) Additional Stay.--
``(1) Application.--A servicemember who is granted a stay
of a civil action or proceeding under subsection (b) may
apply for an additional stay based on continuing material
affect of military duty on the servicemember's ability to
appear. Such an application may be made by the servicemember
at the time of the initial application under subsection (b)
or when it appears that the servicemember is unavailable to
prosecute or defend the action. The same information required
under subsection (b)(2) shall be included in an application
under this subsection.
``(2) Appointment of counsel when additional stay
refused.--If the court refuses to grant an additional stay of
proceedings under paragraph (1), the court shall appoint
counsel to represent the servicemember in the action or
proceeding.
``(e) Coordination With Section 201.--A servicemember who
applies for a stay under this section and is unsuccessful may
not seek the protections afforded by section 201.
``(f) Inapplicability to Section 301.--The protections of
this section do not apply to section 301.
``SEC. 203. FINES AND PENALTIES UNDER CONTRACTS.
``(a) Prohibition of Penalties.--When an action for
compliance with the terms of a contract is stayed pursuant to
this Act, a penalty shall not accrue for failure to comply
with the terms of the contract during the period of the stay.
``(b) Reduction or Waiver of Fines or Penalties.--If a
servicemember fails to perform an obligation arising under a
contract and a penalty is incurred arising from that
nonperformance, a court may reduce or waive the fine or
penalty if--
``(1) the servicemember was in military service at the time
the fine or penalty was incurred; and
``(2) the ability of the servicemember to perform the
obligation was materially affected by such military service.
``SEC. 204. STAY OR VACATION OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENTS,
ATTACHMENTS, AND GARNISHMENTS.
``(a) Court Action Upon Material Affect Determination.--If
a servicemember, in the opinion of the court, is materially
affected by reason of military service in complying with a
court judgment or order, the court may on its own motion and
shall on application by the servicemember--
``(1) stay the execution of any judgment or order entered
against the servicemember; and
``(2) vacate or stay an attachment or garnishment of
property, money, or debts in the possession of the
servicemember or a third party, whether before or after
judgment.
``(b) Applicability.--This section applies to an action or
proceeding commenced in a court against a servicemember
before or during the period of the servicemember's military
service or within 90 days after such service terminates.
``SEC. 205. DURATION AND TERM OF STAYS; CODEFENDANTS NOT IN
SERVICE.
``(a) Period of Stay.--A stay of an action, proceeding,
attachment, or execution made pursuant to the provisions of
this Act by a court may be ordered for the period of military
service and 90 days thereafter, or for any part of that
period. The court may set the terms and amounts for such
installment payments as is considered reasonable by the
court.
``(b) Codefendants.--If the servicemember is a codefendant
with others who are not in military service and who are not
entitled to the relief and protections provided under this
Act, the plaintiff may proceed against those other defendants
with the approval of the court.
``(c) Inapplicability of Section.--This section does not
apply to sections 202 and 701.
``SEC. 206. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
``(a) Tolling of Statutes of Limitation During Military
Service.--The period of a servicemember's military service
may not be included in computing any period limited by law,
regulation, or order for the bringing of any action or
proceeding in a court, or in any board, bureau, commission,
department, or other agency of a State (or political
subdivision of a State) or the United States by or against
the servicemember or the servicemember's heirs, executors,
administrators, or assigns.
``(b) Redemption of Real Property.--A period of military
service may not be included in computing any period provided
by law for the redemption of real property sold or forfeited
to enforce an obligation, tax, or assessment.
``(c) Inapplicability to Internal Revenue Laws.--This
section does not apply to any period of limitation prescribed
by or under the internal revenue laws of the United States.
``SEC. 207. MAXIMUM RATE OF INTEREST ON DEBTS INCURRED BEFORE
MILITARY SERVICE.
``(a) Interest Rate Limitation.--
``(1) Limitation to 6 percent.--An obligation or liability
bearing interest at a rate in excess of 6 percent per year
that is incurred by a servicemember, or the servicemember and
the servicemember's spouse jointly, before the servicemember
enters military service shall not bear interest at a rate in
excess of 6 percent per year during the period of military
service.
``(2) Forgiveness of interest in excess of 6 percent.--
Interest at a rate in excess of 6 percent per year that would
otherwise be incurred but for the prohibition in paragraph
(1) is forgiven.
``(3) Prevention of acceleration of principal.--The amount
of any periodic payment due from a servicemember under the
terms of the instrument that created an obligation or
liability covered by this section shall be reduced by the
amount of the interest forgiven under paragraph (2) that is
allocable to the period for which such payment is made.
``(b) Implementation of Limitation.--
``(1) Written notice to creditor.--In order for an
obligation or liability of a servicemember to be subject to
the interest rate limitation in subsection (a), the
servicemember shall provide to the creditor written notice
and a copy of the military orders calling the servicemember
to military service and any orders further extending military
service, not later than 180 days after the date of the
servicemember's termination or release from military service.
``(2) Limitation effective as of date of order to active
duty.--Upon receipt of written notice and a copy of orders
calling a servicemember to military service, the creditor
shall treat the debt in accordance with subsection (a),
effective as of the date on which the servicemember is called
to military service.
``(c) Creditor Protection.--A court may grant a creditor
relief from the limitations of
[[Page 32126]]
this section if, in the opinion of the court, the ability of
the servicemember to pay interest upon the obligation or
liability at a rate in excess of 6 percent per year is not
materially affected by reason of the servicemember's military
service.
``(d) Interest.--As used in this section, the term
`interest' includes service charges, renewal charges, fees,
or any other charges (except bona fide insurance) with
respect to an obligation or liability.
``TITLE III--RENT, INSTALLMENT CONTRACTS, MORTGAGES, LIENS, ASSIGNMENT,
LEASES
``SEC. 301. EVICTIONS AND DISTRESS.
``(a) Court-Ordered Eviction.--
``(1) In general.--Except by court order, a landlord (or
another person with paramount title) may not--
``(A) evict a servicemember, or the dependents of a
servicemember, during a period of military service of the
servicemember, from premises--
``(i) that are occupied or intended to be occupied
primarily as a residence; and
``(ii) for which the monthly rent does not exceed $2,400,
as adjusted under paragraph (2) for years after 2003; or
``(B) subject such premises to a distress during the period
of military service.
``(2) Housing price inflation adjustment.--(A) For calendar
years beginning with 2004, the amount in effect under
paragraph (1)(A)(ii) shall be increased by the housing price
inflation adjustment for the calendar year involved.
``(B) For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) The housing price inflation adjustment for any
calendar year is the percentage change (if any) by which--
``(I) the CPI housing component for November of the
preceding calendar year, exceeds
``(II) the CPI housing component for November of 1984.
``(ii) The term `CPI housing component' means the index
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department
of Labor known as the Consumer Price Index, All Urban
Consumers, Rent of Primary Residence, U.S. City Average.
``(3) Publication of housing price inflation adjustment.--
The Secretary of Defense shall cause to be published in the
Federal Register each year the amount in effect under
paragraph (1)(A)(ii) for that year following the housing
price inflation adjustment for that year pursuant to
paragraph (2). Such publication shall be made for a year not
later than 60 days after such adjustment is made for that
year.
``(b) Stay of Execution.--
``(1) Court authority.--Upon an application for eviction or
distress with respect to premises covered by this section,
the court may on its own motion and shall, if a request is
made by or on behalf of a servicemember whose ability to pay
the agreed rent is materially affected by military service--
``(A) stay the proceedings for a period of 90 days, unless
in the opinion of the court, justice and equity require a
longer or shorter period of time; or
``(B) adjust the obligation under the lease to preserve the
interests of all parties.
``(2) Relief to landlord.--If a stay is granted under
paragraph (1), the court may grant to the landlord (or other
person with paramount title) such relief as equity may
require.
``(c) Penalties.--
``(1) Misdemeanor.--Except as provided in subsection (a), a
person who knowingly takes part in an eviction or distress
described in subsection (a), or who knowingly attempts to do
so, shall be fined as provided in title 18, United States
Code, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
``(2) Preservation of other remedies and rights.--The
remedies and rights provided under this section are in
addition to and do not preclude any remedy for wrongful
conversion (or wrongful eviction) otherwise available under
the law to the person claiming relief under this section,
including any award for consequential and punitive damages.
``(d) Rent Allotment From Pay of Servicemember.--To the
extent required by a court order related to property which is
the subject of a court action under this section, the
Secretary concerned shall make an allotment from the pay of a
servicemember to satisfy the terms of such order, except that
any such allotment shall be subject to regulations prescribed
by the Secretary concerned establishing the maximum amount of
pay of servicemembers that may be allotted under this
subsection.
``(e) Limitation of Applicability.--Section 202 is not
applicable to this section.
``SEC. 302. PROTECTION UNDER INSTALLMENT CONTRACTS FOR
PURCHASE OR LEASE.
``(a) Protection Upon Breach of Contract.--
``(1) Protection after entering military service.--After a
servicemember enters military service, a contract by the
servicemember for--
``(A) the purchase of real or personal property (including
a motor vehicle); or
``(B) the lease or bailment of such property,
may not be rescinded or terminated for a breach of terms of
the contract occurring before or during that person's
military service, nor may the property be repossessed for
such breach without a court order.
``(2) Applicability.--This section applies only to a
contract for which a deposit or installment has been paid by
the servicemember before the servicemember enters military
service.
``(b) Penalties.--
``(1) Misdemeanor.--A person who knowingly resumes
possession of property in violation of subsection (a), or in
violation of section 107 of this Act, or who knowingly
attempts to do so, shall be fined as provided in title 18,
United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than one year,
or both.
``(2) Preservation of other remedies and rights.--The
remedies and rights provided under this section are in
addition to and do not preclude any remedy for wrongful
conversion otherwise available under law to the person
claiming relief under this section, including any award for
consequential and punitive damages.
``(c) Authority of Court.--In a hearing based on this
section, the court--
``(1) may order repayment to the servicemember of all or
part of the prior installments or deposits as a condition of
terminating the contract and resuming possession of the
property;
``(2) may, on its own motion, and shall on application by a
servicemember when the servicemember's ability to comply with
the contract is materially affected by military service, stay
the proceedings for a period of time as, in the opinion of
the court, justice and equity require; or
``(3) may make other disposition as is equitable to
preserve the interests of all parties.
``SEC. 303. MORTGAGES AND TRUST DEEDS.
``(a) Mortgage as Security.--This section applies only to
an obligation on real or personal property owned by a
servicemember that--
``(1) originated before the period of the servicemember's
military service and for which the servicemember is still
obligated; and
``(2) is secured by a mortgage, trust deed, or other
security in the nature of a mortgage.
``(b) Stay of Proceedings and Adjustment of Obligation.--In
an action filed during, or within 90 days after, a
servicemember's period of military service to enforce an
obligation described in subsection (a), the court may after a
hearing and on its own motion and shall upon application by a
servicemember when the servicemember's ability to comply with
the obligation is materially affected by military service--
``(1) stay the proceedings for a period of time as justice
and equity require, or
``(2) adjust the obligation to preserve the interests of
all parties.
``(c) Sale or Foreclosure.--A sale, foreclosure, or seizure
of property for a breach of an obligation described in
subsection (a) shall not be valid if made during, or within
90 days after, the period of the servicemember's military
service except--
``(1) upon a court order granted before such sale,
foreclosure, or seizure with a return made and approved by
the court; or
``(2) if made pursuant to an agreement as provided in
section 107.
``(d) Penalties.--
``(1) Misdemeanor.--A person who knowingly makes or causes
to be made a sale, foreclosure, or seizure of property that
is prohibited by subsection (c), or who knowingly attempts to
do so, shall be fined as provided in title 18, United States
Code, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
``(2) Preservation of other remedies.--The remedies and
rights provided under this section are in addition to and do
not preclude any remedy for wrongful conversion otherwise
available under law to the person claiming relief under this
section, including consequential and punitive damages.
``SEC. 304. SETTLEMENT OF STAYED CASES RELATING TO PERSONAL
PROPERTY.
``(a) Appraisal of Property.--When a stay is granted
pursuant to this Act in a proceeding to foreclose a mortgage
on or to repossess personal property, or to rescind or
terminate a contract for the purchase of personal property,
the court may appoint three disinterested parties to appraise
the property.
``(b) Equity Payment.--Based on the appraisal, and if undue
hardship to the servicemember's dependents will not result,
the court may order that the amount of the servicemember's
equity in the property be paid to the servicemember, or the
servicemember's dependents, as a condition of foreclosing the
mortgage, repossessing the property, or rescinding or
terminating the contract.
``SEC. 305. TERMINATION OF RESIDENTIAL OR MOTOR VEHICLE
LEASES.
``(a) Termination by Lessee.--The lessee on a lease
described in subsection (b) may, at the lessee's option,
terminate the lease at any time after--
``(1) the lessee's entry into military service; or
``(2) the date of the lessee's military orders described in
paragraph (1)(B) or (2)(B) of subsection (b), as the case may
be.
``(b) Covered Leases.--This section applies to the
following leases:
``(1) Leases of premises.--A lease of premises occupied, or
intended to be occupied, by a servicemember or a
servicemember's dependents for a residential, professional,
business, agricultural, or similar purpose if--
``(A) the lease is executed by or on behalf of a person who
thereafter and during the term of the lease enters military
service; or
``(B) the servicemember, while in military service,
executes the lease and thereafter receives military orders
for a permanent change of station or to deploy with a
military unit for a period of not less than 90 days.
``(2) Leases of motor vehicles.--A lease of a motor vehicle
used, or intended to be used, by a servicemember or a
servicemember's dependents for personal or business
transportation if--
``(A) the lease is executed by or on behalf of a person who
thereafter and during the term of
[[Page 32127]]
the lease enters military service under a call or order
specifying a period of not less than 180 days (or who enters
military service under a call or order specifying a period of
180 days or less and who, without a break in service,
receives orders extending the period of military service to a
period of not less than 180 days); or
``(B) the servicemember, while in military service,
executes the lease and thereafter receives military orders
for a permanent change of station outside of the continental
United States or to deploy with a military unit for a period
of not less than 180 days.
``(c) Manner of Termination.--
``(1) In general.--Termination of a lease under subsection
(a) is made--
``(A) by delivery by the lessee of written notice of such
termination, and a copy of the servicemember's military
orders, to the lessor (or the lessor's grantee), or to the
lessor's agent (or the agent's grantee); and
``(B) in the case of a lease of a motor vehicle, by return
of the motor vehicle by the lessee to the lessor (or the
lessor's grantee), or to the lessor's agent (or the agent's
grantee), not later than 15 days after the date of the
delivery of written notice under subparagraph (A).
``(2) Delivery of notice.--Delivery of notice under
paragraph (1)(A) may be accomplished--
``(A) by hand delivery;
``(B) by private business carrier; or
``(C) by placing the written notice in an envelope with
sufficient postage and with return receipt requested, and
addressed as designated by the lessor (or the lessor's
grantee) or to the lessor's agent (or the agent's grantee),
and depositing the written notice in the United States mails.
``(d) Effective Date of Lease Termination.--
``(1) Lease of premises.--In the case of a lease described
in subsection (b)(1) that provides for monthly payment of
rent, termination of the lease under subsection (a) is
effective 30 days after the first date on which the next
rental payment is due and payable after the date on which the
notice under subsection (c) is delivered. In the case of any
other lease described in subsection (b)(1), termination of
the lease under subsection (a) is effective on the last day
of the month following the month in which the notice is
delivered.
``(2) Lease of motor vehicles.--In the case of a lease
described in subsection (b)(2), termination of the lease
under subsection (a) is effective on the day on which the
requirements of subsection (c) are met for such termination.
``(e) Arrearages and Other Obligations and Liabilities.--
Rents or lease amounts unpaid for the period preceding the
effective date of the lease termination shall be paid on a
prorated basis. In the case of the lease of a motor vehicle,
the lessor may not impose an early termination charge, but
any taxes, summonses, and title and registration fees and any
other obligation and liability of the lessee in accordance
with the terms of the lease, including reasonable charges to
the lessee for excess wear, use and mileage, that are due and
unpaid at the time of termination of the lease shall be paid
by the lessee.
``(f) Rent Paid in Advance.--Rents or lease amounts paid in
advance for a period after the effective date of the
termination of the lease shall be refunded to the lessee by
the lessor (or the lessor's assignee or the assignee's agent)
within 30 days of the effective date of the termination of
the lease.
``(g) Relief to Lessor.--Upon application by the lessor to
a court before the termination date provided in the written
notice, relief granted by this section to a servicemember may
be modified as justice and equity require.
``(h) Penalties.--
``(1) Misdemeanor.--Any person who knowingly seizes, holds,
or detains the personal effects, security deposit, or other
property of a servicemember or a servicemember's dependent
who lawfully terminates a lease covered by this section, or
who knowingly interferes with the removal of such property
from premises covered by such lease, for the purpose of
subjecting or attempting to subject any of such property to a
claim for rent accruing subsequent to the date of termination
of such lease, or attempts to do so, shall be fined as
provided in title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for
not more than one year, or both.
``(2) Preservation of other remedies.--The remedy and
rights provided under this section are in addition to and do
not preclude any remedy for wrongful conversion otherwise
available under law to the person claiming relief under this
section, including any award for consequential or punitive
damages.
``SEC. 306. PROTECTION OF LIFE INSURANCE POLICY.
``(a) Assignment of Policy Protected.--If a life insurance
policy on the life of a servicemember is assigned before
military service to secure the payment of an obligation, the
assignee of the policy (except the insurer in connection with
a policy loan) may not exercise, during a period of military
service of the servicemember or within one year thereafter,
any right or option obtained under the assignment without a
court order.
``(b) Exception.--The prohibition in subsection (a) shall
not apply--
``(1) if the assignee has the written consent of the
insured made during the period described in subsection (a);
``(2) when the premiums on the policy are due and unpaid;
or
``(3) upon the death of the insured.
``(c) Order Refused Because of Material Affect.--A court
which receives an application for an order required under
subsection (a) may refuse to grant such order if the court
determines the ability of the servicemember to comply with
the terms of the obligation is materially affected by
military service.
``(d) Treatment of Guaranteed Premiums.--For purposes of
this subsection, premiums guaranteed under the provisions of
title IV of this Act shall not be considered due and unpaid.
``(e) Penalties.--
``(1) Misdemeanor.--A person who knowingly takes an action
contrary to this section, or attempts to do so, shall be
fined as provided in title 18, United States Code, or
imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
``(2) Preservation of other remedies.--The remedy and
rights provided under this section are in addition to and do
not preclude any remedy for wrongful conversion otherwise
available under law to the person claiming relief under this
section, including any consequential or punitive damages.
``SEC. 307. ENFORCEMENT OF STORAGE LIENS.
``(a) Liens.--
``(1) Limitation on foreclosure or enforcement.--A person
holding a lien on the property or effects of a servicemember
may not, during any period of military service of the
servicemember and for 90 days thereafter, foreclose or
enforce any lien on such property or effects without a court
order granted before foreclosure or enforcement.
``(2) Lien defined.--For the purposes of paragraph (1), the
term `lien' includes a lien for storage, repair, or cleaning
of the property or effects of a servicemember or a lien on
such property or effects for any other reason.
``(b) Stay of Proceedings.--In a proceeding to foreclose or
enforce a lien subject to this section, the court may on its
own motion, and shall if requested by a servicemember whose
ability to comply with the obligation resulting in the
proceeding is materially affected by military service--
``(1) stay the proceeding for a period of time as justice
and equity require; or
``(2) adjust the obligation to preserve the interests of
all parties.
The provisions of this subsection do not affect the scope of
section 303.
``(c) Penalties.--
``(1) Misdemeanor.--A person who knowingly takes an action
contrary to this section, or attempts to do so, shall be
fined as provided in title 18, United States Code, or
imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
``(2) Preservation of other remedies.--The remedy and
rights provided under this section are in addition to and do
not preclude any remedy for wrongful conversion otherwise
available under law to the person claiming relief under this
section, including any consequential or punitive damages.
``SEC. 308. EXTENSION OF PROTECTIONS TO DEPENDENTS.
``Upon application to a court, a dependent of a
servicemember is entitled to the protections of this title if
the dependent's ability to comply with a lease, contract,
bailment, or other obligation is materially affected by
reason of the servicemember's military service.
``TITLE IV--LIFE INSURANCE
``SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS.
``For the purposes of this title:
``(1) Policy.--The term `policy' means any individual
contract for whole, endowment, universal, or term life
insurance (other than group term life insurance coverage),
including any benefit in the nature of such insurance arising
out of membership in any fraternal or beneficial association
which--
``(A) provides that the insurer may not--
``(i) decrease the amount of coverage or require the
payment of an additional amount as premiums if the insured
engages in military service (except increases in premiums in
individual term insurance based upon age); or
``(ii) limit or restrict coverage for any activity required
by military service; and
``(B) is in force not less than 180 days before the date of
the insured's entry into military service and at the time of
application under this title.
``(2) Premium.--The term `premium' means the amount
specified in an insurance policy to be paid to keep the
policy in force.
``(3) Insured.--The term `insured' means a servicemember
whose life is insured under a policy.
``(4) Insurer.--The term `insurer' includes any firm,
corporation, partnership, association, or business that is
chartered or authorized to provide insurance and issue
contracts or policies by the laws of a State or the United
States.
``SEC. 402. INSURANCE RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS.
``(a) Rights and Protections.--The rights and protections
under this title apply to the insured when--
``(1) the insured,
``(2) the insured's legal representative, or
``(3) the insured's beneficiary in the case of an insured
who is outside a State,
applies in writing for protection under this title, unless
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs determines that the
insured's policy is not entitled to protection under this
title.
``(b) Notification and Application.--The Secretary of
Veterans Affairs shall notify the Secretary concerned of the
procedures to be used to apply for the protections provided
under this title. The applicant shall send the original
application to the insurer and a copy to the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs.
[[Page 32128]]
``(c) Limitation on Amount.--The total amount of life
insurance coverage protection provided by this title for a
servicemember may not exceed $250,000, or an amount equal to
the Servicemember's Group Life Insurance maximum limit,
whichever is greater, regardless of the number of policies
submitted.
``SEC. 403. APPLICATION FOR INSURANCE PROTECTION.
``(a) Application Procedure.--An application for protection
under this title shall--
``(1) be in writing and signed by the insured, the
insured's legal representative, or the insured's beneficiary,
as the case may be;
``(2) identify the policy and the insurer; and
``(3) include an acknowledgement that the insured's rights
under the policy are subject to and modified by the
provisions of this title.
``(b) Additional Requirements.--The Secretary of Veterans
Affairs may require additional information from the
applicant, the insured and the insurer to determine if the
policy is entitled to protection under this title.
``(c) Notice to the Secretary by the Insurer.--Upon receipt
of the application of the insured, the insurer shall furnish
a report concerning the policy to the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs as required by regulations prescribed by the
Secretary.
``(d) Policy Modification.--Upon application for protection
under this title, the insured and the insurer shall have
constructively agreed to any policy modification necessary to
give this title full force and effect.
``SEC. 404. POLICIES ENTITLED TO PROTECTION AND LAPSE OF
POLICIES.
``(a) Determination.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall determine whether a policy is entitled to protection
under this title and shall notify the insured and the insurer
of that determination.
``(b) Lapse Protection.--A policy that the Secretary
determines is entitled to protection under this title shall
not lapse or otherwise terminate or be forfeited for the
nonpayment of a premium, or interest or indebtedness on a
premium, after the date on which the application for
protection is received by the Secretary.
``(c) Time Application.--The protection provided by this
title applies during the insured's period of military service
and for a period of two years thereafter.
``SEC. 405. POLICY RESTRICTIONS.
``(a) Dividends.--While a policy is protected under this
title, a dividend or other monetary benefit under a policy
may not be paid to an insured or used to purchase dividend
additions without the approval of the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs. If such approval is not obtained, the dividends or
benefits shall be added to the value of the policy to be used
as a credit when final settlement is made with the insurer.
``(b) Specific Restrictions.--While a policy is protected
under this title, cash value, loan value, withdrawal of
dividend accumulation, unearned premiums, or other value of
similar character may not be available to the insured without
the approval of the Secretary. The right of the insured to
change a beneficiary designation or select an optional
settlement for a beneficiary shall not be affected by the
provisions of this title.
``SEC. 406. DEDUCTION OF UNPAID PREMIUMS.
``(a) Settlement of Proceeds.--If a policy matures as a
result of a servicemember's death or otherwise during the
period of protection of the policy under this title, the
insurer in making settlement shall deduct from the insurance
proceeds the amount of the unpaid premiums guaranteed under
this title, together with interest due at the rate fixed in
the policy for policy loans.
``(b) Interest Rate.--If the interest rate is not
specifically fixed in the policy, the rate shall be the same
as for policy loans in other policies issued by the insurer
at the time the insured's policy was issued.
``(c) Reporting Requirement.--The amount deducted under
this section, if any, shall be reported by the insurer to the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
``SEC. 407. PREMIUMS AND INTEREST GUARANTEED BY UNITED
STATES.
``(a) Guarantee of Premiums and Interest by the United
States.--
``(1) Guarantee.--Payment of premiums, and interest on
premiums at the rate specified in section 406, which become
due on a policy under the protection of this title is
guaranteed by the United States. If the amount guaranteed is
not paid to the insurer before the period of insurance
protection under this title expires, the amount due shall be
treated by the insurer as a policy loan on the policy.
``(2) Policy termination.--If, at the expiration of
insurance protection under this title, the cash surrender
value of a policy is less than the amount due to pay premiums
and interest on premiums on the policy, the policy shall
terminate. Upon such termination, the United States shall pay
the insurer the difference between the amount due and the
cash surrender value.
``(b) Recovery From Insured of Amounts Paid by the United
States.--
``(1) Debt payable to the united states.--The amount paid
by the United States to an insurer under this title shall be
a debt payable to the United States by the insured on whose
policy payment was made.
``(2) Collection.--Such amount may be collected by the
United States, either as an offset from any amount due the
insured by the United States or as otherwise authorized by
law.
``(3) Debt not dischargeable in bankruptcy.--Such debt
payable to the United States is not dischargeable in
bankruptcy proceedings.
``(c) Crediting of Amounts Recovered.--Any amounts received
by the United States as repayment of debts incurred by an
insured under this title shall be credited to the
appropriation for the payment of claims under this title.
``SEC. 408. REGULATIONS.
``The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall prescribe
regulations for the implementation of this title.
``SEC. 409. REVIEW OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW.
``The findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs in administering this title are
subject to review on appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals
pursuant to chapter 71 of title 38, United States Code, and
to judicial review only as provided in chapter 72 of such
title.
``TITLE V--TAXES AND PUBLIC LANDS
``SEC. 501. TAXES RESPECTING PERSONAL PROPERTY, MONEY,
CREDITS, AND REAL PROPERTY.
``(a) Application.--This section applies in any case in
which a tax or assessment, whether general or special (other
than a tax on personal income), falls due and remains unpaid
before or during a period of military service with respect to
a servicemember's--
``(1) personal property (including motor vehicles); or
``(2) real property occupied for dwelling, professional,
business, or agricultural purposes by a servicemember or the
servicemember's dependents or employees--
``(A) before the servicemember's entry into military
service; and
``(B) during the time the tax or assessment remains unpaid.
``(b) Sale of Property.--
``(1) Limitation on sale of property to enforce tax
assessment.--Property described in subsection (a) may not be
sold to enforce the collection of such tax or assessment
except by court order and upon the determination by the court
that military service does not materially affect the
servicemember's ability to pay the unpaid tax or assessment.
``(2) Stay of court proceedings.--A court may stay a
proceeding to enforce the collection of such tax or
assessment, or sale of such property, during a period of
military service of the servicemember and for a period not
more than 180 days after the termination of, or release of
the servicemember from, military service.
``(c) Redemption.--When property described in subsection
(a) is sold or forfeited to enforce the collection of a tax
or assessment, a servicemember shall have the right to redeem
or commence an action to redeem the servicemember's property
during the period of military service or within 180 days
after termination of or release from military service. This
subsection may not be construed to shorten any period
provided by the law of a State (including any political
subdivision of a State) for redemption.
``(d) Interest on Tax or Assessment.--Whenever a
servicemember does not pay a tax or assessment on property
described in subsection (a) when due, the amount of the tax
or assessment due and unpaid shall bear interest until paid
at the rate of 6 percent per year. An additional penalty or
interest shall not be incurred by reason of nonpayment. A
lien for such unpaid tax or assessment may include interest
under this subsection.
``(e) Joint Ownership Application.--This section applies to
all forms of property described in subsection (a) owned
individually by a servicemember or jointly by a servicemember
and a dependent or dependents.
``SEC. 502. RIGHTS IN PUBLIC LANDS.
``(a) Rights Not Forfeited.--The rights of a servicemember
to lands owned or controlled by the United States, and
initiated or acquired by the servicemember under the laws of
the United States (including the mining and mineral leasing
laws) before military service, shall not be forfeited or
prejudiced as a result of being absent from the land, or by
failing to begin or complete any work or improvements to the
land, during the period of military service.
``(b) Temporary Suspension of Permits or Licenses.--If a
permittee or licensee under the Act of June 28, 1934 (43
U.S.C. 315 et seq.), enters military service, the permittee
or licensee may suspend the permit or license for the period
of military service and for 180 days after termination of or
release from military service.
``(c) Regulations.--Regulations prescribed by the Secretary
of the Interior shall provide for such suspension of permits
and licenses and for the remission, reduction, or refund of
grazing fees during the period of such suspension.
``SEC. 503. DESERT-LAND ENTRIES.
``(a) Desert-Land Rights Not Forfeited.--A desert-land
entry made or held under the desert-land laws before the
entrance of the entryman or the entryman's successor in
interest into military service shall not be subject to
contest or cancellation--
``(1) for failure to expend any required amount per acre
per year in improvements upon the claim;
``(2) for failure to effect the reclamation of the claim
during the period the entryman or the entryman's successor in
interest is in the military service, or for 180 days after
termination of or release from military service; or
``(3) during any period of hospitalization or
rehabilitation due to an injury or disability incurred in the
line of duty.
The time within which the entryman or claimant is required to
make such expenditures and effect reclamation of the land
shall be exclusive
[[Page 32129]]
of the time periods described in paragraphs (2) and (3).
``(b) Service-Related Disability.--If an entryman or
claimant is honorably discharged and is unable to accomplish
reclamation of, and payment for, desert land due to a
disability incurred in the line of duty, the entryman or
claimant may make proof without further reclamation or
payments, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
the Interior, and receive a patent for the land entered or
claimed.
``(c) Filing Requirement.--In order to obtain the
protection of this section, the entryman or claimant shall,
within 180 days after entry into military service, cause to
be filed in the land office of the district where the claim
is situated a notice communicating the fact of military
service and the desire to hold the claim under this section.
``SEC. 504. MINING CLAIMS.
``(a) Requirements Suspended.--The provisions of section
2324 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (30 U.S.C.
28) specified in subsection (b) shall not apply to a
servicemember's claims or interests in claims, regularly
located and recorded, during a period of military service and
180 days thereafter, or during any period of hospitalization
or rehabilitation due to injuries or disabilities incurred in
the line of duty.
``(b) Requirements.--The provisions in section 2324 of the
Revised Statutes that shall not apply under subsection (a)
are those which require that on each mining claim located
after May 10, 1872, and until a patent has been issued for
such claim, not less than $100 worth of labor shall be
performed or improvements made during each year.
``(c) Period of Protection From Forfeiture.--A mining claim
or an interest in a claim owned by a servicemember that has
been regularly located and recorded shall not be subject to
forfeiture for nonperformance of annual assessments during
the period of military service and for 180 days thereafter,
or for any period of hospitalization or rehabilitation
described in subsection (a).
``(d) Filing Requirement.--In order to obtain the
protections of this section, the claimant of a mining
location shall, before the end of the assessment year in
which military service is begun or within 60 days after the
end of such assessment year, cause to be filed in the office
where the location notice or certificate is recorded a notice
communicating the fact of military service and the desire to
hold the mining claim under this section.
``SEC. 505. MINERAL PERMITS AND LEASES.
``(a) Suspension During Military Service.--A person holding
a permit or lease on the public domain under the Federal
mineral leasing laws who enters military service may suspend
all operations under the permit or lease for the duration of
military service and for 180 days thereafter. The term of the
permit or lease shall not run during the period of
suspension, nor shall any rental or royalties be charged
against the permit or lease during the period of suspension.
``(b) Notification.--In order to obtain the protection of
this section, the permittee or lessee shall, within 180 days
after entry into military service, notify the Secretary of
the Interior by registered mail of the fact that military
service has begun and of the desire to hold the claim under
this section.
``(c) Contract Modification.--This section shall not be
construed to supersede the terms of any contract for
operation of a permit or lease.
``SEC. 506. PERFECTION OR DEFENSE OF RIGHTS.
``(a) Right To Take Action Not Affected.--This title shall
not affect the right of a servicemember to take action during
a period of military service that is authorized by law or
regulations of the Department of the Interior, for the
perfection, defense, or further assertion of rights initiated
or acquired before entering military service.
``(b) Affidavits and Proofs.--
``(1) In general.--A servicemember during a period of
military service may make any affidavit or submit any proof
required by law, practice, or regulation of the Department of
the Interior in connection with the entry, perfection,
defense, or further assertion of rights initiated or acquired
before entering military service before an officer authorized
to provide notary services under section 1044a of title 10,
United States Code, or any superior commissioned officer.
``(2) Legal status of affidavits.--Such affidavits shall be
binding in law and subject to the same penalties as
prescribed by section 1001 of title 18, United State Code.
``SEC. 507. DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION CONCERNING BENEFITS
OF TITLE.
``(a) Distribution of Information by Secretary Concerned.--
The Secretary concerned shall issue to servicemembers
information explaining the provisions of this title.
``(b) Application Forms.--The Secretary concerned shall
provide application forms to servicemembers requesting relief
under this title.
``(c) Information From Secretary of the Interior.--The
Secretary of the Interior shall furnish to the Secretary
concerned information explaining the provisions of this title
(other than sections 501, 510, and 511) and related
application forms.
``SEC. 508. LAND RIGHTS OF SERVICEMEMBERS.
``(a) No Age Limitations.--Any servicemember under the age
of 21 in military service shall be entitled to the same
rights under the laws relating to lands owned or controlled
by the United States, including mining and mineral leasing
laws, as those servicemembers who are 21 years of age.
``(b) Residency Requirement.--Any requirement related to
the establishment of a residence within a limited time shall
be suspended as to entry by a servicemember in military
service until 180 days after termination of or release from
military service.
``(c) Entry Applications.--Applications for entry may be
verified before a person authorized to administer oaths under
section 1044a of title 10, United States Code, or under the
laws of the State where the land is situated.
``SEC. 509. REGULATIONS.
``The Secretary of the Interior may issue regulations
necessary to carry out this title (other than sections 501,
510, and 511).
``SEC. 510. INCOME TAXES.
``(a) Deferral of Tax.--Upon notice to the Internal Revenue
Service or the tax authority of a State or a political
subdivision of a State, the collection of income tax on the
income of a servicemember falling due before or during
military service shall be deferred for a period not more than
180 days after termination of or release from military
service, if a servicemember's ability to pay such income tax
is materially affected by military service.
``(b) Accrual of Interest or Penalty.--No interest or
penalty shall accrue for the period of deferment by reason of
nonpayment on any amount of tax deferred under this section.
``(c) Statute of Limitations.--The running of a statute of
limitations against the collection of tax deferred under this
section, by seizure or otherwise, shall be suspended for the
period of military service of the servicemember and for an
additional period of 270 days thereafter.
``(d) Application Limitation.--This section shall not apply
to the tax imposed on employees by section 3101 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``SEC. 511. RESIDENCE FOR TAX PURPOSES.
``(a) Residence or Domicile.--A servicemember shall neither
lose nor acquire a residence or domicile for purposes of
taxation with respect to the person, personal property, or
income of the servicemember by reason of being absent or
present in any tax jurisdiction of the United States solely
in compliance with military orders.
``(b) Military Service Compensation.--Compensation of a
servicemember for military service shall not be deemed to be
income for services performed or from sources within a tax
jurisdiction of the United States if the servicemember is not
a resident or domiciliary of the jurisdiction in which the
servicemember is serving in compliance with military orders.
``(c) Personal Property.--
``(1) Relief from personal property taxes.--The personal
property of a servicemember shall not be deemed to be located
or present in, or to have a situs for taxation in, the tax
jurisdiction in which the servicemember is serving in
compliance with military orders.
``(2) Exception for property within member's domicile or
residence.--This subsection applies to personal property or
its use within any tax jurisdiction other than the
servicemember's domicile or residence.
``(3) Exception for property used in trade or business.--
This section does not prevent taxation by a tax jurisdiction
with respect to personal property used in or arising from a
trade or business, if it has jurisdiction.
``(4) Relationship to law of state of domicile.--
Eligibility for relief from personal property taxes under
this subsection is not contingent on whether or not such
taxes are paid to the State of domicile.
``(d) Increase of Tax Liability.--A tax jurisdiction may
not use the military compensation of a nonresident
servicemember to increase the tax liability imposed on other
income earned by the nonresident servicemember or spouse
subject to tax by the jurisdiction.
``(e) Federal Indian Reservations.--An Indian servicemember
whose legal residence or domicile is a Federal Indian
reservation shall be taxed by the laws applicable to Federal
Indian reservations and not the State where the reservation
is located.
``(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) Personal property.--The term `personal property'
means intangible and tangible property (including motor
vehicles).
``(2) Taxation.--The term `taxation' includes licenses,
fees, or excises imposed with respect to motor vehicles and
their use, if the license, fee, or excise is paid by the
servicemember in the servicemember's State of domicile or
residence.
``(3) Tax jurisdiction.--The term `tax jurisdiction' means
a State or a political subdivision of a State.
``TITLE VI--ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
``SEC. 601. INAPPROPRIATE USE OF ACT.
``If a court determines, in any proceeding to enforce a
civil right, that any interest, property, or contract has
been transferred or acquired with the intent to delay the
just enforcement of such right by taking advantage of this
Act, the court shall enter such judgment or make such order
as might lawfully be entered or made concerning such transfer
or acquisition.
``SEC. 602. CERTIFICATES OF SERVICE; PERSONS REPORTED
MISSING.
``(a) Prima Facie Evidence.--In any proceeding under this
Act, a certificate signed by the Secretary concerned is prima
facie evidence as to any of the following facts stated in the
certificate:
``(1) That a person named is, is not, has been, or has not
been in military service.
``(2) The time and the place the person entered military
service.
``(3) The person's residence at the time the person entered
military service.
[[Page 32130]]
``(4) The rank, branch, and unit of military service of the
person upon entry.
``(5) The inclusive dates of the person's military service.
``(6) The monthly pay received by the person at the date of
the certificate's issuance.
``(7) The time and place of the person's termination of or
release from military service, or the person's death during
military service.
``(b) Certificates.--The Secretary concerned shall furnish
a certificate under subsection (a) upon receipt of an
application for such a certificate. A certificate appearing
to be signed by the Secretary concerned is prima facie
evidence of its contents and of the signer's authority to
issue it.
``(c) Treatment of Servicemembers in Missing Status.--A
servicemember who has been reported missing is presumed to
continue in service until accounted for. A requirement under
this Act that begins or ends with the death of a
servicemember does not begin or end until the servicemember's
death is reported to, or determined by, the Secretary
concerned or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
``SEC. 603. INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS.
``An interlocutory order issued by a court under this Act
may be revoked, modified, or extended by that court upon its
own motion or otherwise, upon notification to affected
parties as required by the court.
``TITLE VII--FURTHER RELIEF
``SEC. 701. ANTICIPATORY RELIEF.
``(a) Application for Relief.--A servicemember may, during
military service or within 180 days of termination of or
release from military service, apply to a court for relief--
``(1) from any obligation or liability incurred by the
servicemember before the servicemember's military service; or
``(2) from a tax or assessment falling due before or during
the servicemember's military service.
``(b) Tax Liability or Assessment.--In a case covered by
subsection (a), the court may, if the ability of the
servicemember to comply with the terms of such obligation or
liability or pay such tax or assessment has been materially
affected by reason of military service, after appropriate
notice and hearing, grant the following relief:
``(1) Stay of enforcement of real estate contracts.--
``(A) In the case of an obligation payable in installments
under a contract for the purchase of real estate, or secured
by a mortgage or other instrument in the nature of a mortgage
upon real estate, the court may grant a stay of the
enforcement of the obligation--
``(i) during the servicemember's period of military
service; and
``(ii) from the date of termination of or release from
military service, or from the date of application if made
after termination of or release from military service.
``(B) Any stay under this paragraph shall be--
``(i) for a period equal to the remaining life of the
installment contract or other instrument, plus a period of
time equal to the period of military service of the
servicemember, or any part of such combined period; and
``(ii) subject to payment of the balance of the principal
and accumulated interest due and unpaid at the date of
termination or release from the applicant's military service
or from the date of application in equal installments during
the combined period at the rate of interest on the unpaid
balance prescribed in the contract or other instrument
evidencing the obligation, and subject to other terms as may
be equitable.
``(2) Stay of enforcement of other contracts.--
``(A) In the case of any other obligation, liability, tax,
or assessment, the court may grant a stay of enforcement--
``(i) during the servicemember's military service; and
``(ii) from the date of termination of or release from
military service, or from the date of application if made
after termination or release from military service.
``(B) Any stay under this paragraph shall be--
``(i) for a period of time equal to the period of the
servicemember's military service or any part of such period;
and
``(ii) subject to payment of the balance of principal and
accumulated interest due and unpaid at the date of
termination or release from military service, or the date of
application, in equal periodic installments during this
extended period at the rate of interest as may be prescribed
for this obligation, liability, tax, or assessment, if paid
when due, and subject to other terms as may be equitable.
``(c) Affect of Stay on Fine or Penalty.--When a court
grants a stay under this section, a fine or penalty shall not
accrue on the obligation, liability, tax, or assessment for
the period of compliance with the terms and conditions of the
stay.
``SEC. 702. POWER OF ATTORNEY.
``(a) Automatic Extension.--A power of attorney of a
servicemember shall be automatically extended for the period
the servicemember is in a missing status (as defined in
section 551(2) of title 37, United States Code) if the power
of attorney--
``(1) was duly executed by the servicemember--
``(A) while in military service; or
``(B) before entry into military service but after the
servicemember--
``(i) received a call or order to report for military
service; or
``(ii) was notified by an official of the Department of
Defense that the person could receive a call or order to
report for military service;
``(2) designates the servicemember's spouse, parent, or
other named relative as the servicemember's attorney in fact
for certain, specified, or all purposes; and
``(3) expires by its terms after the servicemember entered
a missing status.
``(b) Limitation on Power of Attorney Extension.--A power
of attorney executed by a servicemember may not be extended
under subsection (a) if the document by its terms clearly
indicates that the power granted expires on the date
specified even though the servicemember, after the date of
execution of the document, enters a missing status.
``SEC. 703. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY PROTECTION.
``(a) Applicability.--This section applies to a
servicemember who--
``(1) after July 31, 1990, is ordered to active duty (other
than for training) pursuant to sections 688, 12301(a),
12301(g), 12302, 12304, 12306, or 12307 of title 10, United
States Code, or who is ordered to active duty under section
12301(d) of such title during a period when members are on
active duty pursuant to any of the preceding sections; and
``(2) immediately before receiving the order to active
duty--
``(A) was engaged in the furnishing of health-care or legal
services or other services determined by the Secretary of
Defense to be professional services; and
``(B) had in effect a professional liability insurance
policy that does not continue to cover claims filed with
respect to the servicemember during the period of the
servicemember's active duty unless the premiums are paid for
such coverage for such period.
``(b) Suspension of Coverage.--
``(1) Suspension.--Coverage of a servicemember referred to
in subsection (a) by a professional liability insurance
policy shall be suspended by the insurance carrier in
accordance with this subsection upon receipt of a written
request from the servicemember by the insurance carrier.
``(2) Premiums for suspended contracts.--A professional
liability insurance carrier--
``(A) may not require that premiums be paid by or on behalf
of a servicemember for any professional liability insurance
coverage suspended pursuant to paragraph (1); and
``(B) shall refund any amount paid for coverage for the
period of such suspension or, upon the election of such
servicemember, apply such amount for the payment of any
premium becoming due upon the reinstatement of such coverage.
``(3) Nonliability of carrier during suspension.--A
professional liability insurance carrier shall not be liable
with respect to any claim that is based on professional
conduct (including any failure to take any action in a
professional capacity) of a servicemember that occurs during
a period of suspension of that servicemember's professional
liability insurance under this subsection.
``(4) Certain claims considered to arise before
suspension.--For the purposes of paragraph (3), a claim based
upon the failure of a professional to make adequate provision
for a patient, client, or other person to receive
professional services or other assistance during the period
of the professional's active duty service shall be considered
to be based on an action or failure to take action before the
beginning of the period of the suspension of professional
liability insurance under this subsection, except in a case
in which professional services were provided after the date
of the beginning of such period.
``(c) Reinstatement of Coverage.--
``(1) Reinstatement required.--Professional liability
insurance coverage suspended in the case of any servicemember
pursuant to subsection (b) shall be reinstated by the
insurance carrier on the date on which that servicemember
transmits to the insurance carrier a written request for
reinstatement.
``(2) Time and premium for reinstatement.--The request of a
servicemember for reinstatement shall be effective only if
the servicemember transmits the request to the insurance
carrier within 30 days after the date on which the
servicemember is released from active duty. The insurance
carrier shall notify the servicemember of the due date for
payment of the premium of such insurance. Such premium shall
be paid by the servicemember within 30 days after receipt of
that notice.
``(3) Period of reinstated coverage.--The period for which
professional liability insurance coverage shall be reinstated
for a servicemember under this subsection may not be less
than the balance of the period for which coverage would have
continued under the insurance policy if the coverage had not
been suspended.
``(d) Increase in Premium.--
``(1) Limitation on premium increases.--An insurance
carrier may not increase the amount of the premium charged
for professional liability insurance coverage of any
servicemember for the minimum period of the reinstatement of
such coverage required under subsection (c)(3) to an amount
greater than the amount chargeable for such coverage for such
period before the suspension.
``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) does not prevent an
increase in premium to the extent of any general increase in
the premiums charged by that carrier for the same
professional liability coverage for persons similarly covered
by such insurance during the period of the suspension.
``(e) Continuation of Coverage of Unaffected Persons.--This
section does not--
``(1) require a suspension of professional liability
insurance protection for any person who
[[Page 32131]]
is not a person referred to in subsection (a) and who is
covered by the same professional liability insurance as a
person referred to in such subsection; or
``(2) relieve any person of the obligation to pay premiums
for the coverage not required to be suspended.
``(f) Stay of Civil or Administrative Actions.--
``(1) Stay of actions.--A civil or administrative action
for damages on the basis of the alleged professional
negligence or other professional liability of a servicemember
whose professional liability insurance coverage has been
suspended under subsection (b) shall be stayed until the end
of the period of the suspension if--
``(A) the action was commenced during the period of the
suspension;
``(B) the action is based on an act or omission that
occurred before the date on which the suspension became
effective; and
``(C) the suspended professional liability insurance would,
except for the suspension, on its face cover the alleged
professional negligence or other professional liability
negligence or other professional liability of the
servicemember.
``(2) Date of commencement of action.--Whenever a civil or
administrative action for damages is stayed under paragraph
(1) in the case of any servicemember, the action shall have
been deemed to have been filed on the date on which the
professional liability insurance coverage of the
servicemember is reinstated under subsection (c).
``(g) Effect of Suspension Upon Limitations Period.--In the
case of a civil or administrative action for which a stay
could have been granted under subsection (f) by reason of the
suspension of professional liability insurance coverage of
the defendant under this section, the period of the
suspension of the coverage shall be excluded from the
computation of any statutory period of limitation on the
commencement of such action.
``(h) Death During Period of Suspension.--If a
servicemember whose professional liability insurance coverage
is suspended under subsection (b) dies during the period of
the suspension--
``(1) the requirement for the grant or continuance of a
stay in any civil or administrative action against such
servicemember under subsection (f)(1) shall terminate on the
date of the death of such servicemember; and
``(2) the carrier of the professional liability insurance
so suspended shall be liable for any claim for damages for
professional negligence or other professional liability of
the deceased servicemember in the same manner and to the same
extent as such carrier would be liable if the servicemember
had died while covered by such insurance but before the claim
was filed.
``(i) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) Active duty.--The term `active duty' has the meaning
given that term in section 101(d)(1) of title 10, United
States Code.
``(2) Profession.--The term `profession' includes
occupation.
``(3) Professional.--The term `professional' includes
occupational.
``SEC. 704. HEALTH INSURANCE REINSTATEMENT.
``(a) Reinstatement of Health Insurance.--A servicemember
who, by reason of military service as defined in section
703(a)(1), is entitled to the rights and protections of this
Act shall also be entitled upon termination or release from
such service to reinstatement of any health insurance that--
``(1) was in effect on the day before such service
commenced; and
``(2) was terminated effective on a date during the period
of such service.
``(b) No Exclusion or Waiting Period.--The reinstatement of
health care insurance coverage for the health or physical
condition of a servicemember described in subsection (a), or
any other person who is covered by the insurance by reason of
the coverage of the servicemember, shall not be subject to an
exclusion or a waiting period, if--
``(1) the condition arose before or during the period of
such service;
``(2) an exclusion or a waiting period would not have been
imposed for the condition during the period of coverage; and
``(3) if the condition relates to the servicemember, the
condition has not been determined by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to be a disability incurred or aggravated in
the line of duty (within the meaning of section 105 of title
38, United States Code).
``(c) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a
servicemember entitled to participate in employer-offered
insurance benefits pursuant to the provisions of chapter 43
of title 38, United States Code.
``(d) Time for Applying for Reinstatement.--An application
under this section must be filed not later than 120 days
after the date of the termination of or release from military
service.
``SEC. 705. GUARANTEE OF RESIDENCY FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL.
``For the purposes of voting for any Federal office (as
defined in section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431)) or a State or local office, a person
who is absent from a State in compliance with military or
naval orders shall not, solely by reason of that absence--
``(1) be deemed to have lost a residence or domicile in
that State, without regard to whether or not the person
intends to return to that State;
``(2) be deemed to have acquired a residence or domicile in
any other State; or
``(3) be deemed to have become a resident in or a resident
of any other State.
``SEC. 706. BUSINESS OR TRADE OBLIGATIONS.
``(a) Availability of Non-Business Assets To Satisfy
Obligations.--If the trade or business (without regard to the
form in which such trade or business is carried out) of a
servicemember has an obligation or liability for which the
servicemember is personally liable, the assets of the
servicemember not held in connection with the trade or
business may not be available for satisfaction of the
obligation or liability during the servicemember's military
service.
``(b) Relief to Obligors.--Upon application to a court by
the holder of an obligation or liability covered by this
section, relief granted by this section to a servicemember
may be modified as justice and equity require.''.
SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Military Selective Service Act.--Section 14 of the
Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 464) is
repealed.
(b) Title 5, United States Code.--
(1) Section 5520a(k)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by striking ``Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief
Act of 1940'' and inserting ``Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act''; and
(2) Section 5569(e) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``provided by the
Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940'' and all
that follows through ``of such Act'' and inserting ``provided
by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, including the
benefits provided by section 702 of such Act but excluding
the benefits provided by sections 104, 105, and 106, title
IV, and title V (other than sections 501 and 510) of such
Act''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``person in the
military service'' and inserting ``servicemember''.
(c) Title 10, United States Code.--Section 1408(b)(1)(D) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking
``Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940'' and
inserting ``Servicemembers Civil Relief Act''.
(d) Internal Revenue Code.--Section 7654(d)(1) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
``Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act'' and inserting
``Servicemembers Civil Relief Act''.
(e) Public Health Service Act.--Section 212(e) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 213(e)) is amended by
striking ``Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940''
and inserting ``Servicemembers Civil Relief Act''.
(f) Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.--
Section 8001 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7701) is amended by striking ``section 514 of
the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 (50
U.S.C. App. 574)'' in the matter preceding paragraph (1) and
inserting ``section 511 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act''.
(g) NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps Act of 2002.--Section
262(a)(2) of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Commissioned Officer Corps Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 3072(a)(2))
is amended to read as follows:
``(2) The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendment made by section 1 shall apply to any case
that is not final before the date of the enactment of this
Act.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate amendment be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the original request
of the gentleman from New Jersey?
Mr. MICHAUD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I will not
object.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 100, the Servicemen
Civil Relief Act. I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Smith) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Evans) and their staff for their work with the other body to finalize
this legislation.
H.R. 100 restates, modernizes and improves the Soldiers' and Sailors'
Civil Relief Act, recognizing the importance of women in military
service. The title is changed to Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act.
With our Nation at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, our Nation's service-
members are in need of an updated law. This bill will allow for
strengthening and expediting the national defense and otherwise
exercising the military obligations without undue concern as to the
impact of their military service on their civil obligations.
I am pleased this legislation includes recognition of the Federal
protection recently extended to members of the National Guard called up
for a national purpose under Title 32 of the United States Code.
When our men and women are protecting and serving the Nation, they
should be entitled to the protection of
[[Page 32132]]
the Nation's laws. H.R. 100 provides other legal and administrative
protection for our men and women in uniform. It would increase rental
eviction protection from $1,200 to $2,400 which will help those serving
in high-rent areas of the country.
It would also allow for termination of real property leases in
certain situations providing professional liability protections, health
insurance, and guaranteed residencies for military purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I know that servicemembers from my State of Maine will
appreciate the benefits provided by this bill. I fully support H.R. 100
and urge my colleagues to pass this measure.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend
and colleague from Maine for his explanation and for his good work on
this legislation, as well as our good friend and colleague, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member on the full
committee.
Mr. Speaker, when the House considered this legislation last May 7,
we passed it unanimously. We sent it over to the Senate. And we are
glad we bring before the body a bill today with a Senate amendment that
makes some very important statements, restatements as well as some new
law with regard to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Act which was
first passed back in 1940.
This legislation, as my friend just pointed out, is really an
historic restatement. It strengthens a law that is critically important
to all of our reserve components as well as our active-duty members of
our Armed Services.
The amendment to H.R. 100 would raise the level of eviction
protections to reflect the increase in the cost of rental housing in
high-cost urban areas. The current act only applies to leases of less
than $1,200 a month. The House-Senate compromise would increase the
amount to $2,400; and the amount would be increased every year as
necessary in accordance with the Consumer Price Index housing component
so that the protection stays current.
It also requires the Department of Defense to annually publish the
amount of rental coverage in their Federal Register within 60 days of
the CPI's publication to provide public notice of the level of
probation.
The compromise also provides specific protections for assets of a
servicemember from attachment to satisfy business debts for which the
servicemember is personally liable, as long as the assets are not held
in connection with the business.
The compromise also includes provisions to allow servicemembers who
are being called to active duty and by certain active-duty
servicemembers to terminate motor vehicle leases which are increasingly
commonplace and in use without an early termination penalty. When this
was first passed in 1940s, obviously, nobody had even heard of leases
like this. They are, like I said, a way of life today.
Section 207 of the bill would clarify that for the 6 percent interest
cap being continued from current law, any interest above the cap is
forgiven and the servicemember's monthly payment must be reduced.
I want to clarify that the committee intends for the provisions
language of the interest rate reduction, to permit lenders to follow
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's current implementation guidance, allowing
lenders to reamortize the loan using a 6 percent interest rate or to
apply the 6 percent interest rate using the original amortization
schedule.
Mr. Speaker, I want to very strongly commend the Office of
Legislative Counsel of both the House and the Senate, the committee
counsel and the representatives of the Judge Advocates General of the
military departments who participated in the drafting of this historic
legislation to update the act.
From my own staff, I want to thank Kingston Smith, who is sitting to
my right, Summer Larson, Geoffrey Collver, Mary Ellen McCarthy and
Patrick Ryan who spent many long hours reviewing and analyzing this
legislation.
From the Senate staff, the late Dave Goetz, Chris McNamee, Mary
Schoelen, and Bill Tuerk who performed a very similar task. Bob Cover
from the Office of Legislative Counsel spent many years, not months,
years, working on this legislation. The actual preparation of the bill
was truly a collaborative bipartisan effort that would not have been
accomplished without the technical and practical expertise of these
outstanding individuals.
I want to thank majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)
and Brett Loper for ensuring that this vital legislation made it to the
floor today. Again, we passed this last May. We had hope to have this
out sometime in June. We are finally getting to it at the end of the
session, not because of a delay in the House, but, thankfully, the
Senate did act, and now we have a good bill before us.
I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown) who is
our subcommittee chairman, the ranking member, the gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Michaud) who spoke earlier, and, of course, my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) for his work.
It is a good bill. I hope Members will support it.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 100, as amended, a
bill to modernize, restate and improve upon the Soldiers' and Sailors'
Civil Relief Act, which provides protections from civil liability to
persons serving in the Armed Forces. To be known as the Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act, this measures recognizes the increasing presence of
women in military service.
I thank Members and staff on both sides of the aisle who have worked
diligently with the other body in finalizing this bill. It has truly
been a bipartisan and bicameral effort. I also want to acknowledge the
considerable contributions of the Department of Defense, especially the
Air Force, the American Bar Association, and the National Institute of
Military Justice in assisting the Committee with the preparation of
this bill.
I note that the bill maintains the prohibition of interest in excess
of 6 percent on debts incurred before military service. This provision
is intended to assure that our servicemembers have smaller periodic
payments on debts acquired prior to military service during the time
when they are serving on active duty. I expect that this provision will
be applied in a manner consistent with generally accepted mortgage
practices, so that the monthly payment on the adjusted mortgage will be
consistent from month to month. I am aware that there are concerns that
the language could be interpreted in a manner which would result in
different monthly mortgage obligations from month to month. It is my
understanding that the committees do not intend to alter common
industry practice of setting a monthly mortgage payment which does not
change form month to month.
I am particularly pleased that the bill takes into account the high
cost of rent in areas such as San Diego and Honolulu, where military
families may occupy off-base rental housing. The bill also provides for
an annual adjustment in these rental amounts according to changes in
the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for residential rental housing. By
providing for automatic increases linked to changes in the housing CPI,
servicemembers and their families will continue to receive adequate
protection as housing costs increase.
The amended bill would permit servicemembers to terminate leases of
motor vehicles when they are deployed outside the continental United
States. In today's society, leasing of motor vehicles is common. When a
person enters active military service or receives permanent change of
station orders after entering into a long-term lease of a motor
vehicle, the servicemember can suffer significant financial harm if he
or she is unable to take the motor vehicle to the new station.
This provision will allow a servicemember stationed at Pearl Harbor,
for example, to terminate a motor vehicle lease and avoid additional
financial liability for a motor vehicle which will not be needed during
a deployment to the Persian Gulf. It will allow an Illinois reservist
called up for active duty in Alaska to terminate an automobile lease.
In order for this provision to be effective, the servicemember must be
ordered deployed for not less than 180 days.
I recognize that it was not possible to include every suggestion that
was offered in the course of this bill's consideration. I trust that
the Committee will continue its good work in
[[Page 32133]]
this area and address additional bills concerning the Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act in the next session of this Congress.
Today, our service men and women are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan
and around the world. This bill will help them to fulfill their
responsibilities, secure in the knowledge that their rights will be
protected by an up to date civil protection act.
H.R. 100, as amended, is a good bill, and I urge all Members to show
their support for our troops by voting for it.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 100, the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The purpose of this legislation is to
update the 1940 Act to strengthen the protections it provides to those
serving in the military. H.R. 100 also updates the language in the Act
so that it is easier to understand.
Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 3024, which amends the Soldiers'
and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, to provide protections to
servicemembers who terminate motor vehicle or residential leases
entered into before permanent change or station or deployment orders
for motor vehicle leases. I am pleased that H.R. 3024 was included in
the compromise worked out by the House and Senate in its revision of
the 1940 Soldiers' and Sailors Civil Relief Act. I believe it is an
important and necessary addition to the current law.
The men and women of the National Guard and Reserves continue to
answer the call. We must not short change them in any way when they are
called to serve. They should be allowed to terminate their automobile
leases without penalty.
Again, I thank the Members in both the House and Senate for including
this provision in the final package. I also want to thank the Auto
Alliance for its input and cooperation in helping to craft this bill.
As a current member of the U.S. Army Reserves and Co-Chair of the Guard
and Reserve Caucus, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 100.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 100.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maine?
There was no objection.
____________________
REPORT OF COMMITTEE TO NOTIFY THE PRESIDENT
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, your committee appointed to inform the
President that the House is ready to adjourn and to ask him if he has
any further communications to make to the House has performed that
duty. The President has directed us to say that he has no further
communications to make to the House.
____________________
HONORING BARBER CONABLE
(Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness I would like to formally
report to the House the passing of one of our most distinguished
Members of the 20th century, Barber Conable of New York.
Barber retired from the House over a decade ago, so many current
Members are not familiar with Barber except by his reputation.
Let me just stress that Barber Conable was the quintessential public
servant. In Congress he was an expert on all matters of taxation. He
led the Republican Party on the Committee on Ways and Means, rising to
be the ranking member. He was identified with particular issues such as
reductions in capital gains, also for the development of revenue
sharing.
Prior to serving in the Congress, he was in the United States
Military, having served in both World War II and the Korean conflict,
and he rose to the rank of Colonel. After leaving the Congress of the
United States, where he, by the way, had been a close friend of the
former President of the United States, George Bush, he was appointed to
head the World Bank. He came to be known as a leader of the bank as
interested for the world environment as well as for world economic
growth.
All of us in life have been privileged to have mentors. I would just
simply say in this body this Member never considered anyone more a
model legislator and mentor than Barber Conable. He was simply the most
decent, the most thoughtful, the most intelligent, and the least
political individual I have served with.
To his wife, Charlotte, and family, I know I speak for many Members
who are friends and staff on this Hill in extending our shared grief
and best wishes.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 3151 and H.R. 3583
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name
removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3151 and H.R. 3583.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia?
There was no objection.
____________________
HONORING EDWIN PENCE
(Mr. BAIRD asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, those of us on the Democratic side of the
aisle, when we arrived today, we were missing a familiar and friendly
face. Ed Pence has been a loyal and valued servant to this country for
25 years. He has reached out to numerous people and he will be greatly
missed. He retires at the end of this year.
In October of 1978, Ed joined the Capitol Police Force and dedicated
over 20 years to protecting our safety and that of the visiting public.
He is respected throughout the Capitol because of his professionalism,
his compassion, and his friendly nature.
Ed also had a brief stint in the gentleman from Missouri's (Mr.
Gephardt) office before joining the Sergeant of Arms Office as a
trusted member of the Chamber security staff.
During this time, Ed has proven himself a trusted source of knowledge
by monitoring floor activity and advising Members on upcoming votes. Ed
was the man we turned to when we were planning our day or asking
questions about the procedures of the day.
Mr. Speaker, Ed's dedication, work ethic, and devotion to this
institution is worthy of the highest commendation. I respectfully ask
that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in
congratulating Ed Pence on his well-deserved retirement, thanking him
for his service, and wishing him continued success in all of his future
endeavors.
____________________
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD--MESSAGE
FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following message
from the President of the United States; which was read and, together
with the accompanying papers, without objection, referred to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on
Ways and Means:
To the Congress of the United States:
I transmit herewith the Annual Report of the Railroad Retirement
Board presented for forwarding to you for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2002, consistent with the provisions of section 7(b)(6)
of the Railroad Retirement Act and section 12(1) of the Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act.
George W. Bush.
The White House, December 8, 2003.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
[[Page 32134]]
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, December 8, 2003.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Under Clause 2(g) of Rule II of the Rules
of the U.S. House of Representatives, I herewith designate
Mr. Gerasimos C. Vans, Deputy Clerk, to sign any and all
papers and do all other acts for me under the name of the
Clerk of the House which he would be authorized to do by
virtue of this designation, except such as are provided by
statute, in case of my temporary absence or disability.
If Mr. Vans should not be able to act in my behalf for any
reason, then Mr. Daniel J. Strodel, Assistant to the Clerk,
or Ms. Marjorie C. Kelaher, Assistant to the Clerk, should
similarly perform such duties under the same conditions as
are authorized by this designation.
These designations shall remain in effect for the 108th
Congress or until modified by me.
With best wishes, I am,
Sincerely,
Jeff Trandahl,
Clerk.
____________________
{time} 1745
AUTHORIZING SPEAKER TO DISPENSE WITH ORGANIZATIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE
BUSINESS ON ANY DAY HOUSE CONVENES PURSUANT TO SECTION 2 OF HOUSE JOINT
RESOLUTION 80
Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that on any day
when the House convenes pursuant to section 2 of House Joint Resolution
80, the Speaker may dispense with organizational and legislative
business.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Renzi). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF HONORABLE FRANK PALLONE, MEMBER
OF CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from Paul Dement, District Director of the Honorable
Frank Pallone, Member of Congress:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, November 24, 2003.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you, pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
that I have been served with a civil subpoena for documents
issued by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that it is consistent with the precedents and
privileges of the House to notify the party that issued the
subpoena that I do not have any responsive documents.
Sincerely,
Paul Dement,
District Director.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE HONORABLE WALTER B. JONES OF NORTH CAROLINA,
MEMBER OF CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Honorable Walter B. Jones of North Carolina,
Member of Congress:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, December 2, 2003.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify you formally, pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
that I have received a subpoena for testimony issued by the
Superior Court of Pender County, North Carolina.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that, because I received the subpoena after
the date requested for testimony, the subpoena is moot and no
Rule VIII determinations are required.
Sincerely,
Walter B. Jones,
Member of Congress.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, and under a previous order of the House, the following
Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.
____________________
COMMENDING JUDY W. STEVENS FOR HER WORK AND DEDICATION TO ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate and praise an
individual who has dedicated herself to improving North Carolina. Judy
Stevens is a remarkable person in many ways, and I want to acknowledge
her accomplishments and efforts in economic development.
Judy grew up in Star, North Carolina, located in Montgomery County.
She attended East Montgomery High School and continued her education at
Randolph Community College. She is a certified economic developer from
the Economic Development Institute, which is administered by the
University of Oklahoma.
Judy began her work in the economic development field when she
accepted a job as administrative assistant for the director of the
Montgomery County Economic Development Corporation in 1992. With her
strong knowledge of the county and its people, combined with her
knowledge of economic development, she quickly excelled at her job; so
fast, that by 1993 she became the director of the EDC.
Any good leader knows that success depends upon the efforts of many.
Judy created the Committee of 100, a group of business leaders
throughout the county who were willing to invest time and money in
recruiting new businesses to Montgomery County. Long-term success
depends on future leadership. She established the Leadership Montgomery
Program for Adults and Youth through the Montgomery County Chamber of
Congress, which is currently in its 10th year.
Judy Stevens is someone who understands that economic development
success requires cooperation across political jurisdictional lines. In
her own county, Judy is currently working on a project to develop a
regional wastewater system for the towns of Boscpe, Star, and Troy. In
the past, this type of cooperation was not common. However, with Judy's
determination and leadership, folks are willing to come to the table
and work for the good of the entire area.
Most recently, Judy has taken on a much larger task by leading the
eighth district's Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, CEDS,
project. CEDS is a program sponsored by the Economic Development
Administration, which seeks to develop a regional plan of action to
attract investment and to create jobs. The committee is comprised of
local economic development, education, and chamber officials.
Judy has worked tirelessly with the members of the CEDS committee to
develop a final recommendation to present to EDA. I am pleased to tell
you that because of her effort and strong leadership, the community has
come to consensus on a proposal that will serve as a blueprint for
regional economic development for the Eighth District of North Carolina
and the rest of the country. I look forward to working with her and the
CEDS committee as we put this plan into action.
Judy's hard work and talent have been recognized across the State. In
1999, she was named Economic Developer of the Year for North Carolina
by the North Carolina Economic Developers Association. This recognition
displays the type of commitment and dedication Judy puts into her job
and into her community.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate Judy Stevens'
tireless dedication and her desire to increase the quality of life for
Montgomery County, the eighth district, and North Carolina as a whole.
She has gone above and beyond the call of duty to help create and
sustain economic development; and as a citizen of North Carolina, I
join many in sincerely thanking her.
I would also like to acknowledge Judy's family that has been there
backing her in every effort and success. Judy has a loving family. The
Stevens family includes her husband, Gerald, along with their two sons,
a daughter, and three grandsons. I am sure they are
[[Page 32135]]
as proud as I am of her many accomplishments and her dedication to her
profession.
____________________
MERRY CHRISTMAS, PhRMA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, President Bush signed the Medicare
bill today, ending an ugly legislative process driven by the interests
of a constituency near and dear to the Republican leadership in this
House. Not America's seniors. I am talking about the prescription drug
industry.
The vast quantities of time and money that the drug companies
invested in selling this bill were well spent. This bill is a Christmas
wish come true for every drug manufacturer in our Nation. Under the new
bill, drug industry profits are expected to increase by $140 billion, a
40 percent increase in already the world's most profitable industry.
This industry, the world's most profitable industry, successfully
used its 675 lobbyists in this town, about 1.3 lobbyist for every
Member of the House, and used its tens of millions of dollars of
campaign contributions to win a giant increase in profits at the
expense of taxpayers in this country and at the expense of America's
senior citizens. The drug companies on this year's Fortune 500 list
posted profits of 17 percent, 5\1/2\ times the average profit margin of
other Fortune 500 firms.
Not only does the Medicare bill signed today by President Bush
dramatically expand the drug industry's market, it ensures that drug
companies will be able to charge American taxpayers almost any price
they want for medicines covered by Medicare. The word on the street in
Washington is that the drug industry, PhRMA, Pharmaceutical Research
and Manufacturers Association, PhRMA, is going to contribute $100
million to President Bush's reelection campaign.
That is why this bill specifically prohibits the government from
negotiating fair prices for press medicines. That is right, the Federal
Government is not allowed under this bill to even bargain for better
drug prices on behalf of seniors or on behalf of American taxpayers. It
is what the drug industry wants. And the drug industry in this body
always gets what it wants.
The bill the President signed into law relies on the same price
discount mechanisms private insurers use, the same mechanisms that have
led to double-digit increases in prescription drug costs year after
year after year. It is what the drug industry wants. And the drug
industry always gets what it wants in the Republican-controlled U.S.
House of Representatives. In the private market, prescription drug
costs are the fastest-growing component of health care cost increases.
Prescription drug costs in the private market increased over 18 percent
last year.
The bill rejects also the bipartisan will of a commanding majority in
this House, who actually did stand up against a Republican leadership
and against President Bush, who actually stood up to the drug lobby in
July. Two hundred forty-three of us, many from that sides of the aisle,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and many others, voted to give
American consumers the choice to buy safe, effective and much more
affordable medicine imported from Canada. The legislation that
President Bush signed today not only ignores that vote; it negates it.
It drives a nail in the coffin of prescription drug importation. Why?
It is what the drug industry wanted, and the drug industry always gets
what it wants in this institution.
Once again, American consumers lose; the drug industry wins. Drug
companies routinely charge American consumers three, four, five times
what they charge Canadian customers for the same medicine. As I said
earlier, the world on the street in Washington is that PhRMA, the
Prescription drug trade association, is going to give $100 million to
the Bush-Cheney reelection effort.
The drug industry is already 5\1/2\ times more profitable than the
Fortune 500 average, yet they would have us believe any reduction in
prices would jeopardize their research and development. The level of
U.S. drug prices are not necessary; they are highway robbery. This bill
helps to ensure that American consumers, American employers, and
American taxpayers keep paying those high prices.
Merry Christmas, PhRMA.
____________________
REGARDING THE FIRST SESSION OF THE 108TH CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening with sadness at the
passing of Joe Skeen. Joe Skeen was a friend of mine, a great member of
this Congress for many years from New Mexico, somebody who served this
Congress with great love, with great compassion, and a steady hand. We
will all miss him. He chose not to run in the last Congress, but he was
a great friend; and his funeral will be this coming Thursday, and later
on we will have a session to honor him.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise this evening to give an end-of-the-session
assessment of the first session of the 108th Congress, to recount our
accomplishments and to review what we have left to do.
This session of Congress commenced as we were engaged in a struggle
against terrorism and as our economy struggled in a near recession. We
opened this session with three major goals: first, to make our Nation
safer from terrorists and those states that support them; second, to
grow our economy and create jobs for American workers; and, third, to
make America a better place to live for all of our citizens. We have
had a notable success in all three areas.
First, we have made this country more secure from foreign threats.
The Congress passed and the President signed three different
supplemental appropriation bills to support our efforts on the war on
terror. This helped pay for the war in Iraq and for our continued
efforts in Afghanistan. And, of course, the American people are greatly
concerned for the safety of our troops in both places, but we must
continue to support our brave men and women as they fight to defend our
freedom and to defeat the terrorists who want to bring death and
destruction to our homeland.
Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime and the Taliban's Afghan regime
actively supported terrorist organizations. Al-Qaeda trained in both
countries. Now, both countries are making the tough, but vitally
important, transition to democratic government. Changing terrorist-
supporting dictatorships into democracies is hard work, but it is
important work for our national security.
We also passed defense appropriations and authorization bills that
included necessary long-term funding for our defense efforts and
included a pay increase for our troops and a historic change in the
disabled veterans compensation. For the first time since the Civil War,
many disabled veterans will be able to receive both their disability
payments and their retirement benefits.
The President also signed into law the Military Family Tax Relief
Act, which provides overdue tax relief targeted to our dedicated
servicemen and their families.
September 11 also proved that we must be vigilant on our home front.
That is why we created the Department of Homeland Security in the last
Congress. In this session we created a Select Committee on Homeland
Security and a Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on
Appropriations so that this Department would have the proper funding
and oversight. Indeed, the Congress completed work on the first
appropriation bill dedicated solely to homeland security this year.
The second challenge we faced at the beginning of this year was a
slowing economy. The economy faced the twin shocks of a bursting high-
tech bubble and the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Those
shocks undermined both business and consumer confidence, while
shattering investor confidence. We had to do something about
[[Page 32136]]
it. We passed the President's economic growth package aimed at
restoring confidence in the business, consumer, and investor sectors.
Coupled with the earlier tax cut signed into law in 2001, these tax
relief bills accomplished all three goals. It gave small businesses the
relief they needed to buy more equipment and incentives to expand their
businesses. It returned more money to consumers so that they could
spend more. And it inspired investors to return back to the markets.
The results have been better than expected. The economic growth rate
hit 8.2 percent in the last quarter. Manufacturing output is at the
highest levels in 2 decades. The Dow Jones has reached its highest
level in 18 months. And the job rate shows the best signs of
improvement in 2 years.
{time} 1800
Aside from the war and the economy, our Nation faced other
challenges.
Health care costs continue to be one of the top concerns of our
citizens. We passed historic reform of the Medicare system that will
now include a prescription drug benefit for the first time in history.
I am very proud that we kept our promise to senior citizens by
delivering this most important reform.
The prescription drug benefit means that never again will low-income
seniors have to face the choice between putting food on the table or
paying for life-saving prescription drugs. It also means that seniors
with high-cost drugs will have an insurance benefit that will protect
them. Finally, the average senior will get their drug costs reduced by
up to 60 percent because of this far-reaching reform.
Included in this historic legislation was historic assistance for
rural and urban hospitals, as well as other important health care
reforms. I am most proud of the new health savings accounts, tax-free
savings accounts that allows consumers to have more control over their
health care costs. These health savings accounts will revolutionize the
health care market in this country, giving consumers better health care
at a lower price.
Aside from health care, we faced another domestic crisis, the lack of
comprehensive energy policy. From the rolling brownouts of California
to the New York City blackouts, from the turbulence of the natural gas
market to the persistent problems of higher gasoline prices, energy
policy became a front-burner issue.
So working with the White House, we put together a comprehensive
energy policy aimed at making our Nation more energy independent. This
legislation did several things. It created incentives to get the most
out of our natural resources, from promoting greater energy efficiency,
to encouraging the use of renewal fuels such as ethanol. It encouraged
greater reliability for electricity by providing for open access of
transmission lines, while improving the transparency of electricity
markets.
This energy policy has another salutary effect. It will create jobs.
The latest estimates are that it will create up to a million jobs. We
passed the energy conference report by a large bipartisan margin in the
House, and we are waiting for final action by the other body. It is my
hope that this vitally important legislation will not get caught up in
the flurry of lobbying by the trial lawyers. I urge my colleagues on
the other side of the rotunda to drop the delaying tactics and send
this conference report to the President.
Another perennial issue is education. In the 107th Congress, we
passed the President's No Child Left Behind legislation aimed at
increasing accountability and demanding results when it comes to
educating our children. This year, we kept our promise by increasing
education funding to $4.1 billion, the highest Federal contribution to
education in history. Clearly, we are keeping our promise to the
parents and teachers and children of America.
Finally, we passed a series of legislation initiatives designed to
make this Nation a better place to live. We passed the Do Not Call and
Do Not Spam bills, aimed at stopping consumers from being harassed
through the phone and through computer by telemarketers. We passed the
Amber Alert bill, to help keep our children be safe from kidnappers. We
passed historic levels of funding to combat AIDS. We passed the
President's Healthy Forests Initiative, to protect communities from
out-of-control forest fires. We passed the Fair Credit Reporting Act so
that consumers have better access to their consumer reports to protect
against the persistent problems of credit card fraud.
In other words, we delivered good legislation for the American
people. As we get ready for the second session of the 108th Congress,
we still have some work to do. We still have a highway bill to pass.
Nothing is more important to our Nation's economic well-being than a
modern transportation system. I want to get this bill done by early
next spring.
We need to complete the work on the welfare reform bill. When we
reformed welfare in 1996, we helped millions of Americans get a hand up
rather than a hand out. Millions of Americans woke up in the morning
and went to work rather than woke up and went to the welfare office.
They got a job and got a paycheck. We need to reauthorize this bill,
and we need to reauthorize it soon.
We also must find a way to get the budget back to balance. The
attacks of September 11, the war against terrorism, and the struggling
economy have all led to deficit numbers that, while manageable, must be
controlled. This year's nondefense, nonhomeland security discretionary
budget increased by a 3 percent margin, a relatively small increase,
but one that can be improved. Our budget chairman, the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Nussle), has worked hard to find ways where we can control
Federal spending. As we debate next year's budget, we will work to find
ways to cut the budget deficit in half through lower spending.
But as we work to control spending, we must also work to ensure that
the economy stays on track. The tax cuts were enacted to help spur
recovery. We must keep them in place to ensure that they finish the
job. Those who want to raise taxes and thus threaten our recovery and
job creation are just wrong. We have already seen that as the economy
grows, the budget deficit falls. Keeping the economy growing is a
sensible way to get the budget back to balance.
Finally, we need to start the debate in this Nation on how to reform
our tax laws. Not only is our tax system too complicated, it also hurts
our Nation's competitiveness. If our companies cannot compete, we lose
jobs here in America. As we reform the Foreign Sales Corporation Tax,
as required by the recent WTO decision, we must also start a discussion
on how we create the best tax system possible to meet the needs of the
people of this country in the 21st century.
I want to thank all Members for their patience and for their
perseverance. Public service in the Congress is not an easy vocation,
and it is especially hard on families. I thank all Members for their
service to this Nation. I would also like to thank the dedicated staff
and especially the floor staff, the clerks and the pages, who work long
and hard to make this place efficient and workable. Thank you for your
fine service to this Nation. I wish you all a happy holiday season, and
God bless you all.
____________________
TURNING OUR BACKS ON HUNGRY CHILDREN
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Renzi). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to talk
about one small program in the omnibus appropriations bill which I
believe is a reflection of America's commitment to defeat terrorism, or
rather its lack of commitment. It is a reflection of America's
commitment to address hunger, poverty, illiteracy and ignorance; or
rather, its lack of commitment; and that reflects America's commitment
to help educate the children of the world, especially girls; or rather,
its lack of commitment.
Tucked away inside the agriculture appropriations section of the
omnibus
[[Page 32137]]
bill is $50 million for the George McGovern-Robert Dole International
Food for Education Program. McGovern-Dole began as a $300 million pilot
program in 2001, providing nutritious meals to nearly 7 million
children in 38 countries. The catch, these children had to attend
school in order to get the meals. The McGovern-Dole program sends wheat
from Illinois, Minnesota and Oregon to feed children at schools in
Bolivia and Lebanon. It sends corn, milk and soybeans from Kansas and
Wisconsin to feed school children in Nicaragua and Guatemala. And it
sends lentils from Idaho and Washington to children we have helped
return to school in Afghanistan. Beans from Colorado, rice from Texas
and Louisiana, cooking oil from Florida and Tennessee, the blood, sweet
and tears of America's farmers find their way to children attending
humble schools around the world.
Providing food to malnourished children in schools is one of the most
effective strategies to fight hunger and poverty. Where programs are
offered, enrollment and attendance rates increase significantly,
particularly for girls. Instead of working or searching for food to
combat hunger, children have the chance to go to school. Providing food
at school is a simple, but effective, means to improve literacy and
help poor children break out of poverty.
The McGovern-Dole program helps us achieve many of our foreign policy
goals, and communicates America's compassion to those around the world.
At the end of the day, it will be programs like McGovern-Dole that will
ultimately triumph over poverty and terror.
Earlier this year, in February 2003, the United States Department of
Agriculture evaluated this program, and the conclusions were
overwhelmingly positive. In addition to significantly reducing the
incidence of hunger among school-age children, the program was also
found to promote educational opportunity, especially for girls, among
some of the poorest populations in the world.
Sadly, in fiscal year 2003, McGovern-Dole received only $100 million
in funding, reducing the number of children served to scarcely more
than 2 million world-wide in just 28 countries. In fiscal year 2004,
President Bush only asked for $50 million, and if this allocation
remains unaltered, the United States will literally be taking food out
of the mouths of yet another one million hungry children and forcing
their families to remove them from school.
The senior Senator from Kansas and chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts, a leading proponent of the
McGovern-Dole program in the other body, has stated on a number of
occasions his belief that this program serves our national security
interests by attacking the breeding grounds of terrorism, hunger,
poverty, ignorance and despair, while at the same time ensuring that
children receive meals in settings where they receive a quality
education, rather than hate-filled indoctrination.
I could not agree more. But rather than expanding this program to
reach even more school-aged children, to help stabilize communities
devastated by HIV-AIDS, and to support HIV-AIDS orphans so they might
contribute to the future of their nations rather than burden them, we
are cutting it again.
On November 26, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
released its 2003 report on hunger. It found that after falling
steadily during the 1990s, hunger is again on the rise. In the
developing world, the number of malnourished people grew by an average
of 4.5 million a year for the past 3 years. The report also found that
hunger exacerbates the AIDS crisis, drives rural people into the
cities, and forces women and children to trade sex for food and money.
Yet over the past 3 years, we have cut funding for the McGovern-Dole
school feeding program so it is now one-sixth of what it once was. This
is a disgrace, plain and simple.
Mr. Speaker, we are going in the wrong direction, not just for the
children of the world, but for the security of our own Nation. I call
on President Bush and congressional leadership to restore full funding
in fiscal year 2005 to the George McGovern-Robert Dole International
Food for Education Program.
____________________
A WORTHWHILE PROPOSAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, much has been written lately about several
attempts to craft an alternative peace plan in the decades-old Israeli-
Palestinian dispute. The best-known of these recent plans, the Geneva
Initiative, was conceived and written by representatives of both sides
of the conflict but without the involvement of governments or
politicians. As such, it is a fresh approach that should provide a
lesson to those who continue to believe that peace is something that
can only be crafted by government officials or bribed or bullied by the
international community.
We do know this: After decades of conflict and tens of billions of
U.S. tax dollars spent, U.S. Government involvement in the Israeli-
Palestinian peace process has led nowhere. The latest U.S. Government-
initiated plan for peace, the road map, appears to be a map to nowhere.
This does not surprise me much. With a seemingly endless amount of
money to bribe the two leaders of the two opposing sides to remain
engaged in the process, is it any wonder why the two parties never
arrive at peace?
But people on both sides are becoming more and more frustrated at the
endless impasse and endless government and bureaucrat-written peace
agreements that go nowhere.
{time} 1815
That is why plans like this should be of such interest. Initially
conceived by an obscure Swiss professor, the project was joined by
former Israeli Justice Minister, Yossi Beilin, former Palestinian
Authority Information Minister, Yasser Abed Rabbo, and by other
prominent officials like former President Jimmy Carter. The
negotiations led to the creation of a 50-page detailed accord.
I do not know whether the product is perfect. I have not studied the
minute details of the proposal. But what I do know is that politicians,
governments, and special interests promote war at the expense of those
who have to fight them. Wars end when the victims finally demand peace,
and that is what we are beginning to see. According to one recent
survey, a majority among both the Israeli and Palestinian populations
support this new initiative. That is encouraging. To his credit,
President Bush has demonstrated an open mind toward this alternative
approach. He declared the Geneva Initiative ``productive'' and added
that the United States ``appreciates people discussing peace.''
Secretary of State Colin Powell echoed the President when he resisted
hard-line pressure to ignore the proposed accord stating, ``I have an
obligation to listen to individuals who have interesting ideas.'' This
is also encouraging.
Predictably, though, this new approach is not as welcomed by those
governments, politicians, and special interests who have a stake in
dragging out the process indefinitely. Palestinian Authority President
Yasser Arafat has been lukewarm at best. Extremist Arab organizations
who have a special interest in continuing the violence have also
rejected the Geneva Initiative. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has
rejected the initiative out of hand. Said Mr. Sharon, ``Geneva is an
attempt to do something only a government can do.''
But the point is that governments have little incentive to finally
end conflicts such as these. The United States is in places like Kosovo
and Bosnia indefinitely in the name of peacekeeping and peace
processes. The same will be true of our involvement in Afghanistan and
Iraq. It is not until foreign involvement ceases, that means our
continued meddling in the Middle East, and the people directly involved
demand peace, do real working solutions begin to emerge. The Geneva
Initiative is therefore a positive step toward peace in the
[[Page 32138]]
Middle East. Let us step back and get out of the way.
____________________
CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS CONFERENCE REPORT LEAVES MANY VICTIMS IN
ITS WAKE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Renzi). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was December 7, known as the Day
of Infamy, so named by the great President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest this evening that this day is a kind of day of
infamy for this House, particularly with the passage of this conference
report. This conference report contains within it so many violations of
basic democracy in this House that this day will not soon be forgotten,
which is why I make the analogy that I did.
The conference report leaves many victims in its wake. Let me name
just a few of them. It is a 50/50 country. But if you were not of the
majority party, if you are among the independents, you had little
participation in this final product. Or if you happened to live in the
wrong State or the wrong district, even though it might be closely
held, you will look long and hard before finding your place in this
conference report.
And help you, help you if you are in the low or middle classes of our
country because you have been sacrificed time and time again in this
report to big corporations, to wealthy Americans. If you are among the
millions of what I call the disfavored elderly who will get little or
no help from the prescription drug Medicare bill, you will not find
yourselves among the bills we have passed this year on prescription
drugs. The most unfortunate of you are the long-term unemployed.
Unbelievably, this is the second Christmas Congress has gone home to
leave the long-term unemployed with no relief to face the Christmas and
the new year with a rough, rather than a happy, holiday. I do not know
how the House could have done that, at least for these long-term
unemployed.
But the victims, Mr. Speaker, are also in this body and in the
Senate. The Republicans themselves are going to have to face the music
when they go home to face the 8 million who will lose their overtime
pay and be informed of it just in time for Christmas. It is going to be
some Christmas for them. This Republican House voted decisively to
eliminate their overtime pay, but they must have heard from them
because when it came time for the motion to instruct, all of a sudden
we had a majority with us against the provision to eliminate overtime
pay. What happened? Their own majority reversed them. So now they have
got to go back home and try to say, I was for you, but I am in the
party that was against you. How do you explain that?
On the Senate side, there are any number of provisions, which is why
this conference report is likely to go nowhere before Christmas. Let me
just pluck one analogous example. The Senate has surely heard from the
American people on vouchers. They just did not have the votes to do
anything on D.C. vouchers. Why? Because everybody's school district is
being cut because of 3 years of a poor economy under this President.
Because our promise to fund disabled children is an unkept promise of
the decades. Because our promise to fund No Child Left Behind is $9
billion in the hole. The Senate was not about to vote for any D.C.
vouchers. What happened? Passed one House, never passed the other, pops
up in this bill. You think that is democracy? If it happened only one
time to one or two bills, that would be one thing. Sprinkled
throughout, this bill is just strewn with this kind of undemocratic
authoritarian dealing, more typical of countries that we criticize. But
the villain in this piece has seldom been spoken of because it is not
only the Republican majority, Mr. Speaker; it is the Republican
President. We do not see his face here, but we have felt his big
footprint, his one-man approach to this bill; and he has offended many
members of both parties, especially in the Senate.
I predict this day that this bill will not get through the other
body. I do not think the Senate is about to bless a bill that imposes
the will of one man of the majority on the House and the Senate alike.
This term we have changed the very character of this House. We need to
come back no longer seeking comity and bipartisanship. We need to make
the goal of the House to return to its ancient democratic traditions.
____________________
MARKING THE PASSING OF JOHN LENNON AND ACCLAIMING THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
OF BOB SEGER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn and mark the passing
of John Lennon and to acclaim the accomplishments of Bob Seger, both of
them musicians and artists, performers and poets.
First, on a sorrowful note, today observes the 23rd commemoration of
the murder of John Winston Ono Lennon, M.B.E. Let us mark and continue
to mourn his passage not merely with words but with his music and then
with every agonizing echo of the deafening silence left in the wake of
his senseless loss. Our heartfelt condolences go out to his widow and
his sons.
On a joyous note, however, I also rise to celebrate the achievements
of one who has followed and honored Mr. Lennon's legacy, Michigan's own
Bob Seger. Rising from his working-class roots, Bob Seger has reached
the pinnacle of the rock and roll world. For after his loyal fans
conducted a petition drive and collected nearly 4,500 signatures, Mr.
Seger is finally being duly recognized and inducted into the Rock and
Roll Hall of Fame. He could not be more deserving.
Mr. Seger's life's work, his art, has been a celebration of working
Americans, our lives, our loves, our losses and, most importantly, the
little victories which hearten and heal and lead us all ever onward in
this arduous journey of life. He is a musician, an entertainer, and a
poet who speaks not only to our ears but also to our hearts.
Once the romantic poet William Wordsworth explained the essence of
artistic virtue: ``And then a wish: My best and favorite aspiration
mounts with yearning toward some philosophical song of truth which
cherishes our daily lives.''
For over 30 years, Mr. Seger has sung this philosophical song of
truth, cherishing our daily lives. Let us now honor his.
____________________
SENIORS ARE LOSERS IN MEDICARE BILL SIGNED TODAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. First, just a moment to my friends from New
Mexico just to indicate my deepest sympathy for the loss of Joe Skeen.
I believe that there is an opportunity in this Congress to work
together. I am disappointed that what we have done today clearly
indicates that we have missed our chances on some occasions, missed a
chance to come together as a House and Senate; and certainly over the
last couple of weeks the story that will be written in history will be
one that will raise a question as to whose interests have been promoted
in this body.
As I look at this article from Robert Novak, ``GOP Pulled No Punches
in Struggle for Medicare Bill,'' even without reading the entire text,
it tells the story. My concern about the Medicare bill that was signed
today is the fact that seniors are the losers. Seniors in my district
when I came home during the Thanksgiving break, not understanding what
we had just done, were looking for relief. They did not understand that
this bill does not take place for financial reasons until 2006. They
did not understand why hundreds of thousands, or at least tens of
thousands of seniors in Texas would lose their retirement benefits. Or
some of the seniors that use the Medicaid resources will also lose
those resources.
[[Page 32139]]
They did not understand why they could not have a guaranteed
prescription drug benefit under Medicare. They did not understand why
they would be forced ultimately to go into a privatized HMO. And they
certainly did not understand why the government would be forced to not
negotiate the lowest price for prescription drugs which makes common
sense. In this time of friendly Christmas shopping and holiday
shopping, everybody is looking for a deal. They cannot understand why
we have a law that says that the government cannot look for a deal. And
so it saddens me that a bill was signed that really does not help our
seniors and that we have captured the essence of a disregard for House
rules with a 4-hour vote open almost and that in essence the GOP
decided to pull no punches. Whether it means putting up another Member
against a wall, whatever it meant, it meant that the interests of our
seniors was not handled.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will come back in January in 2004 and we
will get down to work and we will actually put on the table a reform, a
revision to what has been signed. Because, frankly, I believe that we
are digging ourselves a deep hole. And 2006 will not come soon enough
for that hole to get bigger and bigger and bigger. This is not a good
bill. Good intentions, but certainly not a good bill.
Mr. Speaker, I said that there were several things that I wanted to
mention this evening, and I briefly want to mention the fact that a
Texan, certainly somebody that we all know and certainly we know of his
great expertise, Jim Baker, has been asked to help in the Iraqi debt. I
will be sending out a letter and asking my colleagues to join me that
we have a similar envoy to help relieve the debt of the nation of Haiti
that in the early years of our historical beginnings fought in the
revolution against the French. Haiti is almost crumbling under the
weight of debt. I believe what you can do unto one you can do unto
another, particularly one that is in this hemisphere. We cannot
tolerate any longer the kind of burden that Haiti is facing, and it
seems inequitable that you would help Iraq and not help Haiti. And so I
hope the President will join me and welcome that opportunity and be
able to do so.
{time} 1830
Let me just briefly say that in Texas today we funeralized a very
great Federal judge, and I want to give my deepest sympathy to the
family of Judge John Hannah for his great service and leadership, and I
hope to pay him tribute in the days to come when we return back to
Washington.
I want to finish, Mr. Speaker, on something that is really very
devastating. We fought very long and hard all the way to the Supreme
Court to preserve the understanding that affirmative action was not
quotas, it simply was an outreach, and we were affirmed by a United
Supreme Court in the Michigan case that race can be a factor in helping
to diversify in this Nation and give opportunity. Lo and behold, Texas
A&M decided in the last couple of days in the face of the Michigan case
to slap the face of the United States Supreme Court and eliminate the
element of race in their decisions for admissions. This is a university
that has 82 percent white, 2 percent black, 9 percent Hispanic, and 3
percent Asian American in a State that is increasingly diverse, the
State of Texas. My challenge to Dr. Gates, the chancellor, is to reform
this misdirected policy, come back to the 21st Century, engage those of
us who understand what affirmative action is, an outreach and not a
handout, and begin to accept the law of the land that affirmative
action is the law, and that we can use race as an element. It is time
to address the question of these outrageous numbers: 2 percent black, 9
percent Hispanic, and 2 percent Asian American. I hope that we will
resolve this crisis in Texas.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in dismay, disappointment, and ashamed as
an American and as a Representative of the State of Texas--the ``Lone
Star State.'' As a Member of the House Judiciary Committee and as
Representative of Texas' 18th Congressional District, I must remark at
the proposal made by Texas A&M University President Robert Gates last
Thursday to remove race as a factor in granting admission or
scholarships to the institution. I am extremely disappointed that Texas
A&M voted to adopt this policy change and that it even considered not
following the landmark precedent set by the Grutter v. Bollinger
[University of] Michigan decision. Refusing to follow the positive
precedent of this case marks the maintenance of a de jure racially
imbalanced system, which is the wrong kind of message to send.
This large and prominent university already suffers from a
significantly disparate racial student body ratio--for Fall 2003, the
ratio was 82 percent white, 2 percent black, 9 percent Hispanic, and 3
percent Asian-American. Changing its admissions policy to remove race
as a factor will almost certainly yield even lower diversity. it would
take a tremendous amount of outreach and quite a few ``special
scholarships'' to correct this trend. When this Nation's highest court
pronounced that race could be used as one of many factors in admissions
and scholarships, the University of Texas, Rice University, and several
other Texas institutions quickly implemented this policy because of its
clear beneficial effects on equality in education. Given that Texas A&M
Board of Regents has opted to incorporate President Gates' proposal,
the university will stand in a minority position with respect to its
express commitment to creating a more diverse student body.
It took some time for this nation to advance the principles that came
from the great Brown v. Board of Education decision to the clear
statement set forth in the University of Michigan case. To ignore the
forward progress made by this court is a slap in the face of the Civil
Rights Movement.
tamu admissions memo
In a memo dated December 7, 2003, the University's new admissions
policy is summarized. Instead of using the standards that have been set
forth by the nation's highest Court--responsible for pronouncing the
law of the land, Texas A&M claims that:
[g]ains in minority enrollment will come through enhanced
outreach, not changes in admission policies, requirements and
standards. Every student now and in the future can be
confident he or she arrived at Texas A&M on his or her own
individual merits.
Furthermore, the University promises that
[it] will work aggressively to increase the number of
minorities from all backgrounds who apply to Texas A&M, and .
. . [intends] to be far more aggressive in trying to persuade
those [they] admit actually to enroll--to join the Aggie
family. And, [they promise to] continue [their] efforts to
ensure that once they arrive, they find a welcoming campus
and remain [there] to graduate.
I find it interesting that while this University has promised to do
all of the above things to create a welcoming environment and to ensure
that minorities who are admitted will actually enroll, it has sat idly
while its current student body has done just the opposite--students
hold campus-wide ``bake sales'' where they give disparate prices to
ethnic minorities--``brownies, 25 cents for whites, $2.00 for negroes--
however, you can receive a rebate by way of outreach and special
scholarships.''
Its plan to increase its minority enrollment profile from the paltry
ratio of 82 percent white, 2 percent black, 9 percent Hispanic, and 3
percent Asian-American consists of outreach programs, identifying
former students from targeted high schools, and a scholarship for
first-generation college students whose family income is $40,000 or
less. Again, it shocks me that such a non-aggressive strategy is chosen
when the highest Court in America has made the statement that
affirmative action is the most effective way to correct the banes of
disparate enrollment percentages. The problem and the ugly imbalance
that we see today was caused, in part, by the very philosophy that
disagrees with the benefits of using race as a factor in admissions.
Ironically, the clearest case of ignoring this Nation's efforts to
eradicate racial injustice in education has occurred in the State of
Texas. In Orlando, Florida, Governor Bush's ``One Florida'' plan, an
admissions policy program that eliminates quotas for minority college
enrollment, fell short of being an effective replacement for race-based
admissions, according to a study conducted by Harvard University. The
study showed that the number of minority students enrolled in Florida's
colleges and universities had mostly stayed the same or increased
slightly since the 1999 initiative went into effect.
At Harvard College, the Class of 2007 is comprised of: 65.1 percent
Caucasian, 17.4 percent Asian-American, 8.4 percent African-American,
3.0 percent Hispanic-American, 3.6 percent Mexican-American, 0.8
percent Native American, 1.2 percent Puerto Rican, and 0.5 percent
Other. Of the 5,300 undergraduates at
[[Page 32140]]
Yale College, 30 percent are students of color. Its 2002 class profile
was: 74 percent Caucasian, 13 percent Asian, 7.5 percent African
American, 5 percent Hispanic-Latino, and < 1 percent Native American.
These Ivy League institutions, which have historically had lower
percentages of minority enrollment, can boast improved numbers and can
say that these numbers will continue to improve with the legal
precedent set by Grutter v. Bollinger. These institutions have not
abandoned this country's commitment to establishing diversity.
Historically, Texas public universities have fallen behind in issues
of racial segregation. For example, the Texas Constitution mandated
segregated schools until 1954 and the UT Law School had scholarships
``for whites only'' until 1969. Similarly, this State has struggled to
comply with legislative attempts to correct the negative trend. In
1950, the Court in Sweatt v. Painter ruled that Texas could not satisfy
its Fourteenth Amendment responsibilities by creating a separate law
school for blacks. These developmental shortcomings led to an
investigation by the federal Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in 1973 as to
the State's efforts to eliminate all vestiges of a de jure racially
dual education system.
Unfortunately, the Texas A&M policy marks a return of the vestiges of
de jure educational discrimination consistent with Hopwood v. Texas. We
now must form a new Civil Rights movement to ensure that the de facto
contravention of a Supreme Court decision does not hinder the progress
of this Nation.
____________________
THE EUROPEAN UNION'S UNITED STAND AGAINST DRUG ABUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Renzi). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) is recognized for 5
minutes.
An Unprecedented Year of Accomplishment by Congress
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, first before I make the basic remarks I came
down to the floor to make, I think it is important to make a couple of
comments on the appropriations process that has been, I believe,
somewhat misrepresented in some of the comments we have heard today.
I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and
his subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) of the
full committee, our esteemed late colleague Mr. Skeen, who all
understood that the appropriations process is extremely difficult. We
all come in with all these requests. We believe that everybody else's
requests are pork except for ours. We try to have a budget resolution
that we try to hold everybody in. This year we were fairly successful,
but when we have the war in Iraq and other pressures, we inevitably go
over. I had been a staffer for many years and then a Member of
Congress. I do not know when we have ever been within the budget
guidelines, and we have done better than normal.
But the impression has been given that somehow this was an
unprecedented, terrible thing and it was just Republicans and we jammed
it. The unfortunate sad truth is if it was just Republicans, this bill
would have failed today because we had a bunch of Republicans who did
not back the Republican conference report. What we had were 58
Democrats who voted for this bill. Nearly one-third of the Democratic
Party backed a bill that was just described as an awful, bipartisan,
unprecedented effort, backed, by the way, by one-third of the
Democrats. So I think it is really important to make sure in the Record
that the things that the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert)
talked about today were, yes, very tough votes in many cases, took us a
while to close the Medicare vote, but, in fact, it was an unprecedented
year of accomplishment both in the Committee on Appropriations by the
authorizers and in most cases, in almost every case, a bipartisan
effort in spite of the fact that often the Democratic leadership
pleaded with their Members not to make it bipartisan, but they saw the
merits of the bill, and today 58 Democrats voted for this conference
report.
I have at times been a critic of some of the drug policies of Europe,
and I wanted to rise today and recognize and applaud the European Union
for agreeing to toughen antidrug laws and urging actions to end drug
tourism on the continent.
After more than 2 years of negotiations, EU ministers reached a
landmark agreement on November 27 to toughen antidrug laws and to
harmonize the continent's laws to make the bloc more efficient in the
fight against illegal drugs. The laws cover all types of drug dealing,
ranging from local networks to large-scale international operations.
Under the agreed rules, offering, selling, or producing drugs would
be sanctioned with maximum jail terms of at least 1 to 3 years. In
cases involving large-scale international drug trafficking, sanctions
should be at least 5 to 10 years. Member states also agreed on a
declaration stressing the importance of fighting drug tourism.
The EU's united stand against drug abuse strengthens global efforts
to prevent drug abuse and to put away drug pushers and others including
terrorists who financially benefit from destructive drug addiction. It
is disappointing that the EU agreement will allow the so-called
``coffee shops'' in the Netherlands where marijuana can be legally
abused to remain open. I am, however, encouraged that the Netherlands
is investigating possible approaches that would end U.S. drug tourism
to Amsterdam.
Dutch Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner has stated that the
Netherlands Government is considering rules under which ``coffee
shops'' would only be allowed to sell drugs to Dutch residents as part
of its obligation to dissuade tourists from going to Amsterdam for
drugs. Under his proposal, only Dutch residents with identity cards
would be allowed to use the cannabis cafes. This move would protect
Americans visiting Amsterdam from the dangers of engaging in drug
abuse. Currently, foreign tourists, including Americans, make up about
40 percent of ``coffee shop'' sales in Amsterdam, according to the
London Times.
I also hope that this agreement will further our international
efforts to control the trafficking of ecstasy and other dangerous
synthetic drugs. In recent years, traffickers have set up their illegal
manufacturing operations in countries, predominantly the Netherlands,
and also to some degree in Belgium, in the hopes of avoiding tough
penalties if they are caught. This agreement should send a clear signal
to the drug cartels that Europe and the U.S. will continue to work
together to break up these international drug rings.
Furthermore, I am encouraged that the Netherlands has also agreed to
increase its sanctions for the possession of small quantities of
marijuana to a year from 1 month. These are important steps in the
Netherlands that I hope will eventually lead to stiffer penalties for
all drug abuse.
It is increasingly clear that every nation must play a role in
educating the public as to why drug abuse is harmful and in preventing
drug addiction. As long as one country tolerates the production, sale,
or distribution of any illegal drugs, other nations, communities, and
families are vulnerable to the threats caused by drug abuse that is
easily transported across borders. The EU's commitment to not tolerate
drug abuse and drug tourism protects not only the families and
communities of Europe but also the families and communities here and
elsewhere in the world.
Again, I applaud this agreement and look forward to working with
these and other countries to strengthen international drug laws and to
protect children from the dangers of drug abuse and addiction.
____________________
HONORING CONGRESSMAN JOE SKEEN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
General Leave
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks and to submit statements on my special order.
[[Page 32141]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, this is what is called
special orders, and it is an opportunity for Members to come to the
floor of the House and talk about a particular topic, and today it is
our sad duty to honor a friend and colleague of many in this House.
Congressman Joe Skeen passed away last night in Roswell, New Mexico,
after a long battle with Parkinson's disease, and this is an
opportunity tonight for many of his friends to come to honor him.
Mr. Speaker, Joe Skeen retired in January of this year after 22 years
of service in the House, and the 2nd District of New Mexico is now
represented by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), my good
friend, and I yield to the gentleman from southern New Mexico.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for
organizing this tribute.
The Nation has lost a leader, and New Mexico has lost a friend.
Joseph Richard Skeen was born in Roswell, Chaves County, New Mexico,
June 30, 1927. He was an Aggie. He attended Texas A&M University and
graduated with a bachelor of science degree in 1950. He served the
country honorably in the United States Navy from 1945 to 1946, and then
I do not know what happened. I think he saw the light because he joined
the United States Air Force Reserve and served from 1949 to 1952. But
the real light that he saw in his life was Mary Helen Jones, whom he
married November 17, 1945. Their two children, Elisa Livingston, and
her son, Ross; Mikell Lee Skeen and his wife, the former Gail Edwards,
their two sons, Clint and Tyler, all deserve our thoughts and our
prayers.
He began to serve immediately in positions throughout the State that
reflected his agriculture desires and his agriculture background. He
became a member of the New Mexico State Senate in 1960 and served until
1970. He served as chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party from
1962 to 1965. In 1980 he was just the second candidate to be elected on
a write-in vote to the United States House of Representatives. He was
elected to attend succeeding terms in Congress and did retire January
3, 2003, at the end of the 107th Congress.
He was the longest-serving Member from New Mexico to the House of
Representatives, serving 22 years. Mr. Skeen lost two of the closest
gubernatorial races that the State of New Mexico has ever seen in 1974
and again in 1978. Mr. Skeen's seniority, built up by his long tenure
in the House of Representatives, accounted for his ranking by Roll Call
Magazine in 2000 as one of the ten most powerful Members in the 435-
Member U.S. House of Representatives.
Mr. Skeen was the first New Mexico House Member to serve on the House
Committee on Appropriations and later served as chairman of two of the
most powerful subcommittees that affect New Mexico, the Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations and the Interior
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Skeen was
influential in the sponsorship, support, and passage of the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant, one of the premier DOE facilities in the Nation
located in the 2nd District of New Mexico. Mr. Skeen was the primary
sponsor of many legislative projects benefitting New Mexico State
University, New Mexico Tech, Holloman Air Force Base, and White Sands
Missile Range. New Mexico began to recognize its favorite son even
before today. New Mexico Tech named their library after Joe Skeen. New
Mexico State University named their new agriculture research building
after Joe and Mary Skeen. Chaves County named their new administrative
building after Joe Skeen. The State of New Mexico has named Highway 70
the Joe Skeen Highway.
Mr. Skeen was a strong supporter of rural New Mexico and all its
requirements: roads, schools, medical care, electricity, and water and
sewage treatment plants. He was impartial when it came to serving the
people of New Mexico. He served them all. His offices in New Mexico
provided critical assistance for those people who needed help with
Social Security, veterans' medical care programs, immigration
assistance, and a host of other government programs and services.
Joe fulfilled his ombudsman role eagerly and efficiently with the
help of his capable and effective staffs in Washington, Roswell, and
Las Cruces. He was tremendously respected. His friendly demeanor and
quiet sense of humor seemed to disarm those folks with grudges and
helped all citizens realize that by working together, we can solve the
people's problems. Joe used to say, let us talk about what we can agree
on and work from there.
Some of the popular quotes in New Mexico from Mr. Skeen were: ``The
chances of that happening are between slim and none, and slim just left
town.''
``Do not tell me about what you disagree with me on. Tell me where
you and I agree, and let's work from there.''
``Before I leave this earth, I hope the Good Lord gives me the
opportunity to serve as a member of the majority party in Congress.''
That opportunity came to Mr. Skeen.
About his ranch he said, ``We raise cattle for prestige, and we raise
sheep for profit.''
And, finally, ``I will be forever indebted to those actions of those
many citizens who stood in line until midnight to write my name in the
congressional ballot. I will never forget and will work hard to make
sure their views are heard in the House of Representatives.''
The people of New Mexico will never forget Mr. Skeen. He is a man of
the people. The people in the 2nd District have expressed their love
and concern as I traveled the district this year campaigning to replace
Mr. Skeen. And as I won the office, I realized that no one can replace
Mr. Skeen. I can simply fill the spot that he was in.
As I took my place in this national Congress and heard from his many
friends, I realized that he was just as respected nationally as he was
in the State. The State has lost a friend. The Nation has lost a
leader. Joe Skeen was our friend.
{time} 1845
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the
distinguished majority leader.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman coming down and
holding this Special Order in memory of Joe Skeen, and I appreciate the
comments of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce). That was a very
wonderfully put eulogy for an incredible man.
I met Joe Skeen for the first time when I first ran for office in
1984 in a primary. It was a big primary, a lot of Republicans running.
Joe Skeen came in on my behalf and really did not know me from Adam. He
had heard about me. He loved Texas A&M. I think, with all due respect,
he loved Texas as much as he loved New Mexico, because he loved coming
to Texas. He came at a particularly tough time in my campaign and just
wowed the folks in Houston, Texas.
He wowed them through his incredible wit. He was one of the funniest
men I knew. In his wit, he always had a point he was trying to make,
and somebody ought to really write a book, a compilation of Joe Skeen's
speeches, because they were poignant, they were to the point, but, at
the same time, they had a wonderful American flavor and an American wit
that was so Joe Skeen.
From that day forward, Joe Skeen became a very dear friend of mine,
as he is a friend to every Member of this House. He never met a person
he did not like, and he never met a person he did not make a friend out
of. The man was a stalwart in this House. Whenever you needed
something, you could always go to Joe Skeen, and he would do everything
in his power to see that it was accomplished.
Joe Skeen had the incredible character and integrity and moral
strength that Members drew from. In his later
[[Page 32142]]
years, when he got that dreadful Parkinson's disease, he was in here on
the floor suffering from that disease and still doing his job to the
very last minute. And it shows.
The man was committed to his constituency in New Mexico. He loved the
people of New Mexico, and I had a great time in going out and
campaigning for Joe Skeen, because you could see his real love for the
land, for the ranchers and farmers, for New Mexico. He really had a
strong, strong feeling for the people that he served, and he had a
servant's heart.
He was a man that we will sorely miss, and we have already missed him
this year. Joe Skeen is one of those very special characters that very
seldom come through this House, that has enriched the House, has
enriched this Nation. He is a true, true leader that will be sorely
missed.
So to Mary and his family we give all our sympathy, and hope they
will understand how much we miss him and the legacy that he has left by
serving in this House. We greatly appreciate the service and character
of the man Joe Skeen.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis), a dear friend of Joe Skeen over the years, the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense,
who served alongside Joe as one of the other cardinals.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
New Mexico, who has put together this time, and the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Pearce), Joe's colleague and friend from their own district
in beautiful downtown New Mexico.
It is a sad moment for me to come and attempt in a few moments to
share with the family and friends of Joe the impact he has had on my
life, the Congress of the United States, and, indeed, upon, I think,
people way beyond his wonderful State.
Joe was a giant, great man who cared so much for the work of public
affairs that it took every bit of his being to impact those issues that
were so important to his people; a phenomenal guy who I came to know
early upon his career by way of introduction from a mutual friend,
Kevin Billings, who said, ``Jerry, you have got to meet this guy,
because he is a guy who ought to be on your Committee on
Appropriations,'' a committee that I love. From that moment on, as Joe
and I began to get to know each other, many of us worked to see that he
early on took a spot on that committee.
During his service there, as has been said, both first as a member,
but, beyond that, as chairman of the subcommittee that deals with
agriculture, so important to his State, the Subcommittee on Interior,
Joe demonstrated his unusual capability to mix the demands and needs of
his own people with those requirements of members of his subcommittee,
as well as the needs and priorities of the country.
He is going to be sorely missed by his wife, Mary, and his son and
daughter. I want them to know that he will be missed just as much,
every bit as much, by the people who work in this House.
Shortly after I met Joe, I became enamored of his sense of humor.
While we all know of him as a great man, we also know of his immense
capability. When you would have a tendency to take yourself perhaps a
bit too seriously, by a kind of twist of a word, a sleight of hand
almost, his sense of humor would bring you back to the real world,
where we can find solution by way of compromise in this House, for, no
doubt about it, when we finally get our best work done, it is work that
is done with men and women challenging each other, measuring the pros
and cons that lead to solution, and compromise is absolutely a
requirement.
I remember when Joe first came to me, we were talking about a couple
of his problems and discussing the fact that when he was first involved
in politics, there were not too many Republicans available in his
territory in New Mexico. He kind of smiled when he told me they held
their meetings in a telephone booth. In the old days in San Bernardino
County in California, many a person suggested to me that if I really
wanted to be in politics, I had better find a party other than the
Republican Party, for similarly we had a telephone booth that did not
have very much room in it.
Joe demonstrated clearly that he was going to make a difference in
his State and his party in his State. It has been suggested by Steve
and others that he ran those very, very close races and almost became
Governor of the State of New Mexico. Well, what guy is good enough to
go about getting elected to the United States Congress by way of write-
in vote? To say the least, it is tough enough to get elected, but to
have enough people care about you and know of your leadership skills to
actually drive hard enough to get people to write your name in to be
successful in races that are so intensely sought after?
Joe reminds me in many, many ways of his sense of humor by the
dealings we had on another venture. We used to kid each other about
Mexican food, because, you know, frankly I think those people, citizens
of Mexican descent in our country, who are of the best lines come from
beautiful downtown California, and he thought in turn that our food
could not begin to compare in terms of Mexican food with that of New
Mexico. So we challenged each other about that, first lightly, and he
talked about his tamales early on and I was talking about enchiladas
and tacos, et cetera. I just could not believe the tacos they produced
in Washington, DC.
But in this challenge, we began to invite friends, first it was just
our two staffs together, and then we would get people down the hall,
and the program became a regular annual event called ``Tamales on the
Terrace.''
The family of Joe Skeen goes beyond just the family we have mentioned
here. The family also involves Selma Sierra, who was the person who was
in charge of helping us put together Tamales on the Terrace. The
terrace, by the way, is just outside the back door of my office, and it
looks at the Capitol and a couple of other buildings.
The last time we held this gathering, we had to turn people away.
There were 300 or 400 people there the last 2 or 3 years. The last
event was a very, very special event indeed, because we were especially
attempting to pay tribute to Joe Skeen as he was getting prepared to
leave the Congress.
Suzanne Eisold, his administrative assistant, was a person who my
wife, who helps me run my own office, has worked very closely with, for
she helped put wheels on both of our operations. To be successful in
this business you need help; and, without any doubt, he had that extra
special quality of attracting the best of people around him to make
sure that the best of work was done on behalf of his own people and the
causes he was concerned with.
It has been said that appropriators are the people around here who
must get their work done, because, without it, government cannot
continue; and often times controversy stops many a bill around here.
Well, Joe was one of those workhorses who was able to get the
toughest of business done in the appropriations process. His bills went
to the President's desk and successfully had a huge impact upon the
future of America's public lands by way of interior, and certainly had
a fantastic impact upon prioritizing the way our appropriation dollars
impact farmers, not just in New Mexico, but also in the country.
There is a great building in Sacramento that reminds me of the last
trip I took to New Mexico to be with Joe. This great Federal building
in Sacramento has on the face of it a statement to be remembered by
those who think about Joe forever. It says, ``Bring me men to match my
mountains.'' That last trip that took me to Joe's hometown was for the
dedication of a Federal building there, and I would hope that the
people of New Mexico, whenever they go and look at that Federal
building or have business there, will remember just how great this man
was.
If we, indeed, have had a Will Rogers of modern days, Joe Skeen of
New Mexico is that Will Rogers; and indeed he is
[[Page 32143]]
the mountain of a man who has come from New Mexico.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to my colleague from northern New
Mexico (Mr. Udall).
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, both my wife, Jill, and I were saddened to learn about
Joe's death. Joe Skeen served New Mexico with distinction and
dedication. During the 4 years we served together in Congress, I found
Joe to be a true gentleman and statesman.
One of the stories that I like to tell about Joe Skeen was how he got
here. He was only the third Member of the House in the history of this
House to be elected by a write-in vote.
My wife was the Deputy Attorney General, and she was assigned to
represent the State of New Mexico and the Secretary of State in the
legal case that determined that he had to be a write-in. There was only
a Democrat on the ballot. He was beloved by New Mexicans, and my wife
and I were in the court that day when there was a ruling.
Representative Skeen understood that she had a job to do. He
respected that. He never held it against us. He was always a gentleman.
He had a great sense of humor; and he knew, because he was so loved in
the State, that whether he got on the ballot or not, he was going to
get elected, which in fact he did.
One of the things I respected about him the most was his
bipartisanship; and I think every Member of Congress, Democrat and
Republican, every Member of this House, loved him for that. He loved
this institution. He had a great sense of humor. He did not take this
place where we do the serious business of the country too seriously,
and he would always have a good story or a quip.
I just want to say to Mary, the children and the rest of the family
that all of us in the House of Representatives that served with him
loved him very much, and we send Mary and his family our heart-felt
condolences.
Jill and I were saddened to learn about Joe's death. Joe Skeen served
New Mexico with distinction and dedication. During the 4 years we
served together in Congress, I found Joe to be a true gentleman and
statesman.
It is difficult to capture with words the impact and significance
that Joe has meant, not only to New Mexicans, but to the citizens of
the United States and the institution of the Congress as well. During
his tenure as New Mexico's longest serving U.S. House Member, he built
a dedicated and talented staff on Capitol Hill. He was renowned for his
tireless work on behalf of agrarian interests. Although he didn't get
the credit he deserved, he also helped steer millions of Federal
dollars to our State.
I was proud to work with Joe on legislation that helped return
mineral rights to Acoma Pueblo. That bill, now Federal law, was easily
steered through Congress by Joe's knowledge of the legislative process.
While we were ultimately not as successful as we would have liked, we
also fought together to change the dairy sections of the 2002 farm bill
that were unfair to our State's strong milk and cheese industry.
Through it all, I enjoyed working with him every step of the way.
Throughout his years of service, he was a model of integrity and
truth. The way he approached his job is the way every elected official
should--as a highly principled individual who stuck to his beliefs. He
walked his talk. While we didn't agree on everything, he always did
what he believed in his heart to be true, and he always worked in a
bipartisan way to accomplish important work.
His good will and sense of humor will be missed by all who knew him.
We send our sympathy to his family and friends.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
northern New Mexico.
Mr. Speaker, all of us are going to miss Joe Skeen. All of us have
our Joe Skeen stories and things that make us chuckle when we are
walking around this place remembering him.
Joe was a sheep rancher. He has a ranch between Ruidoso and Roswell
in the Hondo River Valley, which is a long way from just about
everywhere. In fact, his ranch is 17 miles from pavement in the rural
part of New Mexico.
{time} 1900
In a lot of ways, Joe was a man of the West, a gentleman. He loved
New Mexico, loved its rural way of life, and fought in this body for
those ways of life to be protected. He opposed grazing fee increases
and defended property rights and water rights. And even while he served
here in the Congress and got accustomed to wearing soft-soled shoes on
these granite floors instead of his preferred cowboy boots, he
continued to ride and work the ranch with Mary and the kids and just
one hired hand.
I can remember times here when they were doing State of the Union,
and Joe always sat in the same place in this House. Whenever you needed
to find Joe Skeen, you always knew where he would sit, in the back row
in the far right, over in the corner. He was there, no matter what. And
during the State of the Union one year, I heard a big ``yippee'' and a
whistle from the back right corner of this room, and everyone in the
whole room knew it was Joe Skeen. There is probably only one guy who
can whistle and ``yippee'' like that, and who had the guts to do it on
the floor of the House of Representatives during the State of the
Union.
Joe Skeen said what he thought, and he said it in a direct way, and
he stuck by his guns. He kept his word. He was a gentleman of the West.
When I was elected, I came here in a special election, and I had only
17 hours between when they counted the last votes and when I was on an
airplane to fly here to Washington with my family. I did not even know
where my predecessor's office was or how to get a key. There was a
reception after the swearing in here on the House floor in Joe Skeen's
Agriculture appropriations room. I was completely lost and somebody
helped me find this reception, and my vote card was not even cool from
the laminating machine when those bells went off. Not only did I not
know what I was supposed to do, I had no idea where I was or where I
was supposed to go or how to get there. And Joe Skeen said, ``Come on,
gal, you are coming with me.'' And for the next 5 years of my service
here, so many times I was with him.
In 1960 when Joe Skeen started out in the State Senate, I was not
even born, but he took responsibility for the stewardship of the next
generation of young legislators from New Mexico.
Joe Skeen was a physical man. He was a rancher and a flyer and a
cowboy, and that made it particularly hard for his friends and staff
and family to see the ravages of Parkinson's in his later years.
There is a statue here in the House. It is in the hallway between
this new modern Chamber that we use today and the old House. It is a
statue of Will Rogers. Will Rogers was a man who understood the
American spirit, a man who loved his country deeply, a man with a
tremendous dry sense of humor that caused us to understand ourselves so
much better. Joe Skeen was a lot like Will Rogers, and whenever I walk
by that statue, I will always think of Joe.
Humor is a bridge between people over the things that divide us, and
Joe Skeen had so much of it. I once walked up to him on the floor of
this House and I said to him, my son was 5 years old at the time, and I
said, Joe, my son Joshua thinks he wants to be a farmer, and Joe said,
well, you send him to me, I will knock some sense into him. There is no
money in it. And we had a good laugh. Everyone in this body has had a
good laugh with Joe Skeen.
Our thoughts and prayers go out tonight to Mary, to his children, the
many staff members who have worked with him over the years, and to the
wonderful people of New Mexico who were served so well by him.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remember my friend and former
colleague, Congressman Joe Skeen, who passed away recently in his home
State of New Mexico.
Mr. Skeen was truly a giant in New Mexico politics, serving 22 years
and entering the class just before mine. His is a great story of a
rancher who won his first term through a write-in campaign and
continued to win the next 10 terms.
I will remember Joe's work, especially on Parkinson's disease. He and
I worked together as co-chairs of the Congressional Working Group on
Parkinson's Disease. Although we differed on many issues, Joe and I
agreed on
[[Page 32144]]
the importance of working to eradicate this disease. We have both been
personally affected by it.
I am glad that Joe was able to spend time with his family on his
beloved ranch after serving a long and distinguished career. He will be
missed by us on both sides of the aisle for his candor and hard work on
issues of importance to New Mexicans and all Americans.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time and
commemorate the life of former New Mexico Representative Joe Skeen. Joe
lost his battle with Parkinson's disease on Sunday at the age of 76,
and I would like to send my deepest condolences to his wife and family.
Joe was elected into the halls of Congress in 1980 as a write-in
candidate. He served 11 terms which was more than any other New Mexico
Member of Congress has ever served. He was chairman of the Interior and
Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, and
accomplished much during his tenure for New Mexico and our great
Nation. I had the honor of working with Joe for a long time, and know
of his love for the open lands of the western U.S.
As a Member of Congress, I honor Joe and mourn his passing, but also
celebrate his life and his achievements.
Joe will forever be missed in the House of Representatives, in his
great State of New Mexico and in this country, which he loved so much.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, it is with heavy heart I submit the
following statement. Chairman Joe Skeen, our former colleague form the
State of New Mexico, passed away on Sunday evening due to complications
from Parkinson's disease.
Chairman Joseph ``Joe'' Richard Skeen was born in Roswell, Chaves
County, NM, June 30, 1927, and graduated from O'Dea High School in
Seattle, WA, in 1944. He went on to receive a B.S. from Texas A&M
University in 1950. After fulfilling a commitment to the United States
Navy and spending time in the United States Air Force Reserve, Joe
turned his sights to public service and the causes of the rural
residents of the State of New Mexico. Joe served his State as a member
of the New Mexico State Senate, chairman of the New Mexico Republican
Party, and as a delegate to both the New Mexico and National Republican
conventions numerous times from 1962 to 1970. In 1980 Joe was elected
to the 97th Congress as a write-in candidate, only the third in
history. Chairman Skeen served longer than any other New Mexican in the
House of Representatives, from 1981 to 2000. He was also the first New
Mexican to serve on the House Appropriations Committee, and served with
distinction as the chairman of both the Agriculture and Interior
Subcommittees.
A great family, a fine State, and a grateful Nation all lost a
wonderful champion, colleague and friend on Sunday. Joe will be missed
often and I hope that we who continue in his place, may carry on the
tradition of caring and service, which Chairman Skeen truly
exemplified.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in fond memories
of our friend and colleague, Joe Skeen, easily one of the most even-
handed, honest, fair legislators elected to the House of
Representatives.
Joe was only a little more senior than me, but his route here was
considerably more entertaining than most of ours. Joe was elected as a
write-in candidate over another write-in candidate and the nephew of
the sitting governor. He made history, becoming the third Member ever
to win election to Congress without being on a ballot.
For the next 22 years, Joe served with us in Congress, making
excellent representation for his home district in New Mexico the
standard of his service. He chaired the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Agriculture and Rural Development. Those he represented in New Mexico
could have had no better steward in Congress.
He was tireless in representing the needs of ranchers and farmers in
his role as an appropriations cardinal.
Joe was my friend, and he was my neighbor on the third floor of
Rayburn where we would often visit in each other's office.
He spoke Spanish, and he spoke the all-important language of
bipartisanship. Joe Skeen was the best example of how a member of this
House should comport themselves in any circumstance. He did more than
just talk the talk, he walked the walk on bipartisanship, an art often
lost in the House of Representatives today.
He was a pragmatist, and he was a guy who really enjoyed life,
teasing colleagues and playing practical jokes. He was truly a
gentleman, and he made our work here in the halls of Congress more
pleasant when he was involved.
I join my colleagues here in the House in offering our collective and
individual sympathies to Joe's wife Mary and their two children. The
House has been a poorer place for Joe's absence. He was a great
legislator and an exceptional man.
____________________
AMERICAN DREAM DOWNPAYMENT ACT
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 811) to support certain housing
proposals in the fiscal year 2003 budget for the Federal Government,
including the downpayment assistance initiative under the HOME
Investment Partnership Act, and for other purposes, and ask for its
immediate consideration in the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Renzi). The Chair has been informed that
this request has been cleared by both leaderships under the Speaker's
guidelines.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:
S. 811
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Table of contents.
TITLE I--DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE
Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Downpayment assistance initiative.
TITLE II--INTERGENERATIONAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE
Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Definitions.
Sec. 203. Demonstration program for elderly housing for
intergenerational families.
Sec. 204. Training for HUD personnel regarding grandparent-headed and
relative-headed families issues.
Sec. 205. Study of housing needs of grandparent-headed and relative-
headed families.
TITLE III--ADJUSTABLE RATE SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGES AND LOAN LIMIT
ADJUSTMENTS
Sec. 301. Hybrid arms.
Sec. 302. FHA multifamily loan limit adjustments.
TITLE IV--HOPE VI PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION
Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Hope VI program reauthorization.
Sec. 403. Hope VI grants for assisting affordable housing through main
street projects.
TITLE V--COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS
Sec. 501. Funding for insular areas.
TITLE I--DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``American Dream Downpayment
Act''.
SEC. 102. DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE.
(a) Downpayment Assistance Initiative.--Subtitle E of title
II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act
(42 U.S.C. 12821) is amended to read as follows:
``Subtitle E--Other Assistance
``SEC. 271. DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Downpayment assistance.--The term ``downpayment
assistance'' means assistance to help a family acquire a
principal residence.
``(2) Home repairs.--The term ``home repairs'' means
capital improvements or repairs that--
``(A) are identified in an appraisal or home inspection
completed in conjunction with a home purchase; or
``(B) are completed within 1 year of the purchase of a
home, and are necessary to bring the housing into compliance
with health and safety housing codes of the unit of general
local government in which the housing is located, including
the remediation of lead paint or other home health hazards.
``(3) Participating jurisdiction.--The term ``participating
jurisdiction'' means a State or unit of general local
government designated under section 216.
``(4) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the
United States and the District of Columbia.
``(b) Grant Authority.--The Secretary may award grants to
participating jurisdictions to assist low-income families to
achieve homeownership, in accordance with this section.
[[Page 32145]]
``(c) Eligible Activities.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Downpayment assistance.--Subject to subparagraph (B),
grants awarded under this section may be used only for
downpayment assistance toward the purchase of single family
housing (including 1 to 4 unit family dwelling units,
condominium units, cooperative units, and manufactured
housing units which are located on land which is owned by the
manufactured housing unit owner, owned as a cooperative, or
is subject to a leasehold interest with a term equal to at
least the term of the mortgage financing on the unit, and
manufactured housing lots) by low-income families who are
first-time home-buyers.
``(B) Home repairs.--Not more than 20 percent of the grant
funds provided under subsection (d) to a participating
jurisdiction may be used to provide assistance to low-income,
first-time home-buyers for home repairs.
``(2) Limitations.--
``(A) Amount of assistance.--The amount of assistance
provided to any low-income families under paragraph (1) shall
not exceed the greater of--
``(i) 6 percent of the purchase price of a single family
housing unit; or
``(ii) $10,000.
``(B) Participation.--A participating jurisdiction may not
use any amount of a grant awarded under this section to
provide funding to an entity or organization that provides
downpayment assistance if the activities of that entity or
organization are financed in whole or in part, directly or
indirectly, by contributions, service fees, or other payments
from the sellers of housing.
``(d) Formula Allocation.--
``(1) In general.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary
shall allocate any amounts made available for assistance
under this section to each State that is a participating
jurisdiction in an amount equal to a percentage of the total
allocation that is equal to the percentage of the national
total of low-income households residing in rental housing in
the State, as determined on the basis of the most recent
census data compiled by the Bureau of the Census.
``(2) Participating jurisdictions other than states.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), for each
fiscal year, of the amount allocated to each State under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall further allocate from such
amount to each participating jurisdiction located within such
State an amount equal to the percentage of the allocation
made to the State under paragraph (1) that is equal to the
percentage of the State-wide total of low-income households
residing in rental housing in such participating
jurisdiction, as determined on the basis of the most recent
census data compiled by the Bureau of the Census.
``(B) Limitation.--
``(i) In general.--Direct allocations made under
subparagraph (A) shall be made to a local participating
jurisdiction only if--
``(I) the participating jurisdiction has a total population
of 150,000 individuals or more, as determined on the basis of
the most recent census data compiled by the Bureau of the
Census; or
``(II) the participating jurisdiction would receive an
allocation of $50,000 or more.
``(ii) Reversion.--Any allocation that would have otherwise
been made to a participating jurisdiction that does not meet
the requirements of clause (i) shall revert back to the State
in which the participating jurisdiction is located.
``(e) Reallocation.--If any amounts allocated to a
participating jurisdiction under this section become
available for reallocation, the amounts shall be reallocated
to other participating jurisdictions in accordance with
subsection (d).
``(f) Applicability of Other Provisions.--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, grants made under this section shall not be subject
to the provisions of this title.
``(2) Applicable provisions.--In addition to the
requirements of this section, grants made under this section
shall be subject to the provisions of title I, sections
215(b), 218, 219, 221, 223, 224, and 226(a) of subtitle A of
this title, and subtitle F of this title.
``(3) References.--In applying the requirements of subtitle
A referred to in paragraph (2)--
``(A) any references to funds under subtitle A shall be
considered to refer to amounts made available for assistance
under this section; and
``(B) any references to funds allocated or reallocated
under section 217 or 217(d) shall be considered to refer to
amounts allocated or reallocated under subsection (d) or (e)
of this section, respectively.
``(g) Housing Strategy.--To be eligible to receive a grant
under this section in any fiscal year, a participating
jurisdiction shall include in its comprehensive housing
affordability strategy developed under section 105 of the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C.
12705) for such fiscal year--
``(1) a description of the anticipated use of any grant
received under this section;
``(2) a plan for conducting targeted outreach to residents
and tenants of public housing, trailer parks, and
manufactured housing, and to other families assisted by
public housing agencies, for the purpose of ensuring that
grant amounts provided under this section to a participating
jurisdiction are used for downpayment assistance for such
residents, tenants, and families; and
``(3) a description of the actions to be taken to ensure
the suitability of families receiving downpayment assistance
under this section to undertake and maintain homeownership.
``(h) Report.--Not later than June 30, 2006, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall submit a
report containing a State-by-State analysis of the impact of
grants awarded under this section to--
``(1) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
of the Senate; and
``(2) the Committee on Financial Services of the House of
Representatives.
``(i) Sunset.--The Secretary shall have no authority to
make grants under this Act after December 31, 2007.
``(j) Relocation Assistance and Downpayment Assistance.--
The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1894) shall not
apply to downpayment assistance under this section.
``(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $200,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007.''.
TITLE II--INTERGENERATIONAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Living Equitably:
Grandparents Aiding Children and Youth Act of 2003'' or the
``LEGACY Act of 2003''.
SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Child.--The term ``child'' means an individual who--
(A) is not attending school and is not more than 18 years
of age; or
(B) is attending school and is not more than 19 years of
age.
(2) Covered family.--The term ``covered family'' means a
family that--
(A) includes a child; and
(B) has a head of household who is--
(i) a grandparent of the child who is raising the child; or
(ii) a relative of the child who is raising the child.
(3) Elderly person.--The term ``elderly person'' has the
same meaning as in section 202(k) of the Housing Act of 1959
(12 U.S.C. 1701q(k)).
(4) Grandparent.--
(A) In general.--The term ``grandparent'' means, with
respect to a child, an individual who is a grandparent or
stepgrandparent of the child by blood or marriage, regardless
of the age of such individual.
(B) Case of adoption.--In the case of a child who was
adopted, the term includes an individual who, by blood or
marriage, is a grandparent or stepgrandparent of the child as
adopted.
(5) Intergenerational dwelling unit.--The term
``intergenerational dwelling unit'' means a qualified
dwelling unit that is reserved for occupancy only by an
intergenerational family.
(6) Intergenerational family.--The term ``intergenerational
family'' means a covered family that has a head of household
who is an elderly person.
(7) Private nonprofit organization.--The term ``private
nonprofit organization'' has the same meaning as in section
202(k) of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q(k)).
(8) Qualified dwelling unit.--The term ``qualified dwelling
unit'' means a dwelling unit that--
(A) has not fewer than 2 separate bedrooms;
(B) is equipped with design features appropriate to meet
the special physical needs of elderly persons, as needed; and
(C) is equipped with design features appropriate to meet
the special physical needs of young children, as needed.
(9) Raising a child.--The term ``raising a child'' means,
with respect to an individual, that the individual--
(A) resides with the child; and
(B) is the primary caregiver for the child--
(i) because the biological or adoptive parents of the child
do not reside with the child or are unable or unwilling to
serve as the primary caregiver for the child; and
(ii) regardless of whether the individual has a legal
relationship to the child (such as guardianship or legal
custody) or is caring for the child informally and has no
such legal relationship with the child.
(10) Relative.--
(A) In general.--The term ``relative'' means, with respect
to a child, an individual who--
(i) is not a parent of the child by blood or marriage; and
(ii) is a relative of the child by blood or marriage,
regardless of the age of the individual.
(B) Case of adoption.--In the case of a child who was
adopted, the term ``relative'' includes an individual who, by
blood or marriage, is a relative of the family who adopted
the child.
(11) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development.
[[Page 32146]]
SEC. 203. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM FOR ELDERLY HOUSING FOR
INTERGENERATIONAL FAMILIES.
(a) Demonstration Program.--The Secretary shall carry out a
demonstration program (referred to in this section as the
``demonstration program'') to provide assistance for
intergenerational dwelling units for intergenerational
families in connection with the supportive housing program
under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C.
1701q).
(b) Intergenerational Dwelling Units.--The Secretary shall
provide assistance under this section only to private
nonprofit organizations selected under subsection (d) for use
only for expanding the supply of intergenerational dwelling
units, which units shall be provided--
(1) by designating and retrofitting, for use as
intergenerational dwelling units, existing dwelling units
that are located within a project assisted under section 202
of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q);
(2) through development of buildings or projects comprised
solely of intergenerational dwelling units; or
(3) through the development of an annex or addition to an
existing project assisted under section 202 of the Housing
Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q), that contains
intergenerational dwelling units, including through the
development of elder cottage housing opportunity units that
are small, freestanding, barrier free, energy efficient,
removable dwelling units located adjacent to a larger project
or dwelling.
(c) Program Terms.--Assistance provided pursuant to this
section shall be subject to the provisions of section 202 of
the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q), except that--
(1) notwithstanding subsection (d)(1) of that section 202
or any provision of that section restricting occupancy to
elderly persons, any intergenerational dwelling unit assisted
under the demonstration program may be occupied by an
intergenerational family;
(2) subsections (e) and (f) of that section 202 shall not
apply;
(3) in addition to the requirements under subsection (g) of
that section 202, the Secretary shall--
(A) ensure that occupants of intergenerational dwelling
units assisted under the demonstration program are provided a
range of services that are tailored to meet the needs of
elderly persons, children, and intergenerational families;
and
(B) coordinate with the heads of other Federal agencies as
may be appropriate to ensure the provision of such services;
and
(4) the Secretary may waive or alter any other provision of
that section 202 necessary to provide for assistance under
the demonstration program.
(d) Selection.--The Secretary shall--
(1) establish application procedures for private nonprofit
organizations to apply for assistance under this section; and
(2) to the extent that amounts are made available pursuant
to subsection (f), select not less than 2 and not more than 4
projects that are assisted under section 202 of the Housing
Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q) for assistance under this
section, based on the ability of the applicant to develop and
operate intergenerational dwelling units and national
geographical diversity among those projects funded.
(e) Report.--Not later than 36 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to
Congress that--
(1) describes the demonstration program; and
(2) analyzes the effectiveness of the demonstration
program.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section.
(g) Sunset.--The demonstration program carried out under
this section shall terminate 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 204. TRAINING FOR HUD PERSONNEL REGARDING GRANDPARENT-
HEADED AND RELATIVE-HEADED FAMILIES ISSUES.
Section 7 of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(t) Training Regarding Issues Relating to Grandparent-
Headed and Relative-Headed Families.--The Secretary shall
ensure that all personnel employed in field offices of the
Department who have responsibilities for administering the
housing assistance program under section 8 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) or the
supportive housing program under section 202 of the Housing
Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q), and an appropriate number of
personnel in the headquarters office of the Department who
have responsibilities for those programs, have received
adequate training regarding how covered families (as that
term is defined in section 202 of the LEGACY Act of 2003) can
be served by existing affordable housing programs.''.
SEC. 205. STUDY OF HOUSING NEEDS OF GRANDPARENT-HEADED AND
RELATIVE-HEADED FAMILIES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary and the Director of the
Bureau of the Census jointly shall--
(1) conduct a study to determine an estimate of the number
of covered families in the United States and their affordable
housing needs; and
(2) submit a report to Congress regarding the results of
the study conducted under paragraph (1).
(b) Report and Recommendations.--The report required under
subsection (a) shall--
(1) be submitted to Congress not later than 12 months after
the date of enactment of this Act; and
(2) include recommendations by the Secretary and the
Director of the Bureau of the Census regarding how the major
assisted housing programs of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, including the supportive housing for the
elderly program under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959
(12 U.S.C. 1701q) can be used and, if appropriate, amended or
altered, to meet the affordable housing needs of covered
families.
TITLE III--ADJUSTABLE RATE SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGES AND LOAN LIMIT
ADJUSTMENTS
SEC. 301. HYBRID ARMS.
(a) In General.--Section 251(d)(1)(C) of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-16(d)(1)(C)) is amended by
striking ``five'' and inserting ``3''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to mortgages executed on or after the date of the
enactment of this title.
SEC. 302. FHA MULTIFAMILY LOAN LIMIT ADJUSTMENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``FHA
Multifamily Loan Limit Adjustment Act of 2003''.
(b) Maximum Mortgage Amount Limit for Multifamily Housing
in High-Cost Areas.--Sections 207(c)(3), 213(b)(2)(B)(i),
220(d)(3)(B)(iii)(III), 221(d)(3)(ii)(II), 221(d)(4)(ii)(II),
231(c)(2)(B), and 234(e)(3)(B) of the National Housing Act
(12 U.S.C. 1713(c)(3), 1715e(b)(2)(B)(i),
1715k(d)(3)(B)(iii)(II), 1715l(d)(3)(ii)(III),
1715l(d)(4)(ii)(II), 1715v(c)(2)(B)), and 1715y(e)(3)(B)) are
each amended--
(1) by striking ``110 percent'' and inserting ``140
percent''; and
(2) by inserting ``, or 170 percent in high cost areas,''
after ``140 percent''.
(c) Catch-up Adjustments to Certain Maximum Mortgage Amount
Limits.--
(1) Section 207 Limits.--Section 207(c)(3)(A) of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1713(c)(3)(A)) is amended by
striking ``$11,250'' and inserting ``$17,460''.
(2) Section 213 Limits.--Section 213(b)(2)(A) of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715e(b)(2)(A)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``$38,025'' and inserting ``$41,207'';
(B) by striking ``$42,120'' and inserting ``$47,511'';
(C) by striking ``$50,310'' and inserting ``$57,300'';
(D) by striking ``$62,010'' and inserting ``$73,343'';
(E) by striking ``$70,200'' and inserting ``$81,708'';
(F) by striking ``$49,140'' and inserting ``$49,710'';
(G) by striking ``$60,255'' and inserting ``$60,446'';
(H) by striking ``$75,465'' and inserting ``$78,197''; and
(I) by striking ``$85,328'' and inserting ``$85,836''.
(d) Rehabilitation and Neighborhood Conservation Housing
Mortgage Insurance.--Section 220(d)(3)(B)(iii) of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715k(d)(3)(B)(iii) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``with respect to dollar amount limitations
applicable to rehabilitation projects described in subclause
(II),'' and inserting ``; (III)''; and
(2) by redesignating subclauses (III) and (IV) as
subclauses (IV) and (V), respectively.
TITLE IV--HOPE VI PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION
SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``HOPE VI Program
Reauthorization and Small Community Mainstreet Rejuvenation
and Housing Act of 2003''.
SEC. 402. HOPE VI PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION.
(a) Selection Criteria.--Section 24(e)(2) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v(e)(2)) is
amended--
(1) by striking the matter preceding subparagraph (A) and
inserting the following:
``(2) Selection criteria.--The Secretary shall establish
criteria for the award of grants under this section and shall
include among the factors--'';
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``large-scale'';
(3) in subparagraph (D)--
(A) by inserting ``and ongoing implementation'' after
``development''; and
(B) by inserting ``, except that the Secretary may not
award a grant under this section unless the applicant has
involved affected public housing residents at the beginning
and during the planning process for the revitalization
program, prior to submission of an application'' before the
semicolon at the end;
(4) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(5) by redesignating subparagraph (I) as subparagraph (L);
and
(6) by inserting after subparagraph (H) the following:
[[Page 32147]]
``(I) the extent to which the plan minimizes permanent
displacement of current residents of the public housing site
who wish to remain in or return to the revitalized community
and provides for community and supportive services to
residents prior to any relocation;
``(J) the extent to which the plan sustains or creates more
project-based housing units available to persons eligible for
public housing in markets where the plan shows there is
demand for the maintenance or creation of such units;
``(K) the extent to which the plan gives to existing
residents priority for occupancy in dwelling units which are
public housing dwelling units, or for residents who can
afford to live in other units, priority for those units in
the revitalized community; and''.
(b) Definition of Severely Distressed Public Housing.--
Section 24(j)(2)(A)(iii) of the United States Housing Act of
1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v(j)(2)(A)(iii)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (I), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in subclause (II), by inserting ``or'' after the
semicolon at the end; and
(3) by inserting at the end the following:
``(III) is lacking in sufficient appropriate
transportation, supportive services, economic opportunity,
schools, civic and religious institutions, and public
services, resulting in severe social distress in the
project;''.
(c) Study of Elderly and Disabled Public Housing Needs.--
Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit a report to Congress regarding the extent of severely
distressed elderly and non-elderly disabled public housing,
and recommendations for improving that housing through the
HOPE VI program or other means, taking into account the
special needs of the residents.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Paragraph (1) of
section 24(m) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437v(m)(1)) is amended by striking ``, 2001, and
2002'' and inserting ``through 2006''.
(e) Extension of Program.--Section 24(n) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v(n)) is amended by
striking ``September 30, 2004'' and inserting ``September 30,
2006''.
SEC. 403. HOPE VI GRANTS FOR ASSISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
THROUGH MAIN STREET PROJECTS.
(a) Purposes.--Section 24(a) of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v(a)) is amended by adding after
and below paragraph (4) the following:
``It is also the purpose of this section to provide
assistance to smaller communities for the purpose of
facilitating the development of affordable housing for low-
income families that is undertaken in connection with a main
street revitalization or redevelopment project in such
communities.''.
(b) Grants for Assisting Affordable Housing Developed
Through Main Street Projects in Smaller Communities.--Section
24 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v)
is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (n) as subsection (o); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (m) the following new
subsection:
``(n) Grants for Assisting Affordable Housing Developed
Through Main Street Projects in Smaller Communities.--
``(1) Authority and use of grant amounts.--The Secretary
may make grants under this subsection to smaller communities.
Such grant amounts shall be used by smaller communities only
to provide assistance to carry out eligible affordable
housing activities under paragraph (4) in connection with an
eligible project under paragraph (2).
``(2) Eligible project.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `eligible project' means a project that--
``(A) the Secretary determines, under the criteria
established pursuant to paragraph (3), is a main street
project;
``(B) is carried out within the jurisdiction of smaller
community receiving the grant; and
``(C) involves the development of affordable housing that
is located in the commercial area that is the subject of the
project.
``(3) Main street projects.--The Secretary shall establish
requirements for a project to be consider a main street
project for purposes of this section, which shall require
that the project--
``(A) has as its purpose the revitalization or
redevelopment of a historic or traditional commercial area;
``(B) involves investment, or other participation, by the
government for, and private entities in, the community in
which the project is carried out; and
``(C) complies with such historic preservation guidelines
or principles as the Secretary shall identify to preserve
significant historic or traditional architectural and design
features in the structures or area involved in the project.
``(4) Eligible affordable housing activities.--For purposes
of this subsection, the activities described in subsection
(d)(1) shall be considered eligible affordable housing
activities, except that--
``(A) such activities shall be conducted with respect to
affordable housing rather than with respect to severely
distressed public housing projects; and
``(B) eligible affordable housing activities under this
subsection shall not include the activities described in
subparagraphs (B) through (E), (J), or (K) of subsection
(d)(1).
``(5) Maximum grant amount.--A grant under this subsection
for a fiscal year for a single smaller community may not
exceed $1,000,000.
``(6) Contribution requirement.--A smaller community
applying for a grant under this subsection shall be
considered an applicant for purposes of subsection (c)
(relating to contributions by applicants), except that--
``(A) such supplemental amounts shall be used only for
carrying out eligible affordable housing activities; and
``(B) paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) shall not apply to grants
under this subsection.
``(7) Applications and selection.--
``(A) Application.--Pursuant to subsection (e)(1), the
Secretary shall provide for smaller communities to apply for
grants under this subsection, except that the Secretary may
establish such separate or additional criteria for
applications for such grants as may be appropriate to carry
out this subsection.
``(B) Selection criteria.--The Secretary shall establish
selection criteria for the award of grants under this
subsection, which shall be based on the selection criteria
established pursuant to subsection (e)(2), with such changes
as may be appropriate to carry out the purposes of this
subsection.
``(8) Cost limits.--The cost limits established pursuant to
subsection (f) shall apply to eligible affordable housing
activities assisted with grant amounts under this subsection.
``(9) Inapplicability of other provisions.--The provisions
of subsections (g) (relating to disposition and replacement
of severely distressed public housing), and (h) (relating to
administration of grants by other entities), shall not apply
to grants under this subsection.
``(10) Reporting.--The Secretary shall require each smaller
community receiving a grant under this subsection to submit a
report regarding the use of all amounts provided under the
grant.
``(11) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the
following definitions shall apply:
``(A) Affordable housing.--The term `affordable housing'
means rental or homeownership dwelling units that--
``(i) are made available for initial occupancy to low-
income families, with a subset of units made available to
very- and extremely-low income families; and
``(ii) are subject to the same rules regarding occupant
contribution toward rent or purchase and terms of rental or
purchase as dwelling units in public housing projects
assisted with a grant under this section.
``(B) Smaller community.--The term `smaller community'
means a unit of general local government (as such term is
defined in section 102 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302)) that--
``(i) has a population of 50,000 or fewer; and
``(ii)(I) is not served by a public housing agency; or
``(II) is served by a single public housing agency, which
agency administers 100 or fewer public housing dwelling
units.''.
(c) Annual Report.--Section 24(l) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v(l)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``; and'' and inserting
``, including a specification of the amount and type of
assistance provided under subsection (n);'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) the types of projects funded, and number of
affordable housing dwelling units developed with, grants
under subsection (n); and''.
(d) Funding.--Section 24(m) of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v(m)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(3) Set-aside for main street housing grants.--Of the
amount appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) for any fiscal
year, the Secretary shall provide up to 5 percent for use
only for grants under subsection (n).''.
TITLE V--COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS
SEC. 501. FUNDING FOR INSULAR AREAS.
(a) Definition of Insular Areas.--Section 102(a) of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
5302(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(24) The term `insular area' means each of Guam, the
Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and American
Samoa.''.
(b) Definition of Unit of General Government.--The first
sentence of section 102(a)(1) of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``and'' after ``Secretary;''; and
(2) by striking ``; and the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands''.
(c) Statement of Activities and Review.--Section 104 of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
5304) is amended--
[[Page 32148]]
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) in the first sentence--
(i) by striking ``or'' after ``State,''; and
(ii) by inserting ``or under section 106(a)(3) by any
insular area,'' after ``government,''; and
(B) in the second sentence--
(i) by striking ``and in the case of'' and inserting a
comma; and
(ii) by inserting ``and insular areas receiving grants
pursuant to section 106(a)(3),'' after ``106(d)(2)(B),'';
(2) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ``section 106(b) or
section 106(d)(2)(B)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)(3),
(b), or (d)(2)(B) of section 106''; and
(3) in subsection (m)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``(a)(2),'' after
``under subsection''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``government--'' and
inserting ``government other than an insular area--''.
(d) Allocation and Distribution of Funds.--Section 106(a)
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5306(a)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``an appropriation Act'' and inserting
``appropriation Acts''; and
(B) by striking ``in any year'' and inserting ``for such
fiscal year'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``under paragraph (1)
and after reserving such amounts for insular areas under
paragraph (2)'' after ``tribes'';
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``paragraphs (1) and
(2)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)''
(4) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) (as so amended)
as paragraphs (3) and (4); and
(5) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) For each fiscal year, of the amount approved in
appropriation Acts under section 103 for grants for such
fiscal year (excluding the amounts provided for use in
accordance with section 107), the Secretary shall reserve for
grants to insular areas $7,000,000. The Secretary shall
provide for distribution of amounts under this paragraph to
insular areas on the basis of the ratio of the population of
each insular area to the population of all insular areas. In
determining the distribution of amounts to insular areas, the
Secretary may also include other statistical criteria as data
become available from the Bureau of the Census, but only if
such criteria are contained in a regulation promulgated by
the Secretary after notice and public comment.''.
(e) Conforming Amendment.--The first sentence of section
106(d)(1) of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 (42 U.S.C. 5306(d)(1)) is amended by striking
``paragraphs (1) and (2)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (1),
(2), and (3)''.
(f) Special Purpose Grants.--Section 107 of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5307) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by striking subparagraph (A); and
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (H) as
subparagraphs (A) through (G), respectively; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking paragraph (1); and
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (7) as
paragraphs (1) through (6), respectively.
(g) Regulations.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall issue regulations to carry out the
amendments made by this section, which shall take effect not
later than the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on
the date of the enactment of this Act.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on S. 811, the Senate bill just passed and include extraneous material
thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
____________________
FACTORS TO CONSIDER CONCERNING FOREIGN POLICY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) is recognized for
the balance of the time of approximately 30 minutes as the designee of
the majority leader.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, 26 months after 9/11 and 7 months after the
conclusion of major combat operations in Iraq, America is in a
strategic pickle and Americans are in a judgmental quandary. The issue
of our engagement in Iraq demands that we, as a society, probe the
question of the limits of the superpower's power and the possible
anomaly that there are severe liabilities to power, particularly for a
superpower. Does, for instance, overwhelming military might protect us
from terrorism or, if used unwisely, increase our vulnerability to
terrorism? Likewise, does overwhelming economic power ensure loyalty or
buy friendship from the countries most indebted to the United States?
In other words, can military and economic might ever become a
substitute for sensible and sensitive foreign policy? And given the
dilemma of Iraq, could it, indeed, be that the most important
``multibillion'' problem America faces is not deficits measured in
dollars, fiscal, or trade, but the antagonism of billions of people
around the world who object to our current foreign policy?
Here let me say that I strongly believe the need for clarification of
thought as it applies to policy, and anyone who wishes to review the
reasoning I have applied to the Iraq issue, ranging from a floor
explanation of a ``no'' vote on the congressional resolution
authorizing war last year to calls for internationalizing the civil
governance in Iraq several months ago, to a vote in favor of generosity
in reconstruction efforts several weeks ago, can find explanatory
statements on my congressional Web site.
What I would like to do today is summarize the dilemma we face and
make the following points about where we might go from here.
Point number one: there are no certitudes. Anyone who was not
conflicted on the original decision to intervene or who does not see a
downside to all courses of action today is not approaching the problem
with an open mind. In an era of anger, of divisions in the world based
on economics, on color of skin, on ethnicity, on religious belief, on
happenstance of family and place of birth; in a world made smaller by
technological revolutions in communications and transportation, those
who have causes, good or bad, have possibilities of being heard and
felt around the globe that never existed before. Great leaders like
Gandhi and Martin Luther King appealed to the higher angels of our
nature and achieved revolutionary change with nonviolence. Mendacious
leaders like Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden have sought to
impose their wills on others through appeals to hate and reliance on
increasingly wanton instruments of oppression.
As the world's only superpower, the U.S. has no choice but to display
firmness of purpose and resolve in deterring inhumane breaches of
order. Yet, firmness and resolve must be matched by compassionate
understanding of the reasons people of the world lash out. We have the
world's greatest Armed Forces. But these forces cannot successfully be
deployed to counter international misconduct if we do not also seek to
undercut the causes of such conduct.
Reviewing the causes of World War I, historians quickly concluded
that there was not enough flexibility in the European alliance system,
and that this rigidity allowed a rather minor event, the assassination
of an Austrian archduke, to precipitate a cataclysmic war. With this
example in mind, political leaders in the 1930s erred on the side of
irresolution, which led them to Munich and the partition of
Czechoslovakia. Too much inflexibility caused one war; too little spine
led to an even greater one.
The problem today is not whether we should meet problems with
firmness or compassion. We often need both. The problem is determining
whether and how to respond with firmness and when and how to express
compassion. As in all human conduct, the challenge is wisdom.
Point number two: we must listen as well as assert. Four decades ago,
the British author Lawrence Durrell wrote a series of novels called the
``Alexandria Quartet'' in which he describes a set of events in
Alexandria, Egypt preceding World War II. An experiment in the
relativity of human perception, each of the four books views the same
events through the eyes of a different character. While the events
described are the same in each book, the stories
[[Page 32149]]
as seen through the lens of each of the participants are surprisingly
different. The reader comes to the realization that a broad
understanding about events as they transpire can only be grasped by
synthesizing the different perceptions of various protagonists.
To understand the Middle East today, we need to listen to everyone's
story.
Point number three: to shape or to deter opponents' actions, we need
to understand how they think.
American policymakers, at their best, reason in a pragmatic, future-
oriented manner. In much of the rest of the world, on the other hand,
people reason by historical analogy. Events dating centuries back,
especially umbrages, dominate thinking about today. People in the
Middle East, as in the Balkans, are oriented to the past and are driven
by values and ideas of honor of a very different shape and emphasis
than those we derive from American culture. When we assume the Iraqi
populace should accept a prolonged American presence because of our
goodwill and desire to establish a Western-style democracy, Muslims see
our presence as compounding grievances originating in the Crusades and,
in some ways, even earlier Biblical times.
Point number four: no country can go it alone for long and expect to
be respected as an international leader.
Doctrines of American exceptionalism, the precept that we should not
be bound by legal or procedural norms that bind others, which are now
fashionable in certain Washington ideological circles, have led to
intervention in Iraq without full U.N. sanction. Ironically, prior to
9/11, these same notions led to rejection of a Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty and of upgraded verification provisions for the 1972 Biological
Weapons Convention, agreements that would have stood in the way of
weapons of mass destruction production in Iraq and provided a legal
basis for possible armed intervention if violations occurred. The world
is crying out for leadership in restraining weapons development. We are
not providing it because Washington policymakers prefer that restraint
on others not apply to ourselves.
Point number five: be cautious of articulating policy doctrines.
Given the events of 9/11, consideration of preemption must
continuously be on the table in Washington, but there is a distinction
between needing to consider an action and setting forth a definitive
doctrine. Here Teddy Roosevelt may have had the right adage: ``speak
softly and carry a big stick.'' Any American President, Democratic or
Republican, socialist, liberal, conservative, or libertarian, would not
think more than a millisecond before ordering the Marines to
intervention if he or she were presented information that on some
island, somewhere, a terrorist group had gotten control of a weapon of
mass destruction which it was prepared to explode or infilter in an
American city. The problem is that raising a commonsense concern to the
order of a doctrine legitimizes such a doctrine for others: China,
India, Russia, North Korea, for example, and undercuts the premises of
much of post-World War II international law.
Complicating the issue is the psychological assumption that once the
leader articulates a doctrine, especially one that bears his name, it
is difficult to advance a policy in a given circumstance which is not
consistent with the doctrine. Not to do so would provide critics a
chance to suggest that a doctrine like preemption is ethereal, lacking
meatiness ness, unless it is made real.
{time} 1915
Any leader who outlines such a doctrine but chooses not to intervene
would be open to charges of lightness or worse. Hence, the simple
articulation of a doctrine can have the effect of biasing decision-
making in complicated circumstances. The exception might be a doctrine
of quietude; statesmanship often should be measured by what is not,
rather than what is, said.
Point number six. When Washington policymakers speak on foreign
policy, they must understand that their audience is more than one
party's political base. While Saddam Hussein is widely perceived to be
the worst sort of tyrant, many people around the world view us as
bullies for attacking a sovereign country without prior armed
provocation. That is why it is so critical that a case for intervention
should be based in concern for the well-being of others as well as the
United States' national interest. For foreign policy to be effective,
it must be clearly articulated and convincing in those parts of the
world most affected by it.
Point number seven. We must rededicate ourselves to building up an
intelligence capacity that better understands the Middle East and
Islamic world and is less susceptible to being politicized. Our
inability to understand Islamic culture resulted in the greatest
intelligence failure of our era. It is, however, not the sole
intelligence failure. In one of the greatest judgmental errors of our
time, we appear to have attempted to combat the ideological posturing
of others by slanting our own intelligence. Based on what is known
today, policymakers not only erred in assessing Saddam Hussein's WMD
capacities but put too much faith in a narrow cadre of ideologues who
suggested that the U.S. would be welcomed as a liberating, rather than
conquering or worse yet, colonizing, force in Iraq. Estimates of the
cost of war, the ramifications of involvement, of the expected reaction
of the population, and of the likelihood of foreign support were dead
wrong.
Point number eight. It is the responsibility of public officials to
ensure that no American soldier is deployed as a defenseless magnet for
terrorist attack or in such a way as to incite foreign radicals to
commit terrorist acts in America itself. American soldiers have been
trained to withstand the heat of battle in defense of America and
American values. For 2\1/4\ centuries, no country has been more
effectively or more courageously served by a citizen soldiery than the
United States. In Iraq, our Armed Forces could not have performed more
professionally or valiantly than in the initial engagement.
But the difference between service in combat and service in
occupation of a foreign land, especially in Islamic society, is
profound. In Iraq, which is fast becoming for us much like Algeria was
for the French in 1950s, our men and women in uniform are increasingly
facing hit-and-run terrorist assaults, which are much more difficult to
defend against than traditional military confrontations. The challenge
of policymakers has recognized that there is a distinction between
three endeavors: warfare, reconstruction, and occupation. Our Armed
Forces are trained to prevail in the first, they can be helped on the
second, but in the Islamic world no outside power is ever going to be
well received as an occupying force. Hence, strategies that emphasize
the first two endeavors and do not lead to a long-term reliance on the
third should be the goal of the U.S. policymakers today.
Point number nine. Responses to terrorism often lead to escalating
action-reaction cycles. When our armed services become subject to
terrorist assault, and the perpetrators disappear into their
neighborhoods, we, like Israel, will inevitably be tempted to retaliate
in ways that may intensify, rather than restrain, future violence.
Calls will be made not only to use air power in urban areas but to
double or triple troop deployments perhaps without adequate assessments
of what such troops would be assigned to do. In conventional warfare,
the case for overwhelming superiority, sometimes referred to as the
Powell Doctrine, is compelling. In a terrorist setting, as in modernist
design, less can often be more. There may be cases where deploying a
large force to combat terrorism is appropriate, there may also be
cases, and I believe Iraq is one, where additional soldiers simply
become additional targets; and a different mix of strategies is both
preferable and more effective.
Point number ten. To defend against terrorism, especially when it is
fueled by an explosive mix of religious and national sentiment requires
frank acknowledgment of the nature and depth
[[Page 32150]]
of the problem. For months, the administration has suggested that the
problem in Iraq is limited to 5,000 dissidents. This is a five-digit
miscalculation. At least half the Muslim world, over 500 million
people, is outraged by the U.S. Government's attitudes and action.
Long-simmering resentment of American policies in Muslim countries like
Indonesia as in recent months metastasized into hatred. And in Europe,
including what the Defense Department refers to as the ``new Europe''
as well as in south and east Asia, respect for American policy is in
steep decline.
In the Vietnam War, we gave a great deal of attention to the notion
of winning the hearts and minds of the people. We did not succeed in
convincing the Vietnamese or world opinion of our good intentions
despite the horrendous tactics of the Viet Cong in the communist north.
Today, Americans must understand that in the battle for the minds of
men, particularly in the Muslim world, we are doing less well than even
the most difficult days of the Vietnam War.
In this context, we would be well advised to remember America's
original revolutionary commitment to decent respect for the monies of
mankind.
Point number eleven. While for the time being security in Iraq must
remain the responsibility of U.S. military commanders in the field, we
would be wise to put an international face on civil governance in the
country and ask Secretary General Kofi Annan to immediately appoint a
top civilian administrator to whom Ambassador Bremer and his staff
would report. Transfer of interim civil authority to the U.N. would
provide greater legitimacy to the formation of a new Iraqi government
and encourage other countries to help with economic reconstruction and
security requirements.
We should also work to transfer as soon as practicable responsibility
for internal security to troops of other nations of the Iraqis
themselves. Transferring the police function to others is a way to
build up Iraq's own postwar internal security infrastructure and make
evident that the U.S. does not desire long-term control.
Point number twelve. We should also move forthwith to transfer more
political control to the Iraqi Governing Council and press for
immediate elections and constitution-writing. Some argue that stability
is more likely to be achieved with a long-term U.S. occupation. I
believe the reverse is true. The longer we are in Iraq, the greater the
instability there and the greater the likelihood that terrorism will
spread to other countries, including the United States.
Point number thirteen. America cannot cut and run politically,
economically, or militarily; but we would be wise to announce a
timetable for troop withdrawal by the end of next year at the latest.
Some experts in and out of government believe that American troops
should stay in and control Iraq at least as long as we did in Japan and
Germany after World War II. Such a timetable, a minimum of 5 years, is
out of sync with the times and the mood of the Islamic world.
The world is more impatient today and Muslims in particular are more
history-sensitive than ever before. While we assume the Iraqi populace
accepts the American presence because of our goodwill, the Muslim world
sees our force as the compounding of grievances dating back to the
Crusades and more recently to the American support of Israel. The
imagery Al Jazeera projects of Baghdad is that of another West Bank. In
this context American commitments to ``slog on'' interminably play into
the hands of extremists. All extremists have to do is continue blowing
up a vehicle or two every day, thereby eliciting a military action that
we might view as reasonable but the Islamic world is likely to see as
heavy handed, angering the populace and emboldening further dissent.
The longer we stay, the greater the opportunity for al Qaeda and
radical Baath Party supporters to claim that the war is continuing and
that they are prevailing. To prevent this, and to keep control of
events, we would be wise to announce a withdrawal timetable that we,
not they, control. Setting such a timetable has the effect of asserting
that the war itself is over and we prevailed and that Iraqis cannot
dither in establishing a legitimate elected government.
A drawn out occupation plays into the hands of radicals. It gives
them a rallying cry to keep up resistance in Iraq and expand terrorist
assaults around the world. It gives them the chance to suggest that
America is bent on continuing the crusades and, when we eventually
withdraw, the prospect of claiming that they won the war. On the other
hand, if we set a firm schedule for drawing down our troops, we define
the war as being over in its 3rd week, not its 6th year. An announced
timetable can later be modified to allow, for instance, a small force
to remain briefly in northern Iraq to maintain sovereign cohesion.
Timetables can also be abbreviated. But the point is that they
underscore our reluctance to become an imperial power and, perhaps more
importantly, our determination to control our own destiny.
Point number fourteen. Beware of partisan critiques. Some partisans
are implying today ill motives in Presidential leadership and have
suggested that American actions are constitutionally frail. Such
criticisms miss the mark. This President is sincerely committed to his
national security responsibilities, and his policies have received
constitutional endorsement from the Congress. Other partisans are
taking what some might perceive as an oxymoronic, liberal, neohawk
perspective. They suggest the problem is the administration has not
committed sufficient troops and sufficient time to do what we want to
do in Iraq, whatever that might be.
The assumption is that Iraq will be a much better place if we
aggressively occupy the country for prolonged periods of time. This
assumption deserves review from two perspectives: the situation within
and the political environment outside Iraq. From the first, the
question has to be raised whether an occupying force has the effect of
an over-stayed house guest: understandable for a short period,
increasingly irritable with each passing day. In a domestic setting,
house guests can at some point be pointed to the door. In Iraq, many
have concluded that the only effective way of getting the uninvited to
leave is to submit young soldiers to terrorist strikes and their local
supporters to anarchist attacks.
A response to this dilemma cannot be developed in the simple
linguistic context of resolving to stay the course, particularly when
no clear course has been laid out. The language of intervention was
couched in terms of concern for weapons of mass destruction and the
need to retaliate against the forces that precipitated the events of 9/
11. Postmortem analysis of these rationalizations put our actions in a
questionable light. On the other hand, we must proceed from where we
are not, where we thought we would have been. Wisdom might indicate
that the emphasis be placed on, A, the humanitarian advantage to Iraqis
in the region of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; B, U.S. assistance
and rebuilding Iraq's social infrastructure and help in bringing the
country back into the mainstream of international politics and country;
and, C, the laying of the groundwork for new political institutions.
None of these three emphases necessitates 5 to 10 years of
occupation. Indeed, the longer we are there, the more likely a Saddam-
type demagogue, albeit probably less secular, will emerge. It is true
that the development of new civil institutions will take time, but it
is also the case that the U.S. role in shepherding their development
can be quickened. The judgment call we must make is whether U.S.
leadership for change should be swift or slow paced. My sense is that
swift actions are more likely to lead to Iraq-centric responsibility-
taking. The U.S. will inevitably be dissatisfied with postwar
circumstances in Iraq; but the longer the conflict continues, the more
unstable the aftermath. Iraq will become more splintered and the U.S.
more vulnerable to hateful reaction to others.
Another approach might be to indicate that we would expect to take
most of our troops from Iraq within 6
[[Page 32151]]
months of Saddam Hussein's capture or death. Such a pronouncement would
underscore that our problem is with his dictatorial regime, not with
the Iraqi people or their religious faith. It might also provide
incentive for the populace to help in apprehending their former head of
state.
Point number fifteen. It is critical to the security of our troops as
well as Iraqi security that we create an Iraqi police force as soon as
possible. Responsibility for domestic security is an internal, not
external, matter. We cannot be their policemen; and if we persist in
trying, we will make it harder for stability to be established and
maintained. Students of international politics have for the past
generation questioned the capacity and moral authority of any country
to be policemen for the world. But little academic attention has been
devoted to the challenge of being policemen within a country after the
conclusion of conflict. We have little experience with such
responsibility. In Japan, MacArthur relied on indigenous Japanese
police. In post-Hitler Germany, we quickly reconstituted a German
constabulary at most levels.
Common sense would indicate that trying to police a country the size
of France with soldiers unfamiliar with the language and culture of the
society, untrained in the art of policing and unwelcome and resented in
critical cities and towns must be a nearly impossible task.
{time} 1930
Hence, the need to expedite the training of an indigenous Iraqi
police force.
Point number sixteen. We should announce that we have no intention of
establishing permanent military bases in Iraq.
Some Washington policymakers want such bases but they would be a
political burden for any new government in Baghdad and a constant
struggle for the U.S. to defend. Defense of American bases in Iraq from
terrorism in the 21st Century is likely to be far more difficult than
the challenge we first saw of maintaining United State sovereignty over
the Panama Canal in the 20th Century.
The reason the Department of Defense concluded in the Carter
Administration that it was wise to transfer control over the Panama
Canal to the Panamanians was the estimation that the canal could be
defended against traditional aggression but not sabotage or acts of
terrorism. It seemed wiser to respect nationalist sentiment and provide
for gradual transfer of the canal to local control than to insist in
quasi-colonial assertions of power.
There are many reasons which Europeans are so smugly opposed to our
policy in Iraq. One is historic experience to colonialism. The French
were chased out of Algeria, the Russians, and earlier the British, out
of Afghanistan. U.S. intervention in Iraq is seen in Europe is not too
dissimilar to the British and French effort to reestablish control over
the Suez Canal in 1956. It is noteworthy that the Islamic world deeply
appreciated President Eisenhower's refusal to back the British and
French intervention in Egypt at that time.
Europeans now think the shoe is on the other foot. We appear
insensitive to history. In particular, those who call for multiyear
occupation based on the World War II model seem not to comprehend that
the Japanese understood that they attacked us and the Germans
understood that our intervention was precipitated by their aggression.
Iraqis, on the other hand, look at us as the aggressors, as imposers of
alien values. They feel our presence is only justified at their behest.
Of all forms of government, successful occupation depends on consent
of the governed. If it is lacking, problems are inevitable,
particularly when and if foreign presence is of a military nature.
Point number seventeen. Credit will remain the dominant economic
issue until Iraq's foreign debt is reduced or cancelled.
Neither significant private nor large-scale public credit will be
made available to Iraqis until the burden of old debt is lifted.
Accordingly, we should press vigorously for Saddam-era debt, which went
largely to build palaces for Saddam's family and to buy weapons of
aggression to be written off. We should also press to establish
community-centered banks and credit unions where micro-credit can be
offered.
Oil wealth has its advantages only if revenues are used for the
benefit of society rather than political insiders. Increasing petroleum
production is not enough. Oil is not a labor-intensive industry. Jobs
matter and Iraq needs bankers and small business entrepreneurs far more
than oil barrens. We have no choice except to help rebuild Iraq's oil
infrastructure, but we must make clear that we have no intention of
controlling the country's oil reserves. The natural resource of Iraq
must be treated as the patrimony of the Iraqi people.
Point number eighteen: Economic assistance to Iraq should be front-
loaded and generous.
War has been a constant of history, but the concept of reconstruction
is relatively new. The 20th century gave us two vastly different
models. At the end of World War I, the victors imposed retributive
terms on Germany, which so angered German society that it turned to
fascism. World War II was the result.
The allies took a different approach at the end of World War II.
Generosity was the watchword. The Marshall Plan was adopted to rebuild
Europe and General MacArthur directed the reform and modernization of
Japan. Model democracies emerged. The world was made more secure.
The economic plan for Iraq should be two-prong, debt forgiveness
coupled with institution building. A better world is more likely to
emerge if the American agenda places its emphasis on construction
rather than destruction.
Here a note about the other reconstruction model in American history
is relevant. With his call for malice toward none in his second
inaugural address, Lincoln set the most conciliatory tone in the
history of war. His successor once removed, U.S. Grant, proved to be a
more proficient soldier than President and countenanced carpetbagging
conflicts of interest.
Our government today would be well-advised to recognize that neither
history, nor the American public, approves of war or postwar
profiteering. Great care has to be taken to ensure transparency and
integrity in government contracts. And common sense would indicate that
the more Iraqis are involved in rebuilding their own society, the more
lasting such efforts are likely would be to be.
Point number nineteen: Terrorism effects world economics as well as
politics.
Markets depend on confidence and nothing undercuts confidence more
than anarchist acts. Policies designed to deter terrorism can be
counterproductive. International disapproval of our actions may
jeopardize our economy and diminish the credibility of our political
leadership in the world. Increased terrorism could well have the dual
effect of precipitating new U.S. military engagements and, ironically,
strengthening isolationist sentiment which in turn could degenerate
into a disastrous spiral of protectionism.
Point number twenty: The measure of success in reconstruction is not
the sum of accomplishments.
During the Viet Nam War, the Pentagon gave progress reports mainly in
terms of body counts. One of the most liberal critics of that war, I.F.
Stone, once commented that he accepted the validity of the body counts,
but thought that they did not reveal the big picture.
Suppose, Stone suggested, he was walking down a street and he bumped
into a man running out of a bank, waving a gun and carrying a satchel
full of money and were to ask the man, ``What are you doing?'' If the
man responded, ``I am waiting for a car,'' he would be telling the
truth but not revealing the big picture.
Good things are being accomplished in Iraq, particularly in the north
where an American General has won a measure of popularity through
progressive stabilization initiatives. Yet, terrorism cannot credibly
be contained in the
[[Page 32152]]
arms-infested Iraqi environment. American civilians, as well as Armed
Services personnel who have been posted to Iraq, deserve to be
commended for their commitment and sacrifices, but prudence suggests
that brevity of service is preferable to a long-standing presence.
Otherwise, in a world where terrorism is a growth industry, even
extraordinary sacrifice and significant accomplishments could be for
naught.
Point number twenty-one: We must respect Iraqi culture and work to
ensure that the art and artifacts of this cradle of civilization are
preserved for the Iraqi people.
There are few umbrages more long-lasting than cultural theft.
Cultural looting must be stopped, and the market for stolen antiquities
squelched. For our part, we should ensure that Iraqi cultural sites are
protected and that our laws are upgraded. Any stolen antiquities
brought to America must be returned.
Point number twenty-two: The war in Iraq should not cause us to
forget Afghanistan.
While the center of our military attention may at the moment be
Bagdad, we must remember that no Iraqi was involved in hijacking the
planes that struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11.
Few countries are more distant physically or culturally from the
United States than Afghanistan; yet, it is there the plotting for the
terrorist acts began. The Taliban have been removed and a new, more
tolerant government has been established; but the world community has
not fulfilled its commitments to raise the country out of poverty and
warlordism. The U.S. cannot continue to be complacent about economic
and social development in that country, where foreigners have never
been welcome. Failure of the Karzai government and a return of the
Taliban would be a major setback in the battle with terrorism.
Point number twemty-three: Lastly and most importantly, U.S.
policymakers should never lose sight of the fact that events in Israel
and Iraq are intertwined and that no challenge is more important for
regional and global security than resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian
dilemma.
Extraordinarily, from a priority perspective, administration after
administration in Washington seems to pay only intermittent attention
to the Palestinian issue. There should be no higher priority in our
foreign policy than a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Attention in Washington should be riveted at all times on this singular
problem. The current status quo is good neither for Israel nor for the
Palestinians. Now, for the first time lack of progress in establishing
a mutually acceptable modus vivendi between the parties may be even
more damaging to countries not directly involved in the conflict. The
need for U.S. leadership in pressing for peace has never been more
urgent. It would be a tragedy if, focused as we are upon making war in
one part of the Middle East, we neglected to give sufficient prority to
promoting peace in another.
In conclusion, the world is noting that we are saying and what we are
doing. Many are not convinced by our words; many are appalled by our
actions. Yet nothing would be worse for the world than for us to fail.
We must not. The key at this point is to recognize the limits as well
as magnitude of our power and emphasize the most uplifting aspects of
our heritage: democracy, opportunity, freedom of thought and worship.
Motives matter; so do techniques to advance our values. The lesson of
the past year is clear: America does better as a mediator and multi-
party peace maker than as a unilateral interventionist.
____________________
IRAQ WATCH
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Renzi). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Delahunt) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority
leader.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am here, and I anticipate being joined
by several Members, to discuss the issues that the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Leach) was discussing, the gentleman, who commands great respect
in this body and one who clearly possesses a profound knowledge of
international relationships, and at the same time provides a
perspective and an analysis that should be instructive and informative
to all Americans. I think he had 23 points. I do not know whether he
has any additional points he wishes to make, but if he does, I would be
happy to yield to him.
It would appear that he does not. But again, let me acknowledge his
contribution to the debate.
Myself and my colleagues for some weeks now, I think, on more than 20
occasions during the course of the time that is reserved after
legislative business is concluded, the so-called ``special orders''
time, have come to the floor and we have labeled this particular
initiative, the Iraq Watch. And, hopefully, we have had among us a
conversation that has been both informative for the audience, as well
as educational for the Members of the House in terms of this issue
that, clearly, has a huge impact on the American people, both in terms
of lives and the safety of our military personnel in Iraq, but also
clearly in terms of our economy.
It is ironic that it was the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) as I
said, a very respected member of the Republican Party, who just left
the floor, who spoke I believe so eloquently, and I daresay that I
share many of the concerns and would agree with much of what he said.
But having said that, recently in his home State, Iowa, there was an
advertisement on behalf of the Bush Presidential Campaign; and I
understand it was paid for by the Republican National Committee. It was
titled ``Reality'' and it was a 30-second clip. There were some
comments by the President, and I understand there were some snippets of
speeches that the President had made regarding Iraq specifically and
presumably the war on terrorists.
There was also an announcer, a voice overlay, if you will, not an
individual who appeared on the ad, but someone who would comment after
the snippet of the President was viewed by the audience. And what the
announcer said caused me to be disturbed, because the announcer said,
and I am quoting from that snippet, ``Some now are attacking the
President for attacking the terrorists.''
The announcer then went on to say that, ``Some called for us to
retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others.'' And
then the announcer instructed, ``Call Congress now.''
I am confused, because during the entire debate, not just regarding
Iraq, not just regarding Afghanistan, but all of the debate subsequent
to September 11, I never heard from a single Member on either side of
the aisle that we should retreat and put our national security in the
hands of others.
{time} 1945
That simply was untrue. That ad was not misleading; it was an
untruth.
Now, have many of us questioned the policy regarding Iraq, regarding
the war on terror? Well, yes. An unequivocal yes. And as I said,
ironically, we heard this earlier this evening from the preceding
speaker, a well-regarded, well-respected, thoughtful member of the
House Committee on International Relations who happens to be a
subcommittee chair and one who voted against the resolution authorizing
military intervention in Iraq. He certainly is not calling for any
retreat, and neither am I, and neither is any Democrat.
But, again, I know many of us on both sides of the aisle, Republicans
and Democrats, are concerned about the competence and what we see as a
policy that is failing, which will translate not into a retreat but a
defeat in terms of the war on terror. I understand that that particular
30-second ad is no longer running. Well, that is good. The questions
that are being posed to the President and to his administration are not
just coming from Democrats. The displeasure, the disappointment, the
criticism, the concern is not coming from Democrats. It is a view that
is shared by many.
Now, many Americans, clearly many in this Chamber, remember the
former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Newt Gingrich. And
clearly many Americans are familiar with the junior Senator from New
York, the former First Lady, the wife of the former President, Bill
Clinton. And all
[[Page 32153]]
of us know that it would be a rare moment where they would agree on
anything. Well, they happen to agree on the policy of this
administration when it comes to Iraq, because yesterday it was the
former House Speaker on a Sunday TV magazine program who stated that
the Bush administration has gone, and I am quoting Newt Gingrich, ``Off
the cliff in postwar Iraq, and the White House has to get a grip on
this.''
These are not my words; these are the words of the former Speaker of
the House, the former leader of the Republican Party in this House, Mr.
Newt Gingrich, that often sat, Mr. Speaker, in the same chair that you
are now sitting in presiding over this House. Well, on this particular
occasion, Senator Clinton said she agreed with Mr. Gingrich. She blamed
the administration for miscalculating and inept planning in Iraq.
But those two are not alone.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to my good friend and a member of the Iraq
Watch, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, the difficulty here, as the gentleman
has outlined, is that we are now engaged in what can only be described
as political hate speech. This is not an unusual circumstance, I am
sorry to say, in this day and age.
I have had occasion to pick up a centennial edition, I believe is the
designation, by the original publishers of George Orwell's ``1984.'' A
new introduction by Thomas Pinchon. My colleague may recall in
``1984,'' in Orwell's conception of what was taking place, there is a
whole new conception of what speech would consist of and what the
language would be. Ignorance is strength, slavery is freedom, hatred is
love. Everything becomes its own contradiction, its exact opposite. The
confusion is there.
Let us read exactly what the advertisement said. We are now
conducting political policy by virtue of advertising when issues of war
and peace are concerned. Let me quote it directly: ``Some are now
attacking the President for attacking the terrorists.'' Who? Some. Who?
I suppose it is possible, if you look far enough and long enough and
deep enough, you can find somebody, somewhere, not necessarily even
within the boundaries of the United States, if we are talking about
some, who would be attacking the President for attacking the
terrorists. But I do not think that those of us who are taking this
issue seriously and trying to engage in a dialogue on this issue can
find anyone of a serious bent in the House, any of our colleagues, to
come down and name anyone.
Mr. DELAHUNT. From either the Republican side or the Democratic side.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That goes without saying. Here on the floor of the
House of Representatives, anyone, find anyone, who would be able to
corroborate such an accusation.
In fact, if one takes into account, and I am looking here at an
article in the Wall Street Journal, in an opinion article, ``Politics
and People,'' Albert Hunt, ``What Might Have Been,'' and it concerns
our good friend and my good friend and fellow Hawaiian, General Eric
Shinseki, former Chief of the Army, who, as you know, was vilified by
people in the administration.
Mr. DELAHUNT. And, Mr. Speaker, who happened to be a decorated hero,
a military hero; someone who fought for his country with great bravery
and valor. That is the kind of individual that my colleague is talking
about.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I am not only talking about General Shinseki as a
decorated war hero but as someone who came through the ranks to become
chief of the Army, and who, in response to a congressional inquiry,
gave answers, as a soldier should to those who are in charge of the
country by constitution, gave answers with respect to what would be
required in Iraq should an attack take place in order to avoid
encouraging and in fact perhaps even seeing a situation take place in
which terrorism would expand, rather than be contracted or defeated.
What General Shinseki indicated was that we were not engaged in a
serious ``troops to task analysis.''
That is what this is about. This is not about attacking the President
about his opposition to terrorism; it is whether or not his political
policies have resulted in military activity which is in fact not only
succeeding but increasing the terrorism that exists in the world.
Mr. DELAHUNT. And, Mr. Speaker, the best evidence of that are the
recent attacks both in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, one of our erstwhile
allies in the region, who has been supportive of the United States in
the war on terror, who has been supportive of our natural ally in the
State of Israel. And what we are beginning to see is the spread of
terrorism far from just Iraq, but everywhere around the world.
However, others, again from both parties, have articulated a
criticism. Chuck Hagel, another veteran, someone who has experienced
combat in Vietnam, a highly regarded, well-respected Senator, made this
statement back in September, again on a national TV program. In
response to the question, ``Did the administration miscalculate the
difficulty of this war?,'' this is what Senator Hagel said: ``Yes, they
did miscalculate it. I think they did a miserable job of planning for a
post-Saddam Iraq. They treated most in the Congress like a nuisance
when we asked questions.''
Well, I think it is incumbent upon the President of the United States
to respond to the questions that the people's representatives in both
branches of Congress pose, because it is the people of the United
States that are losing their sons and daughters in Iraq. To date we
have already appropriated in excess of $165 billion that will be paid
for by future generations. And what do we see? We see a deteriorating
situation.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr.
Speaker, we are spending not $87 billion, but as the gentleman
indicated, upwards of $160 billion just in excess appropriations, or
rather in additional supplemental appropriations vis-a-vis Iraq. Yet,
when we bring home troops for rest and recreation purposes, they are
taken to only three cities, and then they are on their own and they pay
their own bills. That has not been changed.
I believe the figure is $55 million approximately that the Congress
has put forward for transportation in the area of recreation purposes.
It is not going to be enough. We are not even prepared at this stage to
have orderly transitions in terms of rest and recreation periods, let
alone what will now take place with the transfer of troops.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I am aware of the gentleman's expertise in terms of
issues involving national security. I do not know whether the gentleman
had an opportunity to read just recently the fact that we are now, for
the next 6 months, under the benchmark in terms of readiness as far as
our Army is concerned. And yet we have members of the administration,
an Under Secretary of State and others, such as Richard Perle, who is
the former chair of the Defense Policy Board, insinuating that if Syria
does not get its act together, they might be the next one subject to a
military intervention by the United States.
But having said that, I just want to go again back so that those who
are listening are aware that that ad attacking Congress, and presumably
Democrats, is just simply untrue.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will yield for a moment on his
latter point, I was looking through my notes for a moment, and the
gentleman indicated Mr. Perle. Would this be the same Mr. Perle,
quoting from the Financial Times of December 4, that ``the Boeing
Corporation has taken a $20 million stake in an investment fund run by
Richard Perle, a top Pentagon adviser, underlining the close links it
has built to Washington's defense establishment. Boeing said it made
the investment in Trireme Partners last year as part of a broad
strategy to invest in companies with promising defense-related
technologies.'' The Financial Times adds, ``Boeing said it had no
knowledge that Mr. Perle had advised the company on a controversial
[[Page 32154]]
$18 billion deal to lease refueling aircraft tankers to the U.S. Air
Force or other Pentagon related matters.''
Mr. DELAHUNT. This is the same Richard Perle, my friend, who was the
former chair but then resigned because of concerns about conflict of
interest.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. As a defense adviser to the Secretary of Defense.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Who, in many respects, was the single most ardent
supporter of a leading member of the Iraqi Governing Council, whose
name is Ahmed Chalabi. And I do not know how this happened, but he was
appointed by the administration to the Iraqi Governing Council without
any consultation with another of our allies in the region, the
Government of Jordan.
So, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the gentleman is aware of this, but
I daresay many who might be watching this are unaware of it, but Mr.
Chalabi was convicted in Jordan for embezzlement in the amount of
hundreds of millions of dollars.
{time} 2000
He was sentenced in absentia, and received a sentence of 22 years. He
is a convicted felon. Again, I do not want to get into issues that I
think we both agree do not really go to the heart of our policy but
reflect the failures of the management of the so-called war against
terror.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, the
reason this has relevance is because these are the people who are
formulating the policy. These are the people who are making the case
for the foundations of the political policy that we find our troops
having to bear the brunt of. That is the whole point here. The question
is not whether we are against terror, the question is not whether there
is support for the troops, the question is do we have a political
policy that is worthy of their sacrifice.
Mr. DELAHUNT. The question is, I dare say, who is in charge? For me,
it was an interesting Sunday morning when I listened to the chairman of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar, again another
highly-respected Republican with considerable experience in terms of
foreign relations, along with the senior Democrat on the committee,
Senator Joe Biden. When Senator Biden made the statement that the
President should take charge, and Tim Russet, who happened to be the
moderator, asked whether that was good and necessary advice, Senator
Lugar, the Republican Senator from the State of Indiana who chairs the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee said yes, it is, it is very
necessary. I concur with my colleague, the President has to be the
President, that means the President over the Vice President and other
Secretaries. Lugar had just had enough of the administration's divided
voices, especially the Vice President's which he described, when
referring to the Vice President, ``very, very tough and strident.''
To put out an ad in Iowa during a Presidential Campaign suggesting it
was either the Democrats or Congress that wanted to retreat on the war
on terror, no, that is not the case. None of us want to retreat, we
want to win, we do not want to lose, and we are looking at defeat right
now.
Many that are watching here tonight clearly are familiar with Senator
McCain who served this country heroically and courageously in Vietnam
as a pilot, who served for many years as a prisoner of war, and he
criticized, as reported in USA Today, just about a month ago, McCain
criticized the Bush Administration conduct of the Iraq war yesterday,
saying the U.S. should send at least 15,000 more troops, or risk the
most significant global defeat on the world stage since Vietnam. McCain
said Bush must be more involved in Iraqi decisionmaking and not be
influenced by the upcoming Presidential campaign. McCain also
challenged the Rumsfeld assertion that the 132,000 American troops in
Iraq can defeat the insurgency in the country. This is again Senator
McCain's words, ``The simple truth is we do not have sufficient forces
in Iraq to meet our military objectives.''
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Renzi). The Chair would remind all
Members to refrain from quoting the Senate, including quotations of
individual Senators.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, clearly this advertisement to which we
are referring in which the phrase ``some are now attacking the
President for attacking the terrorists,'' is meant to reestablish a
link between Iraq, the attack in Iraq and 9/11. That is to say, there
has been a constant drum-beat attempt by those who advocated this war
in Iraq that this was somehow an extension or expansion or movement
toward a more direct attack on terrorism, whereas no link has been
established between the attack on the Trade Towers and the plane
crashing in Pennsylvania, no link has been established between that and
this attack on Iraq.
To the contrary, there is more than ample evidence to indicate that
there were policymakers around the President who wanted to have this
attack on Iraq well before 9/11, and 9/11 became the excuse for them to
bring this back up, move it into the forefront and, in fact, displace
the war on terror, the response to the attack on terror.
That is, in fact, not just what was implied in this ad, but this is
clearly an attempt on a political basis to try to reestablish that in
the minds of Americans across the Nation so that this becomes a defense
of this failed policy in Iraq.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, let us remember for a moment this it was
practically a unanimous vote with one exception, over 400 Members of
this House voted to support, the gentleman and I included, to support
the intervention in Afghanistan because, clearly, there was a haven for
the terrorists there. There were al Qaeda camps there. There was al
Qaeda training there. But now let us stop for a moment and examine what
has happened in Afghanistan. What has happened in Afghanistan, if this
administration is really serious about the war on terror, we are facing
a crisis in Afghanistan. They have the responsibility.
I do not know if the gentleman is aware, but after the overwhelming
victory by the military in Afghanistan, in the 2003 budget the dollars
that were appropriated or recommended by the administration for
reconstruction and support for Afghanistan amounted to nothing, not a
single dollar.
Fortunately, this House and this Senate appropriated some $800
million. But stop for a moment and realize that those that attacked the
United States on 9/11, al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, those terrorists that
were clearly posing an imminent and direct threat to Americans
everywhere, and still do, are multiplying like fishes and loaves, were
headquartered in Afghanistan and protected by the Taliban regime. It
has been 2 years, and what is happening in Afghanistan?
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think
we see in the dialogue that has taken place between Secretary Powell
and our NATO allies, the answer to that question. The NATO allies are
not going to increase to the degree they have any troops there at all,
and they do have some in insignificant numbers. The Italians, for
example, have police officers, and so on, but insignificant numbers.
They are reluctant at best, if not outright hostile, toward the idea of
increasing their presence in Iraq for a simple reason, it is the NATO
forces in Afghanistan that are bearing the brunt of trying to deal with
the continuing battle that is going on there against terrorism. That
war on terror was not won in Afghanistan, it is ongoing. It is ongoing
as we speak. We do not have sufficient forces, let alone intelligence
there, right now.
The gentleman may know we now have to deal with the horrifying
consequences and stories that will be going around based on what
happened in Afghanistan within the last 36 hours where nine children
were killed in an attempt to try to take a presumed militant, whatever
the word is these days that is attached to anybody that we can presume
to be an enemy.
We do not have sufficient forces, we do not have sufficient assets,
we do not have sufficient concentration of intelligence efforts in
Afghanistan right now because we are diverted in Iraq.
Mr. DELAHUNT. And the American people should know that the Taliban
[[Page 32155]]
and al Qaeda are experiencing a resurgence in the border area of
Afghanistan with Pakistan. They are coming back. We are on the verge of
losing the war against terror. We are not retreating, but we are
finding ourselves on the verge of losing.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, this is precisely the point that we are
trying to make, and have been trying to make here in Iraq Watch, over
and over again. By engaging as we are in Iraq right now, we are
actually undermining our capacity to confront terror, whether in its
most physically manifest form in Afghanistan or in the recruitment and
the propaganda that is now sweeping the Islamic world with regard to
whether or not America is now an enemy that must be fought at all
costs. We are increasing the number of people who can succumb to that
kind of message because of what we are doing in Iraq and what we are
not doing in Afghanistan.
Mr. DELAHUNT. And yet months ago the White House was attempting to
call Afghanistan a success stories; but they failed to commit the
necessary resources, and now we have a chaotic and increasingly
dangerous country where violence is the norm, where the Taliban is
returning, and one can only see that we are on the verge of repeating
the same mistake in Iraq. Can Members just imagine in terms of the
prestige and the influence of the United States, not just in that
region but all over the Muslim world, as well as the entire globe, what
would happen in terms of the erosion of our stature.
There was a very good analytical piece done by a columnist by the
name of Jake Kaplan, and I want to quote what he said 4 or 5 months
ago. ``As we reconsider reconstruction plans in Iraq and the
administration promises to democratize the country, it is worth taking
a look at our liberalization of Afghanistan. A year later, many of the
atrocities we thought would stop still continue, and even Bush's allies
in the Senate on Afghanistan think we have undercommitted to efforts
that could truly change that country for the better. 'Afghanistan's
experience does not bode very well for the upcoming one,' said Steven
Burke of the Center for International Conflict Resolution, who just
returned from 16 days in Afghanistan in early March. It is a country
that needs attention and commitment, but there is an inclination to
withdraw.''
And there is an ad that says that Congress is retreating? Who are
these people that are retreating from the war on terror? And yet no
dollars in the 2003 budget submitted by the administration were
incorporated into that budget for Afghanistan, and that ad runs? That
is more than an untruth.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, we may not be financing what is
necessary for either troop movements or political stability in
Afghanistan, but I can assure the gentleman, I am sorry to say that
financing is nonetheless taking place in Afghanistan except it is going
to be for terror.
{time} 2015
We now have more poppies being grown, more heroin being processed,
and more trading in heroin than ever before in the history of
Afghanistan, than ever before in the history of any nation on the face
of the Earth. I should say any region on the face of the Earth, because
clearly Afghanistan does not rate the name of nation now in terms of
commerce and stability and political equilibrium that we associate with
the term. The only thing that is stable, the only thing that is
growing, the only thing that is expanding, the only thing that is a
sure thing in Afghanistan is there is more heroin being traded for more
money that is going to find its way into the pockets of those who are
financing terrorism.
Mr. DELAHUNT. And come to the streets and the communities and the
neighborhoods in this country. There is one statistic the gentleman
might be interested in. Since our intervention 2 years ago in
Afghanistan, opium production has increased 19-fold and become the
major source of the world's heroin. Who is retreating? I want to win,
and I know you want to win. That opium production will fuel terrorism.
By the way, President Karzai, whom I believe is a man of great courage,
it is well known among all the international observers and participants
in the efforts to assist Afghanistan that he cannot leave Kabul for
fear of being assassinated. His brother, who represents the government
in southern Kandahar, which is a province in Afghanistan, was very
blunt to a reporter. He said recently, ``It's like I am seeing the same
movie twice and no one is trying to fix the problem. What was promised
to Afghans with the collapse of the Taliban was a new life of hope and
change. But what was delivered? Nothing. There have been no significant
changes for the people.'' Hamid Karzai says he does not know what to
say to people anymore. And who is retreating? Who is allowing terrorism
to experience a renaissance, if you will, in Afghanistan, after the
promises were made by this administration?
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will yield, I think the answer is
very, very clear. All of our assets, human and otherwise, are being
concentrated in Iraq, or that area of the world which purports to be
Iraq. As the gentleman knows, Iraq is a construct of the post-World War
I colonial powers, particularly Great Britain and France. And so even
the idea that there is a political construct there that can be referred
to for elections or anything else is little more than fiction to begin
with. The plain fact of the matter is that we cannot move forward in
Afghanistan because the assets that are needed there, particularly
financial, are being wasted right now in Iraq.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Again, I do not want those that might be watching us
this evening having this conversation to think that simply because you
and I are Democrats that there are not concerns that have been
expressed by Members in the majority party. There was an article that
appeared in a magazine that circulates here in Washington particularly
among Members and those that work on Capitol Hill. This is back several
weeks ago in Roll Call. The article is entitled, ``As Supplemental
Heads to Conference, Members Warn of Cautionary Tale in Afghanistan.''
Members are using the war-torn nation as an example of what not to do
in Iraq. ``Remember, Afghanistan was the haven for Osama bin Laden and
al Qaeda,'' I am quoting now from Representative Jim Kolbe, chair of
the Appropriations Committee in this body on foreign relations. He said
there has been some neglect of it. He was referring to the 2-year U.S.
effort to rebuild Afghanistan after toppling its repressive and
terrorist-shielding Taliban government.
Representative Lewis, our colleague from California who chairs the
appropriations subcommittee on defense, said, ``One really does need to
understand the challenges we face in Iraq. We should not leave vacuums
like we did in Afghanistan. A failed state there could be an incubator
for terrorism again but the resources have not always followed the
policy.'' Again, there is Senator Lugar.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will yield, I will tell you where
we do have a visible presence, where we do meet the criteria that is
stated and enunciated by Representative Lewis and the good Senator. We
now have barbed wire villages. Those images are going all around the
world as we speak. We are now creating our own areas of concentration
camps and villages complete with identification cards that have to be
shown to American soldiers so that people, and I say people, I am
talking women, children, men, entire villages now are being processed
through barbed wire into their own villages.
Mr. DELAHUNT. It is called winning the hearts and minds of the
people, I presume.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The parallel, and I am not one to draw analogies to
Vietnam because I think most of those kinds of comparisons tend to be
inexact and then you end up in useless kinds of arguments as to
exactitude, but the parallels are there. You may recall the rather
infamous phrase associated with our pacification policy in Vietnam. We
had to destroy the village in order to save it. Now in order to
stabilize Iraq, we have to take barbed wire
[[Page 32156]]
and surround whole villages with it. So I think the question here is,
at this stage, what is to be done? How are we to regard the war on
terror and what the relationship of the attack on Baghdad and the
subsequent war which followed it, how is that to be handled? How is
that to be addressed by the United States?
We are told, and again these cliches and bromides come fast and
furious, that we should not cut and run. I am going to have to presume,
I guess, that I know what cutting and running means. It means that you
stop doing what you are doing and you leave. I do not know whether
anybody noticed it or not, I certainly noticed, about November 15, that
is precisely what Mr. Bush and Mr. Bremer concluded, that the United
States was going to cut and run. That is what we are doing right now.
The problem is that we are not admitting that that is what we are doing
and we are sacrificing the Reserves and the Guard and the active duty
military that is there now and that which will be going there to this
continued failed policy without admitting what we are doing.
We are turning over supposedly conveniently, just before the election
in 2004, turning over, supposedly, the present occupation to a
government in Iraq. If that is not cutting and running, I do not know
what is. Are we going to turn over control, such as it might be, to
some governing entity in Iraq, or are we not? And if we are, what
constitutes that governing entity, this farce of an advisory group that
we have there? Shiite clerics? The ill-equipped and untrained police
forces that we have cobbled together? Or perhaps we are going to turn
it over to this new paramilitary army made up of armed members of
various political parties in Iraq. A paramilitary force.
And we have the gall to turn to the American people and say, ``Well,
they are preparing to defend themselves.'' They are preparing to cut
each other's throats. They are preparing to fight one another, not just
politically but with guns and bullets. The fact of the matter is that
there is utter and complete political chaos in Iraq that is not being
addressed by existing military policy of the United States.
Mr. DELAHUNT. And they made the same, and continue to make the same,
mistake in Afghanistan. After more than 18 months now, only about 7,000
troops have completed training under British and French and American
officers. That program has been delayed by desertions and political
interference from Afghan warlords. At this point in time, it was
estimated there would be 50 or 60,000 in the Afghan police and in the
Afghan military. And they expect that they are going to have in June a
national election. If they have a national election, one can only
imagine the magnitude of violence that will occur.
We are losing the war on terror, Mr. President. We are not
retreating. What we are imploring you to do is to consult with
Congress. Do not consider Congress as a nuisance. Listen to the Jim
Leaches, to the Chuck Hagels, to the John McCains, and to others that
have valuable insights in terms of what war is truly about and, most
importantly, how to make peace and protect the Americans and our
national security interests, and tell the RNC to take that ad off,
because it is a lie. It is not just an untruth.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will yield, I will tell you what we
are going to have to do in the meantime, then, to try and protect those
troops that are already there and to try and find an exit strategy
worthy of the name that can allow us the opportunity to turn over some
kind of political capacity in Iraq. There is a bill going forward that
hopefully will be signed on a bipartisan basis to increase the end
strength of the armed services, the Army and Marines in particular, and
I am afraid now we are going to have to include the Air Force. At one
point I think if we had handled this, we would not have had to add the
Air Force. Since 1995, I for one and others on the Committee on Armed
Services and other interested parties have been urging, so this goes
beyond the present administration.
We are not trying to draw distinctions there. Since 1995, some of us
have been urging an increase in the end strength. That is an inside
baseball term in the Committee on Armed Services for increasing the
number of troops in the Army and in the Marine Corps, because we could
see the kinds of deployments that were taking place, whether it was in
Kosovo, whether it was in Bosnia, in other words, in Eastern Europe,
whether it was in the Philippines. No matter where it was and no matter
what the reasons may have been, no matter how one felt about it one way
or the other, the plain fact of the matter is that there was sufficient
support to warrant these deployments, and we did not have the troop
strength available to do it. We do not yet have a reinstitution of the
draft.
When people talk about the war on terrorism, most people are watching
it on television. We are depending on a volunteer force to do that.
What sacrifices have we made? Some inconvenience in an airport?
Somebody running, as they did for me yesterday when I flew here,
running their wands over your shoes? Having you hold your arms out so
that they can check your watch? Examining your baggage? What kind of
sacrifice is that? At most it is an inconvenience.
The only sacrifice that we have made as a population since 9/11 is we
postponed the Super Bowl one week. An inconvenience. That is the only
sacrifice that has been made. This is being watched on television. This
is being observed. We get the little tear in the eye and we get the
flag being waved around those who are in Walter Reed or in Bethesda
Hospital right now with grievous wounds. The sacrifice of the troops is
not the point here. It is the sacrifice of those troops on a
battlefield of corrupt political policy unworthy of the troops that are
out there. And I tell you this, we cannot sustain with the existing
Guard and Reserves that we have in this country the continual
deployment into Iraq and still meet the necessities that we have
outlined with respect to Afghanistan. That does not even begin to
include questions about North Korea or any other place that United
States troops may or may not be needed in the future as a result of
some activity, other kinds of terrorist activity in other places around
the world. We are not prepared. We are not able to engage in
deployments with respect to terror in the rest of the world because of
the failure of our policies in Iraq and our failure to understand the
true nature of what was necessary in Afghanistan.
{time} 2030
Mr. DELAHUNT. What is refreshing is within the past 2 or 3 weeks
there has been some candor on the part of representatives of the
administration. In a recent story in the Washington Post back on
November 19, the new U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan made this
acknowledgment: He gave the administration's bleakest assessment yet of
security conditions in Afghanistan, saying that a regrouping of the
Taliban and al Qaeda, increased drug trafficking, and even common
criminals are hampering Karsai in the transition to democracy. Taliban
rebels have dramatically stepped up operations in recent months, and
Khalilzad, who is our Ambassador, said, ``Common criminals and al Qaeda
followers are increasingly active.''
Just be honest with the American people. Do not talk about Congress
not supporting the war on terror or Democrats not supporting the war on
terror or selected Republicans not supporting the war on terror. Every
American has an interest in defeating those that would attack this
country. Do not question motives. Do not question people's patriotism.
Do not question the effort to create a policy. Many of us including
myself and the gentleman from Hawaii opposed American intervention in
Iraq, and I stand by that decision proudly. But now that we are there,
do not politicize the efforts that are being made to deal with these
egregious conditions in Iraq and in Afghanistan when this
administration has made promises to those people and to the American
people and are not living up to them.
What I found fascinating was a secret memo, a secret memorandum, that
was
[[Page 32157]]
authored by the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, who was widely
known or at least widely believed to be an ardent hawk about military
intervention; who, along with the Vice President and Under Secretary
Wolfowitz, told the American people that our military personnel would
be greeted with flowers and bands and welcomed as liberators. But now
the reality has set in. And in a secret memorandum, Secretary Rumsfeld
is expressing concerns about whether we are winning the war on
terrorism, and he posed two interesting questions in this secret
memorandum that was leaked so the American people could find out what
was going on in terms of the administration's honest assessment. ``Are
we winning or losing the global war on terror?'' was one of the
questions. And ``Is our current situation such that the harder we work,
the behinder we get?''
It is indeed unfortunate that politics would be allowed to play a
role in decisions where not just America tax dollars of a magnitude
that will clearly at a point in our future become a drag on our economy
because we are borrowing those dollars, remember, and the grant we gave
them, we are not going to get it back. But even more importantly, our
men and women find themselves at risk in terms of their personal safety
every day. This is not a place for politics. This is not a place for
attack ads. And I dare say that if that is the strategy that is being
designed by the President's political advisor, it will backfire,
because the American people, they get it. They really get it.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. ACKERMAN. The acting Secretary of the Army I am afraid has not
gotten that particular message because in relation to right in my own
district out in Hawaii, the movement of troops out of the 25th up at
Schofield Barracks, out into Asia and into Iraq, the movement of Guard
and Reserve troops, indicated that this was justified on the basis that
if we did not fight them, presumably whoever these people are,
terrorists and opposition, military opposition, fight them over there,
wherever ``there'' is, that we would be fighting them here, that is to
say, in the United States. The clear link there obviously is that had
we not attacked Iraq, Iraq would somehow be attacking the United
States, that somehow we would be the victims of an assault by Iraq or
the forces of Iraq and presumably by that meaning Saddam Hussein.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, they still cannot find the weapons of mass
destruction. And, by the way, I do not know if the American people are
aware of this, but it has cost and will cost the American taxpayer
simply to look, to secure the experts, secure the expertise, to look
for these weapons of mass destruction, which by now there is an
overwhelming consensus that they do not exist and that they never
existed. It is costing the American taxpayers $1 billion. Just think of
what $1 billion could do for Hawaii or for Massachusetts. I mean, I
guess, that is a subject for another night.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, precisely my
point is that it serves little good both to a sensible and reasonable
and rational dialogue as to what steps we should take now with regard
to our occupation in Iraq and the continuing military operations in
Afghanistan, it does little good for us to engage in a dialogue in
which these kinds of accusations are made or these kinds of
observations such as I have just outlined: If we do not fight them
there, we will have to fight them there. This is hardly worthy of the
Secretary of the Army let alone any high official of the government. It
is hardly worthy of anybody to say some are attacking the President for
attacking terrorists. I mean it is stupid on its face to say something
like that, and it is clearly meant to be provocative and political
without forming any kind of an enlightenment with respect to the issues
at hand. What needs to be done, and I think that the Iraq Watch that we
have been engaged in these past weeks is indicative of this, that what
needs to be done is to have this kind of dialogue. We do not have the
hearings. We do not have the dialogue during the regular course of the
day.
We are getting ready to recess. The Congress is going out of business
in the midst of this winter. There will be no recess in the wars. There
will be no recess in the killing. There will be no recess in the
wounding. There will be no recess in the political implications. I can
assure the Members of that. We are reaping a whirlwind of hatred and
distrust across the world such as we have not faced certainly in my
memory. The United States has always represented a beacon of hope to
people. In our worst excesses and in times when there has been the most
argument, even within the borders of the United States as to what our
policy should be or should not be, it has always at least had as our
fundamental base that we were trying to do the right thing by way of
our cooperation with others, by way of our respect for other people;
and yet today our whole policy is we are going to do as we please. We
are going to take up the issues as we see fit, and whether anybody else
wants to involve themselves with us, that is tough. We do not care.
That is not a foreign policy. That way lies blindness and defeat for
this country.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
____________________
THE REPUBLICAN MEDICARE LEGISLATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Renzi). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone)
is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take to the floor this
evening to discuss the Medicare legislation that the President signed
today. And needless to say, I am very critical of the legislation which
was essentially and primarily sponsored by the Republican leadership,
and, obviously, supported by the President of the United States. And I
know that the President signed the bill with great fanfare today, but
certainly from the reaction that I have been getting in my district and
throughout the State, because I was in various locations around the
State of New Jersey over the last 2 weeks when we had our Thanksgiving
recess, the reaction amongst New Jerseyans has been overwhelmingly
against the bill. And I have to say that the concerns that I am hearing
from senior citizens in New Jersey, and I am sure this is echoed
throughout the country, are primarily concerned that they have been
fooled, that the President and the Republican leadership in the
Congress are telling them that the Medicare bill is going to accomplish
certain things, particularly with regard to prescription drugs, but the
reality is that it is very different from what the Republicans are
saying about the Medicare legislation. And I just wanted to go through
some of the areas where I think that there is an effort on the part of
the Republicans to say what this bill will do in a positive way and
point out that the reality is very different.
First of all, I would say that the Republican Medicare legislation
tries to fool the seniors by saying that somehow they are going to get
a discount. If we talk to seniors and even the public at large, the
biggest concern they have about prescription drugs is not only that
they cost too much but that the costs keep rising, actually much more
than inflation, and the bottom line is the bill does absolutely nothing
to bring the cost of prescription drugs down. In fact, there is a
provision in the bill, and I would like to make reference to it, called
the noninterference clause that was actually the subject of an
editorial in the Los Angeles Times within the last few days, and
because of the fact that there is this noninterference clause in the
bill, the Medicare Administrator, that is the person at the Federal
level who administers the Medicare program, will not be able to
negotiate prices and bring down prices, because keep in mind, Mr.
Speaker, that in many cases if they represent a lot of people, as in
the case of the Medicare Administrator who will represent about 40
million seniors in the
[[Page 32158]]
Medicare program, because they represent so many people, they can
negotiate a lower price for them for particular drugs on a given day or
a given week or a given year. But what the Republicans put in the bill
at the request of the pharmaceutical companies is this noninterference
clause. And if I could read it, it says: ``Noninterference,'' in order
to promote competition under this part and in carrying out this part,
the Secretary, that is of Health and Human Services, the Medicare
Administrator, may not interfere with the negotiations between drug
manufacturers and pharmacies and PDP sponsors and may not require
particular formulary or institute a price structure for the
reimbursement of covered part D drugs.
So, essentially, what this clause says is that unlike what we do with
the Veterans Administration or what unlike what we do with the
military, the Federal Government cannot negotiate, on behalf of all
these seniors, lower prices. That is wrong. But more than its being
wrong and not making any sense because of the power of the Medicare
Administrator to negotiate lower prices, it fools the seniors. It gives
the impression to the seniors that the Republicans are giving that
somehow there is some cost containment in this bill and in reality
there is not any. There is actually a prohibition on any kind of cost
containment on the bill with regard to prices for prescription drugs.
{time} 2045
Now, a second way that the Republicans try to fool the seniors is by
saying that Medicare is going broke. I have had so many of my
colleagues on the Republican side get down on the floor here in the
last 6 months and say, well, we have to make changes and reform
Medicare because it is going broke.
In fact, Medicare is not going broke. The only reason why there is
any problem at all with the Medicare trust fund is because the
Republicans have been borrowing from the trust fund in the last 2 years
to pay for their tax cuts. So the trust fund has actually lost money
because we, the Congress, in basically enacting legislation that would
provide for huge tax cuts, primarily for the wealthy or for corporate
interests, has not had the money to implement those tax cuts and has
been borrowing from the Medicare as well as the Social Security trust
funds to pay for those tax cuts.
So, again, another effort to try to fool the seniors, to suggest that
somehow Medicare is going broke, when in fact the only problem with
Medicare stems from Republican fiscal and tax policies.
The third thing that the Republicans try to do is fool the seniors by
saying they are giving seniors a choice. In other words, the theory is
that if you privatize Medicare or if you say that in order to get a
prescription drug plan you have to join an HMO or you have to go to
some kind of drug-only policy essentially outside of traditional
Medicare, that somehow you are given a choice.
The reality is the seniors lose their choice, because the most
important thing that seniors want is a choice of physicians; and if
they have to join an HMO, which is essentially the only way practically
speaking you are going to get a prescription drug benefit under this
bill, you are going to lose your choice of doctors, you might lose your
choice of hospitals, you are certainly going to lose your choice of
certain kinds of medical procedures, because the HMOs simply will not
cover it.
The ultimate irony was this Sunday in the New York Times there was an
article on the front page by Robert Pear that pointed to a little-known
aspect of this Republican Medicare bill where they forbid the issuance
of Medigap supplemental insurance policies once the drug benefit goes
into effect in the year 2006.
Let me tell you, if the Republicans are saying they are going to give
seniors choice, how is there choice when they cannot even choose a
Medigap supplemental insurance policy? It is the opposite of choice.
What the Republicans have done with that provision is not provide the
seniors a choice, but say it is essentially either my way or the
highway. You either choose a prescription drug plan under an HMO, or
you choose a prescription drug plan under a drug-only private insurance
policy. But if you want to stay in traditional Medicare, then not only
do you not get the drug benefit, but you cannot even buy supplemental
coverage to pay for supplementing the holes, if you will, in your
existing Medicare coverage.
What the Republicans are doing is everything possible. They say it is
choice, but really what they are doing is denying you a choice by
making it almost impossible for you to stay within the traditional
Medicare program if you want a prescription drug program, or, maybe
even if you do not, because you cannot buy Medigap supplemental
coverage.
Already some of my colleagues on the Republican side are saying,
well, that prohibition on Medigap insurance does not take effect until
2006, and sometime between now and then we will get to that and change
that. Maybe we will repeal that provision. I think they should repeal
the whole thing. Frankly, the whole thing that the President signed
today is bad. It is bad for Medicare and seniors.
I want to get into a few more areas where I think the President and
the Republicans are fooling the seniors. They are not giving them
choice; they are denying them choice. But the other way they try to
fool the seniors is they say they are getting a benefit, and they
suggest it is a very generous drug benefit.
The reality is it is not a meaningful drug benefit, and it is hardly
generous. It is ultimately going to cost you. If you decide you want to
join an HMO and lose your choice of physicians because you want this
benefit, this benefit will, nonetheless, cost you so much out-of-pocket
compared to what you are going to get back from the Federal Government
that I would venture to say that probably less than 10 percent of the
seniors would actually opt for this kind of a benefit, because it is
such a meaningless benefit.
Let me give you an idea what I am talking about, because I do not
want to talk in general terms. I want to give examples of why I say
even if you wanted this benefit, if you decided to get out of
traditional Medicare and join an HMO, why you would not want to do
this.
Let me give you three examples of a senior with $2,250 in drug costs
in a year. In other words, if your prescription drugs are going to cost
you $2,250 in a given year, you are going to pay $420 in premiums, that
is $35 each month times 12, a $250 deductible and $500 out-of-pocket,
which is 25 percent of the drug costs that you have to pay when you
first go beyond your deductible of $251 to $2,250. You are actually
paying $1,170 for $2,250 in drugs.
You might say, well, that is not too bad. I am getting less than 50
percent of my drug costs paid, but maybe it is a good deal. Well, not
if you have to lose your doctor and join an HMO. But even with all
that, less than 50 percent of your drug costs are being paid for by the
Federal Government.
But most seniors are not in the category where their drug bills are
$2,250 a year. More seniors have drug expenses that are larger than
that and fall into the so-called donut hole. This is an area where if
you have your drug bills above a certain amount, the Federal Government
pays no part of the cost of your drug bills. I want to give you an
example of that.
Let us talk about a senior whose drug costs fall above $2,250, or in
this donut hole where they have to pay 100 percent of the cost. Say a
senior has $3,500 in annual drug costs. This does not exceed the $5,100
catastrophic cap, so they would pay $1,170 for the first $2,250, and,
as I said before, $1,250, which is 100 percent of the difference
between $2,250 and $3,500. So if your drug costs were $3,500, you would
be paying $2,420 for those $3,500 in drug costs, or 70 percent of the
cost.
This is because if your drug costs essentially go between $2,000 and
$5,000 before you get to this catastrophic level, you are paying 100
percent of the cost. You are actually going to be in a situation where
you are paying premiums every month to the Federal
[[Page 32159]]
Government for this drug benefit, but getting nothing back, because you
are at that point after 6 or 7 months in the year where you have
exceeded the $2,250 in costs, but you are not up to $5,000, so you are
paying premiums and getting nothing to cover your drugs. You talk about
a benefit and you talk about trying to fool the seniors; it is
unbelievable how much deceit is essentially involved in this
legislation.
I just want to get a couple more examples, because I see my colleague
from Ohio is here. Let me give you a couple more examples of how they
try to fool the seniors.
The Republicans say to seniors they will be able to stay in
traditional Medicare if they want the prescription drug benefit. As I
have said, that is really not true, because they have to join an HMO to
get any kind of drug benefit. If they want to buy a drug-only policy,
which might be out there, the premiums for that will probably be so
high it will not even be available.
But the worse aspect of this when they say you can stay in
traditional Medicare is for those seniors who are going to be in these
demonstration programs throughout the country, where they are
essentially going to give you a voucher and say we are going to give
you so much amount of money to pay for your health insurance, but you
have got to go to the private market and try to find someone to give
that voucher to, that set amount of money, to pay for your health
insurance.
This is not even with the prescription drug plan. This is Medicare in
general. The Republican leadership, in the House version of this bill
they wanted to essentially privatize all of Medicare by the year 2010,
but because the other body, the Senate, would not go along with it,
they ended up putting this in certain demonstration programs.
One of these demonstration programs is going to be in the southern
part of New Jersey, not in my district, but in the southern part of the
State. There are about 200,000 seniors in the southern part of New
Jersey that are likely to be in this demonstration program, where they
are going to be given a voucher and told you go out and buy your health
insurance with this set amount of money and you cannot stay in
traditional Medicare.
If you say you want to stay in traditional Medicare, what they are
going to do is say, okay, if you want to stay in traditional Medicare,
you have to pay the difference in cost between that voucher and what it
costs the Federal Government to provide the traditional Medicare, which
could be an extra $500, an extra $1,000, an extra $2,000 per year.
Essentially, seniors are going to be forced out of traditional
Medicare, just the opposite of what the Republicans were saying.
The last thing I want to say, where there is a serious element of
deceit, is the Republicans are trying to fool the seniors by saying
they are going to get a drug benefit immediately after the bill goes
into effect. Practically every Republican who got on the floor the
night we debated this bill made that statement in some form or the
other, and it is simply not the case, because this drug benefit does
not go into effect until the year 2006.
What they are going to do over the next 2 or 3 years before it goes
into effect is give you some kind of discount drug card. In New Jersey,
we see a lot of these because we have a lot of pharmaceutical
companies, and most of them give out a discount drug card. You pay a
certain amount of money, and you get anywhere from a 5 to 10 to 15
percent discount on your drugs. But since there is no cost containment,
it essentially is a ruse, because the drug companies charge whatever
they want for the prescription drugs and give you a 5, 10, or sometimes
maybe a 15 percent discount.
So now the Federal Government, according to the President, over the
next 2 or 3 years before the drug benefit comes into play, is going to
hand out these drug cards to seniors so they can get the slight
discount, which is really no meaningful discount at all.
I have to say I was not surprised when I went home over the
Thanksgiving recess over the last 2 weeks, all that I heard at the
senior centers, even on the street, even at the supermarket, were
people coming up to me and being not so much mad as upset in some cases
almost to the point of tears over what this Republican bill is going to
do to their Medicare.
People are saying to me, Are they going to take my Medicare? What are
they going to do to my Medicare? People personalize Medicare. It is so
important to them, and yet all these changes are going to take effect
that are against their interests.
I have editorials that are written in my local papers against this.
These were not editorials I suggested. These were the newspapers and
the local senior groups looking at this Medicare bill and saying how it
was going to be detrimental to them and the future of the Medicare
program.
I see that my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is here.
He is the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Health; and he has
been outspoken on this issue, particularly in pointing to the conflicts
of interest that exists with the drug companies and the insurance
companies who stand to benefit from the changes that are in this
Republican bill.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New Jersey,
who has just been dogged in his pursuit of this issue and trying to
protect Medicare, trying to write a prescription drug benefit inside
Medicare, and not this privatized HMO kind of Medicare inadequate
prescription drug plan that the President signed today.
When you listen to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), you
just keep asking the question, why is it that all this happened this
way? Why would such a bill pass the Republican House, pass the
Republican Senate, in very close votes, and be signed by the President?
Why would they do this?
The answer is pretty clearly the kind of influence that the drug and
insurance industries have in this body. The word on the street is that
the drug companies, the prescription drug companies, are going to
contribute $100 million towards the President's reelection. It is no
surprise that nothing passes this Chamber, nothing gets through both
Chambers, nothing gets enacted into law and will be signed by the
President unless it has the support of the drug companies.
Let me just talk for a moment about that, and then I want to tell a
couple of stories. The 10 biggest drug companies in this country had
revenue last year of $217 billion, more than the entire GDP, gross
domestic product, of the country of Austria. These 10 companies posted
profits of $37 billion last year. That is more than the Federal
Government spent on the entire VA health care system. It is more than
the entire Housing and Urban Development budget for last year.
The drug companies on this year's Fortune 500 list posted profits of
more than 17 percent, 5.5 times what the rest of the Fortune 500
profits were. The drug industry led all other Fortune 500 industries on
two key profitability indices, return on revenues and return on assets.
Now, I want to get there, even with that, even with the drug
industry's iron lock on this institution, the corruption, the
incredible influence that this industry has on this Congress, on
Republican leadership, on the President, on the Vice President, on
leadership in the other body, in the Senate, even with all that, I
think it is important to sort of see how we got here.
At 2:54 in the morning on a Friday in March, this House cut veterans
benefits by three votes. At 2:30 a.m. on a Friday in April, in the
middle of the night, House Republicans slashed education and health
care by five votes. At 1:56 a.m. on a Friday in May, the House passed a
leave-no-millionaire-behind tax cut by a couple of votes. At 2:33 a.m.
on a Friday in June, House Republicans passed a Medicare privatization
and prescription drug bill by one vote. At 12:57 a.m. on a Friday in
July, the House Republicans eviscerated Head Start by one vote. Then
after summer recess, at 12:12 a.m. on a Friday morning, in the wee
hours of Thursday night in October, the House voted $87 billion for
Iraq. Always in the middle of the night, always a contentious bill,
always after the press had passed their
[[Page 32160]]
deadlines, always after the American people had turned off the news and
gone to bed.
{time} 2100
With that track record, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone) has illustrated this, we should not be terribly surprised that
when the House passed legislation that privatizes Medicare, that
dramatically changes the 38 years of Medicare as we know it, that the
House did it at 5:55 on a Saturday morning. The Republican leadership
delivered this 100-page Medicare bill to House Members on Friday
morning at 1:46 a.m. We voted on it 25 hours later.
But, Mr. Speaker, in a lot of ways I do not blame my Republican
colleagues. If I produced that bill, I would not want people to know a
lot about it either, because when Republicans sit down behind closed
doors with the insurance industry and the drug industry and write a
bill to privatize Medicare, of course they do not want the public to
know, because this bill is not a prescription drug bill when we really
look at it. We could have agreed bipartisanly. The gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and I and our Republican friends could have
written this bill, we could have agreed bipartisanly to deliver a $400
billion prescription drug benefit inside of Medicare, delivered to
people the same way that people get their doctor and hospital and get
their choice: they send the bill to Medicare and it would work. But
this bill is more about Medicare privatization. For that, Republicans
have a long history.
Republicans have never much liked Medicare as a Federal program. Turn
the calendar 38 years back to the beginnings of this most popular
program perhaps in American history. When Congress passed the
legislation creating Medicare in 1965, in the spring of 1965, there
were 140 Republicans in the House of Representatives. Only 13 out of
those 140, less than 1 in 10, fewer than 1 in 10 Republicans in this
House voted to support it. Every leading national Republican voted no.
Future President Gerald Ford, future Presidential nominee Bob Dole,
future legislative leaders Bob Michel, John Rhodes; future Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, every leading national Republican voted
against the creation of Medicare.
Now, after that passed and they realized the public liked it, there
were no major efforts to try to get rid of it until 1995 when
Republicans had their first chance to do it when Republicans captured
the majority of the House of Representatives. In 1995, Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House, immediately during the Contract With America
tried to cut Medicare $270 billion to, what do we think, pay for a tax
cut for the richest people and the most privileged people in the
country. Gingrich in that year, in October of 1995, said, now, we did
not get rid of Medicare in round one, we did not think that is
politically smart. We do not think that is the right way to go through
a transition, but we believe it is going to wither on the vine.
Texas Governor, then Governor George Bush was a strong supporter of
that privatization effort. Majority leader Dick Armey, another Texas
Republican said, Medicare is a program I would have no part of in a
Free World. Bob Dole bragged, I was there fighting the fight against
Medicare. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), Committee on Rules
member, a Republican, told me in a meeting in 2002 at the Committee on
Rules, Medicare is a Soviet-style system. It is on and on and on. The
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) who, with the drug companies and
the insurance industry, wrote this Medicare privatization bill this
year, said, to those who say that this bill would end Medicare as we
know it, our answer is I certainly hope so.
This bill, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) went
through, it jeopardizes employer-sponsored retiree coverage for the 12
million-plus seniors who have this coverage. Understand, as the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) has said, there are 12 million
seniors today who have pretty good prescription drug coverage as part
of their retirement plans, retirement packages from their employers.
Some, between one-fifth and one-third of those, according to the
Congressional Budget Office, will have their employers yank that
coverage, and they will then be thrown into this privatized Medicare
system.
Now, this bill, in addition to the problems that the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) mentioned, this bill creates a $12 billion
slush fund for HMOs to encourage them to provide coverage; it increases
drug industry profits by $139 billion, increasing their profits by 40
percent. We could go on and on and on and on. We know, we know about
the profitability of the drug companies; we know about how the drug
companies have, by and large, written this bill.
We know that the drug companies benefit from this bill way more than
everybody else. They have 675 lobbyists in Congress; 675 drug industry
representatives walk the halls of these Chambers. There are 1.3
lobbyists per Member of the House, and they spent $91 million in
lobbying activities. That is just what they disclose; we do not know
what they really spent. They spent $50 million more on everything from
ads to direct mail. They spent nearly a half a billion dollars lobbying
since 1997. They gave $30 million overall for the 2002 election cycle;
about three-quarters of that to Republicans and, as the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and I have talked, we hear on the street that
Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are going to receive $100 million in campaign
funds from the drug industry.
But let me, before finishing, let me go back to what exactly happened
that Friday night, early Saturday morning when the drug bill passed.
The vote started Friday at about midnight, the vote on the Medicare
privatization bill. The debate started Friday at about midnight. The
rollcall began at 3 a.m. Most of us took our vote cards, our little
plastic cards, put them in the little box and pushed either the green
or the red button. The clock runs out after 15 minutes, but it is
usually kept open for another 2 to 5 minutes. Typically, a vote here is
often about 20 minutes.
But the Republicans were behind the entire evening; the vote was
losing. At 3:30, 4 o'clock in the morning, the vote was 216 to 218. It
was defeated. A majority was voting ``no,'' with only one Member, a
Democrat, not yet voted. At about 4 o'clock the vote had stayed open
for 1 full hour. That is when the assault began. The gentleman from
Illinois (Speaker Hastert), the gentleman from Texas (Majority Leader
DeLay), the gentleman from Missouri (Republican Whip Blunt), the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on
Commerce; the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of
the Committee on Ways and Means all were walking the floor, surfing for
stray Republicans who were most likely to cave whom they could bully or
whom they could brow beat. They surrounded the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot), trying a carrot and then a stick; but he stood his ground and
was defiant. They tried a retiring Republican, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith), whose son is running to succeed him. They
promised support if he changed his vote to ``yes'' and threatened his
son's future if he refused. He steadfastly, to his credit, showed his
integrity and stood his ground.
Many of the two dozen Republicans who had voted against the bill had
left the floor hoping to avoid the onslaught from the gentleman from
Illinois (Speaker Hastert), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), and the committee chairmen. One
Republican that I saw was hiding in the Democratic cloakroom.
By 4:30, the bullying and the brow beating had moved into the
Republican cloakroom, out of sight of the television cameras and of the
public. The Republican leaders by then had waked up President Bush, and
the White House was passing a cell phone from Member to Member in the
cloakroom. At 5:55, 2 hours and 55 minutes after the rollcall began,
literally twice as long as a vote had ever taken in the
[[Page 32161]]
U.S. House of Representatives, 2 obscure Western Republicans emerged
from the cloakroom, they walked, ashen and cowed down this aisle, I was
sitting right there, down this aisle to the front of the Chamber, they
picked up a green card to change their votes, they scrawled their names
and district numbers on the cards, and they dispiritedly surrendered
the cards to the Clerk. Quickly the Speaker gaveled the bill. Medicare
privatization had passed.
Now, imagine an election, an election at home when the polls close at
7:30. Everyone has voted. One candidate trails by a few votes, but
election officials, just not liking the outcome, decide to keep the
polls open for 3 more hours. They brow beat; they bully. They threaten,
they offer jobs, they promise goodies for their neighborhood or for
themselves. Finally, lo and behold, the election turns out the way they
want.
The new rules in this House of Representatives, Yogi Bera might put
it tell us, ``It ain't over until the Republicans and the drug
companies win.'' It is sort of Florida all in one night. But the
American people should expect more. They should expect the House of
Representatives conducted in the open. They should expect Members to
honestly, straightforwardly, openly cast their ballots; they should
expect a drug pricing policy and a Medicare bill that can hold up, not
only in the dark of night, but also in the bright light of the morning.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman. He made some
great statements there; and we will have to develop a few of those, if
the gentleman does not mind.
First of all, I wanted to talk a little bit more about what happened
that night because, as the gentleman knows, this afternoon, our
Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi),
offered a privileged motion which of course was defeated by the
Republicans, and she paid much attention in her privileged motion to
what happened that night and how it was very wrong and undemocratic,
and I think that the gentleman's analogy about keeping the polls open
back at home when we are voting in a congressional or Presidential
election is a very good analogy.
But if I could just point to the case again with the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith), a lot of commentary has been written about that
over the last 2 or 3 days, and I wanted to specifically mention a
column by Robert Novak which was in the Chicago Sun Times recently. And
he mentions what happened with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith),
and I just wanted to point to that and then I wanted to point out the
whole legality of it, because there is a serious question about whether
what the Republican leadership did to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Smith) was legal.
In Novak's column he said that Smith, a self-term-limited
Congressman, is leaving Congress; and his lawyer son, Brad, is one of
five Republicans seeking to replace him from a GOP district in
Michigan's southern tier. On the House floor, Nick Smith was told
business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his
father's vote. He of course declined, and then fellow Republican House
Members told him they would make sure that Brad Smith, his son, never
came to Congress. After Congressman Nick Smith voted ``no'' and the
bill passed, Duke Cunningham of California, another Republican
Congressman and other Republicans taunted Smith that his son was dead
meat.
I mean, needless to say, it is outrageous that this would even occur,
and certainly no one is suggesting that it did not occur. I have not
heard anybody suggest that what Novak said is not true; I mean, it
obviously is true.
But just earlier this week, there was a watchdog group called the
Campaign Legal Center that on December 3 urged the U.S. Department of
Justice to investigate whether Members of the U.S. House attempted to
bribe a Member of Congress into voting in favor of the recently passed
bill. They referenced the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), and the
group urged the House Committee on Ethics to investigate the matter.
They sent a letter to the Justice Department, and they referenced a
section under title XVIII, section 201 of the U.S. Code where it says,
``A person commits bribery who directly or indirectly, corruptly gives,
offers, or promises anything of value to any public official or person
who has been selected to be a public official or offers or promises any
public official or any person who has been selected to be a public
official to give anything of value to any other person or entity with
intent to influence any official act such as a vote.''
Now, I am sure courts can interpret this thing however they want, but
it seems to me on its face that what happened that night that my
colleague from Ohio talked about was bribery, and it is going to be
very interesting to see. Of course, we have to kind of assume that the
Justice Department is going to be a little biased, because it is
Republican appointed, but I do not see how they can get away from the
fact that the facts and the circumstances in that case were, in fact,
bribery.
The thing that really bothers me, I say to the gentleman from Ohio,
he talked about the Republican responses when our leader, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), brought this privileged
motion up today, I listened carefully to the debate back in my office,
and I was amazed to see how some of my Republican colleagues responded.
Essentially, if my colleagues listened to what many of them were
saying, it was the ends justify the means. They were saying that this
vote was so important and the issue of Medicare's future and the
prescription drug benefit were so important, that that justified, in
some cases they said, leaving the board open as long as it took until
they could get the votes to pass the bill.
Well, that is the most undemocratic thing I ever heard of.
Essentially it means that if I believe that something should pass, and
I am in the majority, I am just going to keep the board open until I
get my way. That is it. It is the end justifies the means.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly right. It is also, if
we look at the context of all of this, the context is the huge,
enormous influence that the drug industry has on this body. I mean, the
drug industry has a strangle hold on the Republican leadership, pure
and simple. They give millions of dollars to Republicans, as we have
said before, we are hearing as much as $100 million to President Bush's
reelection. Nothing in this Chamber, nothing happens without the drug
industry saying it is okay. The drug industry puts millions of dollars
in campaigns. They hire so many lobbyists, 670-some I believe at last
count, well over 600. They run all kinds of television ads and radio
ads under the name of something else. They basically launder their
money through the United Senior Association, through other groups,
these disease advocacy groups that are not really legitimate, with
millions of dollars and hide who they are, the drug industry, and try
to communicate with the public that way. I mean, they are so powerful
and so strong, but at least we ought to keep them off the House Floor.
But in that sense, in the wee hours of the morning on Saturday, that
Saturday morning, that late Friday night, while Secretary of Health and
Human Services Tommy Thompson was on the floor, which is unusual, I do
not ever recall seeing a cabinet member on the floor like that, but
that is not a violation of the rules and it is not unethical, either.
But we could see the influence of the drug industry on the floor of the
House of Representatives.
{time} 2115
One could almost see these Members of Congress who have depended on
drug company money, who are addicted to drug company money, one could
see the kind of way that they were pushing their fellow Republican
Members, the Members whom they lead. So it is not a very long jump from
there to what they tried to do apparently with the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith) who showed a lot of guts and integrity, as I might
add.
And so when there is that much money at stake, the drug industry is
slated to increase its profits already
[[Page 32162]]
for 21 years straight, the most profitable industry in America, when
the drug industry already so profitable, increased its profits $140
billion over the next 8 years, 40 percent increase in profits for the
most profitable industry in America, not to mention the insurance
industry and its impact here. With that kind of money at stake it does
not come as a surprise to me that Republican leadership would play that
kind of hard ball, do it in the middle of the night, or who knows what.
We do not know what was said to Member after Member after Member to
pass this bill. That is not a prescription drug bill; it is a bill that
turns the Federal Treasury over to the drug companies and the insurance
companies and privatizes Medicare in the bargain. So it is pretty clear
to more and more Members of this body and to more and more members of
the public that the corruption in this body when it comes to drug
money, the corruption is just unbelievable. It has increased every year
since I have been here. It is getting to the point that it is almost as
if Members have signed their vote card over to the pharmaceutical drug
industry lobbying association.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out another example of
what you are talking about too. It has also come to light over the
Thanksgiving recess, and this is the people within the Department that
were drafting the legislation, as you know, the Federal Government
official who runs Medicare and was very much involved in drafting the
legislation to put this bill in place, Tom Scully, announced during the
break, during the Thanksgiving recess that he was leaving the Medicare
program to go into the private sector. And there were serious questions
about his whole involvement in this because basically he had been
looking for a job in the private industry for something like 6 months.
There is an article that was in the December 3 New York Times where
it said that Mr. Scully, this is the Medicare administrator, had made
no secret of the fact that he had been looking for jobs outside the
government for more than 6 months even as he spent hundreds of hours in
closed sessions with House and Senate negotiators working out countless
details of the legislation.
Now, again, there are so many conflicts of interest with this
administration, it is just unbelievable. This guy, who I do not know
him that well, but I understand he is a fairly nice guy, but the idea
that 6 months ago he was looking for a job, a job essentially with some
of the same law firms that were negotiating on behalf of the drug
companies in order to get a favorable bill, the ethics law actually
says, and I will read it because it is in the same article in The New
York Times, ``The ethics rules issued by the Department of Health and
Human Services say that employees who have begun seeking jobs in the
private sector must immediately recuse themselves from any official
matter that involves the prospective employer.''
Now, this covers legislative initiatives and proposed rules. Now,
apparently, what Mr. Scully is saying is that he got a waiver from the
Department so he would be allowed to work on matters of general
applicability like the Medicare reform bill while he talked to
potential employers. We have no information about how this waiver was
garnished. The waiver has never been made public. The bottom line is
the guy is negotiating this bill basically looking for a job with some
of the same lobbying firms that are representing the drug companies.
And as soon as the bill is passed, within a few days he announces that
he is leaving to go join those same law firms. What possible
justification?
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I saw that article. I like Tom
Scully. He came to our committee and he spoke. He is a reasonable,
decent guy. I do not accuse him of anything untoward. I do wonder about
a system, though, where he announced several months ago he was leaving
the Department and going into the private sector. And he intimated, he
may have said more specifically, that he would be out doing Medicare-
type work, but he stays in the Department during the 6 months he is
negotiating with various law firms and Wall Street firms, I believe,
his future job and then the Medicare prescription drug bill is in the
conference committee and he is in these meetings. Somebody gave him a
waiver. I do not quite know what a waiver means.
Mr. PALLONE. They will not tell us specifically what it is.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. It is okay to be in a conflict of interest but
because our administration is so pro-drug company, we give you the
waiver? I wish he would answer some questions about what the waiver is
all about, because I do not think the people at home understand what
the waiver process is. I do not think I understand the waiver process.
Mr. PALLONE. The waiver has not been made public.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. How a Department gives a waiver to one guy to do
this and not that. I think Mr. Scully is a man of integrity, but I do
not think the system is quite right that would allow somebody to look
for a job, run this Medicare system that has 40 million beneficiaries,
that has got about, I think, about $300 billion roughly running through
that system. He runs it. The last 6 months he said he is leaving. He is
talking about companies that have a major interest in Medicare while
looking for a job, and then he is helping to write the Medicare bill
that will affect those companies in the agency he runs. I do not know
what the waiver is all about. I hope he comes and tells us sometime.
Mr. PALLONE. I do not think we are going to find out, to be honest,
specifically because he is leaving. But the thing that is most amazing
about it is that the time period from when he decided to leave and then
he actually left was the very time period when he was negotiating the
bill.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. This goes back to earlier comments that the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) made just about the
unseemliness, the conflicts of interest, the huge numbers of dollars
that are at stake in this bill. $400 billion in taxpayer dollars is
going to be distributed in the next 10 years, $400 billion. Not to
mention the amount of out-of-pocket seniors will have, which is a huge
amount of money, for their drug cost. So that $400 billion, we are
going to see the drug industry is going to make $140 billion more; the
insurance industry gets a $20 billion incentive pay, if you will, to
write drug insurance. Employers are getting subsidized, so not as many
of them, some still will, but not as many employers drop the coverage
of their retirees who they have collectively bargained with in many
cases.
So there is so much money on the table. The way that the
administration has done this has been so untoward, the way that from
the minute the bill really was introduced, was written behind closed
doors by the drug and insurance industry, to they are not allowing
amendments, to speak of, on the House floor, to the conference
committee closed out to Democrats who represent in the Senate more than
half the population and in the House represent 48 percent of the
population; and then all of these kinds of secret deals in the bill
with the drug companies and the insurance companies winking and nodding
every step of the way.
I think this bill symbolizes the corruption, the sort of pinnacle of
the corruption that we have seen in this House of Representatives. We
are awash with corporate money, awash with all the kinds of cutting
deals and conflicts of interest and billions and billions and billions
of dollars available to raid the Federal Treasury. While we cannot
probably get this bill repealed in the next year, I think we are going
to see this Medicare issue is going to really show what the political
parties stand for, what are we going to see in the election next year,
where on the one hand Democrats want to see a prescription drug benefit
go directly to seniors, Republicans want to run it through the drug
industry and insurance industry, enriching their corporate friends and
then a little bit of it trickles down to seniors. And thrown into the
bargain is a privatized Medicare system.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to comment, I know the gentleman
[[Page 32163]]
raised so many good points, and I know we cannot go through them all
tonight, but I wanted to talk a little bit about what I call the
insurance scam too. We focused a lot of attention on the drug companies
and how they are benefiting, but I think we have to talk a little bit
also about the insurance companies that you mentioned.
I wanted to say in my State the pharmaceutical companies have a huge
presence and they spend a lot of money on electing candidates. But he
was very proud of the fact that within a couple days after this
Medicare bill surfaced, that the largest newspaper in my State, the
Star Ledger, issued an editorial which was entitled ``Reject Medicare
Legislation.'' And the largest newspaper in my district issued another
editorial calling the Medicare plan bad medicine. But I wanted to
highlight the Star Ledger article. Again, this is the largest newspaper
in the State, which probably has percentage-wise the largest presence
of pharmaceutical companies. And they wrote this scathing editorial.
They focused attention somewhat on the drug companies but even focused
more attention on the insurance companies. I wanted to read just the
first couple of paragraphs because I think it says it all about how the
insurance companies benefited. It is the editorial from November 18. It
says, ``Reject Medicare Legislation. If profit making insurance
companies are so much better and cheaper than the Federal Medicare
program, why do we have to give them $12 billion to help improve it?
That subsidy is built into the Medicare compromise plan heading for
Congress and is but one of several excellent reasons the plan should be
rejected. After handing the industry a $12 billion gift from the
taxpayers, the bill sets up a fixed competition between Medicare and
private managed care. They would go head to head in a half dozen
communities. Once the games begin, private companies could sign up
younger, healthier, cheaper-to-treat seniors and reject the rest. It
does not take a genus to predict the result. If Medicare, which must
take all comers is left with sicker, more expensive seniors, Medicare
will fail. That will give conservatives a chance to settle one of the
most successful public programs of all times and replace it with
private companies. If we end up with a dead Medicare program and
taxpayer subsidized private profits, where is the victory? The
insurance industry already can sign up seniors under another Medicare
option, that is managed care, but it has never attracted more than a
small percentage of Medicare recipients. Year by year it has reduced
benefits and dropped hundreds of thousands of policyholders. The
companies say the Medicare population costs too much to treat and that
government payments are stingy.''
I am reading this, but I wanted to explain it a little. We have had
such an experience in New Jersey. We have had something like, I think
the figure is 800,000 seniors that joined HMOs, managed care over the
last 5 or 10 years who were eventually dropped. And the reason they
were dropped, obviously, was because the insurance companies initially
took the seniors and then found because of the cost that the seniors
incurred in health insurance that they could not make a profit. So they
dropped them.
Now, what happened then is that the HMOs came before the Congress,
they came before our committee, they said we cannot make enough money
with the managed care HMO system the way it is. You do not pay us
enough money for Medicare to cover for these seniors, so why do you not
give us a windfall. That is exactly what is in the bill. They got a $12
billion basic windfall to manage care so they could theoretically now
sign up seniors and provide seniors with not only the HMO but the
prescription drug coverage.
But there is nothing in the bill, just like there was nothing in the
previous legislation with Medicare+Choice that says that they have to
take whatever senior comes along. So essentially what this Star Ledger
article is saying, they are now going to cherry-pick. They realized
after being in the Medicare program for a number of years that they
could not make a profit because they took all these seniors who were
sick and driving up health costs. So now they are going to get this
huge $12 billion subsidy, and they will be able to cherry-pick and
essentially take whatever seniors they want and offer a health care
plan with this big subsidy and leave the traditional Medicare with the
sicker people that drives up the cost.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Then they are going to come back in 10 years and
say, see, Medicare does not work. Of course it does not work when the
insurance company insures you when you are healthy and then taxpayers
and Medicare get you when you are old and sick. Of course it is going
to work that way.
That is the irony of all this. I hear my friends on the other side of
the aisle over and over tell us that seniors, that the private sector
can do it better, that government is this huge bureaucracy, that
Medicare is inefficient and bloated, that nimble, quick-on-its-feet
Medicare, the private insurance system can do it better. So, okay, if
that is the case, why, then, does Medicare have lower administrative
costs, why does Medicare have lower marketing costs, lower salaries and
all that? But if you accept that they can let them compete, so why are
we giving the Medicare HMOs $20 billion and say, yeah, of course one
can compete if we give you $20 extra billion, but if the playing field
were really level it is clear that the public system wins.
That is why 38 years ago in the end Medicare was created. Because in
1965 when President Johnson and Democratic majorities in both Houses,
because, as we said, almost no Republicans in either House voted for
this bill to create Medicare, in those days half of America's seniors
did not have insurance. Why? Because the private insurance market did
not find seniors attractive. They did not find seniors attractive
because they are older, they are sicker, and they are poorer.
{time} 2130
So, maybe somebody 65 could get private insurance, somebody that
walked every day, someone in really good shape, but someone 73 or 74
who was diabetic, who had heart problems, who was arthritic, who was
not really able to take care of himself or herself, no one will insure
that person. No one will under the Republican privatized Medicare
program.
The whole point is a government plan with a universal coverage pool
that everybody is in so when you are 65 and healthy you are
subsidizing, because your health care expenses are not too high, you
are subsidizing somebody who is 85 and not as healthy. And then when
you get to be 85, some other 65-year-old subsidizes you. That is what
the universality of the insurance pool is all about.
The Republicans want to fracture the universality of the insurance
pool. They want to skim off for their insurance industry contributors
and all the corruption around this place that comes from that. They
want to skim off the most healthy seniors, and they want to insure them
at great profit and let the government and taxpayers pick up everybody
that is sick and more expensive. It is pretty simple what their plan
is.
Mr. PALLONE. The gentleman described it so well.
The amazing thing is when we were in our committee and we were
marking up the bill, I remember asking questions about, well, what
about the fact that you do not have a set premium? In other words, you
can charge whatever you want for this, for the health insurance or for
the prescription drug benefit. And what if the HMO's do not want to
cover the sicker seniors or certain seniors. And the answer I got back
from some of my Republican colleagues is, well, if this does not work,
giving them this $12 billion windfall, they can come back in another 2
or 3 years and we will give them more money.
It is incredible how they totally violate the idea of competition
and, as the gentleman says, a level playing field, and are willing to
give the HMOs or the private insurance companies more and more money if
they are not willing to cover the seniors. Where does it end? There is
no end to it.
We saw with MediCare+Choice a few years ago, every year they would
come
[[Page 32164]]
back and ask for more and more money. And now they have this windfall,
who knows where it will end.
I know our time is almost up. I want to develop one more point that
the gentleman raised before we close tonight because I think it is
important. The gentleman talked about the fact that if the Democrats or
if, on a bipartisan basis, we had been allowed to develop a bill that
kept traditional Medicare and just added a prescription drug benefit,
which is what most of my seniors, and I think most seniors expected. I
mean, if you talk to the seniors about what they expected with a
prescription drug benefit, they figured we were just going to have the
traditional Medicare, and we were going to add the benefit.
I think it is important before we close that we point out that, as
Democrats, we developed and offered an alternative as a substitute on
the floor of the House, exactly that. Basically, what the Democratic
Party in the House and what our leadership proposed and what both the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and I supported, was simply adding a
prescription drug benefit to traditional Medicare. And we used the Part
B, which now pays for seniors' doctors bills, as an example.
Under the current Part B, you pay a premium of about $55 a month. You
have a $100 deductible. Eighty percent of the costs of your doctor
bills are paid for by the Federal Government. Twenty percent by you;
that is your copay up to a certain amount catastrophic limit where 100
percent of the cost is paid for by the Federal Government.
That is exactly what the Democrats offered as an alternative. We said
that for a $25 premium you would have a $100 deductible for your first
$100 in drug costs. Eighty percent of your drug bills would be paid for
by the Federal Government. Twenty percent copay. And at a certain
level, I forget what it was, $3,000 maybe $3,500 catastrophic level,
100 percent of the cost would be paid for by the Federal government.
And we had a provision in the bill that specifically said that the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Medicare Administrator,
would negotiate price reductions.
I know some of the Republicans said that would have been a very
expensive bill. The bottom line is whatever costs to the Federal
Government probably would have been outweighed by negotiated prices,
that would have brought the cost down considerably. So there was
clearly an alternative out there that would have simply done what most
seniors expected and simply added a prescription drug benefit to
traditional Medicare.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. That is a very interesting point. I think seniors
in my district and seniors all over the country, because I was hearing
this from colleague after colleague, people were wondering why it was
so complicated? Why was it so difficult? Why can Congress just not pass
a drug benefit?
People understand how Medicare works. You go to a physician. The bill
is sent to Medicare to be paid. You go to a hospital. The bill is sent
to Medicare to be paid. There is a copay and a deductible. People
understand that. They understand the premium. It is very simple
insurance. It is full choice of doctor, full choice of hospital, and
why not do the same with a prescription? Then you get the prescription.
It is paid for by Medicare. You have full choice of your prescription.
Instead, the Republicans had to make it a lot more complicated. Why?
Because they wanted to get their privatization agenda enacted. That
means using the insurance companies. It means playing ball with the
drug industry. It means a lot of that money, that $400 billion that
should go directly to cover prescription drugs, and very little
overhead, the 2 percent overhead that Medicare has been able to keep
their overhead at 2 percent. Instead of that, the Republicans are
seeing all kinds of money wasted through the insurance and the drug
companies.
Frankly, it just kind of amazes me because seniors do think it could
be simple. The other part of that $400, as the gentleman pointed out,
that $400 billion would go a lot further under the Democratic plan
because we would do cost controls. We would do various kinds of
constraints on costs.
The Canadians, as we have heard many times in this Chamber, the price
of drugs in Canada is one-half, one-third, one-fourth of what it is in
the United States. Tamoxifen, a breast cancer drug, is one-eighth the
cost in France than it is in the United States.
If we could have restrained costs, controlled costs, brought prices
down, whatever you want to call it, if we had done that and put this
bill into Medicare, put this whole plan into Medicare, a lot less
complicated, we could have done it months ago, years ago, we could have
done it; and seniors would have a better plan. They would understand
what it is about. They would not have all of these questions, but the
drug industry and the insurance industry probably would not be so
happy, and I guess that is in the end why this body did what it did.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the last thing I wanted to mention, because
I know we only have a few minutes, was the reimportation. I know that
many of us saw the reimportation from Canada or other countries as sort
of a last-minute effort to try to have some kind of cost controls put
into effect. We would rather have cost containment here rather than
have to import drugs from Canada or other countries. But the bottom
line is that both Houses, both the House and the Senate had passed a
provision that would have provided for an essentially legalized drug
reimportation, at least from Canada, if not from some of the other
countries in Western Europe that were comparable to the United States.
Even though the conference between the House and the Senate had those
provisions in both Houses, they ended up essentially eliminating it in
the bill. Also, today in the omnibus bill, the appropriations bill that
we came back to vote on today, I am sure the gentleman noticed that
that was stripped out of that as well.
So every effort has been made by the Republican leadership and by the
Republican President to do everything possible to make sure that there
are no cost controls whatsoever. And I still see, and I go back to what
I said in the beginning, Mr. Speaker, I still see my colleagues on the
Republican side coming down here and saying there is some kind of cost
control or savings that the seniors are going to get from this bill.
That is simply untrue. Everything has been taken out. The
reimportation language from Canada, specific language that says that
you cannot negotiate price. Every effort was made to guarantee that
there would be no fiddling whatsoever with the drug companies's ability
to simply raise prices as they see fit. That is what we are left to.
It is really sad to think that we have come to that. I know the
President signed the bill today, and it is over with in that respect;
but, hopefully, and I already see it happening, you will get a
groundswell from America's seniors throughout the country over the next
few months or the next few years that are going to demand that this
bill be repealed or significantly altered. I am convinced that is going
to happen.
It is sad to think that there was this huge missed opportunity when
we could have actually passed a good prescription drug benefit and done
something to help America's seniors, rather than this cruel hoax that
has been foisted upon them today.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for
all he has done on this issue over the last few years.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. George Miller of California (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for
today and the balance of the week on account of upcoming surgery.
Mr. Nadler (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today on account of
personal reasons.
Mr. Janklow (at the request of Mr. DeLay) for today on account of
appearing in court.
Mr. Burton of Indiana (at the request of Mr. DeLay) for today on
account of official business.
[[Page 32165]]
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED
By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Brown of Ohio) to
revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Brown of Ohio, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. McGovern, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Watson, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Case, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Holt, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. McCotter) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Hayes, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Paul, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Harris, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. McCotter, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Souder, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Member (at his own request) to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Hastert, for 5 minutes, today.
____________________
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
By unanimous consent, permission to revise and extend remarks was
granted to:
Mr. Smith of New Jersey and to include extraneous material,
notwithstanding the fact that it exceeds two pages of the Record and is
estimated by the Public Printer to cost $3,100.
____________________
SENATE BILLS REFERRED
Bills of the Senate of the following titles were taken from the
Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:
S. 33. An act to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to
sell or exchange all or part of certain administrative sites
and other land in the Ozark-St. Francis and Ouachita National
Forests and to use funds derived from the sale or exchange to
acquire, construct, or improve administrative sites; to the
Committee on Resources in addition to the Committee on
Agriculture for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
S. 99. An act for the relief of Jaya Gulab Tolani and
Hitesh Gulab Tolani, to the Committee on the Judiciary.
S. 103. An act for the relief of Lindita Idrizi Heath; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
S. 460. An act to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act
to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2004 through
2010 to carry out the State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
S. 541. An act for the relief of Ilko Vasilev Ivanov,
Anelia Marinova Peneva, Marina Ilkova Ivanova, and Julia
Ilkova Ivanova; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
S. 648. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act with
respect to health professions programs regarding the practice
of pharmacy; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
S. 848. An act for the relief of Daniel King Cairo; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
S. 1130. An act for the relief of Esidronio Arreola-
Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola,
and Cindy Jael Arreola; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
S. 1402. An act to authorize appropriations for activities
under the Federal railroad safety laws for fiscal years 2004
through 2008, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
S. 1537. An act to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to
convey to the New Hope Cemetery Association certain land in
the State of Arkansas for use as a cemetery; to the Committee
on Resources.
S. 1683. An act to provide for a report on the parity of
pay and benefits among Federal law enforcement officers and
to establish an exchange program between Federal law
enforcement employees and State and local law enforcement
employees, to the Committee on Government Reform.
S. 1881. An act to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to make technical corrections relating to the
amendments made by the Medical Device User Fee and
Modernization Act of 2002, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
S. 1920. An act to extend for 6 months the period for which
chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code is
reenacted; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED
Mr. Trandahl, Clerk of the House, reported and found truly enrolled
bills and joint resolution of the House of the following titles, which
were thereupon signed by the Speaker pro tempore Mac Thornberry:
On December 1:
H.R. 1437. An act to improve the United States Code.
H.R. 1813. An act to amend the Torture Victims Relief Act
of 1998 to authorize appropriations to provide assistance for
domestic and foreign centers and programs for the treatment
of victims of torture, and for other purposes.
H.R. 2622. An act to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
to prevent identify theft, improve resolution of consumer
disputes, improve the accuracy of consumer records, make
improvements in he use of, and consumer access to, credit
information, and for other purposes.
H.R. 3287. An act to award congressional gold medals
posthumously on behalf of Reverend Joseph A. DeLaine, Harry
and Eliza Briggs, and Levi Pearson in recognition of their
contributions to the Nations as pioneers in the effort to
desegregate public schools that led directly to the landmark
desegregation case of Brown et al. v. the Board of Education
of Topeka et al.
H.R. 3348. An act to reauthorized the ban on undetectable
firearms.
H.J. Res. 80. Joint Resolution appointing the day for the
convening of he second session of the One Hundred Eight
Congress.
On December 3:
H.R. 2297. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
improve benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
H.J. Res. 63. Joint resolution to approve the Compact of
Free Association, as amended, between the Government of the
United States of America and the Government of the Federated
States of Micronesia, and the Compact of Free Association, as
amended, between the Government of the United States of
America and the Government of the Republic of the Marshall
Islands, and to appropriate funds to carry out the amended
Compacts.
On December 6, signed by the Speaker:
H.R. 1. An act to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to provide for a voluntary program for prescription drug
coverage under the Medicare Program, to modernize the
Medicare Program, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow a deduction to individuals for amounts contributed
to health savings security accounts and health savings
accounts, to provide for the disposition of unused health
benefits in cafeteria plans and flexible spending
arrangements, and for other purposes.
____________________
SENATE ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
The SPEAKER announced his signature to an enrolled bill of the Senate
of the following title:
S. 459. An act to ensure that a public safety officer who
suffers a fatal heart attack or stroke while on duty shall be
presumed to have died in the line of duty for purposes of
public safety officer survivor benefits.
____________________
BILLS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT
Jeff Trandahl, Clerk of the House reports that on November 26, 2003
he presented to the President of the United States, for his approval,
the following bills.
H.R. 421. To reauthorize the United States Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution, and for other purposes.
H.R. 1367. To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to
conduct a loan repayment program regarding the provision of
veterinary services in shortage situations, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 1683. To increase, effective as of December 1, 2003,
the rates of disability compensation for veterans with
service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency
and indemnity compensation for survivors of certain service-
connected disabled veterans, and for other purposes.
H.R. 1821. To award a congressional gold medal to Dr.
Dorothy Height in recognition of her many contributions to
the Nation.
H.R. 3038. To make certain technical and conforming
amendments to correct the Health Care Safety Net Amendments
of 2002.
H.R. 3140. To provide for availability of contact lens
prescriptions to patients, and for other purposes.
H.R. 3166. To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 57 Old Tappan Road in Tappan, New
York, as the ``John G. Dow Post Office Building''.
H.R. 3185. To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 38 Spring Street in Nashua, New
Hampshire, as the ``Hugh Gregg Post Office Building''.
H.R. 3349. To authorize salary adjustments for Justices and
judges of the United States for fiscal year 2004.
Jeff Trandahl, Clerk of the House reports that on December 2, 2003 he
presented to the President of the United
[[Page 32166]]
States, for his approval, the following bills.
H.R. 1828. To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its
occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of
mass destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil
and illegal shipments of weapons and other military items to
Iraq, and by so doing hold Syria accountable for the serious
international security problems it has caused in the Middle
East, and for other purposes.
H.R. 1904. An act to improve the capacity of the Secretary
of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to conduct
hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forest System
lands and Bureau of Land Management lands aimed at protecting
communities, watersheds, and certain other at-risk lands from
catastrophic wildfire, to enhance efforts to protect
watersheds and address threats to forest and rangeland
health, including catastrophic wildfire, across the
landscape, and for other purposes.
H.R. 2115. To amend title 49, United States Code, to
reauthorize programs for the Federal Aviation Administration,
and for other purposes.
H.R. 2417. To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004
for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the
United States Government, the Community Management Account,
and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability
System, and for other purposes.
Jeff Trandahl, Clerk of the House reports that on December 3, 2003,
he presented to the President of the United States, for his approval,
the following bills.
H.J. Res. 80. Appointing the day for the convening of the
second session of the One Hundred Eighth Congress.
H.R. 1437. To improve the United States Code.
H.R. 1813. To amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998
to authorize appropriations to provide assistance for
domestic and foreign centers and programs for the treatment
of victims of torture, and for other purposes.
H.R. 2622. To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act, to
prevent identity theft, improve resolution of consumer
disputes, improve the accuracy of consumer records, make
improvements in the use of, and consumer access to, credit
information, and for other purposes.
H.R. 3287. To award congressional gold medals posthumously
on behalf of Reverend Joseph A. DeLaine, Harry and Eliza
Briggs, and Levi Pearson in recognition of their
contributions to the Nation as pioneers in the effort to
desegregate public schools that led directly to the landmark
desegregation case of Brown et al. v. the Board of Education
of Topeka et al.
H.R. 3348. To reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms.
Jeff Trandahl, Clerk of the House reports that on December 5, 2003,
he presented to the President of the United States, for his approval,
the following bills.
H.J. Res. 63. A joint resolution to approve the Compact of
Free Association, as amended, between the Government of the
United States of America and the Government of the Federated
States of Micronesia, and the Compact of Free Association, as
amended, between the Government of the United States of
America and the Government of the Republic of the Marshall
Islands, and to appropriate funds to carry out the amended
Compacts.''
H.R. 2297. To amend title 38, United States Code, to
improve benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
3491. To establish within the Smithsonian Institution the
National Museum of African American History and Culture, and
for other purposes.
____________________
SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Renzi). Pursuant to House Concurrent
Resolution 339 and at the designation of the majority leader, without
objection, the House stands adjourned sine die.
There was no objection.
Thereupon, (at 9 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m.) pursuant to House
Concurrent Resolution 339, the House adjourned.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
5718. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Review Group,
FSA, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Removal of Obsolete Regulations (RIN: 0560-AH04)
received November 3, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Agriculture.
5719. A letter from the Regulatory Contact, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule--Review
Inspection Requirements (RIN: 0580-AA58) received October 24,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
5720. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Review Group,
Commodity Credit Corporation, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Removal of Obsolete
Regulations (RIN: 0560-AH04) received November 6, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
5721. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Review Group,
FSA, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Removal of Obsolete Regulations (RIN: 0560-AH04)
received October 24, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Agriculture.
5722. A letter from the Staff Director, Office of
Regulatory and Management Services, Forest Service,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's
final rule--National Forest System Land and Resource
Management Planning; Extension of Compliance Deadline for
Site-Specific Projects (RIN: 0596-AC02) received October 10,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
5723. A letter from the Congressional Review Coordinator,
APHIS, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Tuberculosis in Cattle and Bison;
State Designations; California [Docket No. 03-005-2] received
December 1, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Agriculture.
5724. A letter from the Congressional Review Coordinator,
APHIS, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Tuberculosis in Cattle and Bison;
State Designations; New Mexico [Docket No. 03-044-2] received
December 1, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Agriculture.
5725. A letter from the Secretary, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's draft bill to
authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide financial
assistance to the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the
Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau
under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978; to the
Committee on Agriculture.
5726. A letter from the Architect of the Capitol,
transmitting a report of all expenditures during the period
October 1, 2002 through March 31, 2003, from the moneys
appropriated to the Architect of the Capitol, pursuant to 40
U.S.C. 162b; to the Committee on Appropriations.
5727. A letter from the Chairman, Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board, transmitting the Board's Report to
Congress on the Plutonium Storage at the Department of
Energy's Savannah River Site, pursuant to Public Law 107--
314, section 3183; to the Committee on Armed Services.
5728. A letter from the Under Secretary, Department of
Defense, transmitting a letter on the approved retirement of
Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers, United States Army, and
his advancement to the grade of lieutenant general on the
retired list; to the Committee on Armed Services.
5729. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement and
Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Competitiveness Demonstration Codes
Update [DFARS Case 2003-D003] received November 4, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed
Services.
5730. A letter from the Acting Under Secretary, Department
of Defense, transmitting a report entitled ``Long-Term
Strategy to Reduce Corrosion and the Effects of Corrosion on
the Military Equipment and Infrastructure of the Department
of Defense,'' pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2228; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
5731. A letter from the Acting Director, Defense
Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Central Contractor
Registration [DFARS Case 2003-D040] received November 17,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Armed Services.
5732. A letter from the Acting Director, Defense
Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement; DoD Activity Address Codes
in Contract Numbers [DFARS Case 2003-D005] received November
17, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Armed Services.
5733. A letter from the Acting Director, Defense
Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Competition Requirements
for Purchases from a Required Source [DFARS Case 2002-D003]
received November 17, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed Services.
5734. A letter from the Acting Director, Defense
Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Provisional Award Fee
Payments [DFARS Case
[[Page 32167]]
2001-D013] received November 17, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed Services.
5735. A letter from the Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final
rule--TRICARE; Changes Included in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (NDAA-03) (RIN: 0720-
AA85) received December 1, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed Services.
5736. A letter from the Assistant Chief Counsel, Department
of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Electronic Options for Transmitting Certain Information
Collection Responses to MARAD [Docket Number: MARAD-2003-
16238] (RIN: 2133-AB56) received October 30, 2003, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed Services.
5737. A letter from the Senior Paralegal (Regulations),
Office of Thrift Supervision, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Savings
Associations--Transactions With Affiliates [No. 2003-50]
(RIN: 1550-AB55) received November 10, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
5738. A letter from the Acting General Counsel, FEMA,
Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Naitonal Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP); Inspection of Insured Structures by Communities (RIN:
1660-AA14) received November 4, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
5739. A letter from the Acting General Counsel, FEMA,
Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Final Flood Elevation
Determinations--received November 4, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
5740. A letter from the Acting General Counsel, FEMA,
Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Final Flood Elevation
Determinations--received December 1, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
5741. A letter from the Acting General Counsel, FEMA,
Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Suspension of Community Eligibility
[Docket No. FEMA-7819] received December 1, 2003, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial
Services.
5742. A letter from the Acting General Counsel, FEMA,
Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Changes in Flood Elevation
Determination [Docket No. FEMA-P-7628] received December 1,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Financial Services.
5743. A letter from the Acting General Counsel, FEMA,
Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Changes in Flood Elevation
Determinations--received December 1, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
5744. A letter from the Acting General Counsel, FEMA,
Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Final Flood Elevation
Determinations--received December 1, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
5745. A letter from the Acting General Counsel/FEMA,
Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Final Flood Elevation
Determinations--received December 8, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
5746. A letter from the Acting General Counsel/FEMA,
Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Final Flood Elevation
Determinations--received December 8, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
5747. A letter from the Acting General Counsel, FEMA,
Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Changes in Flood Elevation
Determinations [Docket No. FEMA-B-7440] received December 8,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Financial Services.
5748. A letter from the Counsel for Legislation and
Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
transmitting the Department's final rule--FHA TOTAL Mortgage
Scorecard [Docket No. FR-4835-I-01] (RIN: 2502-AI00) received
December 1, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Financial Services.
5749. A letter from the Associate General Counsel for
Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Housing Assistance for Native Hawaiians; Native Hawaiian
Housing Block Grants Program and Loan Guarantees for Native
Hawaiian Housing Program; Final Rule [Docket No. FR-4668-F-
03] (RIN: 2577-AC27) received December 8, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
5750. A letter from the Associate General Counsel for
Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, transmitting the Department's final rule--Mixed-
Finance Development for Supportive Housing for the Elderly or
Persons With Disbilities and Other Changes to 24 CFR Part 891
[Docket No. FR-4725-I-01] (RIN: 2502-AH83) received December
8, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Financial Services.
5751. A letter from the Deputy Secretary, Securities &
Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's final
rule--Purchases of Certain Equity Securities by the Issuer
and Others [Release Nos. 33-8335; 34-48766; IC-26252; File
No. S7-50-02] (RIN: 3235-AH37) received November 12, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Financial Services.
5752. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Securities &
Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's final
rule--Disclosure regarding nominating committee functions and
communications between security holders and boards of
directors [Release Nos. 33-8340; 34-48825; IC-26262; File No.
S7-14-03] (RIN: 3235-AI90) received November 24, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Financial Services.
5753. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Services, Department of Education, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Governmentwide Requirements for
Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance); Governmentwide
Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement); Student Assistance
General Provisions; and Federal Family Education Loan Program
(RIN: 1890-AA07) received December 5, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
5754. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Education,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Governmentwide
Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance),
Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement),
Student Assistance General Provisions, and Federal Family
Education Loan (FFEL) Program (RIN: 1890-AA07) received
December 8, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
5755. A letter from the Division of Acquisition Management
Servcies, Department of Labor, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension
(Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-
Free Workplace (Grants) (RIN: 1291-AA33) received December 4,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
5756. A letter from the Director, Corporate Policy and
Research Dept., Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,
transmitting the Corporation's final rule--Benefits Payable
in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Allocation of Assets in
a Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing and
Paying Benefits--received December 5, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
5757. A letter from the Director, Office of Acquisition
Management, Department of Commerce, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Governmentwide Debarment and
Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Requirements for Drug-Free
Workplace (grants) (RIN: 0625-AA16) received December 1,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
5758. A letter from the Director, Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy,
transmitting the nineteenth Annual Report on the activities
and expenditures of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3512(c)(3); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5759. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, Department
of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension
(Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-
Free Workplace (Grants) (RIN: 0991-AB12) received November
25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
5760. A letter from the Director, Regulations Policy and
Management Sta., Department of Health and Human Services,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Food Additives
Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals; Formaldehyde
[Docket No. 1998-F-0522] received December 1, 2003, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
5761. A letter from the Director, Regulations and
Management Staff, FDA, Department of Health and Human
Services, transmitting the Department's final rule--Public
Information Regulations; Correction [Docket No. 1999N-2637]
received December 5, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5762. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting the first report on Theft, Loss,
or Relase of Select Agents and Toxins, as required by the
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and
Response Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-188); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
5763. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--
[[Page 32168]]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Tire Pressure
Monitoring Systems; Controls and Displays [Docket No. NHTSA
2003-16524] (RIN: 2127-AJ22) received November 25, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
5764. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems [Docket No.
NHTSA-2002-12065] (RIN: 2127-AI88) received November 25,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
5765. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, NHTSA, Department
of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Fuel Systems
Integrity [Docket No. NHTSA-03-16525] (RIN: 2127-AF36)
received December 4, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5766. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule--Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Delaware; Revisions to Delaware's Motor
Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program and Low Enhanced
Inspection and Maintenance Program [DE059-1038a; FRL-7590-9]
received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5767. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule--Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Nebraska Update to Materials
Incorporated by Reference [NE-193-1193; FRL-7592-1] received
November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5768. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule--Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation
Plans; State of Missouri [MO-198-1198a; FRL-7591-4] received
November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5769. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule--Clean Air Act Approval of Revision to Operating
Permits Program in Ohio [OH 157-2 FRL-7588-9] received
November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5770. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule--Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; State of Nevada; Designation of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; Lake Tahoe Nevada Area [NV 050-0073A; FRL-
7595-3] received December 8, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5771. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule--Interim Final Determination to Stay Sanctions,
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District [CA 291-0424;
FRL-7590-6] received December 8, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5772. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule--National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste
Operations [OAR-2003-0147; FRL-7594-3] (RIN: 2060-AJ87)
received December 8, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5773. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft,
Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills [OAR-
2002-0045, FRL-7594-8] (RIN: 2060-AK53) received December 8,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
5774. A letter from the Senior Legal Advisor, Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule--Amendment of Section 73.202(b) FM
Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations. (Tallapoosa,
Georgia) [MB Docket No. 03-161; RM-10708] received December
4, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
5775. A letter from the Senior Legal Advisor, WTB, Federal
Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's
final rule--Allocations and Service Rules for the 71-76 GHz,
81-86 GHz and 92-95 GHz Bands [WT Docket No. 02-146] Loea
Communications Corporation Petition for Rulemaking [RM-10288]
received December 4, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5776. A letter from the Senior Legal Advisor to the Chief,
Media Buerau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting
the Commission's final rule--Amendment of Section 73.202(b),
Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations. (Apopka,
Maitland, and Homosassa Springs, Florida) [MB Docket No. 03-
24; RM-10636] received December 4, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5777. A letter from the Senior Legal Advisor to the Chief,
Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Amendment of
Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast
Stations. (Mount Pleasant & Bogata, Texas) [MM Docket No. 00-
54; RM-9835; RM-9907] received December 4, 2003, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
5778. A letter from the Senior Legal Advisor to the Chief,
Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Amendment of
Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations
(Wickenburg, Bagdad and Aguila, Arizona) [MM Docket No. 00-
166; RM-9951; RM-10015; RM-10016] received December 4, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
5779. A letter from the Senior Legal Advisor to the Bureau
Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Amendment of
Section 73.202(b) Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast
Stations.(Marathon and Mertzon, Texas) [MB Docket No. 02-243;
RM-10533; RM-10712] received December 4, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5780. A letter from the Senior Legal Advisor to the Bureau
Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Amendment of
Section 73.202(b) FM Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast
Stations.(Encino, Texas) [MB Docket No. 02-341; RM-10594]
received December 4, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5781. A letter from the Senior Legal Advisor to the Buerau
Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Amendment of
Section 73.622(b), Table of Allotments, Digital Television
Broadcast Stations. (Corpus Christi, Texas) [MM Docket No.
99-277; RM-9666] received December 4, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5782. A letter from the Senior Legal Advisor to the Bureau
Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Digital Broadcast
Content Protection [MB Docket 02-230] received December 4,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
5783. A letter from the Special Assistant to the Bureau
Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Amendment of
Section 73.622(b), Table of Allotments, Digital Television
Broadcast Stations. (Fort Walton Beach, Florida) [MM Docket
No. 00-233; RM-9996] received December 4, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5784. A letter from the Special Assistant to the Bureau
Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Amendment of
Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast
Stations. (Alamo Community, New Mexico) [MM Docket No. 00-
158; RM-9921] received December 4, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5785. A letter from the Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules
Division, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule--Amendment of Parts 2,25, and 87 of
the Commission's Rules to Implement Decisions from World
Radiocommunication Conferences Concerning Frequency Bands
Between 28 MHz and 36 GHz and to Otherwise Update the Rules
in this Frequency Range [ET Docket No. 02-305]; Amendment of
Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum
For Government and Non-Government Use in the Radionavigation-
Satellite Service [RM-10331] received December 4, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
5786. A letter from the Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules
Division, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule--Revisions to Broadcast Auxiliary
Service Rules in Part 74 and Conforming Technical Rules for
Broadcast Auxiliary Service, Cable Television Relay Service
and Fixed Service in Parts 74, 78 and 101 of the Commission's
Rules [ET Docket No. 01-75]; Telecommunications Industry
Association, Petition for Rule Making Regarding Digital
Modulation for the Television Broadcast Auxiliary Service
[RM-9418]; Alliance of Motion Picture and Television
Producers, Petition for Rule Making Regarding Low-Power Video
Assist Devices in Portions of the UHF and VHF Television
Bands [RM-9856] Received December 4, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5787. A letter from the Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules
Division, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule--Amendment of Section 2.106 of the
Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for use by
the Mobile-Satellite Service [ET Docket No. 95-18]; Amendment
of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum
Below 3 GHz for
[[Page 32169]]
Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New
Advanced Wireless Services, including Third Generation
Wireless Systems [ET Docket No. 00-258]; Flexibility for
Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service
Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz
Bands [IB Docket No. 01-185] Received December 4, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5788. A letter from the Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules
Division, OET, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Amendment of Part 5
of the Commission's Rules to Require Electronic Filing of
Applications for Experimental Radio Licenses and
Authorizations--received December 4, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5789. A letter from the Deputy Chief, WCB/TAPD, Federal
Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's
final rule--Rural Health Care Support Mechanism [WC Docket
No. 02-60] received December 4, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5790. A letter from the Legal Advisor/Chief, Wireless
Telecom. Bur., Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's ``Major'' final rule--Promoting
Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of Barriers to
the Development of Secondary Markets [WT Docket No. 00-230]
received December 4, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5791. A letter from the General Counsel, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's final
rule--Investigation of Terms and Conditions of Public Utility
Market-Based Rate Authorizations [Docket Nos. EL101-118-000
and EL01-118-001] received December 1, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5792. A letter from the General Counsel, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's final
rule--Amendments to Blanket Sales Certificates [Docket No.
RM03-10-000; Order No. 664] received December 1, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
5793. A letter from the Secretary of the Commission,
Federal Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's final
rule--Rule Concerning Disclosures Regarding Energy
Consumption and Water Use of Certain Home Appliances and
Other Products Required Under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (``Appliance Labeling Rule'')--received
November 17, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5794. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the
Treasury, transmitting as required by Executive Order 13313
of July 31, 2003, a six-month periodic report on the national
emergency with respect to the Development Fund for Iraq that
was declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, as
expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003,
pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c) 50 U.S.C. 1703(c); to the
Committee on International Relations.
5795. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the
Treasury, transmitting as required by Executive Order 13313
of July 31, 2003 a six-month periodic report on the national
emergency with respect to Burma declared by Executive Order
13047 of May 20, 1997, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c) 50
U.S.C. 1703(c); to the Committee on International Relations.
5796. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Commerce,
transmitting a six-month report prepared by the Department of
Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security on the national
emergency declared by Executive Order 13222 of August 17,
2001, to deal with the threat to the national security,
foreign policy, and economy of the United States caused by
the lapse of the Export Administration Act of 1979, pursuant
to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c) 50 U.S.C. 1703(c); to the Committee on
International Relations.
5797. A letter from the Director, International
Cooperation, Department of Defense, transmitting a copy of
Transmittal No. 22-03 which informs of an intent to sign a
Project Agreement between the United States and France
concerning the Spartan Scout, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2767(f);
to the Committee on International Relations.
5798. A letter from the Director, International
Cooperation, Department of Defense, transmitting a copy of
Transmittal 24-03 informing of an intent to sign the System
Development and Demonstration Supplement to the Common
Missile Memorandum of Understanding between the United States
and the United Kingdom, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2767(f); to the
Committee on International Relations.
5799. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting certification of a
proposed license for the export of major defense equipment
and defense articles to the Republic of Korea and Germany
(Transmittal No. DTC 110-03), pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(c);
to the Committee on International Relations.
5800. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting certification of a
proposed license for the export of major defense equipment
and defense articles to Turkey (Transmittal No. DTC 109-03),
pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(c); to the Committee on
International Relations.
5801. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting certification of a
proposed license for the export of major defense equipment
and defense articles to the Pacific Ocean/International
Waters (Transmittal No. DDTC 125-03), pursuant to 22 U.S.C.
2776(c); to the Committee on International Relations.
5802. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting certification of a
proposed license for the export of major defense equipment
and defense articles to the Republic of Korea, United
Kingdom, and the Netherlands (Transmittal No. DDTC 122-03),
pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(c); to the Committee on
International Relations.
5803. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting certification of a
proposed license for the export of major defense equipment
and defense articles to the United Arab Emirates (Transmittal
No. DDTC 105-03), pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(c); to the
Committee on International Relations.
5804. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting certification of a
proposed license for the export of major defense equipment
and defense articles to Italy and Belgium (Transmittal No.
DTC 106-03), pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(c); to the Committee
on International Relations.
5805. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting certification of a
proposed license for the export of major defense equipment
and defense articles to Saudi Arabia (Transmittal No. DTC
123-03), pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(c); to the Committee on
International Relations.
5806. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting certification of a
proposed license for the export of major defense equipment
and defense articles to Canada (Transmittal No. DTC 121-03),
pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(c); to the Committee on
International Relations.
5807. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting certification of a
proposed license for the export of major defense equipment
and defense articles to Japan (Transmittal No. DDTC 116-03),
pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(c); to the Committee on
International Relations.
5808. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting certification of a
proposed license for the export of major defense equipment
and defense articles to various NATO nations (the United
Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Turkey, and the Netherlands)
(Transmittal No. DTC 124-03), pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(c);
to the Committee on International Relations.
5809. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting certification of a
proposed license for the export of major defense equipment
and defense articles to the United Kingdom (Transmittal No.
DDTC 113-03), pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(c); to the Committee
on International Relations.
5810. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting certification of a
proposed license for the export of major defense equipment
and defense articles to Greece (Transmittal No. DDTC 107-03),
pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(c); to the Committee on
International Relations.
5811. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a six-month
periodic report on the national emergency with respect to the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction that was
declared in Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994,
pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); to the Committee on
International Relations.
5812. A letter from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting copies of
international agreements, other than treaties, entered into
by the United States, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); to the
Committee on International Relations.
5813. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Gifts by the U.S.
Government to foreign individuals, pursuant to 22 U.S.C.
2694(2); to the Committee on International Relations.
5814. A letter from the Chief, Counsel (Foreign Assets
Control), Department of the Treasury, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Authorization for U.S. Financial
Institutions to Transfer Certain Claims Against the
Government of Iraq--received November 21, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on International
Relations.
5815. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Bureau of Political-Military Affairs; Amendment
to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Lifting of
National Union for the Total Independence of Angola Embargo
[[Page 32170]]
and Partial Lifting of Denial Policy Against Iraq (RIN: 1400-
ZA04) received October 28, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on International Relations.
5816. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms
Regulations: Mandatory Electronic Filing of Shipper's Export
Declarations with U.S. Customs using the Automated Export
System (AES) (RIN: 1400-AB72) received October 27, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
International Relations.
5817. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a
memorandum of justification pursuant to Section 202 and other
relevant provisions of the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act
(P.L. 107-327) and Sections 506 and 652 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, to support the government
of Afghanistan; to the Committee on International Relations.
5818. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting notification of
intent to obligate funds for purposes of Nonproliferation and
Disarmament Fund (NDF) activities; to the Committee on
International Relations.
5819. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the second annual
report on the Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship
Program; to the Committee on International Relations.
5820. A letter from the Special Assistant to the President
and Director, Office of Administration, Executive Office of
the President, transmitting the White House personnel report
for the fiscal year 2003, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. 113; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
5821. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Energy,
transmitting the semiannual report on the activities of the
Office of Inspector General for the period April 1, 2003 to
September 30, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen.
Act) section 5(b); to the Committee on Government Reform.
5822. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Labor,
transmitting the semiannual report on the activities of the
Office of Inspector General for the period April 1, 2003 to
September 30, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen.
Act) section 5(b); to the Committee on Government Reform.
5823. A letter from the Executive Secretary and Chief of
Staff, Agency for International Development, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
5824. A letter from the Chairman, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, transmitting the semiannual report on
the activities of the Office of Inspector General for the
six-month period ending September 30, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act) section 5(b); to the Committee
on Government Reform.
5825. A letter from the Chairman, Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board, transmitting the Board's Strategic
Plan for FY 2003-2009, developed in accordance with the
requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) of 1993 and OMB Circular A-11 (2003); to the Committee
on Government Reform.
5826. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel
Policy, Department of the Interior, transmitting a report
pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
5827. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel
Policy, Department of the Interior, transmitting a report
pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
5828. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the
Treasury, transmitting two Semiannual Reports which were
prepared separately by Treasury's Office of Inspector General
(OIG) and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration (TIGTA) for the period ended September 30,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act) section
5(b); to the Committee on Government Reform.
5829. A letter from the General Counsel, Department of the
Treasury, transmitting the Department's draft bill entitled,
``To amend chapter 93 of title 31, United States Code, to
authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to require that
collateral offered in lieu of surety bonds, be valued at
market value''; to the Committee on Government Reform.
5830. A letter from the Assistant Director for Executive
and Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting
a report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of
1998; to the Committee on Government Reform.
5831. A letter from the Assistant Director, Executive &
Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
5832. A letter from the Deputy White House Liaison,
Department of Education, Office of Vocational & Adult
Education, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
5833. A letter from the Deputy White House Liaison,
Department of Education, Office of Vocational & Adult
Education, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
5834. A letter from the White House Liaison, Department of
Health and Human Services, transmitting a report pursuant to
the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
5835. A letter from the White House Liaison, Department of
Health and Human Services, transmitting a report pursuant to
the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
5836. A letter from the White House Liaison, Department of
Health and Human Services, transmitting a report pursuant to
the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
5837. A letter from the White House Liaison, Department of
Health and Human Services, transmitting a report pursuant to
the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
5838. A letter from the White House Liaison, Department of
Health and Human Services, transmitting a report pursuant to
the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
5839. A letter from the White House Liaison, Department of
Health and Human Services, transmitting a report pursuant to
the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
5840. A letter from the White House Liaison, Department of
Health and Human Services, transmitting a report pursuant to
the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
5841. A letter from the White House Liaison, Department of
Health and Human Services, transmitting a report pursuant to
the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
5842. A letter from the White House Liaison, Department of
Health and Human Services, transmitting a report pursuant to
the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
5843. A letter from the Deputy Associate General Counsel,
Regulations, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Department of Homeland Security
Acquisition Regulation [Docket Number USCG-2003-16571] (RIN:
1601-AA16) received December 1, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Government Reform.
5844. A letter from the Human Resources Specialist,
Department of Labor, transmitting a report pursuant to the
Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
5845. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting a
copy of the inventories of commercial positions in the
Department of Transportation, as required by the Federal
Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
5846. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Transportation, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
5847. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Veterans
Affairs, transmitting the semiannual report on activities of
the Inspector General for the period April 1, 2003, through
September 30, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen.
Act) section 5(b); to the Committee on Government Reform.
5848. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Maritime
Commission, transmitting the Commission's semiannual report
on the activities of the Office of Inspector General for the
period April 1, 2003 to September 30, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act) section 8G(h)(2); to the
Committee on Government Reform.
5849. A letter from the Executive Director, Federal
Retirement Thrift Investment Board, transmitting a report in
compliance with the Inspector General Act and the Federal
Managers' Financial Integrity Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app.
(Insp. Gen. Act) section 5(b); to the Committee on Government
Reform.
5850. A letter from the Administrator, General Services
Administration, transmitting the semiannual report on the
activities of the Office of Inspector General for the period
April 1, 2003 through September 30, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act) section 5(b); to the Committee
on Government Reform.
5851. A letter from the Deputy Archivist of the United
States, National Archives and Records Administration,
transmitting the Administration's final rule --
Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and
Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants)
(RIN: 3095-AB04) received December 1, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Government Reform.
5852. A letter from the Chairman, National Endowment for
the Arts, transmitting the Semiannual Report to the Congress
of the Inspector General and the Chairman's Semiannual Report
on Final Actions Resulting from Audit Reports for the period
of April 1, 2003 through September 30, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act) section 5(b); to the Committee
on Government Reform.
[[Page 32171]]
5853. A letter from the Chairman, Occupational Safety and
Health Review Commission, transmitting the FY 2003 annual
report on the agency's compliance with the Inspector General
Act and the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act,
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3512(c)(3); to the Committee on
Government Reform.
5854. A letter from the Director, Office of General Counsel
& Legal Policy, Office of Government Ethics, transmitting the
Office's final rule--Office of Government Ethics Organization
and Functions Regulation; Clarifying Amendment (RIN: 3209-
AA21) received November 6, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Government Reform.
5855. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel
Management, transmitting the Office's final rule--Protests,
Disputes, and Appeals (RIN: 3206-AK07) received November 17,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Government Reform.
5856. A letter from the Acting Special Counsel, Office of
Special Counsel, transmitting the Office's final rule--
Technical Amendments to 5 CFR Part 1800--received December 5,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Government Reform.
5857. A letter from the Chairman, Railroad Retirement
Board, transmitting the semiannual report on activities of
the Office of Inspector General for the period April 1, 2003,
through September 30, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp.
Gen. Act) section 5(d); to the Committee on Government
Reform.
5858. A letter from the Chairman, Securities and Exchange
Commission, transmitting the semiannual report on the
activities of the Inspector General and the Management
Response for the period ending September 30, 2003, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act) section 8G(h)(2); to the
Committee on Government Reform.
5859. A letter from the Chairman, Board of Governors, U.S.
Postal Service, transmitting the semiannual report on
activities of the Inspector General for the period ending
September 30, 2003 and the Management Response for the same
period, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act) section
8G(h)(2); to the Committee on Government Reform.
5860. A letter from the Vice Chairman, Office of the
General Counsel, Federal Election Commission, transmitting
the Commission's final rule--Leadership PACs [Notice 2003-22]
received November 24, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on House Administration.
5861. A letter from the Director, Office of Surface Mining,
Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's
final rule--West Virginia Regulatory Program [WV-091-FOR]
received November 24, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
5862. A letter from the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior,
transmitting a proposed plan under the Indian Tribal Judgment
Funds Act, 25 U.S.C. 1401 et seq., as amended, for the use
and distribution of the Pueblo of Isleta (Pueblo) judgment
funds in Docket 98-166L; to the Committee on Resources.
5863. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Land and
Minerals Management, Department of the Interior, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Oil and Gas and Sulphur
Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-Civil Penalties
(RIN: 101-AD07) received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
5864. A letter from the Director, Office of Surface Mining,
Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's
final rule--North Dakota Regulatory Program [ND-044-FOR,
Amendment XXXIII] received December 1, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
5865. A letter from the Director, Office of Hearing and
Appeals, Department of the Interior, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Special Rules Applicable to Surface
Coal Mining Hearing and Appeals (RIN: 1090-AA92) received
December 5, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Resources.
5866. A letter from the Director, Office of Surface Mining,
Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's
final rule--West Virginia Regulatory Program [WV-095-FOR]
received December 4, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Resources.
5867. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Fish,
Wildlife, & Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Marine Mammals; Incidental Take
During Specified Activities (RIN: 1018-AH92) received
December 5, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Resources.
5868. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Joint Counterpart Endangered
Species Act Section 7 Consultation Regulations (RIN: 1018-
AJ02); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 030506115-3298-02] (RIN: 0648-AR05) received
December 5, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Resources.
5869. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Operations, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--NOAA Information Collection Requirements; Update and
Correction [Docket No. 031016260-3260-01; I.D. 091603A] (RIN:
0648-AR71) received December 1, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
5870. A letter from the Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Bluefin Tuna
Fisheries [I.D. 111303B] received December 1, 2003, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
5871. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic
Herring Fishery; Total Allowable Catch Harvested for Period 2
Management Area 1A [Docket No. 021101264-3016-02; I.D.
110703B] received December 1, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
5872. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Fisheries off West Coast States and in the Western
Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish; Annual Specifications and
Management Measures; Trip Limit Adjustments; Corrections
[Docket No. 021209300-3048-02; I.D. 111903C] received
December 5, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Resources.
5873. A letter from the Fishery Biologist, Office of
Protected Resources, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Endangered and Threatened Species; Final Rule Governing
Take of Four Threatened Evolutionarily Significant Units of
West Coast Salmonids (RIN: 0648-AP17) received December 1,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Resources.
5874. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska;
Recision and Reallocation of Pacific Cod in the Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands Management Area [Docket No. 021212307-
3037-02; I.D. 111803B] received December 8, 2003, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
5875. A letter from the Director, Regulations and Forms
Services, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Suspending the 30-Day and Annual
Interview Requirements From the Special Registration Process
for Certain Nonimmigrants [ICE No. 2301-3] (RIN: 1653-AA29)
received December 2, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
5876. A letter from the Rules Administrator, Federal Bureau
of Prisons, Department of Justice, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Occupational Education Programs
[BOP-1096-F] (RIN: 1120-AA92) received December 1, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
5877. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Foreign Prohibitions on Longshore Work by U.S.
Nationals (RIN: 1400-AA34) received Decebmer 1, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
5878. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Partial Distribution of Fiscal Year
2004 Indian Reservation Roads Funds (RIN: 1076-AE50) received
December 2, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5879. A letter from the Program Analyst, Army Corps of
Engineers, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Department's final rule--United States Navy Restricted Area,
Cooper River and Tributaries, Naval Weapons Station
Charleston, Charleston, SC--received December 1, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
5880. A letter from the Program Analyst, Army Corps of
Engineers, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Department's final rule--United States Navy Restricted Area,
Naval Air Station North Island, San Diego, CA--received
December 8, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5881. A letter from the Program Analyst, Army Corps of
Engineers, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Department's final rule--United States Navy Restricted Area,
Naval Weapons Station Earle, Sandy Hook Bay, NJ--received
December 8, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5882. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Coast Guard, Department of Homeland
Security, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Mullica River,
[[Page 32172]]
NJ [CGD05-03-180] (RIN: 1625-AA09) received December 1, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
5883. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Coast Guard, Department of Homeland
Security, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Amite River, Clio, LA.
[CGD08-03-047] received December 1, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5884. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Coast Guard, Department of Homeland
Security, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Buffalo Bayou, Houston, TX.
[CGD08-03-046] received December 1, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5885. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Coast Guard, Department of Homeland
Security, transmitting the Department's final rule--Allowing
Alternatives to Incandescent Lights, and Establishing
Standards for New Lights, in Private Aids to Navigation
[USCG-2000-7466] (RIN: 1625-AA55) received December 1, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
5886. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Coast Guard, Department of Homeland
Security, transmitting the Department's final rule--Special
Local Regulations; 2003 Boca Raton Holiday Boat Parade,
Riviera Beach, FL [CGD07-03-152] (RIN: 1625-AA08) received
December 8, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5887. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Coast Guard, Department of Homeland
Security, transmitting the Department's final rule--Security
Zone: Coronado Bay Bridge, San Diego, California [COTP San
Diego 03-032] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received December 8, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
5888. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Coast Guard, Department of Homeland
Security, transmitting the Department's final rule--Regulated
Navigation Area, San Carlos Bay, Florida [CGD07-03-200] (RIN:
1625-AA11) received December 8, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5889. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--DOD
Commercial Air Carrier Evaluators [Docket No. FAA-2003-15571;
Amendment Nos. 119-8, 121-290, and 135-83] (RIN: 2120-AI00)
received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5890. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Digital Flight Data Recorder Requirements--Changes to
Recording Specifications and Additional Exceptions;
Corrections; Correction. [Docket No.: FAA-2003-15682;
Amendment Nos. 121-288, 125-42; 135-84] (RIN: 2120-AH89)
received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5891. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Digital Flight Data Recorder Requirements--Changes to
Recording Specifications and Additional Exceptions;
Correction [Docket No.: FAA-2003-15682; Amendment Nos. 121-
288, 125-42, 135-84] (RIN: 2120-AH89) received November 25,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
5892. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Flightdeck Security on Large Cargo Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-
2003-15653; Amendment Nos. 121-287 and 129-38] (RIN: 2120-
AH96) received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5893. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Standard Instrument Approach Procedures;
Miscellaneous Amendments [Docket No. 30396; Amdt. No. 3083]
received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5894. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Airworthiness Directives; Aerospace Technologies
of Australia Pty. Ltd. Models N22B and N24A Airplanes [Docket
No. 2003-CE-21-AD; Amendment 39-13361; AD 2003-22-13] (RIN:
2120-AA64) received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5895. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400, -
400D, and -400F Series Airplanes [Docket No. 2003-NM-173-AD;
Amendment 39-13364; AD 2003-23-01] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5896. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Model 560
Airplanes [Docket No. 2003-NM-225AD; Amendment 39-13365; AD
2003-23-02] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received November 25, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
5897. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutchsland
Ltd. & Co KG Models Tay 650-15 and 651-54 Turbofan Engines
[Docket No. 98-ANE-68-AD; Amendment 39-13362; AD 2003-22-14]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5898. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -
200, and -200C Series Airplanes [Docket No. 2002-NM-150-AD;
Amendment 39-13367; AD 2003-23-03] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5899. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757-200
Series Airplanes [Docket No. 2002-NM-95-AD; Amendment 39-
13368; AD 2003-23-04] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received November 25,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
5900. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Airworthiness Directives; Titeflex Corporation
[Docket No. 2002-NE-22-AD; Amendment 39-13369; AD 2003-23-05
AD] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received November 25, 2003, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5901. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Airworthiness Directives; Various Boeing and
McDonell Douslas Transport Category Airplanes [Docket No.
2003-NM-91-AD; Amendment 39-13366; AD 2003-03-15 R1] (RIN:
2120-AA64) received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5902. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Amendment of Class E Airspace; Rocky Mount, NC
[Docket No. FAA-2003-15849; Airspace Docket No. 03-ASO-15]
received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5903. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Amendment of Class E Airspace; Smithfield, NC
[Docket No. FAA-2003-15848; Airspace Docket No. 03-ASO-14]
received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5904. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Regulation of Fractional Aircraft Ownership Programs and On-
Demand Operations [Docket No. FAA-2001-10047; Amdt. Nos. 21-
84, 61-109, 91-274, 119-7, 125-44, 135-82, 142-5] (RIN: 2120-
AH06) received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5905. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
mproved Flammability Standards for Thermal/Acoustic
Insulation Materials Used in Transport Category Airplanes
[Docket No. FAA-2000-7909; Amdt. Nos. 25-111, 91-275, 121-
289, 125-43, 135-85] (RIN: 2120-AG91) received November 25,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
5906. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Lower Deck Service Compartments on Transport Category
Airplanes; Correction [Docket No. FAA-2002-11346; Amendment
No. 25-110] (RIN: 2120-AH38) received November 25, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
5907. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Repair Stations [Docket No. FAA-1999-5836] (RIN: 2120-AC38)
received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5908. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum in Domestic United States
Airspace [Docket No. FAA-2002-12261; Amendment Nos. 11-49 and
[[Page 32173]]
91-276] (RIN: 2120-AH68) received November 25, 2003, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
5909. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--Air
Tour Operators in the State of Hawaii [Docket No. FAA-2003-
14830; Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 71]
(RIN: 2120-AH02) received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5910. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Establishment of Class E Airspace; Chevak, AK
[Docket No. FAA-2003-15694; Airspace Docket No. 03-AAL-12]
received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5911. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Establishment of Class E Airspace, Kotlik, AK
[Docket No. FAA-2003-15091; Airspace Docket No. 03-AAL-08]
received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5912. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Establishment of Class E Airspace; Akiak, AK
[Docket No. FAA-2003-15693; Airspace Docekt No. 03-AAL-13]
received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5913. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Modification of Class E Airspace; Johnson, KS
[Docket No. FAA-2003-16411; Airspace Docket No. 03-ACE-77]
received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5914. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Standard Instrument Approach Procedures;
Miscellaneous Amendments [Docket No. 30395; Amdt. No. 3082]
received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5915. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Establishment of Class E4 Airspace; and
Modification of Class E5 Airspace; Goodland, KS. [Docket No.
FAA-2003-16079; Airspace Docket No. 03-ACE-71] received
November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5916. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Amendment of Restricted Area R-2301E Ajo East,
AZ; and R-2304, and 2305 Gila Bend, AZ [Docket No. 2002-FAA-
14912; Airspace Docket No. 03-AWP-4] (RIN: 2120-AA66)
received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5917. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, FAA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Establishment of Class E Airspace; Kivalina, AK
[Docket. No. FAA-2003-15695; Airspace Docket No. 03-AAL-17]
received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5918. A letter from the Senior Procurement Executive,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension
(Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-
Free Workplace (Grants); Department of Transportation
Implementation (RIN: 2105-AD07) received November 25, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
5919. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Federal Highway
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Interstate Highway System (RIN:
2125-AF00) received December 4, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5920. A letter from the Assistant Chief Counsel, Federal
Highway Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--National Standards
for Traffic Control Devices; Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices for Street and Highways; Revision [FHWA
Docket No. FHWA-2001-11159] (RIN: 2125-AE93) received
December 4, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5921. A letter from the Senior Attorney, Research and
Special Programs Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Hazardous Materials: Revisions to Incident Reporting
Requirements and the Hazardous Materials Incident Report
Form. [Docket No. RSPA-99-5013 (HM-229)] (RIN: 2137-AD21)
received December 4, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5922. A letter from the Senior Attorney, Research and
Special Programs Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High
Consequence Areas (Gas Transmission Pipelines) [Docket No.
RSPA-00-7666; Amendment 192-95] (RIN: 2137-AD54) received
December 4, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5923. A letter from the Secretary, Department of
Transportation, transmitting a draft bill entitled ``To amend
title 49, United States Code, to make certain conforming
changes to provisions governing the registration of aircraft
and the recordation of instruments in order to implement the
Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and
the Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in
Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment
known as the `Cape Town Treaty'''; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
5924. A letter from the Administrator, General Services
Administration, transmitting informational copies of Reports
of Building Projects Survey for Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Benton,
IL, Greensboro, NC, and Sioux Falls, SD, pursuant to 40
U.S.C. 606(a); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5925. A letter from the Assistant Administrator for
Procurement, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
transmitting the Administration's final rule--Conformance
with Federal Acquisition Circulars 2001-15 and 2001-14 (RIN:
2700-AC92) received December 5, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Science.
5926. A letter from the Assistant Administrator for
Procurement, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
transmitting the Administration's final rule--NASA Grant
Cooperative Agreement Handbook--Public Acknowledgements.
(RIN: 2700-AC75) received December 8, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Science.
5927. A letter from the National Adjutant, Disabled
American Veterans, transmitting 2003 National Convention
Proceedings Of The Disabled American Veterans, pursuant to 36
U.S.C. 90i and 44 U.S.C. 1332; (H. Doc. No. 108--143); to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs and ordered to be printed.
5928. A letter from the Director, Regulations Management,
Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of
Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Board of Veterans' Appeals: Rules of Practice; Use of
Supplemental Statement of the Case (RIN: 2900-AL42) received
November 13, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
5929. A letter from the Chief, Regulations & Procedures
Division, TTB, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Expansion of the Russian River
Valley Viticultural Area (2002R-421P) [T.D. TTB-7; Re Notice
No. 965] (RIN: 1513-AA68) received December 4, 2003, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
5930. A letter from the Acting Chief, Publications and
Regulations Br., Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule--Information reporting for distributions
with respect to securities issued by foreign corporations
[Notice 2003-79] received December 3, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
5931. A letter from the Acting Chief, Publications and
Regulations Br., Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule--Rulings and determination letters.
(Rev. Proc. 2003-86) received November 25, 2003, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
5932. A letter from the Acting Chief, Publications and
Regulations Br., Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule--Examination of returns and claims for
refund, credit or abatement; determination of correct tax
liability. (Rev. Proc. 2003-82) received November 25, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
5933. A letter from the Acting Chief, Publications and
Regulations Br., Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule--Qualified Pension, Profit-Sharing, and
Stock Bonus Plans (Rev. Rul. 2003-124) received November 25,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
5934. A letter from the Acting Chief, Publications and
Regulations Br., Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule--Tier 2 Tax Rates for 2004 [Notice 2003-
78] received November 25, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
5935. A letter from the Acting Chief, Publications and
Regulations Br., Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule--Installment Payments [TD 9096] (RIN:
1545-BC53) received December 5, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
5936. A letter from the Acting Chief, Publications and
Regulations Br., Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's
[[Page 32174]]
final rule--Weighted Average Interest Rate Update [Notice
2003-80] received December 5, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
5937. A letter from the Acting Chief, Publications and
Regulations Br., Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule--Tax Avoidance Using Offsetting Foreign
Currency Option Contracts [Notice 2003-81] received December
5, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
5938. A letter from the SSA Regulations Officer, Social
Security Administration, transmitting the Administration's
final rule--Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension
(Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-
Free Workplace (Grants) (RIN: 0960-AE27) received December 2,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
5939. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, Department
of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Medicare Program; Photocopying Reimbursement
Methodology [CMS-3055-F] (RIN: 0938-AK68) received December
1, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); jointly to the
Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means.
5940. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, Department
of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Religious
Nonmedical Health Care Institutions and Advance Directives
[CMS-1909-F] (RIN: 0938-AI93) received December 1, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); jointly to the Committees
on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means.
5941. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, Department
of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Medicare Program; Reduction in Medicare Part B
Premiums As Additional Benefits Under MedicareChoice Plans
[CMS-6016-F] (RIN: 0938-AL49) received December 1, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); jointly to the Committees
on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means.
5942. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, Department
of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Medicare Programs; Coverage and Payment of
Ambulance Services; Inflation Update for CY 2004 [CMS-1232-
FC] (RIN: 0938-AM44) received December 1, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); jointly to the Committees on Energy and
Commerce and Ways and Means.
5943. A letter from the Secretary, Judicial Conference of
the United States, transmitting legislative proposals
recently adopted by the Conference at its September 2003
meeting, to be incorporated into the draft bill entitled the
``Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2003,'' previously
transmitted on May 7, 2003; jointly to the Committees on the
Judiciary and Energy and Commerce.
5944. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting the Annual Report of the Railroad
Retirement Board for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2003, pursuant to 45 U.S.C. 231f(b)(6); jointly to the
Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Ways and
Means.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington: Committee on Rules. House
Resolution 473. Resolution waiving points of order against
the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2673)
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes
(Rept. 108-402). Referred to the House Calendar.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia: Committee on Government Reform.
H.R. 3478. A bill to amend title 44, United States Code, to
improve the efficiency of operations by the National Archives
and Records Administration (Rept. 108-403). Referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. ISSA:
H.R. 3651. A bill to account for all aliens unlawfully
present in the United States by providing incentives for such
aliens to register with the Secretary of Homeland Security,
to provide immunity from criminal prosecution for the
employer of such an alien if the employer pays all taxes and
penalties owed by reason of such employment, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin (for himself and Mr.
Matheson):
H.R. 3652. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to modify the taxation of imported archery products; to
the Committee on Ways and Means. considered and passed.
By Mr. CASE (for himself and Mr. Abercrombie):
H.R. 3653. A bill to provide authorities to, and impose
requirements on, the heads of executive agencies in order to
facilitate State enforcement of State tax, employment, and
licensing laws against Federal construction contractors; to
the Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the
Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. Rangel):
H.R. 3654. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to make technical corrections, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. KUCINICH (for himself, Ms. Lee, and Mr.
Sanders):
H.R. 3655. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to replace the earned income credit, the child tax
credit, and the deduction for dependents with a simplified
family tax credit; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. CAPPS:
H.R. 3656. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to impose minimum nurse staffing ratios in
Medicare participating hospitals, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the
Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. KUCINICH (for himself, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Conyers,
and Mr. Hinchey):
H.R. 3657. A bill to preserve the cooperative, peaceful
uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by prohibiting
the basing of weapons in space and the use of weapons to
destroy or damage objects in space that are in orbit, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Science, and in addition
to the Committees on Armed Services, and International
Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mrs. CAPPS (for herself, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Dingell,
Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Deal of
Georgia, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Pallone, Mr.
Gordon, Mr. Engel, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr.
Doyle, Mr. Allen, Ms. Schakowsky, and Ms. Solis):
H.R. 3658. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
strengthen education, prevention, and treatment programs
relating to stroke, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. Evans, Mr.
Brown of South Carolina, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Miller of
Florida, Ms. Carson of Indiana, Ms. Berkley, Mr.
Brown of Ohio, and Mr. Shimkus):
H.R. 3659. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
enact into law eligibility of certain Reservists and their
dependents for burial in Arlington National Cemetery; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. RUSH:
H.R. 3660. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Education
to enter into a partnership with a qualified local
educational agency to conduct a model school-to-work program,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
By Mr. HAYES:
H.R. 3661. A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to
provide for the seizure, forfeiture, and destruction of
textile and apparel articles imported in violation of certain
laws of the United States, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee
on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined
by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. ALLEN (for himself, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Stark, Mr.
Brown of Ohio, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Markey, Mr. Meehan,
Mr. Berry, Mr. Michaud, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, Mr. Olver, Mr. Case, Mrs. Emerson, Mr.
Stupak, Mr. Oberstar, and Mr. McGovern):
H.R. 3662. A bill to provide for substantial reductions in
the price of prescription drugs purchased by States for its
employees, retirees, and pharmaceutical assistance
beneficiaries; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 3663. A bill to waive copayments and deductibles for
military personnel who qualify for TRICARE and use other
health insurance as their primary form of coverage; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. BILIRAKIS (for himself, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Taylor
of Mississippi, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Barton
of Texas, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Pickering, Mr.
Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Pitts, Mr.
Upton, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Burr, and Mr. Hall):
[[Page 32175]]
H.R. 3664. A bill to prohibit certain abortion-related
discrimination in governmental activities; to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. BISHOP of Georgia:
H.R. 3665. A bill to award congressional gold medals to
former President Jimmy Carter and his wife Rosalynn Carter in
recognition of their outstanding service to the United States
and to the world; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. BISHOP of Georgia (for himself and Mrs. Jones of
Ohio):
H.R. 3666. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to increase from 13 to 15 the age of dependents who may
be taken into account for purposes of determining the credit
for expenses for household and dependent care services
necessary for gainful employment; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. CANNON (for himself and Mr. Porter):
H.R. 3667. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to
convey certain real property in the Dixie National Forest in
the State of Utah, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Resources.
By Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma:
H.R. 3668. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide greater access for residents of frontier areas to
health care services provided by community health centers; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. DAVIS of Alabama:
H.R. 3669. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow employers in renewal communities to qualify for
the renewal community employment credit by employing
residents of certain nearby areas; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. DEUTSCH (for himself and Mr. Menendez):
H.R. 3670. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to impose a 100 percent tax on amounts received from
trading with Cuba if the trading is conditioned explicitly or
otherwise on lobbying Congress to lift trade or travel
restrictions on Cuba; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. DEUTSCH (for himself, Mr. Hastings of Florida,
Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Wexler, and Mrs. Jo
Ann Davis of Virginia):
H.R. 3671. A bill to amend part D of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act, as added by the Medicare Prescription
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, to permit
the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enter into
direct negotiations to promote best prices for Medicare
beneficiaries; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and
in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period
to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. EDWARDS (for himself, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Hoyer, Mr.
Clyburn, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Berry, Mr.
Brown of Ohio, Mr. Stark, Mr. Spratt, Mr. George
Miller of California, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Waxman, Ms.
Schakowsky, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Obey, Mr. Bishop of New
York, Mr. Moore, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Bell, Mr. Van
Hollen, Mr. Davis of Tennessee, Mr. Stenholm, Mr.
Frost, Mr. Levin, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr.
Rodriguez, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Ross, Mrs. McCarthy of New
York, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr.
Ackerman, Ms. Waters, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Weiner, Mr.
Hinchey, Mr. Sandlin, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. McDermott,
Mr. Moran of Virginia, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of
California, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Ruppersberger, Ms.
McCollum, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Majette, Mr. Delahunt,
Mr. McNulty, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Lynch, Ms.
Kilpatrick, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Bishop
of Georgia, Mr. Kleczka, Ms. Norton, Mr. Olver, Mr.
Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Baird, Mr. Owens, Mr. Udall of New
Mexico, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Kaptur, Mr.
Ballance, Mr. Case, Ms. Solis, Mr. Cooper, Mr.
Emanuel, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. Davis of
Illinois, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Schiff, and Mr. Meek of
Florida):
H.R. 3672. A bill to amend part D of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act, as added by the Medicare Prescription
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, to provide
for negotiation of fair prices for Medicare prescription
drugs; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in
addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. EMANUEL (for himself, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. DeLauro,
Mr. Sanders, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr.
McGovern, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr.
Grijalva, Mr. Israel, Ms. Kilpatrick, Ms. Lee, Mr.
Stark, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Frost, and
Mr. Meehan):
H.R. 3673. A bill to prohibit profiteering and fraud
relating to military action, relief, and reconstruction
efforts in Iraq, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
By Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey:
H.R. 3674. A bill to amend section 5318 to prohibit the use
of identification issued by foreign governments, other than
passports, for purposes of verifying the identity of a person
who opens an account at a financial institution, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. HOBSON (for himself, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, and Mr.
Tiberi):
H.R. 3675. A bill to transfer administrative jurisdiction
of a parcel of real property comprising a portion of the
Defense Supply Center in Columbus, Ohio, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition
to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. HOLT (for himself, Mr. Hyde, Mr. George Miller
of California, Ms. Harman, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Kildee,
Mr. Payne, Mrs. Davis of California, Ms. McCollum,
Mr. Case, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Hastings of Florida,
Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Boswell, Ms. Eshoo, Mr.
Ruppersberger, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Snyder,
Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Frost, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, Ms. DeLauro, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr.
Schiff, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Farr, Mr. Ford, Mr.
McDermott, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Ackerman, and
Mr. Bell):
H.R. 3676. A bill to strengthen the national security
through the expansion and improvement of foreign language
study, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education
and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on
Intelligence (Permanent Select), and Armed Services, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon:
H.R. 3677. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to require that each prescription drug sold at
retail bear a label that states the full retail price of the
drug; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. HOUGHTON:
H.R. 3678. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to expand the work opportunity tax credit to include
trade adjustment assistance recipients as a targeted group;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. ISRAEL:
H.R. 3679. A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States with respect to rattan webbing; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. ISRAEL:
H.R. 3680. A bill to provide that Members of Congress be
made ineligible for coverage under the Federal employees
health benefits program and instead be made eligible for
coverage under the Medicare Program; to the Committee on
House Administration, and in addition to the Committees on
Government Reform, Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota (for himself and Mr.
Peterson of Minnesota):
H.R. 3681. A bill to provide an exemption from certain
requirements under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act; to the
Committee on Financial Services.
By Ms. KILPATRICK:
H.R. 3682. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to
clarify certain Buy America provisions; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. KING of New York (for himself and Ms.
Schakowsky):
H.R. 3683. A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation
to evaluate devices and technology for reducing the incidence
of child injury and death occurring inside or outside of
motor vehicles, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Mrs. LOWEY (for herself, Mr. Greenwood, Mr.
LaTourette, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Pallone,
Mr. Hoeffel, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Hinchey, Ms. Norton,
Ms. DeLauro, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr.
Brown of Ohio, Ms. Roybal-Allard, and Mr. Waxman):
H.R. 3684. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to establish labeling requirements with respect
to allergenic substances in foods, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. MEEK of Florida:
H.R. 3685. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Education
to make grants to reduce the size of core curriculum classes
in public elementary and secondary schools, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
[[Page 32176]]
By Mr. OBERSTAR:
H.R. 3686. A bill to authorize the Economic Development
Administration to make grants to producers of taconite for
implementation of new technologies to increase productivity,
to reduce costs, and to improve overall product quality and
performance; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Financial
Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. OSE (for himself and Mr. Smith of Texas):
H.R. 3687. A bill to amend section 1464 of title 18, United
States Code, to provide for the punishment of certain profane
broadcasts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. PICKERING:
H.R. 3688. A bill to provide for review in the Court of
International Trade of certain determinations of binational
panels and committees under the North American Free Trade
Agreement; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. QUINN (for himself, Ms. Slaughter, and Mr.
Reynolds):
H.R. 3689. A bill to amend the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to
provide for certain additional former nuclear weapons program
workers to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under
the compensation program established by that Act; to the
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee
on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. REYNOLDS:
H.R. 3690. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 2 West Main Street in
Batavia, New York, as the ``Barber Conable Post Office
Building''; to the Committee on Government Reform.
By Mr. RUPPERSBERGER:
H.R. 3691. A bill to prohibit the Office of Federal
Detention Trustee from constructing Federal detention centers
and to prohibit the Department of Justice from siting a
detention center or Federal prison in Maryland, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California (for herself and
Mr. Quinn):
H.R. 3692. A bill to amend the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities Act and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 to authorize the use of grant funds for
bullying prevention, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the
Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. SCOTT of Virginia (for himself, Mr. Coble, Mr.
Conyers, Mr. Case, Mr. Frost, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, Mr. Berman, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Lee,
and Mr. Kucinich):
H.R. 3693. A bill to provide additional resources to the
Department of Justice for the investigation and prosecution
of identity theft and related credit card and other fraud; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. SHERMAN (for himself, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland,
Mr. Honda, and Mr. Baird):
H.R. 3694. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend the deduction for clean-fuel vehicles and
certain refueling property; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. Saxton,
and Mr. LoBiondo):
H.R. 3695. A bill to establish a pilot and demonstration
program in New Jersey and elsewhere to improve security on
military installations and to improve the quality of defense
contractors and subcontractors; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
By Mrs. TAUSCHER (for herself, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Ortiz,
Mr. Evans, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. Meehan, Mr.
Reyes, Mr. Turner of Texas, Mr. Smith of Washington,
Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Hill, Mr. Larson of Connecticut,
Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Israel, Mr. Meek of
Florida, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Alexander, Mr.
Murtha, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Holt, Mr. Holden, Mr. Moran
of Virginia, Mr. Frost, and Mr. Cooper):
H.R. 3696. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
provide a temporary increase in the minimum end strength
level for active duty personnel for the Army, the Marine
Corps, and the Air Force, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. THOMPSON of California:
H.R. 3697. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to
exempt airports in economically depressed communities from
matching grant obligations under the airport improvement
program; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mr. Udall of
New Mexico):
H.R. 3698. A bill to assure that development of certain
Federal oil and gas resources will occur in ways that protect
water resources and surface owner rights, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. VISCLOSKY (for himself, Mr. Kucinich, Mr.
Murtha, Mr. Mollohan, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Stupak, Mrs.
Jones of Ohio, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Oberstar, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Lipinski, Mr.
Berry, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr.
Brown of Ohio, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Rahall, Mr.
Gephardt, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Holden, Mr. Jackson of
Illinois, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Filner, Mr. Evans, Mr.
Cramer, Mr. Costello, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Sanders,
Mr. Baca, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Clay, Mr. Davis of
Alabama, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. Grijalva, Mr.
Hinchey, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Pastor, Mr.
Rothman, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Carson of Indiana, Mr.
Payne, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Ryan of Ohio,
Mr. Israel, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Sandlin, Ms. Berkley,
Mr. Capuano, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. Slaughter, Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Boswell, and Mr.
McNulty):
H.R. 3699. A bill to reinstate the safeguard measures
imposed on imports of certain steel products, as in effect on
December 4, 2003; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. YOUNG of Florida:
H.J. Res. 82. A joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2004, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Appropriations. considered and
passed.
By Mr. BAIRD:
H.J. Res. 83. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States regarding the
appointment of individuals to fill vacancies in the House of
Representatives; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. NEY (for himself and Mr. Larson of Connecticut):
H. Con. Res. 345. Concurrent resolution authorizing the
printing as a House document of the transcripts of the
proceedings of ``The Changing Nature of the House
Speakership: The Cannon Centenary Conference``, sponsored by
the Congressional Research Service on November 12, 2003; to
the Committee on House Administration. considered and agreed
to.
By Mr. RANGEL:
H. Con. Res. 346. Concurrent resolution commemorating the
tenth anniversary of the first democratic elections held in
South Africa, recognizing the historical significance of the
momentous event, and honoring the South Africans who
dedicated their lives to promoting and championing democracy;
to the Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. RODRIGUEZ:
H. Con. Res. 347. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress that a commemorative postage stamp
should be issued in honor of William C. Velasquez, the
national Hispanic civic leader; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
By Mr. SOUDER (for himself, Mrs. Myrick, Mrs. Jo Ann
Davis of Virginia, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Tom
Davis of Virginia, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Filner,
and Mr. Garrett of New Jersey):
H. Con. Res. 348. Concurrent resolution recognizing the
survivors of cervical cancer and the importance of good
cervical health, preventing HPV infection, and detecting
cervical cancer during its earliest stages; to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce which was laid on the table.
By Ms. PELOSI:
H. Res. 474. A resolution relating to a question of the
privileges of the House.
By Mr. HONDA (for himself, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Eshoo, Mr.
Pombo, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Stark, Mr. Lantos, Mr.
Farr, Ms. Lee, Mr. Thompson of California, and Mrs.
Davis of California):
H. Res. 475. A resolution congratulating the San Jose
Earthquakes for winning the 2003 Major League Soccer Cup; to
the Committee on Government Reform.
By Mr. DeLAY:
H. Res. 476. A resolution providing for a committee to
notify the President of completion of business; considered
and agreed to.
By Mr. ABERCROMBIE:
H. Res. 477. A resolution calling on the People's Republic
of China immediately and unconditionally to release Rebiya
Kadeer, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
International Relations.
By Ms. BERKLEY (for herself and Mr. Weiner):
H. Res. 478. A resolution urging a return to the principles
outlined in the ``Road Map for Peace'' as a viable framework
for achieving a peaceful solution in the Middle East; to the
Committee on International Relations.
By Mrs. CAPPS (for herself, Mr. Houghton, Mr. Markey,
Mr. Leach,
[[Page 32177]]
Mr. McGovern, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Price of North Carolina,
Mr. Simmons, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Pitts, Mr.
Dingell, Mr. Farr, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Lee,
Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. George Miller of
California, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Pascrell, Mr.
Rahall, Ms. McCollum, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Delahunt, Mr.
Kind, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Kucinich, Ms. Kaptur, Mr.
McDermott, Mr. Baird, and Ms. Baldwin):
H. Res. 479. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives regarding fighting terror and embracing
efforts to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace; to the
Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. DINGELL (for himself, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Markey,
Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Pallone, and Mr.
Rahall):
H. Res. 480. A resolution to honor the 30th anniversary of
the enactment of the Endangered Species Act of 1973; to the
Committee on Resources.
By Mr. GINGREY (for himself, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Alexander,
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Marshall, Mrs.
Miller of Michigan, Mr. Holden, Mr. Bishop of
Georgia, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mrs.
Cubin, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. John, Mr. Isakson, and
Mr. Barrett of South Carolina):
H. Res. 481. A resolution recognizing the establishment of
Hunters for the Hungry programs across the United States and
the contributions of those programs to efforts to decrease
hunger and help feed those in need; to the Committee on
Agriculture.
By Mr. GINGREY (for himself, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland,
Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Tanner, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Barton of
Texas, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Bishop of Utah,
Mr. Hunter, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. Burns, Mrs. Jo Ann
Davis of Virginia, and Mr. Turner of Ohio):
H. Res. 482. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives with respect to the October 3, 2003, order
released by the Federal Communications Commission's
Enforcement Bureau in response to complaints regarding the
broadcast of program material that contained indecent
language; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. HASTINGS of Florida:
H. Res. 483. A resolution pledging continued United States
support for the sovereignty, independence, territorial
integrity, and democratic and economic reforms of the
Republic of Georgia; to the Committee on International
Relations.
By Mr. HASTINGS of Florida:
H. Res. 484. A resolution commending the Governments of
India and Pakistan for improved diplomatic relations between
the two countries, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on International Relations.
By Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California:
H. Res. 485. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that a ``Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans
Day'' should be established; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
____________________
MEMORIALS
Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as
follows:
234. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Senate of the
State of Michigan, relative to Senate Resolution No. 189
memorializing the United States Congress to take the
necessary actions, through the International Monetary Fund or
otherwise, to ensure that foreign nations that trade with the
United States do so fairly and do not manipulate their
currency; to the Committee on Financial Services.
235. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, relative to a Resoultion
urging the Congress of the United States to revise the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and Pending Amendment 13 to preserve the
existing successful management of the Commonwealth's
groundfisheries; to the Committee on Resources.
236. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of
Michigan, relative to Senate Resolution No. 190 memorializing
the United States Congress to develop economic incentives and
other programs to aid in the recovery and stabilization of
the manufacturing industry in the United States; jointly to
the Committees on Financial Services and Ways and Means.
237. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of
the State of Michigan, relative to House Resolution No. 176
memorializing the United States Congress to enact legislation
to establish a prescription drug benefit within Medicare;
jointly to the Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and
Commerce.
238. Also,a memorial of the Health Care Task Force of the
General Assembly of Colorado, relative to a letter urging the
United States Congress to maintain existing language in S. 1
and H.R. 1 that suspends the Outcome and Assessment
Information Set (OASIS) data collection requirement for non-
Medicare and non-Medicaid home health plans; jointly to the
Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce.
239. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of
Michigan, relative to Senate Resolution No. 188 memorializing
the United States Congress to expand its efforts through the
World Trade Organization and the World Intellectual Property
Organization to ensure that the intellectual property of
domestic businesses and individuals is protected and that
actions are taken against those countries that violate the
World Trade Organization and World Intellectual Property
Organization standards; jointly to the Committees on Ways and
Means and International Relations.
____________________
PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 3 of rule XII,
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD introduced a bill (H.R. 3700) for the
relief of Benjamin Cabrera and Londy Patricia Cabrera; which
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 36: Mr. Stupak.
H.R. 58: Ms. Waters and Mr. Larsen of Washington.
H.R. 97: Mr. Evans.
H.R. 111: Mr. Sessions, Mr. Chocola, and Mr. Pence.
H.R. 218: Mr. Marshall.
H.R. 278: Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 284: Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 296: Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H.R. 327: Ms. Bordallo.
H.R. 328: Ms. McCarthy of Missouri.
H.R. 333: Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California.
H.R. 339: Ms. Berkley.
H.R. 369: Mr. Ford.
H.R. 375: Mr. McKeon and Mr. Ortiz.
H.R. 384: Mr. Toomey and Mr. Kolbe.
H.R. 391: Mr. Hunter.
H.R. 466: Mr. Radanovich.
H.R. 475: Mr. Scott of Georgia and Mr. Udall of Colorado.
H.R. 501: Mr. Andrews and Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas.
H.R. 516: Mr. Turner of Ohio.
H.R. 527: Ms. Carson of Indiana, Ms. Lofgren, and Mr.
Kline.
H.R. 645: Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 687: Mr. Pickering, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, and
Mr. Goss.
H.R. 713: Mr. Levin, Mr. Sherman, and Mr. Van Hollen.
H.R. 727: Mr. Sherman.
H.R. 738: Mr. Langevin, Mr. Filner, and Ms. Norton.
H.R. 776: Mr. Clay.
H.R. 778: Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 785: Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 786: Mrs. Capps.
H.R. 811: Mr. Clay.
H.R. 839: Ms. McCarthy of Missouri and Mr. Farr.
H.R. 852: Mrs. Tauscher and Mr. Gutierrez.
H.R. 857: Mr. Doggett, Ms. Majette, Mr. Michaud, Mr.
Castle, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Holt, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island,
Mr. Ballance, and Mrs. Biggert.
H.R. 872: Mr. Nussle.
H.R. 876: Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mr. Turner of
Texas, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Clay, Mr.
Rahall, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Marshall, Mrs. Miller of
Michigan, Mr. Olver, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts.
H.R. 882: Mr. Boehlert.
H.R. 944: Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H.R. 956: Ms. Solis.
H.R. 962: Ms. Slaughter.
H.R. 970: Mr. Baird.
H.R. 990: Mr. Renzi and Mr. McIntyre.
H.R. 996: Mr. Kirk.
H.R. 1029: Mr. Frost.
H.R. 1034: Mr. Faleomavaega.
H.R. 1105: Mr. McIntyre.
H.R. 1117: Mr. Otter and Mr. Gutierrez.
H.R. 1149: Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island.
H.R. 1155: Mr. Weller, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida,
and Mr. Burr.
H.R. 1214: Mrs. Blackburn and Mr. Abercrombie.
H.R. 1220: Mr. Reyes and Mr. Herger.
H.R. 1258: Mr. Rangel.
H.R. 1264: Mrs. Tauscher.
H.R. 1322: Mr. Pastor and Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H.R. 1336: Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 1372: Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida.
H.R. 1396: Ms. McCarthy of Missouri.
H.R. 1414: Ms. Kaptur and Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 1430: Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Abercrombie, and
Mr. Sabo.
H.R. 1435: Ms. Majette.
H.R. 1480: Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 1489: Mr. Boozman, Mr. Hoekstra, and Mr. Burr.
H.R. 1501: Ms. Waters, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Ms. Harman, Mr.
Waxman, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Matsui, and Mr. Inslee.
H.R. 1513: Mr. Baird.
H.R. 1532: Ms. Norton, Mr. Gilchrest, Ms. Majette, Ms.
DeGette, Mrs. Northup, Mr.
[[Page 32178]]
Etheridge, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, and Mr.
Cummings.
H.R. 1563: Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Greenwood, and Mrs. Jones of
Ohio.
H.R. 1582: Mr. Pitts, Mr. Issa, Mr. Akin, and Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts.
H.R. 1600: Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H.R. 1688: Ms. Roybal-Allard and Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H.R. 1689: Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Berman, Mr. Menendez, and Mr.
Doggett.
H.R. 1708: Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota.
H.R. 1723: Ms. Velazquez.
H.R. 1734: Mr. Goode.
H.R. 1746: Mr. Rush, Mrs. Maloney, Ms. Waters, Mr.
Langevin, Mr. Emanuel, and Mr. Capuano.
H.R. 1784: Mrs. Emerson.
H.R. 1796: Mrs. Biggert.
H.R. 1800: Mr. Gephardt.
H.R. 1805: Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H.R. 1812: Mr. Emanuel.
H.R. 1822: Mr. Calvert, Ms. Solis, Mr. Thompson of
California, and Mr. Waxman.
H.R. 1824: Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Costello, and Mr.
Herger.
H.R. 1861: Ms. McCollum and Mr. Weiner.
H.R. 1873: Mr. Kline and Mr. Beauprez.
H.R. 1914: Mr. Hoeffel.
H.R. 1916: Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. McCollum, and Mr. Dicks.
H.R. 1958: Ms. Harman.
H.R. 2011: Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H.R. 2131: Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Barlett of
Maryland, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mrs. Cubin, Ms.
Granger, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Sam Johnson of
Texas, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Renzi, Mr. Tauzin, Mr.
Rehberg, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Pomeroy,
Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Boswell,
Mr. Hastings of Florida, Ms. Hooley of Oregon, Mr. Kind, Mr.
Hinojosa, and Mr. Becerra.
H.R. 2133: Ms. Berkley.
H.R. 2135: Mr. Jones of North Carolina.
H.R. 2172: Mr. Meehan.
H.R. 2173: Mr. Allen.
H.R. 2198: Mr. Baird.
H.R. 2217: Mr. Andrews.
H.R. 2224: Ms. Carson of Indiana.
H.R. 2233: Ms. Carson of Indiana.
H.R. 2239: Mr. Dingell, Mr. Moore, Ms. Velazquez, Mr.
Stupak, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr.
Matheson, Mr. Cole, Mr. Dicks, and Mr. Snyder.
H.R. 2260: Mrs. Davis of California, Ms. Hooley of Oregon,
Mr. Jenkins, Mr. John, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Schiff, Mr.
Wynn, Mr. Case, and Mr. Bonilla.
H.R. 2323: Mrs. Capps.
H.R. 2404: Mr. Snyder.
H.R. 2490: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 2511: Mr. Meeks of New York.
H.R. 2579: Mr. Foley.
H.R. 2635: Mr. Brown of South Carolina.
H.R. 2665: Ms. Baldwin and Mr. McCotter.
H.R. 2702: Ms. Slaughter.
H.R. 2704: Mr. Weiner.
H.R. 2719: Mr. Gerlach.
H.R. 2720: Mr. Portman.
H.R. 2727: Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Boehlert, and
Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H.R. 2732: Mrs. Blackburn.
H.R. 2768: Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr. Meehan, Mr.
Aderholt, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Collins, Ms. Eddie
Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Camp, Mr.
Ackerman, Mr. Baca, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Ross, Mr.
Becerra, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Watt, Mr. Farr, Mr.
Mollohan, Mr. Burgess, and Mrs. Davis of California.
H.R. 2809: Mr. Etheridge.
H.R. 2810: Mr. Etheridge.
H.R. 2818: Mrs. Jones of Ohio.
H.R. 2823: Mr. McGovern and Mr. Ehlers.
H.R. 2830: Mr. Boehlert.
H.R. 2844: Mr. Cox.
H.R. 2863: Ms. Hart, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr.
Capuano, Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of
Florida, Ms. Hooley of Oregon, Mr. Green of Texas, and Mrs.
Jo Ann Davis of Virginia.
H.R. 2885: Mr. Brown of South Carolina.
H.R. 2928: Mr. Bishop of New York.
H.R. 2949: Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 2957: Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 2959: Mr. Doggett.
H.R. 2983: Mr. Case, Mr. Baca, and Mr. Carson of Oklahoma.
H.R. 2986: Mr. Goodlatte and Mrs. Tauscher.
H.R. 3002: Mr. Baird.
H.R. 3015: Mr. Shays.
H.R. 3022: Mr. Allen.
H.R. 3049: Mr. Hinojosa.
H.R. 3051: Mr. DeFazio.
H.R. 3063: Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Gutierrez, and Mr. Doggett.
H.R. 3064: Mr. Holt and Mr. Serrano.
H.R. 3069: Mr. Petri.
H.R. 3078: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 3084: Mr. Holt.
H.R. 3104: Mr. Upton.
H.R. 3107: Mr. Meek of Florida.
H.R. 3109: Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Ms. Harman, Mr.
Payne, and Mr. Hinchey.
H.R. 3111: Ms. McCarthy of Missouri, Ms. Lofgren, and Mr.
Larsen of Washington.
H.R. 3119: Mr. Goode, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Ryun of Kansas, and
Mr. Rahall.
H.R. 3125: Mr. McIntyre.
H.R. 3142: Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut and Mr. Olver.
H.R. 3178: Mr. Lampson, Mr. doggett, and Ms. Lofgren.
H.R. 3190: Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
H.R. 3191: Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota.
H.R. 3193: Mr. Nussle and Mr. Cole.
H.R. 3194: Mr. Goodlatte and Mr. Abercrombie.
H.R. 3199: Mrs. Musgrave.
H.R. 3204: Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Ballenger, Mr.
Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. Beauprez, Mrs. Biggert, Mr.
Bilirakis, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Boehner,
Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Bonner, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Boozman,
Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Ms. Ginny
Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Burns, Mr. Burton of
Indiana, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Camp, Mr. Cantor, Mrs.
Capito, Mr. Carter, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Chocola, Mr. Coble, Mr.
Cole, Mr. Collins, Mr. Cox, Mr. Crenshaw, Mrs. Cubin, Mr.
Culberson, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Mario
Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Dreier, Ms. Dunn,
Mr. Everett, Mr. Feeney, Mr. Foley, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Fossella,
Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Gallegly, Mr.
Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Gingrey, Mr.
Goodlatte, Mr. Goss, Ms. Granger, Mr. Graves, Mr. Green of
Wisconsin, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Hefley, Mr.
Hensarling, Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Isakson,
Mr. Janklow, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Keller, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Kennedy
of Minnesota, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Kline, Mr.
Knollenberg, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Lewis of
California, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. McCrery, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Miller
of Florida, Mrs. Musgrave, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr.
Neugebauer, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Petri,
Mr. Pickering, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Porter, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Quinn,
Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Rehberg, Mr. Renzi, Mr. Rogers of Alabama,
Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Ryan of
Wisconsin, Mr. Ryun of Kansas, Mr. Schrock, Mr. Shadegg, Mr.
Shaw, Mr. Sherwood, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Smith of
New Jersey, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Souder, Mr. Stearns, Mr.
Tancredo, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Walden
of Oregon, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Wilson of
South Carolina, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Cannon, and Mr.
Sensenbrenner.
H.R. 3220: Mr. Smith of Washington and Mr. Dooley of
California.
H.R. 3225: Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota.
H.R. 3226: Mr. Bonilla.
H.R. 3228: Mr. Jackson of Illinois.
H.R. 3237: Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 3243: Mr. Platts.
H.R. 3244: Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms.
Lofgren, Ms. Lee, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Weiner, and Mr. Stupak.
H.R. 3246: Mr. Hayworth.
H.R. 3250: Ms. Baldwin.
H.R. 3251: Mr. Van Hollen.
H.R. 3259: Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Bilirakis and Mr. Payne.
H.R. 3270: Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Burr, and Mrs. Capito.
H.R. 3277: Mr. Hastert, Mr. Goss, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Goode,
Mr. Hefley, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr. Camp, Mr. Calvert,
Ms. McCollum, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Spratt, Mr.
Aderholt, Mr. Ose, Mr. McInnis, Mr. Burns, Mr. Coble, Mr.
Crenshaw, Mr. Regula, Mr. Smith of Michigan, Mr. Putnam, Mr.
Sullivan, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Walden of Oregon, Ms. DeLauro, Mr.
Price of North Carolina, and Mr. Burgess.
H.R. 3286: Mr. Ehlers, Mr. McGovern, and Ms. Kaptur.
H.R. 3293: Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Bishop of
Georgia, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Frost, Mr. Abercrombie,
Ms. Berkley, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, and
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
H.R. 3294: Mr. Ose and Mr. Schiff.
H.R. 3299: Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Udall of New
Mexico, Mr. George Miller of California, and Mr. Oberstar.
H.R. 3308: Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Green of Wisconsin, and
Mr. Terry.
H.R. 3323: Mr. Sherman.
H.R. 3325: Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Millender-McDonald, and Ms.
Lofgren.
H.R. 3329: Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 3337: Ms. Lee and Mr. Inslee.
H.R. 3344: Ms. McCarthy of Missouri.
H.R. 3350: Mr. Hinojosa, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Waters, and Mr.
Kennedy of Rhode Island.
H.R. 3352: Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Dingell.
H.R. 3355: Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Ms.
Waters, and Ms. Lofgren.
H.R. 3357: Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 3361: Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Pastor, Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas, Mr. Baca, and Mr. George Miller of California.
H.R. 3362: Mrs. McCarthy of New York.
H.R. 3370: Ms. Lee.
H.R. 3398: Ms. Lee and Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 3403: Mr. Nunes and Mr. Boyd.
H.R. 3416: Mr. Stark, Mr. Waxman, Ms. Hooley of Oregon, Ms.
Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr. Gutierrez, Ms.
Schakowsky, and Mr. Clay.
H.R. 3420: Mr. Rothman, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr.
Langevin, Mr. Michaud, Ms.
[[Page 32179]]
DeLauro, Mr. Towns, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Ms.
Lofgren, Mr. Baird, and Mr. Price of North Carolina.
H.R. 3422: Mr. Crowley.
H.R. 3424: Mr. Menendez and Mr. Clay.
H.R. 3425: Mr. Kucinich, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Menendez, Ms.
Linda T. Sanchez of California, and Mr. Clay.
H.R. 3426: Ms. Waters.
H.R. 3437: Mr. Wynn.
H.R. 3438: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Capuano, Ms. Woolsey, and
Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 3444: Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H.R. 3446: Mr. Moran of Virginia, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. George
Miller of California, Mrs. Tauscher, Mrs. Davis of
California, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Towns, Mr. Serrano, Mr.
Markey, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Andrews, Mr. DeFazio,
Mrs. Capps, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Leach, and Ms.
Schakowsky.
H.R. 3451: Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H.R. 3453: Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr.
Ehlers, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Tiberi, Mr. Baker, and Mr. Collins.
H.R. 3458: Mr. Ford, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Wilson of South
Carolina, Mr. Spratt, and Ms. Millender-McDonald.
H.R. 3459: Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr.
Baird, and Mr. Langevin.
H.R. 3473; Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Foley, Mr. Brown
of South Carolina, Mr. McGovern, and Ms. Lee.
H.R. 3474: Mr. Wynn, Ms. Norton, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Hoeffel,
Mr. McDermott, Mr. Engel, Mr. Turner of Texas, Mr. Meehan,
Mr. Case, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Holt, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts,
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Berry, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr.
Terry, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Honda, Mr.
Bradley of New Hampshire, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Burns.
H.R. 3480: Mr. Frost and Mr. Schiff.
H.R. 3484: Mr. Lantos.
H.R. 3494: Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota.
H.R. 3500: Mr. Coble and Mr. Price of North Carolina.
H.R. 3503: Mr. Frost.
H.R. 3504: Mr. Grijalva and Mr. Kildee.
H.R. 3507: Mr. Becerra.
H.R. 3519: Ms. Baldwin and Mr. Hoeffel.
H.R. 3522: Mr. Smith of Texas.
H.R. 3528: Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. Frost, Mr.
McIntyre, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr.
Inslee, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, and Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 3530: Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Waxman.
H.R. 3539: Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Acevedo-Vila,
Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Baird, Mr. McDermott, Ms. Millender-
McDonald, Mr. Frost, and Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 3543: Mr. McGovern and Mr. Bass.
H.R. 3550: Mr. Frost, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Terry,
Ms. Lee, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Hooley of
Oregon, and Mr. Crowley.
H.R. 3558: Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Shadegg, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Akin,
Mr. Smith of Michigan, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr.
Gutknecht, Mr. Herger, and Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota.
H.R. 3568: Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H.R. 3579: Mr. Sherman and Mr. Baca.
H.R. 3582: Mr. Gutierrez.
H.R. 3583: Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia.
H.R. 3586: Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 3587: Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 3591: Mr. Ross.
H.R. 3604: Mrs. Musgrave.
H.R. 3607: Ms. Berkley.
H.R. 3608: Ms. Berkley.
H.R. 3615: Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Israel, and Mr. Meehan.
H.R. 3619: Mr. Berman, Ms. Norton, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. Farr,
Mr. Davis of Tennessee, Mr. Wynn, Mrs. Davis of California,
Mr. Rothman, Mr. Green of Texas, Ms. Hooley of Oregon, Mr.
Kennedy of Rhode Island, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Dicks,
Ms. Waters, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Olver, Mr. Markey, Mr. Kleczka,
Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Clay, Mr. Blumenauer, Mrs. Capps, Mr.
Acevedo-Vila, Mr. Costello, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Meek of
Florida, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Smith of
Washington, Mr. Israel, and Mr. Bell.
H.R. 3626: Mr. Turner of Texas and Mr. Frost.
H.R. 3629: Ms. Lee and Ms. McCollum.
H.R. 3633: Mr. Young of Florida, Mr. Rogers of Michigan,
Mr. Young of Alaska, and Ms. Hart.
H.R. 3642: Mr. Payne, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr.
Kucinich, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Rush, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas,
and Ms. Carson of Indiana.
H.J. Res. 38: Mr. Hoeffel.
H.J. Res. 45: Mr. Gutierrez and Mr. Schiff.
H.J. Res. 71: Mr. Pitts.
H. Con. Res. 3: Ms. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Payne, Mr.
George Miller of California, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Stark, Mr.
Weiner, Mr. Fattah, Mr. McIntyre, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Davis
of Illinois, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, and Mr. Scott of Virginia.
H. Con. Res. 15: Mr. Upton.
H. Con. Res. 30: Mr. Shaw.
H. Con. Res. 37: Ms. Carson of Indiana.
H. Con. Res. 47: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts and Mr. Weiner.
H. Con. Res. 87: Ms. Lee.
H. Con. Res. 98: Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida.
H. Con. Res. 126: Mr. Weldon of Florida.
H. Con. Res. 197: Mrs. Northup and Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H. Con. Res. 218: Mr. Meek of Florida and Mr. Mica.
H. Con. Res. 223: Mr. Cummings.
H. Con. Res. 247: Mr. Honda.
H. Con. Res. 252: Mr. Cummings, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Green of
Texas, Mr. Etheridge, Mrs. Davis of California, Ms. Corrine
Brown of Florida, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mrs.
Capps, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. Ney, Mr. Bachus, Mrs. Napolitano,
Mr. Menendez, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Hastings of Florida,
and Mr. Miller of Florida.
H. Con. Res. 269: Mr. George Miller of California.
H. Con. Res. 275: Mr. Fattah.
H. Con. Res. 276: Ms. Waters, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr.
Olver, and Mr. Delahunt.
H. Con. Res. 297: Mr. Cummings.
H. Con. Res. 298: Mr. LaHood, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Bass,
Mr. Platts, Mr. Kline, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr.
Hoekstra, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Simpson, and Mr.
Gillmor.
H. Con. Res. 304: Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Stark, Ms. Kaptur, Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mrs. Myrick, and Ms. Loretta Sanchez of
California.
H. Con. Res. 309: Mr. Michaud.
H. Con. Res. 312: Mr. Fattah.
H. Con. Res. 324: Ms. Dunn, Mr. Pitts, Mr. John, Mr.
Garrett of New Jersey, and Mr. Frost.
H. Con. Res. 326: Mr. Schiff.
H. Con. Res. 327: Mr. Serrano.
H. Con. Res. 331: Mr. Terry, Mr. Pitts, and Mr. Akin.
H. Con. Res. 332: Mrs. Lowey and Mr. Feeney.
H. Con. Res. 335: Mr. Holden, Mr. Stupak, Ms. Hooley of
Oregon, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Langevin,
Mr. Weiner, Ms. Berkley, and Mr. Holt.
H. Con. Res. 338: Mr. Ferguson, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Matsui,
Mr. Moran of Virginia, Ms. Lee, Mr. Hoyer, Ms. Millender-
McDonald, and Mr. Payne.
H. Con. Res. 343: Mr. Davis of Tennessee, Ms. Norton, Mr.
Dingell, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Bell, Mr. George
Miller of California, Mr. Allen, Ms. Hooley of Oregon, Mr.
Jefferson, Mr. Turner of Texas, Mrs. Capps, Ms. Roybal-
Allard, Mr. Farr, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Wexler, Ms.
McCollum, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Crowley, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas,
Mr. Frost, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr.
Olver, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Filner, Mr.
Owens, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Ms. Waters, Mr.
Pomeroy, Mr. Clay, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Eshoo,
Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr.
Mollohan, Mr. Holt, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Price of
North Carolina, Ms. McCarthy of Missouri, Ms. Harman, Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts,
Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mrs. Lowey, Ms. Baldwin, and Mr.
Taylor of Mississippi.
H. Con. Res. 344: Ms. Carson of Indiana and Mr. Paul.
H. Res. 38: Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Ms.
Majette.
H. Res. 112: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Carson of
Indiana, and Mr. Faleomavaega.
H. Res. 157: Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Platts.
H. Res. 233: Mr. Toomey.
H. Res. 313: Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H. Res. 320: Mr. Langevin, Mr. Radanovich, and Ms. Berkley.
H. Res. 386: Mrs. Christensen.
H. Res. 387: Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Van Hollen.
H. Res. 410: Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Sanders.
H. Res. 419: Mr. Sanders.
H. Res. 426: Mr. Ackerman.
H. Res. 454: Mr. Case.
H. Res. 462: Mr. Udall of Colorado and Ms. Eshoo.
H. Res. 466: Mr. Shays, Mr. Gutierrez, and Mr. Sabo.
H. Res. 471: Ms. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Towns, Mr. Meeks of
New York, Mr. Meek of Florida, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Owens,
Mr. Hastings of Florida, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. Conyers,
Ms. Lee, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Rangel, and Ms. Waters.
____________________
PETITIONS, ETC.
Under clause 3 of rule XII,
50. The SPEAKER presented a petition of H.R.M. Caesar Saint
Augustine de Buonaparte, Emperor of the United States of
Turtle Island, North Pangea, Malibu, CA, relative to a
petition for redress of grievance; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
DELETIONS OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were deleted from public bills
and resolutions as follows:
H.R. 850: Mr. Bishop (GA)
H.R. 1078: Mr. Weldon (FL)
H.R. 3151: Ms. Norton
H.R. 3507: Ms. Pelosi
H.R. 3583: Ms. Norton
H.R. 3633: Mr. LaHood
H. Res. 462: Mr. Terry
[[Page 32180]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF CHARLOTTE THOMPSON REID
______
HON. J. DENNIS HASTERT
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend to the attention of our
colleagues the recent celebration of one of our former colleague's 90th
birthday this past September 27. Charlotte Thompson Reid, one of my
predecessors who served in the House from January 1963-October 1971,
has been known as the ``Grand Lady of Aurora, Illinois,'' the largest
city in my congressional district. Charlotte Reid has always been an
inspiration to those of us who have known her. Her sparkling
personality and just plain Midwest-friendliness is renown throughout
all of Chicagoland. Her conscientious service in Congress overlapped
with the beginning of my teaching career in Yorkville, Illinois and her
outstanding record helped inspire me to seek public office in the late
1970's. In fact, her daughter, Patricia, is currently a State
Representative in the Illinois General Assembly.
While in Congress, Charlotte served on the Appropriations, Interior
and Insular Affairs, Public Works, and Ethics Committees. In 1971, she
was appointed to be a Commissioner on the FCC where she served with
distinction until retiring in 1976. She was a member of the President's
Task Force on International Private Enterprise from 1983 to 1985, and
has been a member of the Hoover Institution's Board of Overseers since
1984. She is a resident today of Aurora.
One last anecdote. Not only was Charlotte Reid herself elected to
Congress five times with overwhelming margins, but her enthusiastic
support and endorsement helped to elect two future Congressmen--another
of my predecessors Tom Corcoran in 1976 and her work on my behalf
helped elect me ten years later in 1986, during my first and toughest
campaign for Congress.
Mr. Speaker, we are all indebted to Charlotte Reid for her energy,
her gentle manner and her zest for life. On behalf of us all, I wish
her a belated, but happy 90th birthday and many more to come.
____________________
RECOGNIZING DON WILSON FOR OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY
______
HON. JEB HENSARLING
of texas
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to recognize Mr. Don
Wilson for his outstanding service to the community and businesses in
North East Dallas. After faithfully serving as President of Dallas
North East Chamber of Commerce for the last three years, Don recently
announced his retirement to serve as Vice President of the Dallas
National Bank for the Breckenridge Corner Branch.
Since September 25, 2000, Don Wilson has provided energetic
leadership in promoting the commercial, civic, cultural, educational,
and industrial interests of the Northeast Dallas area. Don's dedication
to the prosperity and health of area businesses, neighborhoods, and
residents is well known and admired by his fellow Chamber members.
Under Don's leadership, membership in the Dallas North East Chamber
of Commerce increased by 38 percent while membership retention rose to
62 percent, well above the national average.
As an active President, Don Wilson oversaw many new successful
activities including the Power-In-An-Hour monthly networking meeting, a
new high-tech interactive Web site, the Women's Network, the Focus on
Health Committee and the Healthier Northeast Dallas Initiative, a
program modeled after President Bush's Healthier U.S. Initiative.
Don Wilson's leadership and dedication will be greatly missed by the
community and businesses he served. I thank him for his outstanding
service and wish him the very best in his future endeavors.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ASSASSINATIONS OF MAYOR
GEORGE MOSCONE AND SUPERVISOR HARVEY MILK
______
HON. NANCY PELOSI
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the memory of two
of San Francisco's great and most beloved heroes.
A quarter century ago, on November 27, 1978, two of San Francisco's
best and brightest were assassinated in a dark week for our city.
Still reeling from the Jonestown Massacre only days before--the worst
mass murder-suicide in American history and the murder of Bay Area
Congressman Leo Ryan--San Francisco was dealt a catastrophic blow.
Politically and personally it was a horrific tragedy. San Francisco
lost two great progressive leaders, two champions of human rights.
George Moscone, our beloved Mayor, was a hero of the poor and the
working class. A native San Franciscan, civil rights leader, State
Assemblyman, State Senator, and Mayor, he devoted his life to serve his
City of San Francisco, and his State of California. The devoted husband
of Gina Moscone and father of four beautiful children, Jennifer,
Rebecca, Jonathan and Christopher, he was taken from us in the prime of
his life.
Harvey Milk, originally from New York, was a local merchant, the
owner of a camera shop. As a member of the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors, he was the first openly gay elected official in
California, and only the second in the nation. He was a neighborhood
leader and a passionate advocate for seniors and all minorities.
Both men were exuberant, expansive, compassionate, and enormously
popular political leaders. They were visionaries.
George Moscone and Harvey Milk instigated a historic transformation
of San Francisco political life, pioneering an open, participatory
government, accessible to all, especially those who never before had
been included. For the first time neighborhood and ethnic community
activists, and openly gay men and lesbians were appointed to positions
of power and authority. The number of women in leadership positions
expanded dramatically. No longer were public policy decisions the
exclusive province of the wealthy and powerful.
George and Harvey transformed the political and social culture of San
Francisco for all time. They were beacons of hope to people who had
felt alienated from and neglected by City Hall. They incubated a new
generation of talented public servants, who have gone on to secure San
Francisco's position today as a national model of enlightenment and
progressive values.
The twenty-fifth anniversary of the tragic events of November 27,
1978 gives San Franciscans an opportunity to reflect on the unique
contributions George Moscone and Harvey Milk made to bettering the
lives of us all. These extraordinary men continue to inspire us as we
strive for a society that provides unlimited and equal opportunities
for all our diverse citizens.
We never will forget George Moscone and Harvey Milk. We are grateful
for their lives, and we honor their immeasurable contributions to our
city, our state and our nation.
____________________
IN HONOR OF WILLIAM ECKMAN, CHARLES COUNTY CITIZEN OF THE YEAR 2003
______
HON. STENY H. HOYER
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you remarks made
at the 6th Annual Charles County Economic Development Summit by William
Burke on the occasion of presenting the ``John Bloom Citizen of the
Year Award'' to Mayor William Eckman. Mayor Eckman is a true American
patriot whose
[[Page 32181]]
compassion, caring and concern for the residents of LaPlata shined
forward during the difficult tornado disaster of April 2002. All of us
in the Charles County community share Mr. Burke's enthusiasm in
recognizing Mayor Eckman.
To follow are the remarks presented by William Burke, Board Member,
Charles County Economic Development Commission, President, Southern
Maryland Title on October 28, 2003.
``I would like to start by stating that this award is not given out
each year. Only when a citizen exemplifies the highest degree of
devotion to the well being of our community, do we bring out this
award. However, this year it is certainly necessary to acknowledge the
devotion of Bill Eckman, the mayor of La Plata, with this award.
Bill Eckman first came to Maryland when AT&T transferred him here
from Pennsylvania. He had been the Fire Chief in his Pennsylvania town.
He joined the La Plata Volunteer Fire Department, where he served for
12 years. He has been a consistent and steady supporter, participant,
teacher, writer and speaker for fire and rescue issues. He has traveled
to many cities addressing fire and rescue infrastructure. He has
started 9 specialized fire fighting training programs. After he retired
from AT&T, he wrote a book about fire protection and water supply.
Bill and his wife Delores lead a bible study program focused on
community. The program teaches others to build relationships and care
for one another. Bill practices this philosophy in his activities with
the Charlotte Hall Veterans Home where he regularly brings services and
music with other lay preachers to the residents. This also gives him
the opportunity to display another talent. Bill plays his trumpet with
an informal group at the Veterans home.
Bill has been married for 52 years, has three children and three
grandchildren.
Bill Eckman was a La Plata Town councilman for at least 10 years and
has been mayor for 20 years.
In that time, La Plata has changed. The population has grown from
under 2,000 to nearly 8,000. The Town Hall has had 4 homes and is
getting ready to find a new location. The town staff has grown from 15
to 50.
He has devoted much of his adult life to municipal government. He has
been the president of the Maryland Municipal League and is presently a
well-respected member of the League's Legislative Committee. Often, he
is asked to speak before the State Legislature.
It is safe to say that during this time Bill has made friends and
earned the respect of elected officials on both sides of the aisle.
Bill has always wanted La Plata to be a happy place to live; a town
that enjoys the fruits of good growth without losing the benefits of a
small town. He has always wanted to plan, and whenever possible, to
stay ahead of infrastructure needs. He has been known to get excited
about the very unsexy jobs that come with being mayor--like putting in
a new 15-inch sewer pipe.
Doug Miller, La Plata town manager, remembers when Bill first had the
summer long concert ideas. Doug thought there might be a citizen
turnout for 3-4 concerts, but thought Bill's vision was a bit
ambitious. Well, for over 10 years, the La Plata Town Hall has hosted
Friday night summer concerts to a packed lawn of families.
However, all the smart growth initiatives, concert series and sewer
pipes were just sand in the bucket compared to the leadership Bill
would exhibit after April 28, 2002. Every Mayor and Town Manager sweats
weather conditions that have the potential of causing harm to their
town and heaves a sigh of relief when storms pass on by, but this time
they were not so fortunate. This time Bill had to go into high gear and
get the job done. He had to stand strong for residents and businesses
that faced ruin, despair and fear. He was dealing with a complete lack
of services, the water tower was down, electricity was gone, telephone
communication was hampered, helicopters were med-evac-ing the injured,
and the press was descending. He will tell you that there were many
people who made the miraculous recovery possible, but there always has
to be a leader that makes everything seem possible.
Here is a quote from the newspaper. ``Every morning since the tornado
hit early one Sunday evening, La Plata Mayor Bill Eckman has taken a
walk around town to talk with demolition crews and neighbors.''
Regardless of how many people contributed there is a very interesting
reason why recovery did not have to start from square one. Bill had
already realized that La Plata was in transition and had previously put
together a new town visioning process many months before the tornado.
The blue print for recovery was there because Bill is an optimist, a
visionary and a leader.
It is for those qualities that we honor Bill Eckman as the 2003
Citizen of the Year.
Mr. Speaker, please join with me and the Charles County community in
recognizing the numerous contributions Mayor Eckman has made to our
County, our State and our Nation.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER LEGISLATION
______
HON. C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced this legislation
today to stop the Federal Detention facility from being built in
Dundalk, Maryland.
This past month the Office of Federal Detention Trustees (OFDT) in
the Department of Justice solicited proposals for a new detention
facility for the Baltimore-Washington region. One of the proposed sites
was in Dundalk, Maryland. I was concerned that this office took action
without consulting the community. OFDT solicited proposals without
bringing the communities into the process. OFDT took action without the
input of Federal, State, and local officials. This is wrong.
The Dundalk community is undergoing revitalization efforts, and even
proposing such a facility might have cooled businesses and new
residential interest in this community. As the former Baltimore County
Executive, my administration spent over $130 million to revitalize the
area. It is very important to me that we help our older communities. It
is important that we allow these communities that have generations of
families living there to revitalize and attract new jobs and new
businesses.
Also, the eastern part of Baltimore County was hit hard by Hurricane
Isabel. It has caused extensive damage and many of the residents and
businesses are still struggling to get on their feet. Hurricane Isabel
damage estimates for Maryland alone are valued at six million dollars.
We must continue to work to help this area.
The Maryland Congressional delegation has worked tirelessly to stop
the detention center, and I remain committed to its defeat. We worked
together to insert language into the FY' 04 Omnibus appropriations to
stop this facility. I want to thank Senator Mikulski and Democratic
Whip Steny Hoyer for all their efforts. We knew the actions of OFDT
would do more harm to our community and we fought to stop it.
This legislation takes an additional strengthening step to ensure
that this facility and no new detention center or prison is built in my
district. This legislation prohibits the OFDT from building or
proposing any sites and it prohibits the Attorney General from building
a detention center or prison in Dundalk.
In the past few months this area has experienced major problems. They
saw thousands of Marylanders lose their jobs with the restructuring at
ISG. They saw severe damage from Hurricane Isabel. This prison would be
one more concern for the community. It is important to allow this area
to revitalize and to grow. I remain committed to fighting for Dundalk
and for my fellow Marylanders.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MAYOR TAUER AND THE RETIRING AURORA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
______
HON. BOB BEAUPREZ
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, the political landscape of Colorado's
third largest city changed considerably after the City of Aurora's
November 4 municipal elections. Due largely to term limits, the largest
turnover of elected officials in city history has occurred. The people
who left public service were committed public servants who have left
indelible marks on Aurora and positioned the City and its citizens for
great success and achievement in the 21st century.
Collectively, Mayor Paul Tauer and Council members Barbara Cleland,
Bob LeGare, Edna Mosley, John Paroske and Dave Williams provided their
constituents with 85 years of service as elected officials at the City.
They have provided visionary leadership and both their knowledge of and
commitment to issues of importance to the people of Aurora will be hard
to replace.
Paul Tauer was the Mayor of Aurora from 1987 until 2003. He was a
City Councilman for eight years before that. He has been a visionary
leader whose legacy will be felt for decades to come. He has been at
the forefront of
[[Page 32182]]
development in the City, including Original and Southeast Aurora,
Buckley Air Force Base, Gateway, E-470 corridor, City Center, Aurora
Municipal Center and the redevelopment of Fitzsimons. He was
instrumental in establishing a growth management plan that sets goals
for quality and smart growth and has been a leader in water issues
including drought management, the enhancement of Aurora's water supply
including acquisition of new water resources, treatment and use of
recycled water and more than doubling storage and distribution systems.
He has also overseen the enhancement of the City's transportation
systems. He has been Aurora's greatest cheerleader and defender and
under his leadership, Aurora has grown from a sleepy suburb to a
vibrant city.
Barb Cleland served as an Aurora City Councilwoman for 20 years. She
distinguished herself as an expert on public safety issues and was
instrumental in decisions to make Aurora a leader in ensuring its
citizens had necessary protections with programs including the Victim
Advocate program and service on the Officer Standard and Training
Board, the Aurora Gang Task Force and the National League of Cities
Public Safety and Crime Prevention Steering Committee. She was active
in municipal organizations and has been a respected leader in the
National League of Cities, the Denver Regional Council of Governments
and the Colorado Municipal League, where she remains a member of the
Board of Directors.
Bob LeGare was an Aurora City Councilman for eight years. Devoted to
the importance of small business, he worked to make Aurora a partner
with businesses to provide jobs and services. He provided leadership on
a variety of economic development initiatives including the Fitzsimons
Redevelopment Authority, Colorado Commission on Taxation, Aurora
Citizens Advisory Budget Committee, Colorado Office of Regulatory
Reform Advisory Board, Aurora Chamber of Commerce, Aurora Association
of Realtors and the Aurora Realtor Governmental Affairs Committee and
further contributed to the community through Leadership Aurora, Aurora
Museum Foundation, Aurora Open Space Board and the Aurora Boys and
Girls Club.
Edna Mosley spent 12 years serving Aurora as a City Councilwoman. She
championed issues of importance to veterans and military retirees and
worked to promote volunteerism, diversity and the enhancement of the
cultural arts in the community. She was instrumental in the formation
of the Aurora Youth Commission and served with distinction on the
Fitzsimons Redevelopment Authority Executive Committee, Aurora Economic
Development Council, Denver International Airport Business Partnership,
Lowry Economic Recovery Project, Adams County Economic Development
Council, Community College of Aurora Advisory Council and Aurora
Business Advisory Board.
John Paroske completed ten years of public service as a City
Councilman last month. An accountant, John offered his financial
expertise and worked hard to make sure Aurora taxpayers knew their
resources were being used wisely. He devoted countless hours to make
Aurora a better place through his work on the Economic Development
Committee, E-470 Authority, Aurora Chamber of Commerce, Utility Budget
Committee, Visitors Promotion Fund, Aurora Education Foundation, Spirit
of Aurora, Community Housing Services and Aurora Rotary Club.
Dave Williams served 11 years during two different stints as a member
of the Aurora City Council. He worked to improve the efficiency of the
City by encouraging better review processes and more efficient
administration. He represented the views of his constituents by
promoting business and development in an effort to improve the City's
quality of life. He has been a leader in the business community as
illustrated by his experience on the Aurora Economic Development
Council, E-470 Authority, Aurora Rotary Club and the Urban Drainage and
Flood Control District.
These outstanding public servants deserve our thanks and admiration.
Their work on behalf of the people of Aurora has improved quality of
life in innumerable ways. They leave big shoes for their successors to
fill. We are honored to have served with them and offer our best wishes
for future success.
____________________
RECOGNIZING DREW QUINTON THOMPSON FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Drew Quinton
Thompson, a very special young man who has exemplified the finest
qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the
Boy Scouts of America, Troop 60, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Drew has been very active with his troop, participating in many Scout
activities. Over the eight years Drew has been involved with Scouting,
he has earned 62 merit badges and has held numerous leadership
positions, serving as Senior Patrol Leader, Assistant Senior Patrol
Leader, Patrol Leader, Quartermaster, Troop Guide, and Librarian. Drew
is a Warrior in the Tribe of Mic-O-Say and has received the Arrow of
Light Award.
For his Eagle Scout project, Drew completed a walking trail at Mark
Youngdahl Conservation Center in Saint Joseph, Missouri.
Mr. Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Drew Quinton
Thompson for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.
____________________
HONORING MRS. ZELMA WITT
______
HON. JEB HENSARLING
of texas
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being one of
fourteen students in Mrs. Zelma Witt's first kindergarten class in
Omaha, Texas. Today, I honor Mrs. Zelma Witt for her love of learning
and thank her for the wonderful gifts she bestowed on all of the
students who were blessed to be in her classroom.
Mrs. Witt left an indelible mark on the lives of countless students
during their earliest and most formative years of schooling. Mrs. Witt
taught her young pupils the most fundamental building blocks of
education, setting her students on a path toward higher education and
brighter futures.
I feel honored to have been a part of Mrs. Witt's first kindergarten
class and part of the commitment to learning that she ingrained in her
young students. May God bless you, Mrs. Witt. Thank you for all the
gifts you have given us.
____________________
IN CELEBRATION OF THE RE-OPENING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO CONSERVATORY OF
FLOWERS
______
HON. NANCY PELOSI
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to be present at the
grand re-opening of the San Francisco Conservatory of Flowers. The
Conservatory is considered by many to be the jewel of Golden Gate Park
and the City of San Francisco. It is a monument to biodiversity,
renewal, and beauty.
Congratulations to all those who joined forces in the fight to
restore our Conservatory: John Murray, President of San Francisco
Recreation & Parks Commission; Scott Medbury, Director of the
Conservatory; Rebecca Green, President of Friends of Recreation &
Parks; and Elizabeth Goldstein, General Manager of Recreation & Parks.
Thank you for your vision and your leadership. The people of San
Francisco, future generations of San Franciscans and visitors alike,
owe you a great debt of gratitude.
I would like to take this opportunity to commend Richard Goldman, one
of San Francisco's most generous citizens. His support of our City and
our environment is immeasurable. His tremendous contribution to the
Conservatory in honor of his late wife, Rhoda, led the way. Many other
extremely generous families followed; the Madeleine Haas Russell family
and the Fisher, Friend and Taube families. These families have
graciously supported so many of San Francisco's treasures for decades.
This grand undertaking could never have been realized without the
leadership of our Mayor, Willie Brown. This is yet another project
marked by excellence, effectiveness, and success. It is fitting that
this extensive project was completed under his watchful eye. Mayor
Brown raised the visibility of the project to a national level and used
his unique abilities to develop private public partnerships.
An army of volunteers worked non-stop since the devastating windstorm
of 1995 to make this day happen. The 124 year old conservatory was
thought to have sustained irreparable damage. Of the $25 million needed
for this massive rehabilitation, $15 million came
[[Page 32183]]
from individual donations. The prospect of the Conservatory's imminent
destruction was unthinkable to the people of San Francisco. They had
the wisdom to know that its beauty could never be rivaled or
replicated. They were stubborn and unrelenting in their demand that we
preserve this architectural masterpiece. Because of their labor of
love, we once again can view the exquisite beauty outside and
experience the lush splendor within. Their talent, commitment and
dedication to this magnificent project honors our patron saint, St.
Francis, honors nature, and honors God's creation.
Today we can once more enjoy the stunning high altitude orchids, the
giant cycads, and the rest of the 1,500 species of plants from over 50
countries. In addition to the tropical paradise that we all remember,
there are new displays to inspire visitors to appreciate and conserve
our planet's extraordinary biodiversity.
San Francisco is proud to be the home of the oldest glass and wood
conservatory in the United States. It is a place of exquisite and
intoxicating beauty. It is a spiritual place. We are all very fortunate
to be able to enjoy its magic again.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE LACKEY CHARGERS OF INDIAN HEAD, MARYLAND
______
HON. STENY H. HOYER
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to offer my
congratulations to the Lackey High School Chargers football team of
Indian Head, Maryland, for reaching the State finals this past
Thursday, December 4, 2003.
The Lackey Chargers had a fairytale season led by their head coach,
Mr. Scott Chadwick, and many devoted assistant coaches. In regular
season matches, they were defeated only once, and this record allowed
them to begin competing in championship games in early November.
The path that would lead the Lackey Chargers to the State finals
began on November 7, 2003, when the Lackey Chargers defeated Westlake
High School to become the Southern Maryland Athletic Conference
champions. Their momentum continued on November 15, 2003, as they beat
Northern High School, and they showed their strength once again on
November 22, 2003, when they narrowly overtook Westlake High School to
become the Regional Champions.
On November 28, 2003, the Lackey Chargers defeated Randallstown High
School in the Maryland Triple A Semifinals, propelling them to the
State finals at Ravens Stadium in Baltimore, Maryland, where they faced
Linganor High School. Despite a valiant effort, the Lackey Chargers
fell short in the end in a heartbreaking loss. Even without carrying
home the title, Principal Jarvis Petty and the students, staff and
parents at Lackey High School have shown their support for a football
team that has made the entire Charles County community proud of their
incredible season.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing each of these outstanding
athletes, #2 Cameron Neal; #3 Courteney Knight; #5 Devonte Williams; #6
Avery Lancaster; #7 Aaron Smith; #8 Michael Young; #10 Damian Shorter;
#11 Jason Murray; #15 Jesse Hitch; #16 Mark Herbert; #20 Morgan Green;
#23 Darren Bullock; #25 Brandon Gaylor; #32 Ricardo Young; #34 Tre
Gray; #40 Bryan Gibbons; #43 Kevin Glascock; #44 Robert Matthews; #48
Kyle Mckeown; #50 Jeremy Hairston; #52 George Kerr; #55 Mike Seman; #56
Aaron Williams; #60 Kenny Washington; #65 J.B. Walton; #66 Tyler
McCready; #70 Joe Hughes; #72 Nate Leigh; #77 O.J. Huddleston; #79
D'antae Adams; #80 Quinton Stith; #81 William Johnson; #86 Donte Page;
and #88 Justin Lucas. They have shown true dedication to their sport
and I am extremely proud of their accomplishments. It is with great
pride that we congratulate and wish them luck in all their future
endeavors.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MICHAEL J. WELLBROCK
______
HON. C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a
great American journalist, Michael J. Wellbrock.
Michael J. Wellbrock has been a faithful employee of WBAL Radio in
Baltimore for the past 21 years and just a few days ago he turned 40
years old.
Michael J. Wellbrock has been instrumental in the long term success
of WBAL Radio and served the past two decades as a producer, executive
producer, and general allaround go-to guy and trouble shooter.
Michael J. Wellbrock was the technical wizard whose expertise has
enabled the station to pull-off many high-quality, award-winning
broadcasts, including the visit of Pope John Paul II, the All-Star
game, the Orioles trip to Cuba, the Preakness Stakes, and several
national political conventions.
Michael J. Wellbrock was the genius behind the re-design and re-
building of studios at WBAL Radio and helping to bring the station into
the 21st century.
Michael J. Wellbrock has been the guiding force in the career
development of many young, aspiring broadcasters.
Michael J. Wellbrock has been the creative force behind many
successful programs on WBAL Radio.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Michael J.
Wellbrock for his service and for his work on behalf of America's
citizens and our nation.
____________________
COMMENDING THE ADAMS COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL MARINE CORPS JUNIOR RESERVE
OFFICER'S TRAINING CORPS
______
HON. BOB BEAUPREZ
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Marine Corps
Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corps program at Adams City High
School in Commerce City, Colorado.
On Friday, December 12, they will present the colors for a field
hearing I have requested at the Colorado State Capitol. It is worth
noting the history of this group.
The only Marine Corps JROTC program in the State, the Adams City High
School program started in 1969 and enjoyed several years of popularity
before declining in the late 70's and early 80's.
After a concerted effort to improve expectations and standards, the
program has received several awards of recognition as a program of
excellence. In the 2001-02 academic year, they received the prestigious
Marine Corps Reserved Officer's Association Award (MCROA) as the best
JROTC program in the ten-state 8th Marine Corps District. Only six
programs across the Nation receive this distinction annually.
Due to the superior performance of the program, Adams City High
School was also designated as a Naval Honor School for the first time
in its history. This is the highest award attainable for a Marine Corps
JROTC program and exemplifies leadership, integrity and excellence.
Naval Honor School status is reserved for the top 20 percent of the
schools nationally and affords the Senior Marine Instructor the
opportunity to nominate up to three cadets to the United States Naval
Academy.
Last year (2002-03) the cadets continued their superior performance,
repeating as a Naval Honor School and attaining distinction as the best
inspected unit in the 8th Marine Corps District with a total score of
993 points out of a possible 1000, receiving ``outstanding'' marks in
all twelve categories of the inspection. This accomplishment garnered
the program the coveted ``McLemore Detachment'' Award for the Marine
Corps League, McLemore Detachment in Houston, Texas.
JROTC is a regularly scheduled class for students, focusing on
leadership, discipline, citizenship and physical fitness. Their weekly
events include drill marching, uniform inspection, physical training
and academic instruction.
J.D. Bristow, the senior Marine instructor at ACHS, has done a fine
job with this group of young men and women. These young leaders are
extremely active in the leadership of their class. They not only have
the potential to make excellent officers in our military, but also have
dedicated their time to many after-school opportunities, such as
community and school service projects.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent this terrific organization in
Congress. I appreciate their families for the support and encouragement
necessary for its success. The ACHS JROTC program and its
administrators have made a sizable impact on the community. They are to
be commended.
[[Page 32184]]
____________________
HONORING THE MEMORY OF ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF TOM UNDERHILL
______
HON. JEB HENSARLING
of texas
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today, Texans mourn the loss of a fine
law enforcement officer. Just 3 weeks after being diagnosed with
leukemia, at 43 years of age, Athens Assistant Police Chief Tom
Underhill passed away at Baylor Hospital in Dallas from complications
related to his disease.
Underhill served Athens Police Department for 21 years. He started as
a patrolman in May 1982. He was promoted to sergeant in 1987 and to
patrol lieutenant in 1993. Tom Underhill took over the position of
assistant chief in March. Previous to his time at Athens Police
Department, he worked as a deputy sheriff at Gregg County and Henderson
County. His coworkers remember him as having a quiet spirit, a strong
sense of professionalism and a good sense of humor. He loved golf, gun
shows and helping others.
During his years of service, Tom Underhill was recognized numerous
times for his achievements. He was named officer of the year several
times and headed up the department's special response unit. He was a
training officer, a firearms instructor and a graduate of the FBI
National Academy. He was also always willing to make speeches at
schools and help at community events.
Today, we honor the memory of Assistant Chief Tom Underhill who
served his community with distinction. Our most heartfelt prayers go
out to his family, friends and fellow police officers, especially to
his wife, Stacey and his parents, Bill and Linda Underhill.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE SURVIVORS AND RAISING
AWARENESS OF CERVICAL CANCER
______
HON. MARK E. SOUDER
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, January is Cervical Cancer Awareness Month
and today I have introduced a resolution to recognize the survivors of
cervical cancer and to raise awareness of cervical cancer, including
the importance of prevention, early diagnosis and treatment.
Each year in the United States, approximately 12,200 women are
diagnosed with cervical cancer and 4,100 women die from the disease.
Worldwide, cervical cancer affects approximately 288,000 women
annually, and in some parts of the world, cervical cancer is the most
common cancer in women.
Clinical studies have confirmed that the human papillomavirus (HPV)
is the cause of nearly all cervical cancer. In addition, HPV is
associated with more than 1 million precancerous lesions of varying
severity. With 20 million Americans believed to be infected, HPV is one
of the most common sexually transmitted diseases in the United States.
An estimated 5.5 million people become infected with HPV every year.
Not everyone infected with HPV will develop cancer but those with
persistent, high risk strains of HPV are at increased risk as are their
partners.
However, the majority of women are unaware of these facts. In a
recent survey, 70 percent of women were unable to name the cause of
cervical cancer, and 76 percent had never heard of HPV.
Many also confuse treatment with prevention. While treatment can
prevent the progression of cervical disease or death from cervical
cancer, treatment is not prevention of the presence of disease.
Furthermore, treatment can often be invasive, unpleasant, and costly
and not preclude the necessity for additional treatments.
Cervical cancer is treated using surgery, radiation and chemotherapy;
sometimes two or more methods are used. The most common types of
surgery include cryosurgery, laser surgery, cone biopsy, simple
hysterectomy, radical hysterectomy and pelvis lymph node dissection,
and pelvic exenteration. Radiation therapy may involve external
radiation or internal radiation (radioactive materials implanted in the
tumor).
Treatment for cervical dysplasia--a premalignant or precancerous
change in the cells of the cervix that may progress to cancer--include
surgery, cone biopsy, cryosurgery, laser surgery, and electrosurgery.
The direct medical cost of treating a patient with cervical cancer is
$9,200 to $13,360, while surgery to remove a precancerous lesion is
$1,100 to $4,360. The financial burden of HPV in the United States has
been estimated to range from $1.6 billion to $6 billion annually,
making HPV one of the most costly sexually transmitted diseases after
HIV/AIDS.
To alleviate the burden of these costs to women who are faced with
the threat of cervical cancer, Congress approved Public Law 106-354 in
2000 allowing states to provide medical assistance through Medicaid to
eligible women who were screened for and found to have breast or
cervical cancer, including precancerous conditions, through the
National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.
The best protection against cervical cancer and cervical disease,
however, remains prevention of HPV infection. Public Law 106-554, also
approved by Congress in 2000, directs the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration to take action to
educate the public about HPV. The law specifically requires CDC to
issue a report on HPV not later than December 21, 2003, ``including a
detailed summary of the significant findings and problems and best
strategies to prevent future infections, based on the available
science.''
With Cervical Cancer Awareness Month just weeks away, the statutory
release date mandated for the CDC HPV prevention report is well timed
to allow all members of Congress, federal agencies, health care
professionals and the public to educate themselves and others about
HPV. During this month, we should also recognize the survivors of HPV
and cervical cancer who have shown tremendous courage and determination
in the face of adversity.
____________________
TEXAS FIRM WINS TOP AWARD
______
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH
of texas
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, an architecture firm in my hometown
of San Antonio recently received well-deserved national recognition.
Lake/Flato Architects Inc. won the 2004 American Institute of
Architects Architecture Firm Award, the highest honor given in its
category.
The annual award goes to a firm that consistently has produced
distinguished architecture for at least 10 years. Founded in 1984 by
David Lake and Ted Flato, the firm today employees forty-four talented
people, including six partners.
At its best, architecture warms the heart, uplifts the spirit, and
engages the mind. It inspires us, even if we don't know all the reasons
why.
That Lake/Flato would be singled out by the AIA is no surprise. The
firm already has picked up more than 90 regional and national
architecture awards, including honorable mention awards from the AIA in
1992, 1997 and 1999. And it has inspired thousands of individuals
throughout the United States with its eye-catching designs.
This is only the second time that a Texas architecture firm has
garnered the top prize from the AIA.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. JEB BRADLEY
of new hampshire
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, due to my participation in
a congressional delegation trip to Iraq, I missed several votes. I
would like the record to reflect that had I been present, I would have
voted in the following manner:
On rollcall 576, on the motion to suspend the rules and
pass, as amended, H.R. 1720, the Veterans Health Care
Facilities Capital Improvement Act, I would have voted
``aye''.
On rollcall 577, on the motion to suspend the rules and
agree to the Senate amendments to H.R. 1516, the National
Cemetery Expansion Act, I would have voted ``aye''.
On rollcall 578, on the motion to suspend the rules and
agree to H.R. 3365, the Fallen Patriots Tax Relief Act, I
would have voted ``aye''.
On rollcall 579, on the motion to suspend the rules and
agree to H. Res. 414, to encourage the People's Republic of
China to fulfill its commitments under international trade
agreements, support the United States manufacturing sector,
and establish monetary and financial market reforms, I would
have voted ``aye''.
On rollcall 581, I would have voted ``aye''.
On rollcall 582, on expressing deep gratitude for the valor
and commitment of the members of the United States Armed
Forces
[[Page 32185]]
who were deployed in Operation Restore Hope to provide
humanitarian assistance to the people of Somalia in 1993, I
would have voted ``aye''.
On rollcall 583, on making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2004, I would have voted
``aye''.
On rollcall 586, I would have voted ``aye''.
On rollcall 587, I would have voted ``aye''. On rollcall
592, agreeing to the conference report on the Flight 100--FAA
Reauthorization Act, I would have voted ``aye''.
On rollcall 593, on the motion to suspend the rules and
agree to H. Res. 409--Repudiating the Anti-Semetic Remarks
Expressed by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, I would have voted
``aye''. On rollcall 595, agreeing to the conference report
on the Department of Interior and related agencies
Appropriations Act, I would have voted ``aye''.
On rollcall 596, on the motion to suspend the rules and
agree to H. Con. Res. 302, A Sense of Congress welcoming
President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan to the United States on
October 31, I would have voted ``aye''.
On rollcall 597, I would have voted ``aye''.
On rollcall 598, I would have voted ``aye''.
On rollcall 601, agreeing to the conference report on the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense and the
Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, I would have voted
``aye''.
On rollcall 580, I would have voted ``no''.
On rollcall 584, I would have voted ``no''.
On rollcall 585, I would have voted ``no''.
On rollcall 588, I would have voted ``no''.
On rollcall 589, I would have voted ``no''.
On rollcall 590, I would have voted ``no''.
On rollcall 591, I would have voted ``no''.
On rollcall 594, I would have voted ``no''.
On rollcall 599, I would have voted ``no''.
On rollcall 600, I would have voted ``no''.
____________________
COMMEMORATING HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
______
HON. JAMES P. MORAN
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate
International Human Rights Day which is to be observed on the 10th of
December. Human Rights Day celebrates the day of December 10, 1948 when
the United Nations General Assembly adopted and proclaimed the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the standard for equal and
inalienable rights for all mankind. This historic document has been the
foundation for freedom, justice, and equality around the world.
Sadly, 55 years since its inception, human rights abuses are still
endemic. I would like to draw attention to the widespread problem of
human trafficking. The trafficking of persons is a modern-day form of
slavery, involving victims who are typically forced, defrauded or
coerced into sexual or labor exploitation.
It is the fastest growing criminal enterprise, occurring around the
world and in individual countries. Annually, nearly one million people,
mostly women and children, are trafficked worldwide, including 50,000
persons into the United States.
The fact of the matter is that the violent subjugation and
exploitation of women and girls is on-going and not enough is being
done by governments to adequately address it. Take for example Skopje,
Macedonia. In a marketplace, women are forced to walk around a stage
naked while brothel owners point their fingers to make a selection.
Women are sold like cattle and they are treated like slaves.
In Krong Koh Kong, Cambodia, 14 year old girls stand outside of a row
of shacks where they charge the equivalent of $2 or $3 dollars for sex,
half of which goes to their pimps. These girls, many of whom have AIDS,
are discarded when they become too sick to continue working.
Around the world, women and girls are sold as slaves and are forced
to engage in unprotected sex because clients offer more money for such
acts. These women have no control over their lives, their health, or
their futures. Trafficking victims in the sex industry are exposed to
HIV/AIDS, at much higher rates than the general population with no
access to medical care. The fear of infection of AIDS among customers
has driven traffickers to recruit younger girls, erroneously perceived
to be too young to have been infected.
The State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons Report
classifies countries that allow human trafficking into three tiers.
Some have observed that the United States has been soft on certain
Asian countries thought to be lax on trafficking, such as Indonesia,
the Philippines, India, and Thailand. But because these countries are
allies in the war on terror, they may have been given a pass.
Mr. Speaker, in commemoration of Human Rights Day, I call upon
governments around the world and the government of the United States to
renew their commitment to combating this form of modern-day slavery.
Eliminating this transnational criminal activity is one of the greatest
challenges of our time. We must dedicate our efforts to the prevention
of human trafficking, protection of victims, and prosecution of
traffickers. To deny a person their right to freedom is the greatest
affront to the ideals established 55 years ago set forth by the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We can and must do better.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United
Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following
pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon
all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration
and ``to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and
expounded principally in schools and other educational
institutions, without distinction based on the political
status of countries or territories.''
PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the
equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human
family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the
world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have
resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience
of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings
shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from
fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration
of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to
have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny
and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the
rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of
friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the
Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights,
in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal
rights of men and women and have determined to promote social
progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve,
in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of
universal respect for and observance of human rights and
fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms
is of the greatest importance for the full realization of
this pledge,
Now, Therefore the General Assembly proclaims this
Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of
achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that
every individual and every organ of society, keeping this
Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and
education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms
and by progressive measures, national and international, to
secure their universal and effective recognition and
observance, both among the peoples of Member States
themselves and among the peoples of territories under their
jurisdiction.
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and
nghts.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should
act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set
forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind,
such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or
other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or
other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on
the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international
status of the country or territory to which a person belongs,
whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under
any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of
person.
Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and
the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a
person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any
discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are
entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in
violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to
such discrimination.
Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the
competent national tribunals for acts violating the
fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or
exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public
hearing by an independent
[[Page 32186]]
and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights
and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to
be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in
a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees
necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on
account of any act or omission which did not constitute a
penal offence, under national or international law, at the
time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be
imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the
penal offence was committed.
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with
his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks
upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the
protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and
residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including
his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other
countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of
prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or
from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the
United Nations.
article 15
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality
nor denied the right to change his nationality.
article 16
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due
to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and
to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to
marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and
full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of
society and is entitled to protection by society and the
State.
article 17
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as
in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience
and religion; this right includes freedom to change his
religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community
with others and in public or private, to manifest his
religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and
observance.
article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers.
article 20
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly
and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
article 21
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government
of his country, directly or through freely chosen
representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public
service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the
authority of government; this will shall be expressed in
periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal
and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by
equivalent free voting procedures.
article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social
security and is entitled to realization, through national
effort and international co-operation and in accordance with
the organization and resources of each State, of the
economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his
dignity and the free development of his personality.
article 23
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of
employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to
protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to
equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable
remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence
worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by
other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions
for the protection of his interests.
article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including
reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays
with pay.
Article 25
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate
for the health and wellbeing of himself and of his family,
including food, clothing, housing and medical care and
necessary social services, and the right to security in the
event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old
age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his
control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care
and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of
wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be
free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.
Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and
professional education shall be made generally available and
higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the
basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of
the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for
human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote
understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations,
racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities
of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of
education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the
cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to
share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral
and material interests resulting from any scientific,
literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in
which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration
can be fully realized.
Article 29
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the
free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone
shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined
by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and
respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting
the just requirements of morality, public order and the
general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised
contrary to the purposes and principles of the United
Nations.
Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying
for any State, group or person any right to engage in any
activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of
any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF WOODS-VALENTINE MORTUARY'S 75TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. ADAM B. SCHIFF
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Woods-Valentine
Mortuary in Pasadena, California. Woods-Valentine Mortuary, one of the
oldest African-American, family-owned and operated businesses in the
twenty-ninth Congressional District, is celebrating its seventy-fifth
anniversary on December 14, 2003.
The James Woods Funeral Parlor, located at 87 S. Vernon Avenue in
Pasadena, was founded in 1928 by James and Annie Mae Woods. In 1950,
after the death of Mr. Woods, his nephew Fred W. Valentine continued to
run the business for Mrs. Woods. In 1954, Fred and his wife, Arzella,
purchased the business and it became the Woods-Valentine Mortuary. The
Valentines relocated the business to its current location at 1455 N.
Fair Oaks Avenue in 1963 and built a new structure, which received a
Pasadena Beautiful Foundation award for architectural design and color
coordination.
Woods-Valentine Mortuary has a well-deserved reputation as a
professional, compassionate and dignified business. The mortuary staff
members serve the community not only by offering counseling and funeral
services, but also by their immense community and civic involvement.
Fred and Arzella Valentine have served on the boards of many
professional and civic organizations, such as the Los Angeles County
Funeral Directors Association, the National Funeral Directors
Association, the California
[[Page 32187]]
Board of Funeral Directors, the Pasadena Altadena Links, and the
Soroptomist Club. The Valentines are also members of many civic
organizations including the San Gabriel Valley Black Business
Association, the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce, the Pasadena Urban
League, and are lifetime members and past board members of the Pasadena
NAACP. In addition, the Valentines have sponsored Northwest Pasadena
Little League teams for forty years, volunteered for many years in
Pasadena's public schools and libraries, and contribute annually to
many scholarship funds. They are also active in their church,
Friendship Baptist Church.
Woods-Valentine Mortuary is truly a family-owned business. Fred and
Arzella's daughters, Janyce Valentine and Gail Valentine Taylor, are
part owners. Arzella's sister, Vannie Brown, Fred's brothers, Clifton
Valentine (who died in 1999) and James Adkins, along with Laven Lanier,
James Barker, Ernest Gomez, Lenston Marrow, James Ross, Leo Vaughn,
Julius Henderson and Juan Wooden, are other members of the ``Woods-
Valentine Mortuary family'' who have greatly contributed to the success
of the business.
I ask all Members to join me today in honoring Woods-Valentine
Mortuary for its seventy-five years of dedicated service to the
community.
____________________
H.R. 6
______
HON. JOHN SHIMKUS
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Chairman of
the Conference Committee, Mr. Tauzin of Louisiana, and my colleagues on
the Committee from both the House and the Senate for an excellent job
under extremely difficult circumstances. I am very pleased that we have
been able to resolve their differences and reach an agreement on this
extremely important legislation. Our national energy security requires
that we move rapidly to utilize all of our existing fossil energy
resources in ways that are both more efficient and more protective of
our public health and environment.
Two sections of the conference bill clearly are aimed at these
objectives. Section 932(d) establishes a new program of research,
development, demonstration and commercial application for integrated
clean power and energy research. Section 935 establishes a similar
program for research on innovative coal-burning technologies and
advanced combustion systems.
I have been told that a new oxygen fuel technology shows great
promise with respect to these critical research goals. This new
technology, as I understand it, uses oxygen instead of air to produce
combustion of coal and other fossil fuels in electric utility and
industrial boilers. This prevents entry of nitrogen from the air in the
normal combustion process, which provides both fuel efficiency and
emission reduction benefits. The reliance on oxygen, combined with more
efficient use of fossil fuels, also takes a step in the direction of
renewable energy sources. I understand that the new oxygen-fuel
technology has already been employed successfully in large industrial
furnaces and has proved effective in small scale boiler testing
conducted under a CRADA agreement with the Department of Energy's
National Energy Technology Laboratory. If these results can be
confirmed in boilers on a commercial production scale, the new
technology offers substantial benefits for U.S. domestic and
international energy and environmental policy.
Regarding the research provisions of the conference legislation,
these provisions are intended to fund additional research for emerging,
innovative fossil fuel technologies, such as the new oxygen-fuel
technology. These provisions, with respect to technologies such as the
oxygen fuel technology, will fund projects involving both new and
existing (retrofitted) boilers on a commercial scale, where
appropriate.
It is important to continue research in clean coal technologies. The
continued use of coal, in an environmentally friendly way, will lead to
a balanced energy policy for our Nation.
____________________
HONORING THE 106TH AIR RESCUE WING
______
HON. STEVE ISRAEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the courageous efforts of
the New York Air National Guard's 106th Air Rescue Wing during the
recent CH-47 Chinook helicopter rescue operation in Iraq. These
American heroes saved the lives of two soldiers whose helicopter was
downed in a terrorist attack that took the lives of 16 of their brave
comrades.
Located at Gabreski Airport in Westhampton, Long Island, the 106th
Air Rescue Wing's mission is to provide air rescue support. In December
of 1994, they established the record for the longest over-water
helicopter rescue mission, while saving a Ukrainian sailor in the North
Atlantic. Their efforts in an attempted rescue in 1991 were
memorialized in Sebastian Junger's book ``The Perfect Storm,'' which
was later made into a major motion picture.
I would like to offer my sincerest thanks and appreciation to Colonel
Mike Canders and his entire Unit for their dedicated service to our
country.
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1, MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG, IMPROVEMENT,
AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2003
______
speech of
HON. CHAKA FATTAH
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Friday, November 21, 2003
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference
agreement of H.R. 1, the Medicare and Prescription Drug bill.
This conference agreement provides limited benefit to vulnerable low
income senior citizens and people with disabilities. In fact, the plan
prohibits Medicaid from filling in the gaps in the new Medicare drug
benefit, as Medicaid does now for other benefits. Given the ongoing
state budget crises, up to 6.4 million low-income seniors and people
with disabilities could receive less help with their prescription drug
costs than they do now.
The proposed plan bows to drug industry pressure and prevents
Medicare from negotiating better prices. It also adopts a policy that
will prevent access to lower-cost drugs available in other countries,
allowing drug companies profits to skyrocket at the expense of
patients. Millions of Medicare beneficiaries will be forced to pay more
for Medicare if they don't give up their doctor and join an HMO.
Although the bill's proponents claim it will be limited, as many as 7
million seniors could be forced to participate.
Finally, the conference agreement proposes the creation of Health
Security Accounts, which are tax shelters for the wealthy. This creates
an unprecedented tax loophole that would undermine existing employer
coverage and add to the ever-growing number of uninsured. These funds
should be used to prevent employers from dropping coverage or to
improve the drug benefit.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE LANCASTER FIREBIRD'S PEE WEE AA HOCKEY TEAM ON
WINNING THE EASTERN REGIONAL SILVER STICK CHAMPIONSHIP
______
HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to offer my most sincere
congratulations to the Lancaster Firebird's Pee Wee AA hockey team in
Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Over the Thanksgiving weekend, the Firebirds won the Eastern Regional
Silver Stick Championship tournament in Columbia, Maryland. More than
63,000 young hockey players play in these regional tournaments all
across North America--from Huntsville, Alabama to Vancouver Island,
British Columbia.
Champions of these regional tournaments, represent their region at
the North American Finals Tournament in Port Huron, Michigan in
January. The Lancaster Pee Wee AA hockey team will now represent the
entire East Coast Region. If the Pee Wee AA's win there, they will be
crowned North American champions.
The Silver Stick tournament was formed to promote citizenship and
international goodwill through hockey. In that sense, it continues the
time-honored tradition of using sport to build understanding and
friendship across national lines.
I am honored to congratulate the Lancaster Firebird's Pee Wee AA
coaches Dave Bauer, Larry Collins and Jim Popp. And the Team Manager,
Andy Lee.
But most of all, I'd like to offer my congratulations to the players
themselves: #3 Bob Lee,
[[Page 32188]]
#4 Jacob Friedman, #5 Kyle Boyd, #7 John McCracken, #10 Travis Gold,
#11 Jeffrey Branson, #12 Nico Delgiorno, #13 Danny Keich, #16 Kyle
Troup, #22 Logan Gleason, #24 Ben Bauer, #25 Josh Lewis, #29 Talon
Lewis, #31 Ryan Popp, #44 Alec Collins, and #97 Christian Grim.
They have made us all very proud. I know that they will represent us
well in Michigan. I look forward to continued success from their team
and, hopefully, welcoming them home as North American Silver Stick
champions.
____________________
H.R. 3659, RESERVISTS BURIAL EQUITY ACT OF 2003
______
HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing H.R.
8659, the Reservists Burial Equity Act of 2003. I am pleased to have
join me as sponsors of the bill Mr. Lane Evans, the Ranking Democrat of
the Veterans' Affairs Committee; Mr. Henry Brown and Mr. Michael
Michaud, the Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the
Subcommittee on Benefits; as well as Mr. Jeff Miller; Ms. Julia Carson;
Ms. Berkley; Mr. Sherrod Brown; and Mr. John Shimkus. This legislation
would update the eligibility rules for burial of reservists at
Arlington National Cemetery. Similar legislation passed the House in
the 107th Congress.
Current Army rules provide in-ground burial at Arlington National
Cemetery to veterans who died on active duty, received one of the
military services' highest awards for gallantry, were held as a
prisoner of war, or retired from active duty military service. In
addition, veterans who do not meet the current eligibility criteria but
who served in a high Federal office are also eligible, as are the
immediate family members of all veterans buried there.
It is wholly inequitable that a reservist who serves our Nation for a
minimum of 20 years is ineligible for in-ground burial at Arlington
National Cemetery because he or she had the misfortune to die prior to
age 60. The most glaring example of this policy was brought to light
following the death of Captain Charles Burlingame III, the pilot of the
American Airlines jet that crashed into the Pentagon on September 11,
2001. Although he had retired from the Naval Reserves, he was only 51
years old at the time of his death. As such, he was not automatically
eligible for burial at Arlington. Subsequently, the Secretary of the
Army granted a waiver and Capt. Burlingame was interred at Arlington in
December 2001.
Similarly, I see no reason why a reservist's eligibility for burial
at Arlington should be based on whether that person was or was not in
training status when he or she died in the line of duty. In today's
military, there is often no practical difference.
This bill would revise existing law by eliminating the requirement
that retired reservists be in receipt of their retirement pay to be
eligible for in-ground burial at Arlington. Reservists must be 60 years
old to receive retirement pay; reservist retirees who fall into this
category are often referred to as being in the ``grey zone.'' The bill
would also make eligible for in-ground burial reservists who die in the
line of duty during active or inactive training.
Mr. Speaker, in recent years, reservists have been increasingly
called upon to participate on active duty for extended periods to
support the national defense. As the recent actions in Afghanistan and
Iraq clearly demonstrate, reservists play a major role in the modern
total force concept--we are unable to go to war without mobilizing
reservists right from the start. Let's pass this bill and truly honor
those men and women who put their civilian lives on hold to serve in
our Armed Forces on behalf of the United States of America.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MAJOR DENNIS ADOMATIS
______
HON. ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER, JR.
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Major Dennis P.
Adomatis upon his retirement from the United States Army after more
than 21 years of outstanding service to our country. After his
effective retirement at the end of 2003, Major Adomatis will reside in
my Congressional district.
Major Dennis P. Adomatis has distinguished himself throughout his
military service in challenging and diverse assignments. Throughout his
remarkable career, he has received many medals and awards for his
ability to lead by example, encourage excellence from his peers and
subordinates, effectively manage the Army's resources, and consistently
produce outstanding results. I commend Major Adomatis for his ability
to energize a diverse staff toward a common purpose, setting high
standards and inspiring his staff to achieve them.
Major Adomatis has been assigned to several key military positions
throughout his career, which culminated as the Assistant Product
Manager for Fielding and Integration for Air and Missile Defense
Command and Control Systems Product Office in Madison, AL., a position
he has held since 2001. It is in this role that Major Adomatis will
leave an enduring mark on the future of our Army.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of North Alabama, I congratulate
Major Adomatis for his 21 years of service to our country.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO SHIRLEY PRUSSIN
______
HON. SAM FARR
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, Dynamic social activist, tireless volunteer,
caring mother, innovative supporter, teacher--Shirley Prussin has
filled many shoes during her time in the Monterey Peninsula. Today,
however, I rise to recognize Shirley in another role, as a close and
dear friend. Sadly, after a rich three decades on the Central Coast of
California, Shirley has decided to move to Florida. I cannot overstate
her importance in my life. Her departure marks a tremendous loss for
our community.
Shirley's life and accomplishments on the Central Coast have helped
hundreds, if not thousands of people in the area. Shirley has had a
leadership role in countless organizations that affect the citizenry of
the Monterey Peninsula profoundly: the ACLU, the Democratic Woman's
Club, the Reproductive Rights Coalition, the YWCA, Planned Parenthood--
it's impossible to name all the groups that she has lent her leadership
and support.
As an advocate for human rights and political activism, Shirley's
commitment to grass-roots politics is truly an inspiration. Shirley's
political resume dates back to 1947; while in Southern California, she
worked for Tome Rees' race for State Assembly. Since then, here
dedication to social justice and a better world has led her to work on,
and in many cases lead, numberless community-based organizations.
Shirley's kindness, compassion and empathy for her fellow community
members remains unparalleled. It's difficult to express how deeply her
loss will affect me, but I would like to wish her well with the rest of
her life's journeys. Somewhere in Florida, there's an extremely lucky
community that is about to receive an amazing person, and I am sad to
see her go.
____________________
RECOGNIZING ILLINOIS SUPERINTENDENT OF THE YEAR DR. JAMES ROSBORG,
SUPERINTENDENT OF BELLEVILLE, ILLINOIS SCHOOL DISTRICT
______
HON. JERRY F. COSTELLO
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join
me in recognizing Dr. James Rosborg, Superintendent of Belleville
Public School District No. 118 and his being named the State of
Illinois School Superintendent of the Year.
In his tenth year as superintendent, James Rosborg has achieved
success by consistently building a climate of collaboration with
teachers, students, the school board, parents, and community leaders to
benefit all students in his district. These efforts have resulted in
some of the highest school district test scores in the State of
Illinois. In addition, Belleville District No. 118 schools have
received Golden Spike Awards, State and National Blue Ribbon Schools
Awards, the national AFT-Saturn/UAW Collaboration Award, and most
recently, the Northern Illinois University's Spotlight Awards for
theiracademic achievement.
Dr. Rosborg is no stranger to awards and commendations. He is a past
recipient of the Illinois Master Teacher Award, the Illinois State
Board of Education ``Those Who Excel'' Award, the Illinois State Board
of Education ``Break the Mold'' Award, and the Boy Scouts of America's
Russell C. Hill Award for outstanding contribution to character
education. This year he was selected as the 2004 Illinois
[[Page 32189]]
School Superintendent of the Year and will join representatives of all
50 States and U.S. overseas schools in the National Superintendent of
the Year award competition in February 2004.
The key to Jim's success is his capacity to help every student
achieve, regardless of ability. He takes the opportunity to meet with
children, read to them, and listen to what they have to say. Jim
operates under the principle that each of his actions as superintendent
should be based on ``what's best for the kids.'' He also draws on his
vast experience in education serving as a teacher, coach, guidance
counselor, principal, and assistant superintendent before assuming the
position as superintendent. The Illinois Association of School
Administrators has recognized his strong leadership skills by selecting
him as Illinois' Superintendent of the Year.
His service extends beyond District No. 118 boundaries. Dr. Rosborg
has served as an adjunct college professor to both St. Louis University
and Lindenwood University. He is the Illinois Association of School
Administrators' representative on the State Test Task Force concerning
the No Child Left Behind Act and serves on the Illinois Association of
School Administrators Board of Directors. Further, Dr. Rosborg leads an
educational team in District No. 118 that has been recognized by the
Illinois State Board of Education, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and the
Belleville News-Democrat for high state test scores and quality
instructional programs. In addition, he collaborated on a textbook,
``What Every Superintendent and Principal Needs to Know'', which was
co-authored with Dr. Max McGee and Mr. Jim Burgett.
Under his guidance and direction, the district has completed five new
buildings and provided computers in every classroom and computer labs
in every school. In addition, all 12 facilities in the district are
air-conditioned, when just 5 years ago, only two of the facilities had
air-conditioning.
Mr. Speaker, Dr. Rosborg has the uncanny ability to communicate
effectively and always encourages others to take ownership of the
educational process. He is a great advocate for children, families and
what is right. He leads by example and puts his own family and faith in
everything he does. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the
service and the achievements of Dr. Jim Rosborg and wish him and his
family the best in the future.
____________________
HONORING ROY PARKE, JR.
______
HON. MICHAEL BILIRAKIS
of florida
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Roy Parke, Jr., a
friend, constituent, and pioneer in our country's strawberry industry.
Roy Parke virtually founded our country's strawberry industry. He
moved to my district in the 1950s and, with his father, founded
Parkesdale Farms, which today is a multimillion-dollar operation which
produces most of our country's winter strawberries.
Roy was a farming pioneer. He oversaw the first successful shipment
of berries to Europe in 1963. He was the first farmer to spray
strawberries with water during the winter to protect them from freezing
temperatures. He is considered one of our country's leading authorities
on cutting-edge production techniques.
I am pleased to say that Roy has dedicated his life to more than
personal success. He has for years actively supported and promoted
local volunteer and civic organizations, as well as helping area
schools and students. He also helped make the Florida Strawberry
Festival the country's premiere event for strawberry lovers. He helped
make it such a success that presidents, movie stars, entertainers, and
everyone in between have stopped to visit Roy and eat shortcake with
him.
Roy recently turned over the day-to-day operation of his company to
his children and his wife of 60 years, Helen. Although he attributes
all of his success to her, I know that his hard work, dedication, and
perseverance also have helped him succeed in what anyone who knows
farming will tell you is a very difficult way of life.
Mr. Speaker, Roy Parke is an outstanding husband, father, farmer, and
American. I am proud to call him, and his wonderful wife, friends and
constituents. They are, without question, national treasures who should
serve as examples to us all.
____________________
IN HONOR OF SERVICE
______
HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the
hard work of some of our nation's oldest service organizations to
improve global health. As described in a December 7, 2003 Washington
Post article titled ``Service Clubs Living Up to Mission,'' Rotary
International, Lions Club International and Kiwanis International have
each conunitted themselves to bettering the quality of life for people
around the world.
I represent the city of Chicago where Rotary International, our
oldest service organization, was founded and Evanston where it is
currently headquartered. The organization, in the early 1980s, made a
commitment to eradicate polio and immunize children against infectious
diseases. Rotarians have exceeded all expectations. Through the years,
Rotary International has given $500 million to the polio-eradication
effort and has sent thousands of volunteers abroad to work on the
campaign. Partly based on the strength and success of Rotary
International's campaign, the World Health Organization announced its
intent to eradicate polio worldwide. I commend the commitment that
Rotary International and its members continue to make to improving
world health.
Lions Club International, which was also founded in Chicago, has
spent the last decade working to reduce blindness worldwide. Over the
last decade, this organization has spent $148 million on sight-
preservation projects in 79 countries; it has funded more than 550
grants in 78 countries targeting the main causes of blindness.
Rotary International and Lions Club International paved the way for
Kiwanis International's decision in 1991 to coordinate an organization-
wide campaign to reduce the amount of iodine deficiency, which causes
developmental delays, worldwide. The organization has pledged to raise
$75 million dollars towards the effort, and has already delivered $57
million.
Rotary International, Lions Club International and The Kiwanis have
demonstrated that we have the ability to make real change in the lives
of people around the world. While I look forward to supporting the
efforts of these amazing service organizations, I hope that Congress
and the Administration will also increase efforts to meet those goals.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commit the article from the Washington
Post into the Record, and ask my fellow colleagues to take a moment to
read it.
[From the Washington Post, Dec. 7, 2003]
Service Clubs Living Up to Mission
Rotary, Lions and Kiwanis at Front of Global War Against Disease
(By David Brown)
Lunch is over, and the Rotary Club of Washington, D.C., is
taking coffee when Susan O'Neal starts her slide presentation
about the trip she and 65 other Rotarians took to India,
where they helped hand out oral polio vaccine to ragtag
children in a New Delhi slum.
She explains that the vaccine, taken in two drops of fluid,
grows in the intestine and is excreted by the body for a few
weeks while immunity builds up. She then clicks on a slide of
an open sewer.
``You can see how it's rather easy for people to get fecal
microbes on their hands,'' O'Neal says. ``In fact, even
though only 93 percent of children on average get vaccinated
in a campaign, the other 7 percent get immunized through the
feces in the environment.''
A groan briefly mixes with the tinkling of glassware as the
Rotarians settle in for the latest dispatch from their
organization's 15-year campaign to eradicate polio, the
leading cause of childhood paralysis.
This scene at the Hotel Washington recently is not one that
George F. Babbitt, the title character of Sinclair Lewis's
1922 novel, would easily recognize. A small-minded resident
of a fictional American city, Babbitt belonged to a Rotary-
like organization called the Boosters Club. Lewis lampooned
it as little more than institutionalized selfishness, and his
unflattering picture still lingers in the American psyche.
That may be the reason so few people know that the heirs of
Babbitt's Boosters--not only in Rotary but also in two other
large clubs like it--are now major players in the global
fight against disease. They are engaged in arduous and
thankless campaigns against ailments that have largely
disappeared from the places where their members live.
Since 1988, Rotary International has contributed $500
million and sent thousands of volunteers to work on the polio
campaign. The club is second only to the U.S. government in
the amount of money it has poured into the effort to
eradicate a human disease for only the second time in
history.
In 1994, Kiwanis International adopted as its cause the
elimination of iodine deficiency, the biggest cause of
preventable
[[Page 32190]]
mental retardation in the world. Since then, the club has
provided more than $50 million to help ensure that all salt
used in food contains iodine.
Lions Clubs International, once famous for collecting and
recycling used eyeglasses, spent $148 million over the past
decade on sight-preservation projects in 79 countries. It
plays an important role in a river-blindness campaign in
Africa, has trained 14,000 ophthalmic workers in India and
helped pay for 2.1 million cataract operations in 104 rural
counties in China, where last year it became the only Western
``service club'' allowed to establish chapters.
The contributions of these clubs, however, go well beyond
money. Over the past decade they have essentially created a
new species of nongovernmental organization.
Unlike many medical charities in the developing world,
these are not small cadres of overworked, self-sacrificing
idealists. Instead, they are vast, permanent networks of well
connected people willing to put in small amounts of time--
often in the form of lobbying and consciousness-raising--
against a few targeted diseases.
``Their contribution goes way beyond pretty important. I
believe that eradication of polio would not have been
feasible without the participation of Rotary International,''
said R. Bruce Aylward, a Canadian physician who is the World
Health Organization's coordinator for the Global Polio
Eradication Initiative.
``Kiwanis is signed up indefinitely, not for donating money
but for raising their voice if they see any backsliding,''
said Frits van der Haar, a Dutch nutritionist who heads the
Network for Sustained Elimination of Iodine Deficiency.
``Outsiders like Kiwanis are the watchdogs. They see that the
work is done well and continues to get done.''
In the river-blindness campaign, Merck & Co. provides the
drug ivermectin and Lions Clubs International pays to train
African villagers to dispense it. The ``barefoot doctor''
strategy that has evolved from the program may become a model
for other medical programs in places with few health
professionals, said Moses Katabarwa, a Ugandan epidemiologist
and anthropologist.
``The Lions, they have triggered off a process in which
there is no reverse,'' said Katabarwa, who recently moved to
the United States to work on river blindness with the Carter
Center in Atlanta.
The three clubs came to their work independently, tracing
similar paths from their origins as social organizations for
midwestern businessmen.
Rotary, the oldest, was founded in Chicago in 1905. Kiwanis
(whose name is a shortened form of an Indian phrase meaning
``we trade'') began in Detroit in 1915. The first Lions Club
formed in Chicago two years later.
All made charitable works in their communities part of
their mission. The Lions chose blindness prevention as a
theme in 1925 when 45-year-old Helen Keller challenged them
to become ``knights of the blind in this crusade against
darkness.'' All eventually opened clubs on other continents.
In the early 1980s, several Rotary leaders proposed
beginning an organization-wide project separate from local
efforts. ``This was contrary to the beginnings of Rotary and
was also contrary to the feelings of a lot of senior
Rotarians,'' recalled William T. Sergeant, who at age 84
heads Rotary's polio activities. But the idea took hold.
At the suggestion of Albert Sabin, inventor of the oral
polio vaccine, Rotary chose as its goal universal
immunization of children against polio and several other
infectious diseases. In 1986, it decided to support the
effort through 2005, the club's centennial year. It did not
envisage eradicating polio.
A two-year campaign brought in more than twice as much
money as expected--$247 million, not $120 million. Partly on
the strength of that support, the World Health Organization
in 1988 announced its intent to rid the world of polio. A
WHO-led effort had previously eradicated smallpox in a
campaign lasting from 1966 to 1980.
``A lot of people have very ambitious ideas, but almost
nobody has the funding to kickstart a global initiative,''
Aylward said. ``Rotary was the Gates Foundation of 1988.''
But eradication has proved more difficult than anyone
anticipated. The target date was originally 2000; it is now
2005. The extra time required more money. Earlier this year,
Rotary completed a second fundraising campaign, which raised
$111 million--again more than the target, which was $80
million. The club's contributions. including interest, now
total more than $500 million.
Lions Clubs International, the world's largest service
club, decided to reorient much of its sight-saving efforts
after it held a symposium with experts in blindness
prevention in Singapore in 1989.
``We were astounded to hear that blindness was increasing,
particularly in the developing world,'' said Brian Stevenson,
a provincial judge in Alberta who had just finished a term as
Lions president. ``They told us there were 40 million blind
people in the world, and 32 million of the cases were or had
been treatable. So it gave us a lot of focus.''
Lions set a goal of $130 million but raised $147 million
for its SightFirst program. The organization has funded more
than 550 grants in 78 countries targeting the main causes of
blindness.
Kiwanis's entry into the global health arena was due in
part to the example of the two other clubs.
In 1991, William Foege, former head of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, asked the Kiwanis president,
a physician named Wil Blechman, what the club was doing for
the world's children. Foege cited Rotary's polio work and
Lions' just-created SightFirst. While Kiwanis had urged local
clubs to have a charitable activity aimed at children younger
than 5, there was no organization-wide project.
``I will bring this to the attention of our board, because
I don't know at the moment,'' Blechman recalled answering
sheepishly.
The board discussed the idea and ultimately surveyed its
membership, which favored a global project 2 to 1. UNICEF
suggested a focus on iodine deficiency.
Iodine is an essential part of thyroid hormone, which in
turn is essential to brain development. In places where diets
contain insufficient iodine, generally because the soil
contains little and there is no seafood, the intelligence of
the entire population is shifted downward. In 1990, only 20
percent of the world's households consumed salt treated with
enough iodine to prevent deficiency.
UNICEF estimated the problem could be eliminated worldwide
in five years for $50 million to $75 million. Kiwanis took
the challenge because it was important, concrete and
``something we thought we could handle,'' Blechman said.
The organization pledged to raise $75 million and has
already contributed $57 million. The money pays for
iodization equipment for salt manufacturers and campaigns on
the importance of iodized salt.
Occasionally, members of service clubs do the work
themselves. Thousands of Rotarians, both local and foreign
volunteers, have participated in national immunization days
when vaccine is given to millions of children over a few
days.
Dave Groner, a 60-year-old funeral director in Dowagiac,
Mich., has led four groups of Rotarians to India and one to
Nigeria. Next month, he will take 14 people, 10 of them
nurses, to Niger. They will all pay their own way--about
$3,000 each. ``We've never been asked to not work or to get
lost,'' he said.
Occasionally, club members play a role nobody else can.
Angola has a single Rotary Club, 32 people who meet in the
capital, Luanda. They are led by Sylvia Nagy, who with her
husband owns a foundry. In 1997, a 25-year civil war, which
ended last year with the death of rebel leader Jonas Savimbi,
was underway. There had not been a vaccination campaign in
the rebel-held half of the country in years.
Nagy, along with representatives of WHO and UNICEF,
negotiated a truce so immunization days could be held in June
that year. Rotary rented planes, boats and four-wheel-drive
vehicles to deliver vaccine, and disbursed $4 million to far-
flung vaccinators. About 2.5 million children were
vaccinated.
On Sept. 2, Angola marked its second year without a single
case of polio.
____________________
HONORING CALDWELL, IDAHO
______
HON. C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER
of idaho
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the city of
Caldwell, Idaho for their outstanding record of city management. The
city was recently honored to be on the short list for a national city
management award, for cities with populations under 50,000. As part of
their recognition, CNN wanted to include them in a program highlighting
such cities around the United States. Caldwell has made many strides
recently towards revitalizing their downtown, with projects such as the
Indian Creek reconfiguration project. The cost of being included in
CNN's program, however, was $24,000--a fee used to bring the television
crew to the city. Under Mayor Garret Nancolas, the city declined CNN's
offer because of the high cost to be included. The city felt the funds
could be used more appropriately to directly benefit their citizens.
This example truly reiterates the city's dedication to its citizens and
its exceptional management. The city of Caldwell, Idaho should be an
example to cities nationwide and I am honored to represent such an
exceptional city. The State of Idaho is also honored to include this
city as one of its own.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SERGEANT RYAN C. YOUNG
______
HON. KEN CALVERT
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a hero from my
congressional district. Last week I was informed that Sgt. Ryan
[[Page 32191]]
C. Young of my hometown of Corona, California passed away due to
complications from injuries sustained while fighting in Fallujah, Iraq
on November 8, 2003. Today I would ask that the House of
Representatives honor and remember this incredible young man who died
in service to his country.
Ryan was born on June 29, 1982, in Orange, California. After
graduating from Norco High School in 2000, he enlisted in the Army. He
was assigned to A Company, 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment, 1st
Infantry Division, based in Fort Riley, Kansas as an infantryman and
was deployed to Iraq in September.
On November 8, 2003, while riding in an armored vehicle with other
U.S. troops, his vehicle was hit by an explosive device. Ryan was sent
to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland but later
passed away from complications from his injuries on December 2, 2003.
He was 21 years old and leaves behind a wife, mother and father.
As we look at the incredibly rich military history of our country we
realize that this history is comprised of men, just like Ryan, who
bravely fought for the ideals of freedom and democracy. Each story is
unique and humbling for those of us who, far from the dangers they have
faced, live our lives in relative comfort and ease. My thoughts,
prayers and deepest gratitude for their sacrifice go out to his wife
and family. There are no words that can relieve their pain. Ryan was
awarded the Purple Heart and will be laid to rest at the Riverside
National Cemetery where he will be close to home and those who love
him.
His wife and family have all given a part of themselves in the loss
of their loved one and I hope they know that their son and the
sacrifice he has made will not be forgotten.
____________________
HONORING LARRY R. COOPER FOR HIS 35 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Larry R.
Cooper, Assistant Regional Inspector General for the United States
Department of Agriculture Great Plains Region. Mr. Cooper has
exemplified the finest qualities of leadership and service and is being
honored for his 35-year commitment to the USDA and the people of the
Great Plains region.
Mr. Cooper began his career with the USDA Office of the Inspector
General in 1969 as an auditor for the Kansas City office. He was
quickly promoted and became Supervisory Auditor in 1976 and Assistant
Regional Inspector General for the Great Plains Region in 1987, a
position he has dedicated himself to for the past 16 years. In this
position, Mr. Cooper planned, directed, and supervised the performance
of all auditing activities.
During his career with the USDA, Mr. Cooper was recognized for using
advanced audit techniques, pioneering efforts in controls over
automated systems, and innovatively suing statistical sampling. Mr.
Cooper was honored for his performance by both the agency and the
President's Council and Efficiency.
Mr. Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending the career of
Larry R. Cooper, who exemplifies the qualities of dedication and
service to the United States Department of Agriculture Great Plains
Region and the people of the United States of America.
____________________
HONORING THE PANETTA INSTITUTE
______
HON. SAM FARR
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Leon and Sylvia
Panetta, both dedicated members of the Central Coast and Washington, DC
communities. Specifically, I would like to address their efforts
regarding the founding of the Panetta Institute, a non-partisan center
for the study of public policy. Located at the California State
University, Monterey Bay, the institute serves the entire CSU system,
as well as providing insight and policy information for legislators
around the country.
Soon after its founding in 1998, the Panetta Institute quickly became
an integral contributor to the political community in a variety of
media. One of the main focuses of the program is to equip today's young
people with the practical skills of governance, all the while inspiring
a life-long dedication to public service. In these efforts to develop
ambitious and successful leaders, the Panettas have, in turn, provided
legislators in California and DC with over 120 well-trained and
informed interns. It suffices to say that, through their thoughtful and
effective program, the Panettas have designed a quality system that
greatly benefits both the student and legislative office. After working
with students from the Panetta Institute in my office, it is clear that
they are well oriented with the governmental process.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, I would like to
commend Leon and Sylvia Panetta for their commitment to supporting
sustainable progress in the 21st century by researching public policy
and nourishing tomorrow's leaders. Their many contributions to all of
us in office are invaluable. I am honored to represent the Panettas in
Congress, as well as to hold the office that Leon himself held with
dignity prior to my tenure.
____________________
CELEBRATION OF THE LIFE OF CHRISTINA JENKINS
______
HON. STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a pioneer in
the field of cosmetology. Christina M. Jenkins, a resident of Cleveland
Heights, Ohio who invented the process known as hair weaving, passed
away recently at the age of 82.
A native of Louisiana, Christina Jenkins graduated with a bachelor's
degree in science from Leland College near Baton Rouge, Louisiana in
1943. She began researching ways to secure wigs and hairpieces while
working for a Chicago wig manufacturer in 1949. She moved to Malvern,
Ohio near Canton and continued developing what she called the Hairweev
process, which was designed for making hairdos longer and fuller by
weaving extensions onto existing hair.
She received a patent in 1951 for her hair weaving method that
continues to be used by hairstylists around the world. Jenkins taught
her technique to cosmetologists at Christina's HairWeev Penthouse Salon
in Shaker Heights until 1993. She also conducted training sessions in
Europe.
Once a process only used by entertainers and people with extreme hair
loss, hair weaving has become a common practice allowing people to
appear as though they were born with thick, luxurious heads of hair.
Its popularity has made the hair weaving business a billion dollar
industry.
Christina was married to popular jazz pianist Herman ``Duke''
Jenkins. To this union was born one daughter, Sheila Jenkins-Cochran.
On behalf of the people of the 11th Congressional District, I wish to
commend Christina Jenkins. Her revolutionary contributions to the field
of cosmetology have helped to boost the self-esteem of men and women
across the world.
____________________
IN HONOR OF MIKE CHAPPELL
______
HON. CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, as we wrap up this year's congressional
work, I want to take this opportunity to salute and honor Mike
Chappell, a native of McComb, Mississippi. He has been a trusted
advisor, wise counselor, and valued assistant to me both during my work
in service of Mississippi's Third District, and in my campaigns for
that office.
Over the past seven years I saw Mike hone his natural political
instincts and quick grasp of policy into a strong ability to shape and
influence the debate and outcome of our work. He knows the ``Four Ps''
of congressional work: process, politics, policy, and personalities.
After my first election, he helped me open my congressional office
and has served diligently each year since. But a few months ago he
moved on to the private sector to work in the firm Fierce & Isakowitz,
described by Fortune Magazine this year as ``the most skilled
practitioners of persuasion in Washington.''
Mike has been a friend on whose advice I could always trust and whose
instincts for policy and politics are the best in the business. He
knows how the Hill game is played, he knows the players, and he has
memorized the playbook. Fierce & Isakowitz has hired a great asset and
while I certainly miss him, I am excited for his new opportunity.
Mike Chappell is an example of the type of political leadership
Mississippi has to offer our country. His work has been a tribute to
his
[[Page 32192]]
parents, his community, his alma mater--the Golden Eagles of the
University of Southern Mississippi--and his state. I also appreciate
the sacrifice of his wife Angie as Mike put in long, hard hours in my
office over the past several years.
I know while working in the private sector he will continue to
advance and represent the values we share, those values he learned from
his parents in McComb, those values he continues to exhibit in his
advancement of positive policy here in our nation's capital.
Mike Chappell left a formative mark on the shape and operation of my
office. We will miss his humor, wit, and passion for his work. But I
thank him for his service to this office and to Mississippi.
____________________
IN MEMORY OF E.W. JOHNSON, JR.
______
HON. MIKE ROSS
of arkansas
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of E.W.
Johnson, Jr., who passed away at the age of 72 on November 21, 2003.
E.W. was born in Lafayette County where he spent his entire life. I am
saddened to learn of his death and wish to recognize his life and
achievements.
Born in Stamps in 1931, E.W. worked at Arkansas Power and Light
Company. E.W. was no stranger to public service; those who knew him
well say he was very active in all aspects of the Stamps Community.
E.W. was chairman of Deacons at First Baptist Church, a member of the
Lafayette County Quorum Court, and involved with the Stamps Rotary.
E.W. was also a veteran of the United States Air Force. At the time of
his passing, he was serving as Mayor of Stamps, a position he held for
eight years.
I know E.W.'s death was especially difficult for his wife, Virginia
Johnson, his sister, Martha Sue Robinson, and his great nieces and
nephews, Diane Pennington, Lori Pennington, Josh Pennington, Laura
Hill, Conner Hill, and Taylor Hill. I have kept them in my thoughts and
in my prayers. While E.W. Johnson, Jr. may no longer be with us, his
spirit and his legacy live on in the examples he set and the many lives
he touched.
____________________
RECOGNIZING AARON SPENCER WILLIAMS FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE
SCOUT
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Aaron Spencer
Williams, a very special young man who has exemplified the finest
qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the
Boy Scouts of America, Troop 260, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Aaron has been very active with his troop, participating in many
Scout activities. Over the nine years Aaron has been involved with
Scouting, he has earned 31 merit badges and has held numerous
leadership positions, serving as Assistant Senior Patrol Leader,
Assistant Patrol Leader, Patrol Leader, and Librarian. Aaron also
attended H. Roe Bartle Scout Reservation for five years and is a
Warrior in the Tribe of Mic-O-Say.
For his Eagle Scout project, Aaron constructed a mobile school supply
store for Eastgate Middle School in North Kansas City, Missouri.
Mr. Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Aaron Spencer
Williams for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.
____________________
HONORING CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER CHRISTOPHER NASON
______
HON. SAM FARR
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of a fallen soldier,
U.S. Army Chief Warrant Officer Christopher Nason, a dedicated patriot
who gave 19 years of his life to military service. Mr. Nason was killed
in a motor vehicle accident while serving in Iraq on November 23, 2003.
Mr. Nason is survived by his sister Gina Nason.
A young man seeking focus in life, Christopher Nason enlisted in the
Air Force in 1985 at the age of 20. Nason attended the Defense Language
Institute (DLI) in Monterey, CA in June of 1995 through May of 1996,
where he excelled in his studies of Arabic. He became a warrant officer
in 1999 and was assigned to the 306th MI (Military Intelligence)
Battalion out of Fort Huachuca, AZ before he was deployed to Iraq.
Those who knew him best reflect on his transition into a strong and
irreplaceable member of the armed forces and mourn the loss of their
friend, brother and leader.
As an expert in the Arabic language, Chief Warrant Officer Nason's
services were extremely valuable to the Army, both in combat and in the
classroom. After graduating from the DLI in 1996, he taught
intelligence officers Arabic at both the DLI and Fort Gordon, GA. As a
respected member of the DLI faculty, he successfully fulfilled the
mission of the institute by helping to develop proficient linguists who
would then be utilized for a variety of missions that would support
national security interests. The DLI, located in my congressional
district, is the world's largest foreign language school. It is the
Department of Defense's only foreign language school that not only
educates soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen in mission-specific
foreign languages, but also on the history, culture and current events
in the region in which their language is spoken. The courses are
intensive and demanding as well as incredibly adaptive, in order to
reflect U.S. military priorities around the globe.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a grateful nation, I would like to offer
condolences to Officer Nason's family and friends, as well as to those
service members who will no longer benefit from his exceptional
leadership. This nation was privileged to have a person of his caliber
serving in our armed forces.
____________________
CELEBRATION OF THE LIFE OF JAMES CULLEN WILLIAMS
______
HON. STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a pioneer in
the legal profession. J.C. Williams of Cleveland Heights, Ohio passed
away recently at the age of 82. His efforts to provide legal services
for low-income people through President Lyndon Johnson's War On Poverty
have set the standards for these practices to this day.
A native of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, he served in the Army during
World War II. He went on to graduate from Wilberforce University and
received his law degree from Western Reserve University in 1949. He
worked as an assistant police prosecutor in Cleveland before joining
the poverty program.
A lawyer with the Legal Aid Society for 22 years, J.C. Williams
served as director of offices throughout the 11th Congressional
District of Ohio, in the Hough, Glenville and Central communities of
Cleveland. After joining the society in 1966, he developed a collective
bargaining program for landlords and tenants in Hough in which they
could settle disputes by turning them over to third-party arbitrators.
He served as a lawyer for needy clients until his retirement from the
society in 1988. He maintained a private practice until his death.
J.C. was a member of Saint James A.M.E. Church. He was also an active
member of the Ohio and Norman S. Minor bar associations, Omega Psi Phi
Fraternity Inc., and the Ambassador Social Club.
It is because of his commitment to the community and desire to help
those less fortunate that I wish to acknowledge the contributions of
J.C. Williams on behalf of the Congress of the United States and the
citizens of the 11th Congressional District. J.C. Williams was an
outstanding man who will always be remembered for his outstanding good
deeds to his community and beyond.
____________________
CONGRATULATING SYLVESTER CROOM AND MSU
______
HON. CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Sylvester
Croom, who was named head football coach of the MSU Bulldogs on
December 1, and to salute Mississippi State University for its wise
choice in athletic leadership.
Mississippi State University chose Coach Croom based on his skill,
his talent, his experience and his resume. While race was not a factor
in the decision, I am mindful that Coach Groom becomes the first black
head football
[[Page 32193]]
coach in the NCAA Southeastern Conference. I am proud that it is a
Mississippi institution that has broken that color barrier.
Coach Croom was born in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Growing up in
Mississippi's eastern neighbor, he played as starting center at the
University of Alabama under legendary Coach Paul ``Bear'' Bryant. After
securing a bachelor's in history, Croom played professionally with the
New Orleans Saints. He returned to the Crimson Tide as a graduate
assistant (obtaining a master's of educational administration) and as a
linebackers coach.
He has served on the coaching staff of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, the
Indianapolis Colts, the San Diego Chargers (making it to the Super
Bowl) and the Detroit Lions. Mississippi's gain is Wisconsin's loss.
MSU gains Croom as head coach as he concludes a strong season as
running backs coach for the Green Bay Packers where he has been on
staff with Coach Mike Sherman since 2001.
MSU is the flagship university in Mississippi's Third Congressional
district. Located in Starkville, Scott Field is home to Bulldogs and
cowbells. We are proud to welcome Sylvester Groom as MSU's 31st Head
Football Coach. He will replace the most winning coach in Mississippi
State's history, Jackie Sherrill, who retires this year with a
distinguished and honorable legacy.
I salute MSU President Charles Lee and Athletic Director Larry
Templeton for their wisdom in this decision and once again congratulate
Sylvester Croom and the Bulldogs.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that Coach Croom will make
us proud in Mississippi. We are already thrilled and excited about the
prospect of our future together.
____________________
IN MEMORY OF JUDGE LARRY KINNAIRD
______
HON. MIKE ROSS
of arkansas
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Judge Larry Kinnaird,
who died on November 24, 2003 at the age of 63. Judge Kinnaird, born in
Ashley County, was a close personal friend, and I am deeply saddened by
his tragic death. I wish to recognize his life and achievements.
Judge Kinnaird spent his entire life in Ashley County. Graduating
from Hamburg High School in 1958, Judge Kinnaird worked for Georgia
Pacific Corporation for 26 years. In the 1960s, he served as Justice of
the Peace for six years. In his free time, Judge Kinnaird enjoyed both
hunting and fishing.
Most recently, Judge Kinnaird was elected to the post of Ashley
County Judge, and served as County Judge for nearly five years. During
this time, he was a member of the Arkansas Judges Association and
served on the Southeast Arkansas Judges Association Executive
Committee. Judge Kinnaird was also actively involved in the SEARK
Economic Development District.
My heart goes out to his wife of 44 years, Emmie Crenshaw Kinnaird,
their daughters, Donna Shields and Tammy Streeter, and three
grandchildren, Drew Shields, and Shelby and Sky Streeter.
____________________
RECOGNIZING KYLE EVAN VULGAMOTT FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Kyle Evan
Vulgamott, a very special young man who has exemplified the finest
qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the
Boy Scouts of America, Troop 60, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Kyle has been very active with his troop, participating in many scout
activities. Over the eight years Kyle has been involved with scouting,
he has earned 64 merit badges and has held numerous leadership
positions, serving as Assistant Senior Patrol Leader, Den Chief, Troop
Historian, Bugler, Quartermaster, Patrol Leader, Musician, Librarian,
and Assistant Patrol Leader. Kyle has also participated in High
Adventure, is a Warrior in the Tribe of Mic-O-Say and has received the
God and Me, God and Family, and God and Church awards.
For his Eagle Scout project, Kyle constructed three benches on a
trail at the Conservation Center. These benches will be used by the
many visitors to the Center.
Mr. Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Kyle Evan
Vulgamott for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and
for his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MR. RONALD RUBY
______
HON. SAM FARR
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mr. Ronald
H. Ruby, whose lifelong commitment to educating others influenced lives
of people from the Central Coast of California to Norway. His mother,
Ruth Bittman, his wife Dorothy Ruby, two daughters, two sons, and two
grandchildren survive Mr. Ruby, who passed away on November 5, 2003.
Mr. Ruby was born in San Francisco, California on December 1, 1932.
He attended UC Berkeley, and after receiving a bachelor's degree in
physics he served in the U.S. Navy. Following his tenure in the Navy,
Mr. Ruby returned to Berkeley to obtain his PhD. He was subsequently
recruited to join the faculty of UC Santa Cruz as a physicist and
remained there from 1965 to 1991, while also conducting research at
UCSC and University of Oslo in Norway. I have been told that Mr. Ruby
was an amazing educator; his innovative teaching techniques enthralled
both students and colleagues.
Not only was Mr. Ruby an astonishing educator but he was also a
loving husband, father, and sports enthusiast. Mr. Ruby met his wife
Dorothy Bell as he began graduate school at UC Berkeley. The two began
a family and raised four children in Santa Cruz. Mr. Ruby enjoyed bike
riding, competitive rowing, and Nordic skiing. He also found time to
coach the UCSC rugby team.
Mr. Ruby had an admirable career at UC Santa Cruz and dedicated
himself to teaching and research. I join the Santa Cruz community in
honoring the life of Mr. Ronald Ruby, whose dedication and
contributions were truly commendable.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MICHAEL F. SIMON BUILDERS FAMILY BUSINESS
______
HON. TAMMY BALDWIN
of wisconsin
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a thriving small
business in Waunakee, Wisconsin. This year, the Michael F. Simon
Builders family business celebrates 110 years of service to the
community.
Small businesses are vital to the American economy. Founder, Michael
Simon began constructing farm buildings in Dane County in 1893, and
through the years Michael F. Simon Builders has remained in the family
and continued to grow. The business has evolved with the times and now
constructs residential and commercial buildings using state-of-art
Computer Aided Design and Drafting (CADD).
Now in the hands of Peter and Philip, the founder's grandsons,
Michael F. Simon Builders continues to maintain the family tradition
and strives to create structures in Madison and the surrounding
communities that have style beauty, quality and value. For nearly fifty
years, the Simon family has shown a firm commitment to improving our
community through their extensive volunteerism with the Wisconsin
Builders Association and the National Association of Home Builders.
The Simon's ability to create and maintain a successful family
business for 110 years is commendable and deserves recognition. I am
proud to call Michael F. Simon Builders Wisconsin's own. I wish them
continued success for another 110 years and beyond.
____________________
HONORING JERRY KRAUSE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CHICAGO BULLS
______
HON. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a
remarkable Chicagoan, Jerry Krause, Executive Vice President of
Basketball Operations for my hometown team, the Chicago Bulls. I would
like to congratulate Jerry Krause on eighteen successful seasons as
General Manger and as the architect of the Bulls' six World
Championship Titles. Since 1985, Jerry Krause has played a major role
in building domineering teams for Chicago and
[[Page 32194]]
has twice been named NBA Executive of the Year by his peers in the
1987-88 and 1995-96 seasons.
Jerry Krause brought with him a vision of how to build a championship
team and he proceeded to create one of the most dominant champions of
all time. No basketball fan in America can begin to imagine the Chicago
Bulls without his imprint. When Jerry Krause arrived on the scene,
Michael Jordan was the only present piece of what would become the
foundation of the Bulls' dynasty. Two years later, he began surrounding
Jordan with the key players who would help turn the Bulls into
champions. Jerry Krause drafted such renowned players as Scottie
Pippen, Charles Oakley, Horace Grant, B.J. Armstrong, Will Perdue, Toni
Kukoc, Elton Brand, Steve Kerr, Marcus Fizer, Jamal Crawford, Jerry
Sloan, Clifford Ray, Brad Davis, Trenton Hassell, Jay Williams; signed
key players Ron Harper, John Paxson, Scott Williams, Ron Mercer, Eddie
Robinson, Corie Blount, Donyell Marshall; traded for Bill Cartwright,
Dennis Rodman and a host of others who wore the Bulls uniform during
those championship seasons.
Jerry Krause has a skillful eye for spotting basketball talent and an
insightful mentality of how to build a winning team. He helped to build
the dominant NBA team of the 1990s. With Jerry Krause as GM, the Bulls
won six titles behind the play of Michael Jordan. One of Jerry Krause's
most brilliant moves was bringing the man who could possibly be the
greatest coach in NBA history into the league. During the summer of
1987, he hired Phil Jackson as an assistant coach and later on as head
coach. Jackson has since tied Red Auerbach with nine NBA titles, the
most in NBA history. He then hired replacement Tim Floyd, and current
head coach Bill Cartwright. Jerry Krause also influenced drafting Hall
of Fame players, Earl Monroe and Wes Unseld, and four NBA Rookies of
the year with Monroe, Unseld, Alvin Adams and Brand. Jerry Krause
effectively laid the foundation for the Chicago Bulls' decade of
dominance.
Jerry Krause became the Bulls' GM in 1985 after working for Bulls
owner Jerry Reinsdorf as a scout with baseball's Chicago White Sox. He
made a reputation in the NBA as a super-scout for the Baltimore Bullets
in the late 1960s. With over 34 years of experience in professional
sports, Jerry Krause has served as a scout for Baltimore, Chicago,
Phoenix and the Los Angeles Lakers. For 16-years before the Bulls, his
career soared as scout and special assignment scout with the Cleveland
Indians, Oakland A's, Seattle Mariners, and Chicago White Sox.
After 19 years and six championships, Jerry Krause is stepping away
as the General Manager of the team that he loves. All of the moves paid
off as Chicago won six titles from 1991-98, setting an NBA record with
72 victories in the 1995-96 season. The Bulls honored Jerry Krause
during a halftime ceremony on Oct. 31, 2003, raising a banner to the
United Center rafters in homage to their former general manager.
The NBA, team, and fans alike will greatly miss Jerry Krause upon his
resignation. It is my pleasure to recognize Jerry Krause for his love
for the game and passion for winning. I extend my heartiest wishes and
warmest regards in all his future endeavors. Mr. Speaker, as Jerry
Krause leaves behind a long and rich history with the Chicago Bulls, I
would ask that my colleagues join me in honoring this great man.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JEROME ``BUDDY'' COOPER
______
HON. ARTUR DAVIS
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay
tribute to Jerome ``Buddy'' Cooper, a man who articulated, pioneered,
and embodied a progressive vision for the working people of Alabama. On
Tuesday, October 14, Buddy passed away after 90 years of a remarkable
life. Those countless Alabamians who live better lives due to his
efforts will mourn him dearly.
An Eagle Scout and graduate of Harvard University, Buddy has
continually served his family, his nation, and his community. In 1937,
Buddy became the first law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo
Black of Alabama. He remained at the right hand of this legendary
Justice for three years until he decided to answer another call.
Joining the U.S. Navy in 1940, Buddy served his country for 44 months
and during some of the bloodiest naval battles of the Second World War.
Following his courageous war service, Buddy returned to Birmingham to
begin a long legal career fighting the good fight for the unfortunate,
the poor, the disposed, all those whom the Scriptures name ``the least
of these'' and was a constant thorn in the side of those who wished to
take advantage of them. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy recognized
Buddy's work for social justice and racial reconciliation by inviting
him to a meeting of 240 attorneys that later became the Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights under Law--the group credited with providing
official legal support to those civil rights activists and
organizations challenging segregation and racial discrimination across
the country. In 1996, Buddy was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award
for his decades-long participation with this select group.
Buddy demonstrated the same tenacity and loyalty towards his family
that he exhibited in every other aspect of his life. Married to his
wife Lois for over 50 years, Buddy exemplified an honest and loving
husband, caring for his wife throughout the years of her illness. Their
children, Ellen and Carol, were blessed to have a father who wanted
nothing more than to love them and watch them grow up in an Alabama
that was better than the one in which he grew up.
I am proud, Mr. Speaker, today to honor Jerome ``Buddy'' Cooper for
his tremendous accomplishments. But, Mr. Speaker, I do so with the
bittersweet knowledge that Alabama will be lesser tomorrow for his
passing.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JOHN STRAUSS'S LIFE AND MILITARY SERVICE
______
HON. EARL POMEROY
of north dakota
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the privilege of meeting
with John Strauss, one of North Dakota's distinguished World War II
veterans at the North Dakota Veterans Home. John's unit, the 164th
Infantry Battalion, saw more than 600 days of fierce combat in the
South Pacific. For his heroism, John was awarded a Bronze Star and a
Purple Heart.
I would like to include in the Record an article from the Ransom
County Gazette in North Dakota about John's life and military service.
[From the Ranson County Gazette]
NDVH Resident, John Strauss Tells of His World War II Experiences
(By Janet Hansen)
John Strauss, a resident of the North Dakota Veterans Home
(NDVH), Lisbon, was a member of the U.S. Army's 164th
Infantry Batallion which spent three years in the South
Pacific during World War II. Strauss, who recently celebrated
his 90th birthday, can still recall clearly the details of
that time in America's history.
Strauss was born on September 5, 1913. He was next to the
youngest in a family of six boys and two girls. He and his
younger sister, Mary Bartholomay of Sheldon, are the last two
surviving siblings. He was raised on a farm near Harvey,
North Dakota and attended the Whitby School, a one-room
country school located just a half mile from the Strauss
farmstead. He received his high school education at Harvey
High School, from which he graduated in 1932.
Following his graduation from high school, Strauss worked
at various farm and construction jobs. He spent some time
working in the Sheldon area on the Muscha and Stansbury
farms. He milked cows as well as caring for a herd of Angus
beef cattle. His other jobs included working for a plumbing
and heating business, doing construction and cement work, and
spending ten months as a maintenance man at the hospital in
Harvey
In January of 1941 Strauss joined the National Guard. ``I
was 27 years old when I joined the guard,'' commented
Strauss. ``Most of the guys signing up were only 18. We
organized our own company. Up to that time, Harvey did not
have a Guard unit of its own, although there were several
units in surrounding towns. Since there was a need for an
anti-tank company, that is what our unit became.''
Shortly after Harvey's National Guard unit was organized.
its members were shipped to Camp Claiborne, Louisiana, where
they underwent training for ten months. Then came the attack
on Pearl Harbor, which pushed the United States into World
War II and the National Guard into active duty.
``It wasn't long after the attack on Pearl Harbor that we
were loaded on a troop train for San Francisco. We expected
to get sent overseas immediately, but we were instead sent up
north to guard installations such as roads and bridges which
were thought to be vulnerable to attack by the Japanese.
In March of 1942 Strauss and his fellow guardsmen were
loaded onto an old luxury liner, the President Coolidge, for
their long
[[Page 32195]]
trip to Melbourne, Australia. ``The ship was nice,'' recalls
Strauss. ``It still had a swimming pool and a continental
lounge with a grand piano. I enjoyed sitting around listening
to various soldiers playing boogie-woogie music on that
piano. But the ship was very crowded! There were many other
soldiers besides our battalion on board. I believe there were
about 5,000 of us in all. The ship had two-room apartments
with a bath between. Each had been made to house a husband
and wife. The single compartments designed for one person
were each crammed with about a dozen soldiers in bunk beds.''
Strauss does not complain about the accommodations. He says
he was happy with two decent meals a day. He spent much of
his time on the deck of the large ship. ``I loved it on the
water,'' he said. ``I didn't get seasick. I liked to stand on
deck and watch the waves roll by.''
After a long ocean voyage, the ship finally reached
Melbourne. ``We had to unload all our gear and equipment from
that ship onto three small Dutch ships which were waitin for
us in the harbor.'' said Strauss. ``They were old wooden
vessels with crews from the Indonesian island of Java. The
crew members were dirty and used to eating tired old mutton
for meat. It didn't look or smell fit to eat, and tasted as
bad as it looked, but I managed to eat enough to get by.''
The old Dutch ships took the soldiers to New Caledonia, a
French held island in the South Pacific east of Australia. It
was believed that that island might be one of the next
Japanese targets. The troops immediately set about fortifying
the beach by digging in gun enplacements. The soldiers lived
in tents. It was hot and humid during the day but cooled off
at night. The Japanese attack which had been expected did not
come. Strauss recalls hearing that some troops encountered
problems with the Communist French but it didn't affect those
with whom he was encamped on the shoreline.''
From New Caledonia, Strauss and his fellow soldiers were
sent to Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands. ``We only found
out a day in advance that we were to be sent there,'' Strauss
said. ``We arrived there just after daylight. We had to
unload our own ships with small boats that ferried the cargo
from the large ship to shore. We had only a day in which to
complete the job because the ships wanted to leave the harbor
while it was still daylight. There was too much danger from
Japanese air strikes to chance staying there at night.''
Strauss said that the first night at Guadalcanal was the
most frightening time which he experienced during his entire
tour of duty. ``We sat on the beach,'' he said. ``There was a
lot of confusion with people milling around. There were air
raids going on and we were pretty scared because of the lack
of protection. In the evening they lined us up in formation
and told us to march. I did not know where we were going. I
just followed the guy in front of me. Suddenly all hell broke
loose! There were Japanese ships in the bay and they were
attacking Guadalcanal. The attack from air and sea lasted
until morning. The area was all lit up by the explosions. We
got initiated fast! We felt completely helpless.'' ``The main
target of the attack was the airbase at Henderson Field. The
Japanese had originally built the airstrips and the United
States had taken control of the base. The Japanese wanted it
back. Around 10,000 Japanese troops landed on the island.
They were on the opposite end of the island from where we had
landed. The Japanese would come in swarms at night but we
were safer on our side of the island than we would have been
if we had landed on the other side.''
Strauss explained that his battalion's first objective was
to entrench their 37 millimeter guns along the beach. ``We
were sent in to help the Marines at Guadalcanal,'' he said.
``We served under General Vandegrift, Commander of the 1st
Marine Division.
As a result of their service under the Marines at
Guadalcanal, Strauss and his fellow members of the 164th
infantry were each awarded the Presidential Unit Citation,
which is given by the commander of the regiment. ``To my
knowledge we were the only army outfit in the world to get a
citation from the Marines,'' said Strauss.
Strauss states that his main job was to guard the beach
area. He manned a 37 millimeter gun entrenched in the sand.
``I was glad to stay there instead of going farther onto the
island,'' he said. ``We stayed there for six months. There
were a few small battles, but we were mostly mopping up.''
``The Marines left in January and we followed in March,''
said Strauss. He explains that by the time they left
Guadalcanal most of the men in his outfit had dysentery and/
or malaria.
``Most of us were sent to the Fiji Islands for some R & R
(rest and relaxation) time,'' related Strauss. Some members
of his division enjoyed their vacation, but Strauss spent
five months in the hospital because of a tropical ulcer on
his leg. The ulcer started as a sand fly bite and became
infected by his boot rubbing on it. After two and a half
months with no results in the treatment of of the ulcer, a
doctor tried grafting some skin over the ulcerated area.
After that it finally began to heal and he was released from
the hospital.
``I was out of the hospital for one day,'' said Strauss,
``and I came down with malaria.'' I spent another two and a
half months in the hospital recuperating.'' By the time
Strauss got out of the hospital his company's R & R time was
over and it was time to train once again.
``We were in Fiji for a total of nine months,'' said
Strauss. ``From there we were shipped to Bougainville Island,
where we stayed for the next year. Again, we were sent there
to do some mopping up. We saw action, but it was usually
small attacks. However I actually saw more action there than
I had previously.''
Strauss explained that he served as sergeant of a flame
thrower platoon. ``I had 26 men under me,'' he said. ``Of
those 26, 13 lost their lives during our stay on Bougainville
Island. Our job was to dig machine gun nests out of the big
banyon tree roots where the Japanese had placed them. It was
my job to lay down in a root trench and receive the flame
throwers from one of my men. I would then drop the flame
thrower down a hole which looked like a gopher hole to try to
destroy the machine guns.'' Strauss would then have to
scramble out of the hole as quickly as possible. We continued
that dangerous mission for seven days but were unable to burn
the machine gun nests out.''
He explains that the flame throwing itself was not the hard
part of the mission. The difficult part was getting back to
their line without being hit by enemy fire.
He goes on to explain that on one of his flame throwing
missions he received a head wound which was believed to have
been from shrapnel but which he describes as ``just a nick or
scratch.'' For that wound he received a Purple Heart which he
proudly displays with his other medals. He also received a
Bronze Star for meritorious service while under the call of
duty.
From Bougainville the 164th Infantry was shipped to the
Philippines. Shortly after arriving there, Strauss came down
with a strange skin disease. He received orders to go to the
medics and, as a result, ended up in the hospital again.
After a couple weeks he was shipped back to the United
States, since his skin condition seemed to be getting worse
instead of better. He was hospitalized at Harmon General
Hospital in Longview, Texas for a few months and then was
sent home for a month. An army doctor in Texas diagnosed his
skin condition, which had been previously thought to be
`jungle rot,' as dermatitis. Once the correct diagnosis was
made and proper treatment provided, his skin cleared up. He
told his doctor that he was afraid of getting it back when he
went back to the Philippines, since it seemed to be the dirty
conditions in which the soldiers were forced to live that
caused it. The doctor replied that he did not have to be
afraid of that happening because he was sending him home
instead.
In June of 1945 Strauss was sent to Fort Snelling where
papers were filled out for his discharge. He was then sent
back to his home town of Harvey.
After his discharge Strauss went back to work at the
plumbing and heating business where he had been formerly
employed. He was sent to a private machine shop in Wahpeton
for six months of training, on a lathe. He later spent some
time working on a ranch in the Bowman area. He then answered
an ad for a maintenance worker at the Harvey hospital and was
hired. He eventually became head of maintenance there and
worked there for six years.
He left that position in 1969 and went to work for the
Bureau of Reclamation with a crew that was working on the
McClusky Dam. He worked at the commissary at the Fortuna Air
Force Base at Crosby for a while and then worked in Housing
and Maintainence at the same base for a couple years.
Strauss retired in 1975, at 62 years of age, and moved into
an apartment in Harvey. He continued to do odd jobs in the
Harvey area.
When his health began to fail in 1998 Strauss moved to the
North Dakota Veterans Home. ``I always had it in mind that I
wanted to live here some day,'' said Strauss. ``I had visited
the home a few times and thought it was a nice place. I have
never been sorry for a minute that I came here.''
Strauss celebrated his 90th birthday with cake and ice
cream treats at the NDVH in September. His nephew, David
Strauss, Valley City, planned a big party for him. Strauss's
sister Mary and several nephews and nieces were on hand to
help him celebrate.
Outside of some arthritis and a few heart problems Strauss
said he is doing fine. He explained that he got the flu last
spring and was sick for several months. However, once he
recuperated from that bout he has been back to his old self.
``They are so good to me here,'' he said. ``Anything you
need, you get. The staff people are always smiling. I
couldn't have found a better home anywhere.''
[[Page 32196]]
____________________
RECOGNIZING JIM AYERS
______
HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an incredible
citizen of the 7th district of Tennessee.
Jim Ayers is the founder of the Ayers Foundation; since the fall of
2000, the Ayers Foundation has given as much as $4,000 a year in
scholarships to every high school graduate from Decatur County who
agrees to go to college or technical school. Yes, I said every high
school graduate.
Jim is a success in the health care, banking, real estate businesses
to name a few--however, he has never forgotten his native Decatur
County. Every community would be fortunate to have a Jim Ayers.
It took Mr. Ayers about eight years to put together an endowment and
a staff of counselors to work with the students of Riverside High
School and Scotts Hill High School. The benefits that the students of
these schools have received is evidence that Jim Ayers is doing a great
thing for our young people.
Only 25 percent of Riverside graduates pursued some form of
postsecondary education before the scholarships were available. But the
participation rate immediately shot up to 75 percent when the Ayers
Foundation began. And now 90 percent of students at this school are
able to further their education beyond high school.
He not only provides financial assistance to the aspiring high school
seniors, he has a direct talk with the students--telling them ``if
anyone is going to take care of them, it's got to be themselves.''
It is with great appreciation that I honor Mr. Jim Ayers for his
service to community and for his commitment to education.
____________________
REMEMBERING FEDERAL JUDGE JOHN HANNAH
______
HON. RALPH M. HALL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to mourn the
sudden passing of Federal Judge John H. Hannah, Jr., chief judge for
the U.S. Eastern District of Texas, who died this past Thursday while
attending a judicial conference in Florida. John was 64.
Judge Hannah was an esteemed and respected jurist and public servant
who served the State of Texas and his fellow citizens with distinction
as an attorney, legislator, State official and finally U.S. Federal
judge. His untimely death is being mourned by numerous friends and
supporters and his passing leaves a tremendous void in the U.S. Eastern
District of Texas.
President Bill Clinton appointed John to the Federal bench in 1994,
and he had been chief judge for the Eastern District since 2001.
Governor Ann Richards named him the Texas Secretary of State in January
1991 on the day she was inaugurated, and one of his projects was
working on passage of a new ethics law for State officials.
John was elected to the Texas Legislature in 1966, representing
Angelina, Trinity, San Jacinto and Polk counties for three terms. He
attended South Texas College of Law while serving as a State lawmaker.
He then served as district attorney for Angelina County from 1973 to
1975 and served as legal counsel for the public interest group, Common
Cause. In 1977 President Jimmy Carter appointed him U.S. attorney for
the Eastern District, a position he held until 1981.
John also served in the U.S. Navy for 4 years. He grew up in Diboll,
graduated from Sam Houston State University and was honored as a
Distinguished Alumnus in 1993.
Judge Hannah's integrity and commitment to ethics are evident in his
distinguished record of public service and in his many significant
accomplishments on behalf of Texans. He was an accomplished jurist and
statesman whose word was his bond and whose commitment to rendering
fair decisions was well-known and highly respected. He leaves a
powerful legacy for those in public service and in the practice of law
to emulate.
John's wife, U.S. Magistrate Judith Guthrie of Tyler, is a respected
jurist in her own right and was with him at the time of his death. Our
hearts go out to her and to his father, John Hannah Sr.; son, John
Hannah III; brother, James Hannah; and granddaughter, Rebecca. Their
loss, though certainly more personal, is shared by all those who knew
and admired Judge Hannah.
Mr. Speaker, as the House adjourns for business this year, let us do
so by recognizing the remarkable contributions of this dedicated public
servant, outstanding Texan and great American to whom we pay tribute
and pay our last respects today--Judge John Hannah, Jr. May God bless
his family in their time of sorrow.
____________________
RECOGNIZING DR. JAMES E. OWEN, AN EDUCATOR HIS ENTIRE LIFE
______
HON. MIKE ROGERS
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
Dr. James E. Owen whose professional education career has spanned 40
years.
Dr. Owen received his education at Jacksonville State Teachers
College, the University of Alabama and Auburn University and began
teaching in the Talladega (Alabama) City School System in 1949. His
career was briefly interrupted while Dr. Owen was on active duty with
the United States Army during the Korean Conflict. It was during his
service at Camp Chaffee, Arkansas, that Dr. Owen married Estelle Bain,
who herself had a 39-year career in public education.
After his active Army, Army Reserve and Alabama National Guard
Service, Dr. Owen returned to Talladega, Alabama, and served as
Principal of Dixon Junior High School and then of Benjamin Russell High
School in Alexander City, Alabama. He also served as Assistant
Principal of Southwest DeKalb High School in DeKalb County, Georgia;
and then as a Staff Member of the Auburn University School of
Education. In 1965, Dr. Owen was named Assistant Superintendent of the
Anniston (Alabama) City School System and Superintendent of the Phenix
City, Alabama, School System in 1968 to 1969. In 1976, Dr. Owen was
named Assistant State Superintendent of Education by the Alabama State
Board of Education and later as Alabama's first Deputy State
Superintendent of Education. In 1980, the Alabama State Board of
Education named Dr. Owen as President of Chattahoochee Valley State
Community College in Phenix City, Alabama, a position he maintained for
12 years until his retirement in 1992.
During his career, Dr. Owen maintained membership in local, state and
national professional education organizations such as the National
Education Association, the Alabama Education Association, the Alabama
Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Association of
Secondary School Principals, the American Association of Community and
Junior Colleges, and the Alabama Council of Community and Junior
College Presidents of which he was President in 1985. After his
retirement, he remained in Phenix City, being active in the Russell
County and Alabama Retired Teachers Associations as well as other
community affairs. Dr. Owen and his wife now live in Birmingham,
Alabama.
I salute Dr. Owen and his wife for their commitment to the education
of the students of Alabama.
____________________
HONORING THE BIRTH OF YONINA ALEXANDRA STEIN
______
HON. ERIC CANTOR
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Shimon and Leah
Stein on the birth of their daughter, Yonina Ariela Stein. In addition
to her Hebrew name, Yonina also has an American name, Reagan Alexandra.
The family will call her Yoni. Born, October 2, 2003, at George
Washington University Hospital, Yoni is Shimmy and Leah's first child.
Mr. Speaker, I hope you will join me in wishing the Stein family great
happiness and joy in the coming years.
____________________
IN MEMORY OF JACK KERRIGAN
______
HON. MARK E. SOUDER
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today
to announce the passing of John ``Jack'' Kerrigan, long time narcotic
officer and one of the founding members of the Northern California
HIDTA. Jack died December 1, 2003 in San Francisco, following a brief
battle with cancer. His leadership has inspired many law enforcement
officers and lawmakers to continue the fight
[[Page 32197]]
against illegal drugs. He will be deeply missed by the law enforcement
community and it is an honor to remember him today.
Jack joined the San Francisco Police Department in 1949. During his
distinguished thirty-two year career, he served in many capacities but
the majority of his career was spent in the narcotic bureau. in 1955,
the San Francisco Police Department formed the first municipal police
narcotics unit in the nation and Jack was selected as one of its
investigators. Jack remained in that assignment as a Patrolman,
Assistant Inspector, Sergeant, and Inspector until 1969, when he was
promoted to Lieutenant of Police. Jack returned as the Unit Commander
from 1970 to 1976 where he led the department's drug enforcement
efforts including the investigation of many large drug trafficking
organizations.
Because of his long tenure in narcotic enforcement, Jack was
recognized as one of the nation's leading experts on drug abuse and
narcotic enforcement. He was a founding member of the California
Narcotic Officer's Association (CNOA) and served as that organization's
second President in 1966. With Jack's leadership, CNOA grew from two
hundred members to more than seven thousand statewide. It is now
recognized as the premier law enforcement training association in the
country. Jack continued to serve on CNOA's Executive Board until the
time of his death and rarely missed a board meeting. Jack was present
at CNOA's recent conference in Sacramento, where he received a standing
ovation from the conference's two thousand attendees when the
President's award was renamed, ``The Jack Kerrigan Award'', in honor of
Jack's commitment to CNOA and the law enforcement profession. Jack had
been presented the President's Award in 1999 by then CNOA President
Christy McCampbell.
In 1994, Jack was a founding member of the National Narcotic
Officers' Associations' Coalition (NNOAC), which represents forty state
narcotic officers' associations and more than sixty thousand police
officers from around the country. Because of his expertise in drug
enforcement, Jack was frequently called upon to represent CNOA and the
NNOAC in Washington, D.C. with members of Congress, the Administration,
and Federal law enforcement agencies. During the September 11, 2001,
emergency, Jack traveled to Washington where he met with senior
administration officials and members of Congress to discuss the nexus
between drug trafficking and terrorism. During that trip Jack was
exposed to anthrax in the Hart Senate Office Building.
During Jack's law enforcement career, he was selected for many
special assignments and projects. In 1966, he was the first San
Francisco Police Officer to attend the FBI's National Academy in
Washington, D.C. He was also selected by the U.S. Department of
Justice, in the fall of 1974, to travel to England to work with
London's famed Scotland Yard for three months.
Following his retirement in 1981, Jack went to work for the
California Department of Justice as a Regional Coordinator for the
Western States Information Network (WSIN), a multi-state information
sharing and assistance unit serving law enforcement throughout the
West. Jack worked for WSIN until his death, giving him the distinction
of serving in law enforcement for more than 54 years. In that job, Jack
worked with narcotic officers and senior law enforcement officials
throughout his region, which stretched from San Luis Obispo to the
Oregon border.
Jack was also an educator with both California and Idaho teaching
credentials. He served on the faculty of San Francisco City College in
the Department of Criminology from 1966 to 1981. He was also a guest
lecturer at the University of Idaho, University of California Medical
School, Santa Clara University, and the University of San Francisco.
Jack was the author of several articles published in the FBI's Law
Enforcement Journal, the CNOA magazine, and other professional
publications.
Jack was married to his high school sweetheart, the former Elaine
Taylor, for 49 years. Together they had five children, John F. Kerrigan
III M.D. and his wife Jackie, Lawrence Kerrigan, Patricia Von Koss and
her husband Eben, Paul Kerrigan, and James Kerrigan, a Special Agent
Supervisor with the California Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement and his
wife Catherine. Jack and Elaine also shared the love of their eleven
grandchildren.
Jack will be remembered as a loving husband, dedicated family man,
courageous police and naval officer, proud San Franciscan, pioneer in
narcotic enforcement, and a patriot who loved is country.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO ROBERT AND KAY SCHATTNER AND THE JEWISH PRIMARY DAY SCHOOL
______
HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of
the House of Representatives to the upcoming dedication of the new home
in Washington, D.C. of the Jewish Primary Day School of the Nation's
Capital (JPDS-NC) and to pay tribute to the contributions of Dr. Robert
and Kay Schattner in enabling JPDS-NC to dedicate their new home.
On Sunday, December 21 JPDS-NC community will dedicate their new
building at 6045 16th St., NW, Washington, DC. After a three year
hiatus JPDS-NC has returned to Washington, DC. This makes JPDS-NC the
only Jewish Day school in our Nation's Capital. JPDS-NC is an
independent, pluralistic, co-educational Jewish day school for students
in pre-kindergarten through sixth grade.
It is particularly fitting that this Jewish day school is moving to
this address because this same building was constructed to be the home
of the Hebrew Academy from 1951-1976. JPDS-NC will add greatly to the
cultural richness and diversity of the Nation's Capital.
It is particularly pleasing to recognize and pay tribute to my
constituents Robert and Kay Schattner's for helping make this new
building possible. Their $2 million contribution to this school
building facilitated JPDS-NC moving back into the District. When this
building is dedicated later this month it will be named the Kay and
Robert Schattner Center.
This generous contribution is not the first major charitable gift of
the Schattners. Only last year the University of Pennsylvania School of
Dental Medicine dedicated the Robert Schattner Center in Philadelphia.
The Schattner family has deep roots in the Metropolitan Washington
area. Kay Schattner grew up in Washington, DC and once hosted a popular
local radio program named ``Kay's Korner.'' Her work earned her the
title of National Radio Star of the Year in 1959. She also worked for
the Washington Daily News as a columnist.
Robert Schattner has had a distinguished career as a dentist,
entrepreneur, and inventor. He developed the widely used throat spray,
Chloraseptic as well as other medical products. He currently serves as
president of Sporicidin International, a company which develops
medical, dental and household antimicrobial products.
Mr. Speaker, Kay and Robert Schatttner are the type of civic minded
couple that has made this country great. It is my honor to rise and pay
tribute to their contribution which will allow a great educational
institution to thrive in our Nation's Capital.
Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for the Record an article published on
9/11/03 in the Washington Jewish Week which announced the Schattner
gift and the move of the JPDS-NC.
[From the Washington Jewish Week]
JPDS Gets $2 Million Gift Donation, Is Bethesda Couple's Largest to
Jewish Cause
(By Teddy Kider)
Robert and Kay Schattner have had quite a year. Twenty
minutes after students and officials of the Jewish Primary
Day School of the Nation's Capital (JPDS-NC) raised the flag
and hung mezuzot at their new home in the District last week,
the Bethesda couple signed on to contribute $2 million to the
facility, naming it the Kay and Robert Schattner Center.
The facility, the former Owl School on 16th Street N.W. in
the District, provided JPDS-NC with its first permanent home
in the District since the school became independent of Adas
Israel Congregation in 1999.
``What interested us most is the school accommodates all
sectors of Judaic affiliations and backgrounds,'' said Robert
Schattner. ``You can be chasidic or Reform, and the school
will take you and accommodate you.''
The Schattners' gift to JPDS-NC comes less than one year
after the Nov. 1 dedication of the Robert Schattner Center at
the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
The Schattners' contribution, the largest in the history of
Penn's dental school, provided the campus with a $22 million,
70,000-square-foot building that connected two previously
built structures and created the largest dental school
facility in the United States. Robert Schattner is an alumnus
of the dental school.
With the finishing touches still being completed in
Philadelphia, the Schattners were reluctant to take on
another project.
``We just have too many involvements,'' said Robert
Schattner.
Last spring, the Schattners were approached by Lisa Silver,
a friend who has three children at JPDS-NC and knew that the
couple might want to contribute to a Jewish day school.
Silver was initially turned down, but was persistent in
showing the Schattners what JPDS-NC had to offer the
community.
``I say this as a good thing: she's a great saleswoman,''
quipped Robert Schattner.
[[Page 32198]]
Eventually, the Schattners decided that providing funds for
the 16th Street campus let them support a worthy cause while
maintaining a minimal involvement with the already-completed
building.
The $2 million gift fulfilled more than half of the JPDS-NC
Coming Home Campaign's goal of $3.8 million, and will be used
to support new programs like a prekindergarten and an
Intergenerational Jewish Arts Program. A dedication ceremony
will be held in November.
``We are so grateful to Kay and Robert Schattner for
stepping forward with their $2 million lead gift to launch
our Coming Home Campaign,'' said former president and chair
of the campaign Margaret Hahn Stern. ``The first step is
always the hardest, and we hope that many others will now be
inspired to join the Schattners at whatever level they can
afford. . . . Widespread participation in this campaign will
firmly position our premiere Jewish day school in the
nation's capital.''
The Schattners may have no previous ties to JPDS-NC, but
they are deeply rooted in the Washington community.
Kay Schattner, who grew up in Washington, D.C., has a
background in the media, having worked on a one-hour daily
radio broadcast called ``Kay's Korner''from 1953 to 1961. The
show earned her the title of National Radio Star of the Year
in 1959.
She also worked for the Washington Daily News, writing the
``Gourmet Guide'' dining supplement from 1960 to 1969 and
producing columns for the paper from 1960-1970.
A member of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences and
of American Women in Radio & Television, Kay Schattner also
did interviews for Curtis Circulations, which enabled her to
be the self-proclaimed ``only person to interview Robert
Kennedy and Jimmy Hoffa in the same afternoon.''
Robert Schattner grew up in Bronx, N.Y., and earned a
bachelor's degree in chemistry from the City University of
New York before going to Penn's dentistry school.
While practicing dentistry in Queens, N.Y., he developed
Chloraseptic, a throat spray. After 10 years in private
practice, Schattner created The Chloraseptic Company and
moved to the District, where he sold the revolutionary
product to The Norwich Pharmacal Company.
Robert Schattner now serves as president of Sporicidin
International, which develops medical, dental and household
antimicrobial products, and he's been involved in several
attempts to purchase sports teams in the area or move teams
to the area.
Recently, Schattner introduced Masticide, a new product
that treats mastitis, or the inflammation of a cow's utter,
and is supposed to help farmers who annually lose about $3
billion due to mastitis in their herds.
While Robert Schattner has been honored for his work
outside of the office by the Association for Physical and
Mental Rehabilitation, the President's Committee for Physical
and Mental Rehabilitation and the Columbia Lighthouse for the
Blind, his wife has worked with numerous organizations to
better the community, including heart, cancer and multiple
sclerosis associations.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION ACT OF
2003
______
HON. ROBERT C. SCOTT
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing in the
U.S. House of Representatives the ``Identity Theft Investigation and
Prosecution Act of 2003'' with my colleagues Rep. Howard Coble, the
gentleman from North Carolina, Rep. John Conyers, the gentleman from
Michigan, Rep. Ed Case, the gentleman from Hawaii, Rep. Martin Frost,
the gentleman from Texas, Rep. Barney Frank, the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Rep. Howard Berman, the gentleman from California, Rep.
Jan Schakowsky, the gentlewoman from Illinois, Rep. Barbara Lee, the
gentlewoman from California, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the gentleman
from Ohio, as original cosponsors. This bill will address the issue of
identity theft and fraud immediately by providing the Department of
Justice, DOJ, with resources specifically for that purpose.
With the advent of the Internet, identity theft has grown
exponentially in recent years. The Federal Trade Commission, FTC,
recently released a survey showing that 27.3 million Americans have
been victims of identity theft in the last five years, including 9.9
million people in the last year alone. According to the release, last
year's identity theft losses to businesses and financial institutions
totaled nearly $48 billion, with consumer victims reporting $5 billion
in out-of-pocket losses.
While most identity thieves use the information to make purchases,
according to the FTC release, 15 percent of victims--almost 1.5 million
people in the last year--reported that their personal information was
misused in nonfinancial ways, such as to obtain government documents,
for tax fraud, and other non-financial purposes. The most common
nonfinancial misuse took place when the thief used the victim's name
and identifying information upon routine stops by law enforcement
officials, or while attempting or committing a crime. Identity theft
prevention and detection can assist in preventing terrorism, as well.
The Identity Theft Investigation and Prosecution Act would provide
100 million dollars to the Department of Justice, DOJ, for dedicated
enforcement of the laws against identity theft and credit card fraud.
While states can enforce similar state laws, today's interstate travel,
Internet and technology realities make it difficult and cumbersome for
state prosecutors to effectively address national and international
identity theft and credit card fraud scams.
We already have sufficient laws to address identity theft. It is a
serious crime to use someone else's identity and credit to steal money,
goods, services or to use the information to perpetuate other frauds.
The problem is that there are not sufficient dedicated resources where
they are most needed to have a significant immediate impact on the
matter. We have developed the ``Identity Theft Investigation and
Prosecution Act of 2003'' to do just that.
Much effort is underway to prevent and limit identity theft and fraud
through consumer education, consumer hotlines, public service
announcements, more sophisticated identity theft detection and cutoff
mechanisms, law enforcement and consumer advocacy training, etc. Yet,
it is not enough to effectively address the problem. Although credit
card companies wipe out most credit card fraud debts for the victims,
the thieves are rarely pursued or prosecuted. The DOJ devotes some
resources and enforcement toward identity theft, but it is not a high
priority in its law enforcement scheme to pursue enough cases to have
an impact. Identity thieves know they can pursue their crimes with a
high degree of impunity. This bill would enable the DOJ to establish a
large, national enforcement program to go after identity theft and
abuse.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE CLEAN AIRWAVES ACT
______
HON. DOUG OSE
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Clean Airwaves Act,
legislation designed to prohibit seven profane words from being
broadcast over America's airwaves. Existing guidelines and standards
that govern our airwaves and communications mediums allow profane
language to infiltrate the hearts and minds of our nation's youth. I
rise today to protect our children from existing rules and regulations
that leave them vulnerable to obscene, indecent, and profane speech
through broadcast communication.
The purpose of the Clean Airwaves Act is to amend section 1464 of
Title 18 of the United States Code from which the Federal
Communications Commission derives its authority to regulate the use of
profane language used in broadcast communications. This legislation
will help close the loophole on profanity on our public airwaves,
leaving our children free from exposure to offensive and crude speech
broadcast over America's airwaves.
In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, ``Among
the reasons for specially treating indecent broadcasting is the
uniquely pervasive presence that medium of expression occupies in the
lives of our people. Broadcasts extend into the privacy of the home and
it is impossible to completely avoid those that are patently
offensive''. Subsequently, public broadcasting is more accessible to
children.
The current FCC guidelines regarding indecency determinations aren't
strong enough to stop harmful, indecent, and profane language broadcast
over America's airwaves. It is wholly necessary to give the FCC the
tools it needs in order to protect our broadcast airwaves. Currently
under FCC policy, indecency determinations hinge on two factors. First,
material must describe or depict sexual or excretory organs or
activities. Second, the material must be patently offensive as measured
by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium. The
vagueness of this stipulation creates a loophole that inevitably allows
specific profane language to be broadcast.
[[Page 32199]]
One notorious example of a profane broadcast aired at the Golden
Globe Awards program in January of 2003. In this broadcast, performer
Bono uttered a phrase that may not be repeated at this time and
qualified as indeed profane and indecent by a rational and normal
standard. The FCC has in its authority, the power to enforce statutory
and regulatory provisions restricting indecency and obscenity. However,
in the Golden Globe Awards example, the FCC concluded that the use of
the word as an adjective or expletive to emphasize an exclamation did
not meet their threshold for indecency. The FCC further stated in the
October 3, 2003 Memorandum Opinion and Order that ``in similar
circumstances, we have found that offensive language used as an insult
rather than as a description of sexual or excretory activity or organs
is not within the scope of the commission's prohibition of indecent
program content.'' As a result, the use of particular profane language
was aired to the public and no action was taken to ensure it would not
take place in the future.
Therefore, I reiterate the necessity to act upon this loophole in the
U.S. Code to ensure that the public is free from inappropriate
communications over public broadcasts and that our airwaves be clean of
obscenity, indecency, and profanity.
____________________
GOOD NEIGHBOR SETTLEMENT HOUSE
______
HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ
of texas
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a very special
organization in Brownsville, Texas: Good Neighbor Settlement House, a
non-profit related to the Global Ministries of the United Methodist
Church.
They have been serving the needy people in the Brownsville-South
Texas area for 50 years, and I commend them for their longevity in
doing the most important work neighbors can do: taking care of each
other. December 11 marks their 50th anniversary, and their work will be
celebrated in Cameron County.
Just last year, Good Neighbor Settlement House served meals to 57,000
men, women and children in our community. They provided a variety of
services to over 100,000 people--including rental assistance, clothing,
food, after-school programs, children's summer programs, and referrals
to other social service agencies.
In 1953, with the guiding principle ``Helping People Help
Themselves,'' Good Neighbor Settlement House launched themselves into
the business of their mission: to provide the basic necessities of life
such as food, clothing, meals, housing assistance and educational
programs to the needy.
Just a few examples of their unique offering to the low-income
families in Brownsville: the Mother's Club, a gathering of women who
quilt to help supplement their income; family budgeting classes (with
American Express) to help families maximize their resources and be
self-sufficient; and Las Culturas (with Cameron Works/United Way)
offers music and dance classes for young children.
In today's economy, our need for the Good Neighbor Settlement House
is every bit as urgent as it was 50 years ago. Because of our
government's reductions in social programs to help the needy--in favor
of tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans--the less fortunate are facing
ever more serious economic hardships.
Today we celebrate both Good Neighbor Settlement House's dedication
to the less fortunate on this anniversary . . . and their commitment to
the principle of giving people what they need to fend for themselves:
if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day--if you teach a man to
fish, you feed him for a lifetime.
I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating this 50th anniversary
of Good Neighbor Settlement House's work in South Texas.
____________________
SEC. 115 OF THE ENERGY & WATER APPROPRIATIONS BILL--KING COVE ACCESS
PROJECT
______
HON. GEORGE MILLER
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have
done it again: a nefarious rider was slipped onto the fiscal year 2004
Energy & Water Appropriations Bill. The Republicans have, once again,
shut Democrats out of the legislative process and provided neither an
opportunity to debate the amendment, nor the chance to show this
amendment for what it really is: an unacceptable invasion of our
Nation's public lands and an assault on our public process. I oppose
this clandestine.
The King Cove Access Project rider is an affront to our nation's
environmental laws. Section 115 of the Energy & Water Appropriations
Bill directs the construction of a road from the village of King Cove,
Alaska through the sensitive Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and right
to the boundary of the fragile and internationally significant Izembek
Wilderness Area. The provision waives all environmental laws governing
construction of such a road in the process. The amendment was not
included in either the House or Senate bills.
Other government agencies have raised concerns about this project as
part of the mandated inter-governmental coordinate. Congress dealt with
this issue five years ago when I was the ranking member of the
Resources Committee in the 105th Congress. The King Cove Access Project
was defeated then and should have been defeated now.
In 1998, proponents attempted to add the provision to an
appropriations bill but were not successful. A compromise was later
reached with the King Cove Health and Safety Act which was included as
Section 353 of Public Law 105-277, the Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The measure appropriated $40
million to address the access needs of the communities of King Cove and
Cold Bay; however, the Act did not approve a road through the Izembek
refuge or the Izembek Wilderness. In fact, the legislation specifically
required that expenditure of the funds allocated in the bill ``must be
in accordance with all other applicable laws.''
It is outrageous that five years after a satisfactory compromise was
agreed upon, we must return to this issue.
The Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, on the Alaska Peninsula, is
internationally recognized as one of the most important wetland
reserves in the Northern Hemisphere. Home to threatened and endangered
species, as well as millions of migratory birds, the Izembek National
Wildlife Refuge and Izembek Wilderness are keys in the fight to
conserve the natural diversity of wildlife populations and habitats.
The King Cove Access Project rider inappropriately short-circuits the
public process. An administrative decision on a project to enhance
marine-road access for the community of King Cove is proceeding in a
timely manner and does not require intervention by Congress. However,
the King Cove Access Project mandates one alternative in the EIS,
thereby effectively ignoring the advice of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, other federal agencies and the American public.
The King Cove Access Project ignores environmental laws, threatens
important wildlife habitat and sets a dangerous anti-wilderness
precedent. It is shameful that it was part of this legislation.
____________________
RECOGNIZING ST. HYACINTH BASILICA
______
HON. RAHM EMANUEL
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of more than 111,000 of my
constituents who are of Polish descent, I proudly rise to recognize the
official designation of St. Hyacinth's Church on 3636 West Wolfram as a
basilica for the Chicago Archdiocese.
My hometown of Chicago was once said to contain more Poles than any
city outside Warsaw. Still today, in St. Hyacinth's parish, the area's
largest and most prominent Polish Catholic parish, residents are just
as likely to speak Polish as English.
St. Hyacinth's was founded in 1894 with less than 50 members and has
grown tremendously over the years. Today, St. Hyacinth's serves over
8,000 worshippers each week under the guidance of the Resurrectionist
Fathers, who have served the congregation since its founding.
Under the leadership of its rector since 1995, Rev. Michal Osuch, St.
Hyacinth's has actively engaged in the sacramental life of the church
by developing programs of evangelization that emphasize connecting
adults, particularly with the sacraments of confirmation and marriage.
The church also provides a welcoming home for new immigrants every
month by hosting free English-as-a-Second Language classes, a Polish
language school for children and many other community activities for
adults, youth and children.
In becoming a basilica, St. Hyacinth's was recognized for its
prestige, its beauty, and its ability to accommodate large numbers of
parishioners since a basilica is a community's focal point for worship
and evangelization. Cardinal Francis George validated these features
last Sunday by formally proclaiming it as
[[Page 32200]]
``a place of frequent and exemplary liturgical celebration.''
The petition for basilica status was reviewed by the U.S. Conference
of Catholic Bishops and approved by the Congregation of Divine Worship
in Rome. As a basilica, it maintains an obligation to uphold a high
level of both worship and religious instruction, particularly through
conferences and speakers.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate St. Hyacinth's on this high honor
and its upcoming 110th anniversary next year. In earning the
distinction of becoming a basilica, it has again proven its importance
as a pillar of Chicago's Polish American community. On this day, I am
proud to join the people of my district, as well as those of Polish
descent around the City, in celebrating this historic achievement.
____________________
THE VOTER CONFIDENCE AND INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY ACT OF 2003
______
HON. RUSH D. HOLT
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to reiterate the importance of my
``Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003'' to the
integrity of democracy in the United States. Although I am deeply
gratified by the substantial groundswell of support among my colleagues
and cosponsors, I regret that this session draws to a close for the
year without this critical piece of legislation having been
meaningfully addressed by this Chamber.
When I introduced the Voter Confidence Act in May of this year, I did
so without cosponsors. I had been told that no one wanted to re-open
HAVA. I had been told that adding paper records back into the electoral
process would generate fraud. I had been told that access for the
disabled and voter verified paper trails were mutually exclusive--you
can have one or the other, but you can't have both. I had been told
that there is no complaint that existing electronic voting machines are
not functioning properly. But it seemed obvious to me, given that all
computers are subject to error, failure and tampering, that computers
upon which elections are conducted would be as well. I also believed
that voter verification mechanisms, just like voting machines
themselves, could readily be made accessible to disabled voters.
Although I supported HAVA, and continue to support the many
groundbreaking improvements it ushered forth, I was troubled to see
that HAVA funding fueled an unintended consequence--the wide-scale
purchase of unauditable electronic voting machines--and threatened the
very integrity of the electoral system in the United States. Earlier
this session, I introduced the Voter Confidence and Increased
Accessibility Act to enhance HAVA's accessibility requirements, to
increase participation among all voters, and to restore faith in the
electoral system and in the government itself by giving voters a means
by which they themselves could be certain that their votes are being
counted.
From the moment my press release announcing the bill was released, my
telephone began to ring with calls from voters around the country
expressing their profuse thanks. Within a week, one of my local
metropolitan papers ran an editorial saying that the bill ``proposes
urgent and sensible measures to preserve the sanctity of the ballot''
and suggested that Congress ``shift into high gear and enact this
legislation without delay.'' Within two or three weeks, I was joined on
the bill by eight of my Colleagues. In another week or two, I was
joined by eight more. More editorials ran--New York Newsday said that
although ``many election officials . . . resist the paper trail idea .
. . the purpose of voting reform isn't to make life easier for election
clerks. It is to make elections fairer and restore the frayed
confidence of voters--the people who are supposed to count most of
all.'' The Bismark Tribune asserted: ``One thing the committee should
insist on is a paper `receipt' that lets the voter check his work and
is available for a re-count, if necessary.'' The Star News of North
Carolina opined: ``By the time this is over, we might be nostalgic for
hanging chads. At least they were cheap. It turns out those expensive
high-tech voting systems based on computers can be stuffed like ballot
boxes in Chicago. My, what a surprise. . . .'' Most recently, the New
York Times said, ``[T]he public must feel secure that each vote is
counted. At this stage, a voter-verified paper trail offers the public
that necessary security.''
And as we all know, this is not just a matter of opinion. A team of
computer scientists from Johns Hopkins and Rice Universities released a
report in July disclosing ``stunning, stunning flaws'' in the security
of certain electronic voting machines widely in use, precipitating an
avalanche of further studies and reviews, raising further red flags
among jurisdictions considering new equipment purchases, and generating
further uncertainty and concern about the use of privately owned and
controlled voting equipment that produces results that cannot be
meaningfully audited in any way. Reports of irregularities on voting
machines abound, but I will mention just one. In a recent election
conducted in Boone County, Indiana, a ``computer glitch'' reportedly
``spewed out impossible numbers.'' In a jurisdiction that had fewer
than 19,000 registered voters, 144,000 votes were reported. The County
Clerk said she ``just about had a heart attack.'' Although a
``corrected'' count of about 5,300 votes was eventually produced, how
can we know it was in--fact correct? The fact is, without an
independent voter verified paper trail, we can never know.
The New York Assembly passed a law in June mandating voter verified
paper trails. The State of Illinois passed a similar law in August. In
November, the Secretary of State of California mandated voter verified
paper trails. Legislation requiring voter verified paper trails is also
pending in Maine, and I have been told that similar bills are
imminently to be introduced in Maryland and Virginia. Broad coalitions
of public interest groups are now taking definitive action to lobby in
favor of voter verified paper trails. The Communications Workers of
America passed a resolution in August stating that the CWA ``endorse
and support the use of only DRE and `touch screen' machines with the
ability to provide the voter with a view of a paper ballot that is
stored and available for audits.'' A large New York-based coalition
including at least five disability advocacy groups issued a statement
in the fall urging that ``New voting machines should provide a `voter-
verifiable paper audit trail' and incorporate `data-to-voice'
technology to ensure full access by all.'' Grass roots organizations
lobbying for my bill and for voter verified paper trails are forming
all over the country. The resolution in favor of voter verifiable audit
trails posted by Verifiedvoting.org has more than 1,000 endorsers. An
online petition in favor of my Voter Confidence Act which had 50
signatures in July has more than 4,000 signatures now. An online
petition in favor of voter verified paper trails sponsored by Martin
Luther King III, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and
Investigative Journalist Greg Palast has more than 60,000 signatures.
I introduced this legislation because I think that if we don't have
an election system that voters can trust, voter participation will
decline and our democracy will deteriorate. Citizens from all over the
country, sharing this concern, have spoken out, indeed shouted out,
that we should act. The extent and depth of discussion on the Internet
and in town meetings is striking.
This is not a partisan issue. I stand today with 90 Members from both
sides of the aisle, who are just as deeply concerned about the
integrity of our electoral system as I am. They are just as deeply
troubled by the prospect of private ownership and control of the vote
count as I am. They have heard from and responded to the concerns of
their constituents about insecure, unauditable voting equipment just as
I have. Some of them have even told me that--second only to the Iraq
conflict--the issue of the verifiability of election results is the one
most frequently raised in public forums. And one thing that has been
reiterated to me time and again--even by people who have not made their
minds up on the issue--is that the issue is not going to go away.
We have a responsibility to demonstrate that our democracy stands
above all others in its unimpeachability. New York Times columnist Paul
Krugman concluded his recent column, entitled ``Hack the Vote,'' by
saying, ``Let's be clear: the credibility of U.S. democracy may be at
stake.'' When the results are in after the next election, there must be
no question. There must be no doubt. We must all feel certain that the
voice of the people, as expressed in the voting booth, was heard.
November 2004 is just around the corner. When this body reconvenes in
January, I urge it to consider this legislation a top priority.
____________________
AUGUST 14TH BLACKOUT
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on the Bush
Administration's report on the August 14 blackout that left millions of
people in New York without power, some for days.
The U.S.-Canadian outage task force on November 19 issued a report
titled ``Causes of
[[Page 32201]]
the August 14th Blackout in the United States and Canada,'' saying 50
million people from Indiana to Massachusetts and Canada went without
electricity because of untrimmed trees and a computer glitch. But the
New York Times reported on November 25 that ``a variety of experts now
say the [report's] findings were too narrow, ignoring the federal
government's role in the recent reshaping of the power industry.''
We need to know what the truth is. The Times has reported on the
blackout as thoroughly as anyone, so this report is very important.
Maybe we need an impartial investigator to follow up on what they are
reporting.
In the November 25 article, Alan Richardson of the American Public
Power Association says that maybe the federal government didn't address
what mistakes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) made in
breaking up the utility industry ``because the answer is not one that's
comfortable politically.''
Commenting on the organization the FERC approved to run the
transmission wires in the Midwest, transmission expert Robert Blohm is
quoted in the article as saying ``How come nobody has examined this
horror story, of how they set up an entity 10 times more complex than
any known one, in such a short period of time?''
John Casazza, a retired executive from a New Jersey utility, says in
the article that ``There are a lot of aspects in this blackout that
have not been touched by [the Administration's] report. . . . The root
causes are what has happened as a result of our government policy.''
If the experts think policy set by the government is the cause of the
blackout, why are the government officials who made these bad policy
decisions the ones that are writing the report on what caused the
blackout?
Back on September 23, the Times reported that ``Experts now think
that on Aug. 14, northern Ohio had a severe shortage of reactive power,
which ultimately caused the power plant and transmission line failures
that set the blackout in motion. Demand for reactive power was
unusually high because of a large volume of long-distance transmissions
streaming through Ohio to areas, including Canada, that needed to
import power to meet local demand.'' These long-distance transmissions
were mainly by ``independent power producers,'' or IPPs, who often do
not produce any reactive power. The article quoted Raymond Palmieri,
who is responsible for transmission reliability in the Midwest, as
saying reactive power ``is definitely a contributor'' to the blackout.
Who has been pushing for these long-distance transmissions by IPPs?
The FERC. They had experts saying for at least two months before the
official blackout report came out that it was a problem. But what did
that official blackout report, which FERC and the DOE directed and
wrote, say about the role of reactive power and IPPs? ``[T]he
suggestion that IPPs may have contributed to the difficulties of
reliability management on August 14 because they don't provide reactive
power is misplaced.''
There is nothing wrong with independent power producers. They perform
a valuable role in meeting the nation's electricity needs. But if the
government's blackout report barely even mentions the role of reactive
power, and doesn't mention at all whether, in light of more long
distance transmissions, someone should have changed the rules to make
sure there was enough of it, when experts say it was ``definitely a
contributor,'' something isn't right.
While the FERC has been pushing for more long-distance transmission,
Congress has been hearing from experts that the transmission system
wasn't designed to operate that way, and that using it for long-
distance transmission reduces reliability. At the House Energy and
Commerce Committee's blackout hearing on September 4, Gene McGrath, the
CEO of Consolidated Edison, said ``I think as an engineer and as an
operator having the generation as close to the load center as it can be
done is the best interest of everybody. . . . [A]s you separate
generation from load you introduce another component. As you introduce
other components you can introduce costs and you can introduce
reliability problems.'' That is, generating the power two or three
States away causes problems. We need to have the power generated close
to where it is used.
Is that issue even discussed in the Administration's blackout report?
No--not even a little bit.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents went without power on August 14. It's
not just an inconvenience, it's a danger in many cases to be left
without electricity. Life-support equipment, traffic signals,
elevators, and so many other important devices all depend on
electricity. But we seem to have a situation where our own government's
review of the blackout steers away from even looking into what seem to
be very important contributing factors.
FERC Chairman Pat Wood testified before the House Energy and Commerce
Committee many times in the past couple of years, telling us that to
maintain reliability for the wholesale markets his policies promote, we
need to beef up the transmission grid. But now that we've had the
biggest blackout in our history, FERC doesn't admit its policies that
stress the grid had anything to do with it. Chairman Wood's Senate
testimony on November 20 was ``the [transmission] operator's primary
charge is to work the system you've got. . . . Markets do not
compromise reliability.'' So no matter if FERC sprayed water on the
road in the freezing cold, it's your fault if you crash your car.
If we don't get an accurate picture from government investigators
about the causes of the blackout, we will be dooming ourselves to more
disruptions, dangers, and inconveniences in the future. I am not
willing to allow that.
I ask that we consider whether we need an independent investigation
of the causes of the blackout so we can do what needs to be done to
prevent the next blackout from occurring.
____________________
HONORING LaGUARDIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE
______
HON. JOSEPH CROWLEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the good work of
LaGuardia Community College of Long Island City in Queens, New York.
LaGuardia Community College serves one of the most diverse student
bodies in the U.S. within one of the most vibrant neighborhoods in the
U.S. Over the years, men and women from all over the world have called
LaGuardia Community College their home. Over the years, LaGuardia
Community College has quietly and diligently provided a first-class
education for students of all economic, ethnic, and religious
backgrounds.
LaGuardia Community College has served my community and the world for
decades, and its mission has earned it the title of The World's
Community College. However, they recently earned another distinction--
nationally recognized community college. The Community College Survey
of Student Engagement studied approximately 300 colleges, looking at 10
different categories. This non-profit found that LaGuardia Community
College ranked in the top 3 of 13 large community colleges in North
America. This ranking confirms what so many of us have known for so
long--that LaGuardia Community College is not only The World's
Community College. It is also the world's premier community college.
Of course, this distinction would not be possible without the work of
countless administrators, professors, students, and friends from around
the community. I would particularly like to thank LaGuardia Community
College President, Dr. Gail O. Mellow for her vision. It is because of
leaders like her that LaGuardia Community College can achieve such an
incredible level of success.
Our world needs an understanding, dedicated, well-educated populace
now more than ever. Our world is dependant on the students that come
out of LaGuardia Community College and the good work that they do. For
those reasons, we all owe the school our respect and gratitude.
____________________
INTRODUCING A RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE GOVERNMENTS OF INDIA AND
PAKISTAN FOR IMPROVED DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
______
HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS
of florida
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a
resolution commending the governments of India and Pakistan for their
efforts to achieve peace and stability in the South Asian region.
For years, India and Pakistan have been the victims of numerous
terrorist attacks, which
[[Page 32202]]
have greatly heightened religious and ethnic tensions in the troubled
region. Discord amongst Hindu and Muslim populations has led to a war
of attrition, whereby insurgents on both sides sneak across the border
to commit murder and destruction before sneaking back across.
India and Pakistan have a history of disputes going back decades. The
most prominent amongst these conflicts has been the territory of
Kashmir. India and Pakistan each claim Kashmir as their own, despite
the territory having its own distinct population agitating for
autonomy. Indian and Pakistani forces have routinely engaged in minor
skirmishes along the border. The conflict, more than any other, has led
to a destabilizing nuclear arms race in the region, resulting in
threats of war and the severing of political, diplomatic, and economic
links.
In recent months, however, diplomatic overtures between India and
Pakistan have resulted in laudable agreements to improve relations.
Since April 2003, India and Pakistan have sent ambassadors,
reestablished bus links, and declared the first real cease-fire in the
17-year-old border conflict. Most recently, the two countries resumed
air travel and overflight rights with one another. Further, Indian
Prime Minister Vajpayee has agreed to attend in the near future a
regional economic summit in Islamabad, a sure sign of progress.
The resolution I am introducing today congratulates India and
Pakistan on their efforts to achieve stability and to seek a peaceful
means to resolve their disputes. The resolution also recognizes both
countries' efforts in the global war on terrorism and their close
partnerships with the United States.
Though both nations still have a long way to go to fully achieve a
lasting peace, the House of Representatives should be pleased with
their determination to seek a peaceful, economically prosperous road to
stability.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by once again referring to the unconscionable
acts of violence and terror wrought on both India and Pakistan. I
further express my support and encouragement to both nations for their
efforts to rebuild diplomatic relations despite trying circumstances.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I ask the House
leadership to bring it swiftly to the floor for its consideration.
____________________
COMMEMORATING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF YOUNG ISRAEL OF NEW HYDE PARK
______
HON. GARY L. ACKERMAN
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 50th
anniversary of Young Israel of New Hyde Park, the only Orthodox
synagogue in northeast Queens. The synagogue, which boasts a vibrant
multi-generational membership, plays a central role in increasing the
presence and awareness of Orthodox Judaism in our community.
For half a century, Young Israel of New Hyde Park has provided its
members and visitors with many of the things that an Orthodox family
looks for and needs: from classes to daily minyanim to a local Boy
Scout troop. Now under the leadership of Rabbi Binyamin Hammer, the
synagogue, which is just around the corner from Long Island Jewish
Medical Center, Hillside Hospital and Schneider Children's Medical
Center, has long been known as a place where families and friends of
patients can find religious support and Shabbat and Yom Tov
hospitality. To this end, a bikur cholim apartment was recently added
through the purchase of a house next door to the synagogue. To date it
has provided temporary lodging for people from all over the United
States, Russia, Italy, Israel and Canada.
Those familiar with this congregation, those who, for 50 years have
made it a place of civic support and spiritual development, know that
Young Israel is more than just a temple--but a shul, a spiritual home,
a place that reflects the highest aspirations of an ancient people
living proud and free in this great nation.
I commend Young Israel of New Hyde Park for its continued dedication
to our community. I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives
to please join me in congratulating the synagogue on the occasion of
its 50th anniversary and in wishing Young Israel best wishes for
another 50 years.
____________________
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE LAUREATES
______
HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, last week the 4th Nobel Peace Laureates
Summit was held in Rome. At the conclusion of the Summit, the Laureates
issued a statement on behalf of this extraordinary gathering that is
printed at the end of these remarks. There are too few places in our
public dialogue where a universal perspective is encouraged and lauded.
The Nobel Peace Prize is one of them. Such civil society institutions
are to be encouraged because they are needed to work on global
challenges.
The Laureates reinforced in the most eloquent terms the message sent
at a recent panel convened by the Bipartisan Task Force on Non-
proliferation of which I am Co-chair with my colleague Christopher
Shays (R-Conn.). This panel on ``The Limits of Unilateralism'' included
the world-renowned anthropologist Dr. Jane Goodall, former Ambassador
Thomas Graham, and Mr. Michael Douglas, actor and U.N. Messenger of
Peace. In his remarks, Mr. Douglas stressed that not only Americans,
but all people on the planet, are faced with enormous challenges to our
security and survival which can only be effectively met through
international cooperation. He reminded us that we are tasked with
``ensuring bio-diversity and ending the destruction of thousands of
species; reversing the depletion of fishing stocks; controlling ocean
dumping; preventing ozone depletion; halting global warming;
controlling and eliminating terrorism and weapons of mass destruction;
fighting pandemic diseases; ending the tragedy of crushing poverty and
lack of clean drinking water; and addressing crises arising from failed
states. No nation or even a small group of nations can succeed in
addressing these issues alone.''
Jonathan Granoff, who helped organize our Task Force event here in
Washington as President of the Global Security Institute (GSI), also
attended the Summit of the Nobel Peace Laureates in Rome as a
representative of the International Peace Bureau, a Nobel Peace
Laureate organization.
The Summit took place from the 27 to 30 November 2003. It was
convened upon invitation by Mikhail Gorbachev and Walter Veltroni,
Mayor of the City of Rome. The following Nobel Peace Laureates--
individuals and organizations--participated in the Summit: The XIV
Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso, Mikhail Gorbachev, Mairead Corrigan Maguire,
Shimon Peres, Joseph Rotblat (represented by Professor Robert Hinde),
Oscar Arias Sanchez, Lech Walesa, Betty Williams, Jody Williams,
American Friends Service Committee, Amnesty International, Doctors
Without Borders, International Campaign to Ban Landmines, International
Labour Organization, International Peace Bureau, International
Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, International Law
Institute, Pugwash Conferences, Quakers Peace and Social Witness,
United Nations, United Nations Children's Fund, United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees, and United Nations Peace Keeping Forces.
The theme of the gathering was ``Ethics and Policy.'' It is a subject
we discuss often in this chamber as we apply policies to our domestic
affairs. It is also needed, perhaps even more so, in international
affairs. For this reason, I would like to submit the Final Statement of
the Summit into our record for your review and consideration:
Ethics and Policy--4th Global Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates Rome,
Campidoglio, November 30, 2003
FINAL STATEMENT
We are the first generation making decisions that will
determine whether we will be the last generation. We have an
ethical responsibility to future generations to ensure that
we are not passing on a future of wars and ecological
catastrophe. For policies to be in the interest of humanity,
they must be based on ethical values.
We express our profound anxiety that current policies are
not creating a sufficiently secure and stable world for all.
For this reason, we need to reset our course based on strong
ethical foundations.
Compassion and conscience are essential to our humanity and
compel us to care for one another. Cooperation amongst
nations, multilateralism, is the logical outgrowth of this
principle. A more equitable international order based on the
rule of law is its needed expression.
We reiterate our conviction that international politics
need to be reformed to address effectively three critical
challenges: ending wars and violence, eliminating poverty,
and saving the environment.
We call upon everyone to join us in working to replace the
culture of war with a culture of peace. Let us ensure that no
child is ever again exposed to the horrors of war.
Recent events, such as the escalation of the conflict in
the Middle East, bloodshed in
[[Page 32203]]
Afghanistan, Iraq and Chechnya, as well as in parts of Africa
and Latin America, confirm that problems with deep economic,
social, cultural or religious roots cannot be resolved
unilaterally or by armed force.
International terrorism is a threat to peace. Multilateral
cooperation and the promotion of human rights under the rule
of law are essential to address terrorism and its underlying
sources.
The threat of weapons of mass destruction remains with us.
We call for an immediate end to the newly resurgent arms
race, which is being fueled by a failure to universally
ratify a treaty banning nuclear testing, and by doctrines
that lower the threshold of use and promote the creation of
new nuclear weapons. This is particularly dangerous when
coupled with the doctrine of pre-emption.
For some to say that nuclear weapons are good for them but
not for others is simply not sustainable. The failure of the
nuclear weapons states to abide by their legal pledge to
negotiate the elimination of nuclear weapons, contained in
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, is the greatest stimulus
to their proliferation.
Nuclear weapons are immoral and we call for their universal
legal prohibition. They must be eliminated before they
eliminate humanity.
We support the treaty to ban landmines and call for
effective agreements to limit conventional weapons and arms
trade.
Trillions of dollars have been spent since the end of the
Cold War in developing military approaches to security. Yet,
the daily lives of billions remain bereft of adequate health
care, clean water, food and the benefits of education. These
needs must be met.
Humanity has developed sophisticated technologies for
destruction. Appropriate social and human technologies based
on cooperation are needed for survival.
The international community has a proven tool, the
universality of the United Nations. Its work can and must be
improved and this can be done without undermining its core
principles.
We assert that unconditional adherence to international law
is essential. Of course, law is a living institution that can
change and grow to meet new circumstances. But, the
principles that govern international relations must not be
ignored or violated.
Ethics in the relations between nations and in government
policies is of paramount importance. Nations must treat other
nations as they wish to be treated. The most powerful nations
must remember that as they do, so shall others do.
Economic hardship is often the result of corruption and
lack of business ethics, both internationally and locally.
Through utilizing more effective ethical codes of conduct the
business community can contribute to protecting the
environment and eliminating poverty. This is both a practical
and moral necessity.
The scientific community could serve human interests more
fully by affirmatively adopting the ethical principle of
doing no harm.
The international community has recently recognized the
importance of establishing an ethical framework. Leaders of
States issued the Millennium Declaration at the United
Nations and set forth common values of freedom, equality,
solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature and shared
responsibility. From these values, a plan to address
sustainable development and poverty, the Millennium
Development Goals, emerged. We urge all to join in
implementation of these goals and prevent any retreat from
specific commitments. Moreover, we share the principles of
the Earth Charter and urge governments at all levels to
support this important document.
For globalization to enhance sustainable development, the
international community needs to establish more democratic,
transparent, and accountable forms of governance. We advocate
extending the benefits of democracy and self governance but
this goal cannot be achieved through coercion or force.
After a special session, the Nobel Peace Prize Winners have
agreed that the death penalty is a particularly cruel and
unusual punishment that should be abolished. It is especially
unconscionable when imposed on children.
We affirm the unity of the human family. Our diversity is
an enrichment, not a danger. Through dialogue we gain
appreciation of the value of our differences. Our capacity to
work together as a community of peoples and nations is the
strongest antidote to violence and our reason for hope.
Our commitment to serve the cause of peace compels us to
continue working individually and together on this path. We
urge you to join us.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO FORMER U.S. SENATOR PETE WILLIAMS OF NEW JERSEY
______
HON. RUSH D. HOLT
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, thousands, even millions, of American workers
today have their fingers, eyesight, even their lives because of the
legislative work of former U.S. Senator Harrison ``Pete'' Williams of
New Jersey. They will never know who they are.
Millions of Americans have adequate retirement pensions or health
care coverage because of the legislative work of Sen. Williams. They
don't remember Pete Williams when they open their monthly benefits
checks.
As the author and champion of landmark legislation, Pete Williams
gave the country the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), which
is the single most important step in workplace safety in history, and
he created the Employee Benefit Retirement and Income Security Act
(ERISA) which helped guarantee minimum benefits for all working
Americans.
Two years ago, former Senator Williams, who would have been 84 years
old this week, died. He was retired after 4 years in this body and
almost 24 years in the U.S. Senate. Since his death, neither body has
given appropriate recognition to him and his contributions to America.
A cloud has obscured his many great contributions.
Pete Williams fought for a wide range of landmark laws to improve the
quality of life for average Americans. As a member and longtime chair
of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources in the other body across
the Capitol, he brought forth the Coal Mine and Health Safety Act;
increases in the minimum wage in 1966, 1974, and 1977; the Vocational
Rehabilitation the Alcohol Rehabilitation Act; legislation preventing
discrimination against pregnant workers; legislation preventing age
discrimination; the Migrant Labor Health Act; legislation for special
education; the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972; legislation
for college tuition assistance for needy students; legislation
protecting the rights of workers to organize; and Meals on Wheels. Let
me repeat: many of these are landmarks in American history. And that is
not all; Pete Williams also produced legislation providing elderly
housing, open space, arts funding, and marine mammal protection, and he
led or contributed to many other laws. As my colleagues here know, it
is customary for the President to give a pen from an important bill
signing to each legislator who played a significant role in the bill.
Pete Williams had seventy Presidential pens.
As a young man working in the Senate, I first watched Senator
Williams debate the 1964 Civil Rights Act and was impressed by his
intellect and sincerity, qualities that defined his work as a United
States Senator.
Sometimes called the ``Voice for the Voiceless,'' Pete Williams spoke
for many Americans who never knew him--never even knew of him. He did
not need to work on the Migrant Labor Act; not many of those farm
workers voted. He thought of those without privilege. He created the
first standing subcommittee on aging and the first standing committee
on issues related to physical disabilities. I noticed back in 1963 and
1964 that Senator Williams was a man who paid attention to those who
were sometimes invisible to others like him--the cafeteria workers, the
pages, the elevator operators, the support staff. He was not a
showboat, although New Jerseyans were so devoted to him that he was
reelected with acclaim for four terms. In fact, he was the only
Democrat in the state up to that time to be re-elected to the Senate.
But he was not to be the ``Senator for life'' as he was sometimes
called. In his fourth term in the U.S. Senate, he was implicated, along
with six members of this body, in the so-called Abscam bribery sting
and resigned under a cloud and served time in prison. His colleagues
and historians have not known how to remember this man, how to tell his
complicated story, how to commemorate his legacy--a legacy that
includes what is one of the greatest legislative records for the
benefit of Americans.
Fighting expulsion from the Senate, Senator Williams averred his
innocence and maintained that ``time, history and Almighty God [would]
vindicate'' him. I hope historians will find the way to do justice to
this man and his work.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan described his friend and colleague
Sen. Pete Williams as ``thoughtful, decent, and determined in all he
did.'' Many colleagues wondered how such a man could fall from grace.
One might try to blame judgment weakened by alcohol or perhaps
overzealous or dishonest federal agents or simple political
vindictiveness. His is a cautionary tale for anyone in elective office
or public service. The lesson is that there are always those who would
take advantage of one's weaknesses. Pete Williams, author of the
Vocational Rehabilitation Act and the Alcohol Rehabilitation Act,
learned that there was no political rehabilitation act for him. But
there
[[Page 32204]]
is a more positive lesson, too; one person who works hard and shows
compassion for others can improve the lives of others. History should
not lose that more positive lesson of the career of Senator Pete
Williams.
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2417, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004
______
speech of
HON. DENNIS MOORE
of kansas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to one provision of the
conference report before us today, which causes me to vote against the
entire measure.
This legislation authorizes classified amounts in fiscal year 2004
for 14 U.S. intelligence agencies and intelligence-related activities
of the U.S. government--including the CIA and the National Security
Agency, as well as foreign intelligence activities of the Defense
Department, the FBI, the State Department, the Homeland Security
Department, and other agencies. H.R. 2417 covers CIA and general
intelligence operations, including signals intelligence, clandestine
human-intelligence programs and analysis, and covert action
capabilities. It also authorizes covert action programs, research and
development, and projects to improve information dissemination. All of
these are important and vital programs, which I support.
I am voting against this measure today, however, to draw attention to
a provision which I believe should have been the subject of more
rigorous congressional analysis than merely an up-or-down vote as part
of a larger conference agreement. This measure expands the definition
of ``financial institution'' to provide enhanced authority for
intelligence community collection activities designed to prevent, deter
and disrupt terrorism and espionage directed against the United States
and to enhance foreign intelligence efforts. Banks, credit unions and
other financial institutions currently are required to provide certain
financial data to investigators generally without a court order or
grand jury subpoena. The conference agreement expands the list to
include car dealers, pawnbrokers, travel agents, casinos and other
businesses.
This provision allows the U.S. government to have, through use of
``National Security Letters,'' greater access to a larger universe of
information that goes beyond traditional financial records, but is
nonetheless crucial in tracking terrorist finances or espionage
activities. Current law permits the FBI to use National Security
Letters to obtain financial records from defined financial institutions
for foreign intelligence investigations. While not subject to court
approval, the letters nonetheless have to be approved by a senior
government official. The PATRIOT Act earlier had altered the standard
for financial records that could be subject to National Security
Letters to include the records of someone ``sought for'' an
investigation, not merely of the ``target'' of an investigation.
While this new provision of law included in the conference report
does not amend the PATRIOT Act, I agree with the six Senators who
recently wrote to the Senate Intelligence Committee and asked them not
to move ahead with such a significant expansion of the FBI's
investigatory powers without further review. As they stated, public
hearings, public debate and legislative protocol are essential in
legislation involving the privacy rights of Americans. As a member of
the House Financial Services Committee, I am concerned that these new
provisions of law could be used to seize personal financial records
that traditionally have been protected by financial privacy laws. The
rush to judgment following the attacks of September 11, 2001, led to
the rapid enactment of the PATRIOT Act, a measure which has caused
substantial concerns among many Americans who value our
constitutionally-protected liberties. Now that we are able to legislate
in this area with a lessened sense of urgency, I urge my colleagues to
step back and return this provision of H.R. 2417 to committee, where it
can undergo the rigors of the normal legislative process so that
Congress, and all Americans, can pass an informed judgment upon its
merit.
____________________
REMEMBERING PEARL HARBOR
______
HON. STEVEN R. ROTHMAN
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, 62 years ago yesterday, our nation was
suddenly attacked by the Imperial Japanese Naval Forces and drawn into
World War II. This unprovoked act of war killed 2,338 military
personnel and civilians, and wounded 1,178. The attacks sank or heavily
damaged 21 ships and destroyed or damaged 323 aircraft. December 7,
1941 is a date which continues to live in infamy.
Mr. Speaker, the brave servicemen and women who served that day are
responsible for our presence here today. Sadly, on September 11, 2001,
this nation tragically experienced another Pearl Harbor whereupon our
nation again sacrificed innocent Americans who woke up that morning,
entirely unaware that they would never see their loved ones again.
During that most difficult time we drew strength and courage from those
who served this great nation before and from the leaders who led this
great nation through our darkest hours.
On December 8, 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt addressed the
nation and declared, ``no matter how long it may take us to overcome
this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous
might, will win through to absolute victory.'' These are words that
ring true today. On a day when many Americans feared for our nation,
FDR's words of confidence, determination, and purpose did indeed carry
this nation to absolute victory. Those same words will carry this
nation to absolute victory once again as our brave men and women of the
armed services are stationed in and around Iraq and Afghanistan
fighting to preserve our freedom, security and democracy. Like those
who served before, we are forever grateful for their courageous and
heroic acts and we will never forget their sacrifices.
On the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, we must remember
the difficult times our brave servicemen and women went through to
defend our nation, and we mourn the deaths of the military personnel
and civilians who died that day. Mr. Speaker, today we must ensure that
our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren learn about the
lives of our veterans, including those of the Greatest Generation who
served in World War II. Our commitment to our veterans must remain
strong because they are a symbol of the greatness of our country.
President Kennedy once said that you can judge a nation not just by
the people--the men and women--that it produces, but also by the people
that a nation remembers. Today, Mr. Speaker, we remember true heroes.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MR. HARRY SHASHO--A CITIZEN DEDICATED TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF
HIS COMMUNITY
______
HON. STENY H. HOYER
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, in Southern Maryland we are blessed to have
so many exemplary citizens who invest their time, energy and talent in
making it a special place to live. One such citizen who has gone above
and beyond and exemplifies the true spirit of American entrepreneurship
is Harry Shasho. Harry believes in the community and has worked hard to
improve the lives of Charles County residents now and in the future.
Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to acknowledge the deeds and fortunes of
this outstanding citizen, Harry Shasho. Harry got an early start in
business and in fact, says he has been a businessman since he was 12
years old. In 1976 when Harry moved to Charles County, he owned a small
chain of camera and electronics stores on F St. in Washington, D.C. In
1985, he sold his portion of the business and began selling real
estate; first residential, then commercial. In 1989, Harry went to work
for Baldus Real Estate and started their Commercial Division. Now,
Baldus is the best known Commercial Company in Southern Maryland.
As a businessman, Harry recognized the need to train future leaders
and became involved in helping young men through Boy Scouts. Over the
years, he has not only guided boys into becoming more effective and
productive citizens, but has also trained adults to become better
leaders. During his tenure as Scoutmaster, his scout troop has produced
12 Eagles Scouts, yet another tribute to his compassion. Mr. Shasho
continues to serve on fundraising committees for the Boy Scouts of
America.
Mr. Shasho has been a leader in the Charles County Chamber of
Commerce for over 10 years, holding positions as Board of Director,
Secretary, Treasurer, Vice President, President Elect, and is currently
serving as the 2003 President. Under his direction as President, he has
increased membership and built
[[Page 32205]]
a strong alliance between the Chamber and County and State government
officials. They have worked together on many issues which impact the
business community.
In addition to serving with the Charles County Chamber of Commerce,
Harry is Chairman of the Southern Maryland advisory board for BB&T
Bank, a committee member of the Charles County Economic Development
Commission, Member of the National and State Association of Realtors
and has received a National Leadership award from the National
Republican Congressional Committee.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to honor Mr. Harry Shasho, as he
retires as President of the Charles County Chamber of Commerce on
January 12, 2004. We are all so proud of the work he has done to
improve the lives of everyone in Charles County and I am very proud to
call him my friend.
____________________
CELEBRATION OF THE OFFICIAL OPENING OF THE BUILDING OF WEILL CORNELL
MEDICAL COLLEGE IN QATAR
______
HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, on October 12, 2003, Weill Cornell Medical
College and the Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community
Development embarked on an historical venture that brings the best of
American medical education to the Middle East. I was privileged to
participate in this extraordinary event along with Qatar Foundation
Leadership: Her Highness Sheikha Mozah Nasser al-Misnad; Saif Ali Al-
Hajari, Vice Chairperson; H.E. Yousef Hussein Kamal, Member Board of
Directors; H.E. Hajar Ahmed Hajar, Member, Board of Directors; Sheikha
bint Abdullah Al-Misnad, Member, Board of Directors; Mohammed Fathy
Saoud, Member, Board of Directors; and, Cornell University Leadership:
Peter C. Meinig, Chairman, Board of Trustees; Sanford I. Weill,
Chairman, Board of Overseers Weill Cornell Medical College; Jeffrey S.
Lehman, President; Antonio M. Gotto, Jr., Provost for Medical Affairs
and Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean, Weill Cornell Medical College;
Daniel R. Alonso, Dean, Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar.
Together with these esteemed colleagues, we marked the opening of a
model institution that I hope will be replicated throughout the region.
I first visited Doha, Qatar in 1999 for the historic municipal
elections where women were first granted the right to vote. At that
time, I met with Her Highness Sheikha Mozah Nasser al-Misnad who
requested help in bringing a U.S. medical school to Qatar. I did not
have to look far to find an extraordinary medical institution that is
located in my Congressional district. As a result, I took a small part
in working to forge the relationship between Her Highness and Dean
Gotto, Provost for Medical Affairs at Cornell University. Just a few
short weeks ago, the Qatar branch of the Weill Cornell Medical College
celebrated its inauguration.
In a very short period of time, Doha has been transformed into an
academic hub of the Middle East and has become a strategic ally of the
United States. Under the leadership of Her Highness, Qatar has made
significant advancements in education, medicine, and science with the
opening of the Education City. I strongly believe that the opening of
WCMC-Q marks the beginning of an important exchange between the West
and the East . . . at a time when the value of mutual understanding is
at a premium. Qatar offers a superb environment and facilities for both
teaching and studying, backed by an outstanding technological center.
It has been an honor to be involved in the development of the Weill
Cornell Medical College in Qatar, and I look forward to marking the
evolution of the entire Education City.
Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar is a pioneer in medical
education as well as in diplomatic exchange. The College offers a
complete medical education, leading to a Cornell University Doctor of
Medicine (M.D.) degree, with teaching by Cornell faculty. It is the
first American university to offer its M.D. degree overseas, and the
first higher education institution in Qatar to be coeducational; women
made up 70 percent of the inaugural class for the Pre-medical Program.
These points are very important. Prospective students are subject to
the same entrance requirements as in the United States and are awarded
the same degree as students in the U.S. While WCMC-Q teaches in a
coeducational forum, the students and faculty are learning together
about cultural differences that only serve to enhance the learning
environment. WCMC-Q aims to further the University's commitment of
education, research, patient care and the advancement of the art and
science of medicine while supporting the work of the Qatar Foundation
in serving the community. WCMC-Q trains the physicians of the future
and will research medical problems of concern in the region.
His Highness the Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani and Her
Highness Sheikha Mozah Nasser al-Misnad have made an ambitious and
visionary investment in their people and their economy by creating the
Education City. Recognizing that development and advancement will only
come with an upgrade to the educational system, they have succeeded in
fostering the interaction of various disciplines, cultures, and ideas
through the Education City. The Qatar Foundation logo, the Sidra tree,
represents nourishment for these ideals and serves as a reminder that
Qatar is forging the way for democracy, freedom, and human rights in
the region.
I feel privileged to have participated in this revolutionary event
and I would like to reiterate my praise for both the Qatar Foundation
and for Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar. You have built a bridge
that will have a far-reaching impact into the future and will serve as
a model of achievement for many to follow.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE APPOINTMENT OF CADET CLIFFORD T. JACKSON TO CHIEF PETTY
OFFICER
______
HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN
of rhode island
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today to congratulate
Clifford T. Jackson on his announced appointment to Chief Petty Officer
in the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps, which is scheduled to occur
on January 9, 2004. Cadet Jackson, of Westerly, Rhode Island, is an
honor roll high school senior and has been a member of the Nautilus
Division at the Sub Base in New London since March 2001. Cadet Jackson
has risen to the rank of Chief Petty Officer faster than any other
cadet in the 26 years of the Nautilus Division. This accomplishment is
only bestowed upon one half of one percent of approximately ten
thousand Naval Sea Cadets in the program and reflects exceptional
leadership skills and a masterful grasp of seamanship training.
I hope our colleagues will join me in congratulating Clifford Jackson
for his achievement, and I wish him great success in his future
endeavors.
____________________
IN MEMORY OF U.S. ARMY SPECIALIST REL ALLEN RAVAGO IV
______
HON. ADAM B. SCHIFF
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of my
constituent, United States Army Specialist Rel Allen Ravago IV of the
1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade of the 101st
Airborne Division, who was killed in action on November 23, 2003 in
Mosul, Iraq when hostile forces attacked his Army vehicle.
After graduating from Hoover High School in Glendale, Specialist
Ravago soon joined the United States Army and was deployed to Iraq in
May 2003. He was due to return home next March at the end of his four-
year tenure in the Army. From all accounts, he was a dedicated and
enthusiastic soldier who served our country with courage and
distinction.
A talented artist and honorable soldier, Specialist Ravago's family,
friends and fellow servicemen have spoken with admiration and
veneration of his commitment to duty, his dedication to his unit and
his love of country and family.
Students at Hoover High recently erected a patriotic memorial of red,
white and blue carnations mixed with American flags, containing a
short, but poignant message attached: ``You'll be missed.''
Friends, family and loved ones remember Ravago as a popular student
who played in Hoover High's drum corps and studied martial arts. His
former teachers describe him as ``radiating joy and a love of life''
with a ``smile that you could see from miles away.''
I recently had the opportunity to meet with Specialist Ravago's
parents and grandfather
[[Page 32206]]
following his death. They told me how proud they were of their son and
grandson, how proud he was to serve his country and how much they would
always miss him. Our nation owes his family a debt we can never repay
and Specialist Ravago will never be far from our thoughts. His
sacrifice and those of other soldiers who have fallen on the field of
battle have kept our nation free.
On behalf of the United States Congress, I wish to once again, bestow
our most heartfelt appreciation for Army Specialist Rel Allen Ravago's
service and sacrifice for the United States of America. To his family
and loved ones: your son, your brother, your grandson, your nephew,
your cousin and your friend, served our country with honor and nobility
and he will be missed.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY LANGUAGE ACT
______
HON. RUSH D. HOLT
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, we can no longer keep our nation safe if we do
not commit ourselves to learning the languages and cultures of critical
areas around the world. The security of our troops overseas and the
American people here at home demand that we act quickly to eliminate
the severe shortage of critical need language professionals in this
country. Inaction on this issue is not only irresponsible; it's
dangerous.
That's why I rise today to introduce legislation, the National
Security Language Act, which would significantly expand our investment
in foreign language education on the primary, secondary, and post-
secondary level.
Al Qaeda operates in over 75 countries, where hundreds of languages
and dialects are spoken. However, 99 percent of American high school,
college and university programs concentrate on a dozen (mostly
European) languages. In fact, more college students currently study
Ancient Greek (20,858) than Arabic (10,596), Korean (5,211), Persian
(1,117), and Pashto (14) put together. We need to do more to make sure
that America has the language professionals necessary to defend our
national security. This cannot be done overnight. We are already years
overdue.
As reported by the 911 Joint Inquiry in July, our intelligence
community is at 30 percent readiness in languages critical to national
security. Despite this alarming statistic, we do not appear to be
taking aggressive action to address this problem. When I asked a panel
of intelligence experts at a recent Intelligence hearing what the
federal government is doing to increase the pool of critical need
language professionals, they answered with silence. Two years after the
events of September 11, we are still failing to address one the most
fundamental security problems facing this nation.
Changing our recruiting methods alone will not solve the problem. To
meet new security needs, we need to create a new domestic pool of
foreign language experts and we can only do that by investing in the
classroom.
The National Security Language Act would expand federal investment in
education in foreign languages of critical need, such as Arabic,
Persian, Korean, Pashto, and Chinese. Specifically, my bill would
provide loan forgiveness of up to $10,000 for university students who
major in a critical need foreign language and then take a job either in
the federal workforce or as a language teacher. It would provide new
grants to American universities to establish intensive in-country
language study programs and to develop programs that encourage students
to pursue advanced science and technology studies in a foreign
language.
My bill would also establish grants for foreign language partnerships
between local school districts and foreign language departments at
institutions of higher education. And it would authorize a national
study to identify heritage communities here in the United States with
native speakers of critical foreign languages and make them targets of
a federal marketing campaign encouraging students to pursue degrees in
those languages.
Just as the National Defense Education Act of 1958 created a
generation of scientists, engineers, and Russian linguists to confront
the enemy of that time, the National Security Language Act will give us
a generation of Americans able to confront the new threats we face
today.
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2622, FAIR AND ACCURATE CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ACT OF 2003
______
speech of
HON. DENNIS MOORE
of kansas
in the house of representatives
Friday, November 21, 2003
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference
report on H.R. 2622, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of
2003 (the FACT Act). As a member of the House Financial Services
Committee and as a member of the conference committee that drafted the
final version of this legislation, I was deeply involved in the
drafting and consideration of this measure.
I was pleased to join with my colleagues, Representatives Bachus,
Hooley and Biggert, in introducing this bipartisan measure. This bill
was approved in subcommittee on a vote of 41-0, in full committee by a
vote of 63-3 and by the full House by a vote of 392-30 with one voting
present. Earlier this week, the Senate approved a similar version of
this bill by 95-2.
Mr. Speaker, this is the way Congress should work. This is the way
our constituents want us to conduct their business. Consideration of
this bill consistently has been bipartisan and thoughtful. All members
of the committee with opinions and proposals on the issues raised by
H.R. 2622 were able to offer amendments and participate in debate. The
way in which this measure was handled made this a stronger piece of
legislation than the version we introduced. I commend our committee's
leadership, Chairman Oxley and Ranking Democrat Frank, for making this
possible.
Mr. Speaker, the problems of inaccurate and incomplete information
that plague the current credit reporting system are of great personal
concern to those of our constituents who have suffered them. I'm sure
each of us could relate instances involving constituents who have faced
tremendous difficulty and aggravation in correcting inaccurate credit
histories.
This legislation directly addresses these very real problems faced by
people every day of the year. Our credit system is the envy of every
other country in the world. Our country, overall, does an excellent job
of making credit available quickly and fairly to consumers and
businesses. Enactment of H.R. 2622 will preserve and strengthen this
system. This conference agreement permanently extends those provisions
of the 1996 version of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that
prevent states from enacting stronger credit laws, thereby extending
the federal standards in those areas--including those rules dealing
with how affiliates can share consumer information.
The measure also provides new consumer protections against identity
theft, including the following new provisions of law. The FACT Act
will:
Provide consumers with a free credit report every year from each of
the three national credit bureaus, from a single centralized source;
Give consumers the right to see their credit scores;
Provide consumers with broad new medical privacy rights;
Give consumers the ability to opt-out of information sharing between
affiliated companies for marketing purposes;
Establish a financial literacy commission and a national financial
literacy campaign;
Ensure that consumers are notified if merchants are going to report
negative information to the credit bureaus about them; and
Extend the seven expiring provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.
The FACT Act also includes several significant new provisions
addressing the problems surrounding identity theft. It will:
Allow consumers to place ``fraud alerts'' in their credit reports to
prevent identity thieves from opening accounts in their names,
including special provisions to protect active duty military personnel;
Require creditors to take certain precautions before extending credit
to consumers who have placed ``fraud alerts'' in their files;
Allow consumers to block information from being given to a credit
bureau and from being reported by a credit bureau if such information
results from identity theft;
Provide identity theft victims with a summary of their rights;
Provide consumers with one-call-for-all protection by requiring
credit bureaus to share consumer calls on identity theft, including
requested fraud alert blocking.
Prohibit merchants from printing more than the last 5 digits of a
payment card on an electronic receipt;
Require banks to develop policies and procedures to identify
potential instances of identity theft;
Require financial institutions to reconcile potentially fraudulent
consumer address information; and
[[Page 32207]]
Require lenders to disclose their contact information on consumer
reports.
While this legislation was the product of a bipartisan consensus and
a conference procedure that produced what, overall, is an outstanding
measure, I would like to raise concerns with one provision of the bill
that I believe may need to be re-addressed in the near future, or we
may run the risk of thwarting the continued evolution of risk-based
pricing in the home mortgage market. First, I would like to talk about
the benefits of risk-based pricing in the mortgage market. Not too long
ago, only borrowers that fit the industry's cookie cutter mold of
creditworthiness were deemed qualified to purchase a home or to tap
their home equity. The market was two-tiered--all those who fit the
mold got credit at the same price, and those who didn't fit the mold
got no credit at all.
But that has changed dramatically in recent years. More sophisticated
risk measurement models were developed in the 1990s--helped in large
part by the uniform credit reporting standards we are today preserving
in this bill--that allow lenders to accurately measure credit risk and
price it accordingly. The result has been that families previously shut
out of the home purchase and home equity markets now have access to
credit from mainstream lenders at rates that reflect the underlying
risk of the borrower and the property. Mortgage credit markets are now
fluid and access to credit is no longer bifurcated between the haves
and have-nots. As research by the Federal Reserve Board has shown, the
development of risk based pricing and the non-prime lending market has
contributed significantly to the recent increases in homeownership
rates, especially among low- and moderate-income households.
With the growth of risk-based pricing comes the responsibility to
educate consumers about the impact of less-than-timely repayment
behavior and inaccurate credit report data on the cost of credit. One
provision of this bill--which I strongly supported as did all of the
major mortgage lenders--will require that lenders provide every home
mortgage borrower with a copy of their credit score, the range of
possible scores so borrowers can see where they fall in the spectrum,
and the top four factors that lowered their score. The notice further
advises borrowers about how credit scores are used and the need to
ensure that their credit report information is accurate. The home
mortgage transaction is the only one in which such information is
provided to borrowers and the mortgage industry should be commended for
supporting it.
I am concerned, however, that a second provision of this bill--the
Section 311 Risk Based Pricing Notice--may present problems for the
mortgage industry because of the complex interaction of underwriting
variables that go beyond credit history and extend to property
characteristics and borrower financial assets like down payment and
reserves. Specifically, I have concerns with the content and timing of
the notice, as well as with the difficulty of determining the
circumstances under which the notice would be triggered.
There are many variables relating to the pricing and terms of
mortgage loans that are unrelated to credit scores. These include
whether the loan has a fixed or variable rate, the property type and
the condition, the down payment and loan-to-value ratio, the debt-to-
income ratio, and the presence or absence of features like prepayment
penalties, mortgage insurance or balloon payments. In addition, the
pricing of mortgage credit also changes frequently, sometimes several
times a day, based upon market conditions or a lender's need for
product to meet its production goals. Finally, the interest rate that
borrowers pay--even for the exact same loan closing on the same day--
will vary widely based on when the borrower locked-in the interest
rate. In other words, borrowers who close on the same day may have
interest rates that were set weeks apart from one another.
In addition, the final combination of rates and terms will reflect
not only credit information, but the nature of the collateral, the
financial assets of the borrower and choices made by borrowers based on
their own personal circumstances. What is favorable to one borrower--
for example, a higher rate in exchange for no closing costs--may not be
for another. What is a material term? Just rates and fees? Or is a
fixed rate loan better than an adjustable? If a borrower gets a lower
interest rate because he or she chooses a prepayment penalty, who gets
the notice--the borrower with the lower rate or the one with the
prepayment penalty?
The risk based pricing notice in Section 311 asks mortgage lenders to
make subjective decisions in order to determine which borrowers
received ``material terms'' that are ``materially less favorable'' than
the ``most favorable terms'' made available to a ``substantial
proportion of consumers.'' In the context of a complicated mortgage
transaction, this is a truly daunting regulatory burden fraught with
significant compliance and legal risk. I fear that the impact of this
risk will force lenders to use fewer risk categories and eliminate
product features to ensure that such comparisons are easy to make and
pose little risk of compliance error. This will not be good for
consumer access to credit or consumer choice.
As to timing of delivery of a notice, I note that information
concerning a consumer's credit history and its relationship to the
pricing of mortgage products may best be given to the consumer early in
the credit granting so that this information can facilitate informed
decision-making by the prospective borrower as well as timely consumer
review of credit reports to ensure accuracy. Better that every mortgage
borrower get an early disclosure about importance of good credit and an
accurate report--before they pay application fees and get invested in a
home purchase decision--than to get one at the closing table.
Recognizing the challenges associated with implementing a risk based
pricing notice in the mortgage context, I urge the regulatory agencies
charged with rule making under this Section to report back to the
Congress with recommendations for how to make the triggering, timing
and content of the risk based pricing notices work in mortgage
transactions without exposing lenders to undue compliance and
litigation risks. These are issues that--if not addressed through the
rulemaking--will need to be reexamined by Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my fellow conferees for the significant
and important legislation we have produced--the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act of 2003--and urge the House to join with me in
approving this measure today.
____________________
COMMENDING BELL, BOYD AND LLOYD
______
HON. MARK STEVEN KIRK
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, if we relied solely on what is reported on the
air and in print, we might believe that soldiers--particularly
reservists--enjoy little or no support for their Iraqi mission here at
home. I am honored to report that this is not the case by recognizing
the Chicago law firm of Bell, Boyd and Lloyd for their outstanding
commitment to their junior partner, Captain Todd Pentecost, commanding
officer of the 933rd Military Police company of the Illinois Army
National Guard serving in Iraq. .
Jack McCarthy, the firm's chairman, rallied Todd's fellow workers in
support of this young soldier who has a wife and year-old daughter at
home in Bartlett, Illinois. In addition to continuing his salary and
benefits, Bell, Boyd and Lloyd sent 29 boxes of gifts to Todd and his
unit for the holidays. When Todd left for duty in Iraq last February,
the firm committed to send packages from home every week. The boxes
that just arrived for Todd and his unit include books, magazines,
videos, DVD's, snacks and personal items. Best of all, 200 of Todd's
fellow soldiers will receive a card of their own for 60 minutes of long
distance calling time. Three weeks ago three boxes were shipped that
included a Christmas tree, decorations, cards, pens and stationery for
their personal use.
I applaud the partners of Bell, Boyd and Lloyd for their efforts, not
only during this season, but for their caring and compassion throughout
the year. Their support of the brave citizen soldiers serving in Iraq
deserves recognition. The support of our troops almost always goes
unnoticed. I noticed. Many of my colleagues also noticed and we offer
our sincerest thanks to Captain Pentecost, his wife, and their
supporters at Bell, Boyd and Lloyd.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO LEONARD S. FIORE, INC.
______
HON. BILL SHUSTER
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Leonard S.
Fiore, Inc. on its 50th Anniversary and to thank the general
contracting corporation for its numerous contributions to the
community.
For more than four decades, Leonard S. Fiore, Inc. has maintained a
strong commitment to people, hard work, and education. The company was
founded by Leonard Fiore Sr. in 1954 upon the principle of providing
efficient, top quality work at a reasonable cost,
[[Page 32208]]
and the progress that it has made in the past fifty years confirms the
company's dedication to this principle. In 1957 the company completed
its first commercial construction project with the erection of the
Altoona Skating Center and the St. Rose of Lima Church in Altoona.
Since that date, the company has expanded its capabilities and
heightened its goals tremendously, having provided jobs to over 250
people and completed over 300 commercial buildings.
As one of central Pennsylvania's leading general contractors, Leonard
S. Fiore, Inc. offers demolition, excavation, concrete and steel
erection, masonry, carpentry, metal stud and drywall work as well as
plastering, painting, and a certified surveyor. Devoted to the belief
that ``no job is too large, no need too small,'' every job that the
company undertakes receives the same enthusiasm and quality of
workmanship. Regardless of the task at hand, the experience and
expertise of each and every employee guarantees every project to be
completed with the best possible results.
In addition to the organization's excellence in its industry, it has
remained extremely loyal to the surrounding community. Leonard S.
Fiore, Inc. regularly supports Saint Francis College in Loretto, PA,
and Bishop Guilfoyle High School in Hollidaysburg, PA, providing them
with financial assistance and volunteer services. Additionally, the
company sponsors local little league baseball teams, the Tour de Toona
bicycle race, and the annual Fiore Family Golf Classic, which is a
popular event that raises money for various community services. Leonard
S. Fiore, Inc. has demonstrated an unyielding enthusiasm and care for
the public which it serves.
For its incomparable generosity, service to the community, and
unabated commitment to excellence, Leonard S. Fiore, Inc. deserves the
highest recognition. The company continues to grow and maintain a high
level of quality, providing an example that all businesses should
follow. I congratulate Leonard S. Fiore, Inc. on its 50th Anniversary
and eagerly await its future progress.
____________________
MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM
______
HON. W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN
of louisiana
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my appreciation to
Chairman Duncan Hunter of the House Armed Services Committee for his
successful efforts to reauthorize the Maritime Security Program (MSP)
in the recently-passed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2004. The vitally important MSP program will ensure that
militarily-useful, United States flag commercial vessels crewed by
American citizens are available for this Nation's military and national
security needs.
In the MSP program reauthorization, the Congress has ensured that no
unreasonable impediments stand in the way of obtaining U.S.-flag roll-
on/roll-off, container and other militarily-useful MSP vessels for the
transport of military vehicles, supplies and other materiel in support
of U.S. military operations around the world. Chairman Hunter's support
was vital to our efforts to clarify the original intent of certain
vessel equipment provisions in the Maritime Security Act of 1996 that
first created the MSP program. Specifically, it is now clear that
existing vessels built to international standards may be documented
under the United States flag for inclusion in the MSP program when the
telecommunications and other electronic equipment on such vessels meets
internationally accepted standards.
As Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and with my dear
colleague from Louisiana, Congressman Vitter, we worked closely with
Chairman Hunter to ensure that appropriate telecommunications and other
electronic equipment standards are applied to MSP vessels. When the MSP
program was originally enacted, the law provided that a vessel that
meets internationally accepted construction and equipment standards may
be reflagged under the United States flag for operation in the MSP.
That provision was intended to apply to all vessel equipment, including
telecommunication and other electronic equipment. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 now clarifies that matter.
Accordingly, it is now clear that a vessel may be added to the U.S.-
flag commercial fleet for operation in the MSP program if it is built
to international standards, and the telecommunications and other radio
equipment aboard the vessels comply with applicable international
Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention requirements. This is in
keeping with the elimination of financial and other burdens that the
Congress specifically sought to remove through the establishment of the
Maritime Security Program. I would like to again thank Chairman Hunter
and his staff for working closely with us on this matter of critical
importance to the military and national security of the United States.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF GORDON PARKS
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of this
nation's most distinguished talents in commemoration of his birthday.
As a renowned photographer, poet, author, filmmaker and composer,
Gordon Parks has secured his place in American society as a true
Renaissance man of the arts. Born on November 30, 1912 in Kansas, Mr.
Parks grew up the youngest of fifteen children in an environment
stricken by poverty and racism. With the guidance of his loving,
inspiring parents, he persevered despite his circumstances.
Gordon Parks began his photographic journey at the age of 25, when he
bought his first camera, affectionately referred to as his ``weapon
against poverty and racism.'' This simple instrument did just that,
allowing him to break the constraints of discrimination and rise to
greatness as an artist. In 1941, Mr. Parks became the first
photographer to receive a fellowship from the Julius Rosenwald
Foundation and the following year, he was commissioned by the Farm
Security Administration to create a visual record of the lives of
America's poor in urban and rural communities. During this project, he
captured one of his most popular, compelling photographs, American
Gothic, the image of Ella Watson standing in front of the American
flag, holding a broom.
He moved on to become the first Black photographer to work at both
Life and Vogue Magazines where he coined his unique style of focusing a
series on one person to convey a story of humanity. Aside from
chronicling the intense emotions of America's poorest, the civil rights
movement and the surge of Black Nationalism, Mr. Parks' photographic
repertoire also featured images of leading societal figures such as
Langston Hughes, Duke Ellington, Ingrid Bergman, Barbara Streisand,
Mohammed Ali, and Marcel Duchamp.
Gordon Parks tried his hand in cinema, making eleven films, including
``The Learning Tree'', based on his autobiographical novel, and the
1971 film, ``Shaft''. Mr. Parks has also published twelve books, three
about his life, and several are collections of poetry and photography.
Musically inclined, Gordon Parks also composed a number of sonatas,
concertos, a symphony and a ballet, all of which have been performed
internationally.
Mr. Parks has also received a number of awards for his outstanding
contributions, including: Photographer of the Year from the American
Society of Magazine Photographers (1960 and 1985), induction into The
Black Film Makers Hall of Fame (1973), induction into the NAACP Hall of
Fame (1984), Governor's Medal of Honor from the State of Kansas (1985),
and honorary degrees from thirteen separate academic institutions.
Gordon Parks now resides in New York City and continues to enjoy the
recognition earned by his rich legacy as the premier photojournalist
and creative mind of his time.
____________________
CENTRAL NEW JERSEY CELEBRATES THE SUCCESS OF NJ/K12 ARCHITECTS BUILD
AND BELIEVE PROGRAM
______
HON. RUSH D. HOLT
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise stoday to recognize the success of
twelve apprentice architects and their mentors. These twelve students
from Trenton Central High School and Lawrence High School participated
in an intensive summer program in which they learned architectural and
design skills that allowed them to design two projects. Divided into
three groups, each group prepared an original design for a warehouse
and a renovation design for a building at Trenton Central High School.
Then simulating a business world, they prepared proposals for each
project to go to bid. These projects represent hours of hard work,
dedication, collaboration and communication among students, mentors and
community members. This program is a fine example of teaching practical
math skills. It involves identifying a
[[Page 32209]]
problem, developing an approach to solve it, testing that approach, and
eventually implementing a solution.
The students worked under the leadership of three mentor architects,
Vince Myers, Harvey Myers and Bob Iamello. They were divided into three
studios: Latin Architects in Action, Edgar Gonzales, Byron Zacarias,
Judith Rodriques, Raykel Abreu; Professional Building Design
Architects, Patrick Alvarado, Shaneeka Ingram, Edvin Zacarias, Brandon
Bey; Architect Design Perfection, Leidy Toro, John Frink, Jamie Rodas,
Vamey Keita. Working together as mentor and studio, each student
learned many skills including design, math computation, teamwork,
public speaking, critical evaluation and long-range thinking.
Programs like these reflect my values about the necessity for
excellent math and science education. Math is not just another subject.
Math is fundamental like reading. A mathematical framework provides us
the skill for lifelong learning, for creating progress itself. These
are very important skills for the very complex times in which we live.
I ask that all the Members join me in congratulating these 12
students and three mentors for their excellence in using mathematics to
design real buildings for real life.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MARY DAVIS ON HER 108TH BIRTHDAY
______
HON. JOSE E. SERRANO
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker it is with great pleasure that I rise today
to pay tribute to Ms. Mary Davis, a resident of the Bronx, New York who
will turn 108 this month. Ms. Davis is a living testimony to the
indomitable spirit of our great nation.
Born December 12, 1895 in Florida, Ms. Davis was the granddaughter of
slaves, whom she still has very clear memories of. This incredible
woman witnessed an America that almost none of us can say we truly
knew; an America that wrestled to establish the ideals of democracy and
freedom while continuing to oppress and terrorize those of African
descent. However, like many African Americans of her time, Ms. Davis
transcended that oppression and in doing so helped bring a nation
closer to its great potential.
The proud mother of five daughters, grandmother of 10 grandchildren
and great grandmother of 30 great grandchildren, Ms. Davis spent most
of her life working as a nanny and housekeeper to support her family.
Today, she lives alone in the Bronx and is described by those close to
her as being a lovable, God fearing woman who still attends her church,
the Great Methodist Baptist Church of Manhattan, regularly.
Mr. Speaker, Ms. Davis lived through two World Wars, the Cold War,
Vietnam, and two wars in Iraq. She has seen 20 Presidents enter the
White House and witnessed America's role in the world evolve from a
non-influential nation to the most powerful nation the world has ever
known. She was here before Henry Ford introduced the Model T, and even
before the Wright Brothers took their famous flight in Kitty Hawk,
North Carolina. There are only a few people on earth who can say that
they have witnessed all of these events first hand and Ms. Davis should
certainly be proud to be one of them.
For her many contributions to her community and to this nation, I ask
my colleagues to join me in honoring Ms. Mary Davis on her 108th
birthday.
____________________
40TH ANNIVERSARY OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S DEATH
______
HON. NANCY PELOSI
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, ``A nation reveals itself not only by [the
individuals] it produces, but also by [those] it honors, [those] it
remembers.''
President John F. Kennedy spoke these words 40 years ago, less than a
month before he was tragically killed in Dallas. On the 40th
anniversary of that sad month, which lives so vividly in our memory,
America honors and remembers President Kennedy. In doing so, we reveal
once more the nation he imagined and the country we might yet become.
Like a generation of Americans, I carry with me strong memories of
President Kennedy. As a college student standing on the grounds of the
Capitol on a freezing cold January day, I listened to President
Kennedy's enduring challenge now known the world over: ``And so, my
fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you, ask what
you can do for your country.''
And I have always remembered the less well-known--but equally
important--line that followed: ``My fellow citizens of the world: ask
not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the
freedom of mankind.''
Those of us who lived through those awful November days 40 years ago
will always remember the shock and never forget the sadness.
Yet on this anniversary we recall not how President Kennedy died, but
rather, how he lived; not just the tragedy of a single day, but the
triumphs of one thousand days--of a presidency and a President that
guides us still.
The first American President born of the 20th Century, President
Kennedy embodied the hopes, the optimism, the vigor and the vitality of
a new generation of Americans. Inspired by his call to cross a New
Frontier, America began a bold journey that would take us to the moon.
Young, idealistic Americans entered public service and joined the Peace
Corps. Courageous African-Americans became Freedom Riders, challenging
the evils of segregation and leading to the greatest demonstration for
justice in American history--the 1963 March on Washington.
A veteran of World War II, President Kennedy knew that in those
dangerous days of the Cold War, military strength was essential, yet
``war need not be inevitable.'' Through the crisis over Berlin and 13
days in October 1962, his resolve averted the unthinkable. And through
it all he knew something we must never forget--America stands strongest
when it stands with friends and allies.
Yet this Cold Warrior also knew that true and lasting peace demands
the elimination of the fury of despair and instability that plagues too
much of the world. President Kennedy's vision of a future where ``the
weak are safe and the strong are just'' inspired those young Peace
Corps volunteers to build a better world--combating poverty,
illiteracy, disease and hunger.
A man of deep faith, President Kennedy knew that ``here on earth
God's work must truly be our own.'' And so this man of privilege
challenged the nation to reject private comfort for the public interest
to fight for higher wages for workers, housing and medical care for the
poor, dignity and security for the elderly. And although he did not
live to see the day, his vision of a more just America would come
closer with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Ever since his death, Americans have wondered--how might the days and
years that followed have been different had he lived? Perhaps the more
important questions might be--have we lived up to the challenge he
issued so long ago? Have we kept alive the spirit and high purpose that
he kindled? Have we achieved the national greatness that he imagined?
Forty years later, President Kennedy challenges us still. As we
remember his death, let us rededicate ourselves--as a people, as a
nation--to the principles and vision that defined his life. On this
somber anniversary, there can be no higher tribute.
____________________
LUISA DeLAURO'S 90TH BIRTHDAY
______
HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO
of connecticut
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate my mother, Luisa
DeLauro, as she celebrates her 90th birthday on December 24th. She is--
in every sense of the word--a remarkable person--someone who made a
good life for herself and her family from the humblest beginnings.
From her, I learned the values I carry with me to this day--she
taught me the meaning of hard work, of family and community. When I
grew up, she worked in a sweatshop, sewing shirt collars for pennies.
Everyday she would make me come by after school to see the horrible,
cramped conditions. It is something I will never forget. The lesson was
clear: work hard. Make something of yourself. Get a good education.
She took her own lessons to heart, retiring 4 years ago after 35
years on the New Haven Board of Alderman--the longest serving member in
its history. During that time, she touched countless lives. I will
always remember the people sitting around my parents' kitchen table in
Wooster Square in New Haven. There, I witnessed firsthand how she and
my father helped solve the problems of people in our neighborhood.
My mother knew the importance of helping people--she understood that
politics was an
[[Page 32210]]
avenue for change. She also understood that women had an obligation to
participate in the political process. When I first ran for Congress in
1990, I found an article my mother wrote in the 10th ward Democratic
newsletter in 1933--70 years ago. Amazingly, she wrote:
It is not my intention to be critical, rather my motive in
writing this article is to encourage the female members of
this organization to take a more active part in its affairs.
We are not living in the middle ages when a woman's part in
life was merely to serve her master in her home, but we have
gradually taken our place in every phase of human endeavor,
and even in the here-to-for stronghold of the male sex:
politics. I have noticed that the girls, unlike the men, are
timid in asserting themselves, and many a good idea is lost,
having been suppressed by its creator. Come on girls, let's
make ourselves heard.
And so, Mom, I want to take this opportunity to say, ``You made
yourself heard.'' You continue to make us all proud. Thank you and
congratulations on your ninth decade. You are your daughter's greatest
inspiration.
____________________
HALLIBURTON
______
HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, over the past two months Rep. John Dingell
and I have written to the White House several times seeking an
explanation for the high prices Halliburton is charging to import
gasoline into Iraq. We have repeatedly expressed concern that
Halliburton has been paid an average price of $2.64 per gallon to
import millions of gallons of gasoline from Kuwait into Iraq.
Halliburton's price is more than double what others have paid to
import gasoline from Kuwait into Iraq, including Iraq's state-owned oil
company, SOMO, and the Pentagon's own Defense Energy Support Center. In
addition, independent experts I consulted have called these charges a
``huge ripoff'' of the taxpayer.
Gasoline imports are one of the single largest expenditures of U.S.
reconstruction efforts in Iraq. To date, nearly $450 million has been
spent on gasoline imports, and an additional $690 million has been
appropriated for gasoline and other fuel imports in 2004. Literally
hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are at stake.
Despite these enormous costs, the White House has consistently
refused to address this issue. The White House has refused to respond
to our inquiries or offer any explanation for the high costs being paid
by the taxpayer. Today, I call on the White House to immediately
investigate this matter and respond to the concerns raised in our
letters.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO CAROL DODO
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to
pay tribute to a talented rancher from New Castle, Colorado. Carol Dodo
is a family-oriented rancher who has been feeding the citizens of
Colorado for forty years. Carol is an intelligent educator and active
participant in the beef industry and I would like to join my colleagues
here today in recognizing her tremendous service to the New Castle
community.
The Colorado Cattlemen/Cattlewomen's Association recently named Carol
Dodo Cattlewoman of the Year for her long-time dedication to her trade.
Carol runs a cow-calf organization at West Elk Ranch north of New
Castle. She has been in the ranching business since the mid-fifties and
has increased her involvement in the industry over the years by
promoting and educating people about the benefits of eating beef.
Despite the dwindling number of ranching operations over the years, the
Dodo family maintains that raising cattle is a rewarding occupation.
Mr. Speaker, Carol Dodo is a dedicated individual who is actively
involved in the organization and facilitation of the beef industry in
Colorado. Carol has demonstrated a love for ranching that resonates in
her compassionate and selfless service to the Colorado Community.
Carol's enthusiasm and commitment certainly deserve the recognition of
this body of Congress. Congratulations on your award, Carol, I wish you
all the best in your future endeavors.
____________________
HONORING THE PEREZ BROTHERS
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Perez
Brothers upon their induction into the 2003 Stanislaus County Ag Center
Foundation Ag Hall of Fame. Their contributions to agriculture have
been felt across the nation. The brothers, Tom, Earl, Daniel, and Mike,
will be honored at the 2003 Ag Hall of Fame Dinner on December 4 at the
Stanislaus County Ag Center in California.
The Perez Brothers have been leaders in the agricultural industry
since the 1940s, but the legacy was started earlier by their father,
Juan, in northern Spain. In the early 1900s, the search for greater
opportunities led Mr. Perez to California. In 1936, the family moved to
the San Joaquin Valley and started farming 280 acres. Their father had
visions of the valley being rich in agriculture. Today, with an
operation that stretches nearly 80 miles, the brothers farm over 8,000
acres of melons, beans, cotton, tree crops, and, most-notably,
tomatoes. The family is one of the largest tomato shippers in the
country.
The family's commitment to the environment and to agricultural and
community organizations has been evident through the years. The
brothers have served on several boards and committees and offer their
time to numerous community organizations. Harvesting with the latest
and cleanest machinery, as well as the support offered for research and
improvements in farming, have earned the Perez Brothers an earth-
friendly reputation.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to commend the Perez Brothers for
their induction into the 2003 Stanislaus County Ag Center Foundation Ag
Hall of Fame. I invite my colleagues to join me in wishing the Perez
Brothers continued success.
____________________
IN MEMORY OF NARAYAN D. KESHAVAN
______
HON. GARY L. ACKERMAN
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory
of Narayan Keshavan who passed away suddenly and unexpectedly last
week.
Keshavan worked for me from January of 1998 until June of 2001.
During much of that time I was the Co-chair of the Congressional Caucus
on India and Indian-Americans and Keshavan helped me stay abreast of
the issues facing India and Indian-Americans and stay in contact with
the vibrant community here.
Keshavan had a love for two countries. His adopted home, the United
States and his ancestral home, India. So few people modestly and
selflessly served to help U.S.-India relations through such dramatic
periods of growth and change. Keshavan was an early and vocal advocate
for a different kind of relationship between the oldest and largest
democracies in the world. He saw the possibility, in fact the
necessity, of India and the United States working closely together well
before it was evident to leaders in either country. In a clear example
of bringing the two cultures closer together, Kesh was one of the
Indian Americans who made the October 23, 2003 First Deepavali Event at
the White House happen.
Born May 31, 1950 in Hyderabad, India, Keshavan was a graduate of
Andhra University (Visakahapatnam, India) where he received a BA in
Pharmacy and Osmania University (Hyderabad, India) with a BA and MA in
journalism. Over his impressive career as a journalist, Kesh was
respected for his vision and commitment to politics and Indo-U.S.
Relations. In addition to working for the Congressional Caucus on India
and Indian-Americans, he was the Founder and Executive Director of the
Indian American Republican Council, and President of the Indian
American Forum for Political Education (NYC and LI chapter). He also
was a founder of the Indo-U.S. Parliamentary Forum. He served as a
mentor to countless individuals of all ages and faiths, deeply touching
the lives of many here and in India, even those he knew only a short
time. People loved Kesh for his honesty, intelligence and humor.
Kesh passed away on Thursday, November 13 after he appeared on CNN in
a interview with Lou Dobbs where he defended India in the growing
political issue of outsourcing. Keshavan is survived by his father and
sister.
I ask all my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a journalist,
public servant and tireless community activist, Narayan Keshavan.
[[Page 32211]]
____________________
RECOGNIZING WOODS-VALENTINE MORTUARY'S 75TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. ADAM B. SCHIFF
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. SCHIFF. I rise today to honor Woods-Valentine Mortuary in
Pasadena, California. Woods-Valentine Mortuary, one of the oldest
African-American, family-owned and operated businesses in the twenty-
ninth Congressional District, is celebrating its 75th anniversary on
December 14, 2003.
The James Woods Funeral Parlor, located at 87 S. Vernon Avenue in
Pasadena, was founded in 1928 by James and Annie Mae Woods. In 1950,
after the death of Mr. Woods, his nephew Fred W. Valentine continued to
run the business for Mrs. Woods. In 1954, Fred and his wife, Arzella,
purchased the business and it became the Woods-Valentine Mortuary. The
Valentines relocated the business to its current location at 1455 N.
Fair Oaks Avenue in 1963 and built a new structure, which received a
Pasadena Beautiful Foundation award for architectural design and color
coordination.
Woods-Valentine Mortuary has a well-deserved reputation as a
professional, compassionate and dignified business. The mortuary staff
members serve the community not only by offering counseling and funeral
services, but also by their immense community and civic involvement.
Fred and Arzella Valentine have served on the boards of many
professional and civic organizations, such as the Los Angeles County
Funeral Directors Association, the National Funeral Directors
Association, the California Board of Funeral Directors, the Pasadena
Altadena Links, and the Soroptomist Club. The Valentines are also
members of many civic organizations including the San Gabriel Valley
Black Business Association, the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce, the
Pasadena Urban League, and are lifetime members and past board members
of the Pasadena NAACP. In addition, the Valentines have sponsored
Northwest Pasadena Little League teams for forty years, volunteered for
many years in Pasadena's public schools and libraries, and contribute
annually to many scholarship funds. They are also active in their
church, Friendship Baptist Church.
Woods-Valentine Mortuary is truly a family-owned business. Fred and
Arzella's daughters, Janyce Valentine and Gail Valentine Taylor, are
part owners. Arzella's sister, Vannie Brown, Fred's brothers, Clifton
Valentine (who died in 1999) and James Adkins, along with Laven Lanier,
James Barker, Ernest Gomez, Lenston Marrow, James Ross, Leo Vaughn,
Julius Henderson and Juan Wooden, are other members of the ``Woods-
Valentine Mortuary family'' who have greatly contributed to the success
of the business.
I ask all Members to join me today in honoring Woods-Valentine
Mortuary for its 75 years of dedicated service to the community.
____________________
HONORING N.A. ``TURK'' BAZ
______
HON. LINCOLN DAVIS
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute and honor
Turk Baz. I have known Turk for many years, and he is a testament to
the service, dedication, and diligence to his listeners on the local
radio by providing daily weather updates.
Turk, a veteran radio broadcaster and owner of WDEB FM/AM, has been a
fixture in Fentress County, Tennessee, for many years. He was recently
honored by the National Weather Service for his more than 20 years of
service by presenting him with its John Campanius Holm Award. The
annual award goes to 25 individuals among the agency's 11,000 plus
volunteer weather observers: The award has been given since 1959.
One of his greatest qualities is his modesty. During the acceptance
ceremony, he said he was accepting the award on behalf of his radio
station's staff and the many volunteers who are part of the Fentress
County Emergency Service Organization. Fentress Countians are blessed
to have someone like Turk looking out for them.
____________________
HONORING THE STATE WINNER AND NATIONAL FINALIST FOR RECOGNITION OF
OUTSTANDING COMMITMENT TO THE COMMUNITY
______
HON. JERRY WELLER
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Monical's Pizza
Corporation (Monical's) for being the State winner and national
finalist for Recognition of Outstanding Commitment to the Community and
being awarded the Restaurant Neighbor Awards. This is the 5th annual
year for the award.
One day a week, for 17 weeks, youths participating in the D.A.R.E.
(Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program receive an education on drug
abuse resistance. Monical's saw this as an opportunity to help reach
out to youths before drug addiction starts. Since 1990, the restaurant
has handed out more than 200,000 free pizza certificates to children
who complete the D.A.R.E. program--a contribution totaling more than $1
million.
Monical's commitment to D.A.R.E. began with a simple collaboration
with the Lincoln, Illinois, police department to donate pizzas to
students who graduated from D.A.R.E. Today, Monical's extends this
opportunity to every community D.A.R.E. program located near one of
their 50-plus restaurants. This translates into a value of more than $1
million. Students also receive a coupon for a Monical's Family Pleaser
so they can bring the entire family for a celebration of their
graduation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to identify and recognize other
companies in their own districts whose actions have so greatly
benefitted and strengthened America's families and communities.
____________________
CAPT GEORGE A. WOOD--A NATION MOURNS HIS LOSS
______
HON. SHERWOOD BOEHLERT
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, the people of New York's 24th
Congressional District and America suffered a terrible loss on November
20, 2003. U.S. Army Captain George A. Wood, originally of Marcy, New
York, died while valiantly serving his country in the War in Iraq. He
paid the ultimate price to ensure our liberty. He gave his life so that
the people of Iraq could live without repression and fear--and he gave
his life so that Americans could feel safe to live their lives under a
blanket of freedom. That freedom comes with a high price and we are
eternally grateful for his dedication and commitment to the ideals that
we hold dear.
Captain Wood personified the qualities and dedication that make our
U.S. military the greatest armed forces in the world. As a young man in
the Mohawk Valley, Captain Wood excelled in both academics and
athletics. He was known as a ``history buff,'' going on to earn a
bachelor's degree from the Ivy League's Cornell University. He
continued his education by earning master's degrees at both State
University of New York-Cortland and State University of New York-
Albany. Captain Wood's athletic endeavors led him to captain the Notre
Dame Junior-Senior High School football team in his senior year. He
hoped to one day share his love of football as a coach at the West
Point Military Academy.
Captain Wood was assigned to the Army's 4th Infantry Division based
in Fort Hood, Texas. He was killed while on patrol when his tank rolled
over an improvised explosive device.
I ask my colleagues in the House, and all Americans, to extend our
prayers and sympathy to his wife Lisa and their 3-year old daughter
Maria, Captain Wood's mother and stepfather Maria and Michael Babula of
Marcy, New York, as well as the rest of his family. Together we honor
this fallen American hero.
____________________
NATIONAL CONSUMERS LEAGUE PRESIDENT LINDA GOLODNER ENDORSES
INTRODUCTION OF H.R. 3139, THE YOUTH WORKER PROTECTION ACT
______
HON. TOM LANTOS
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, at the start of the 20th
century the state of child labor conditions in our country was so
deplorable that it was not uncommon for children to be working 60 or
70-hour weeks in the hardest forms of labor--in our nation's mines,
mills and in the farm fields. It was
[[Page 32212]]
these conditions that the National Consumers League was created to
alleviate.
Through the hard work and dedication of its members, the National
Consumers League was able to secure the passage of the Fair Labor
Standards Act in 1938. This monumental legislation has been the
backbone for ensuring that American workers are treated fairly and
humanely. Specifically, the legislation enacted sweeping reforms to the
use of child labor in our country that were designed to prevent the
exploitation of youth workers.
In the 60 years since the passage of this extraordinary legislation
our economy has changed dramatically. It is appalling to learn that in
our great country, the occupational injury rate for children and teens
is more than twice as high than it is for adults. In fact, the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) estimates that
every year 230,000 teens are injured on the job. I am certain that all
of my colleagues will agree with me that these statistics are a
national disgrace and are totally unacceptable for a civilized,
advanced society such as ours.
That is why I introduced H.R. 3139, the Youth Worker Protection Act,
a bill that will modernize America's child labor laws. I am also
honored to report that in 2003, just like 1938, the National Consumers
League was instrumental in the drafting of this legislation and I am
confident that with their support we will be successful in securing its
passage.
I am delighted that Linda Golodner, President of the National
Consumers League and a tireless advocate to advance progressive chance
in our country was standing next to me when I introduced the Youth
Worker Protection Act. Her eloquence on the need for reform to our
nation's child labor laws should be shared with our Congressional
colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and I therefore request that her statement be
placed in the Congressional Record.
Statement of Linda Golodner
Thank you for coming today. I'm Linda Golodner, president
of the National Consumers League and co-chair of the Child
Labor Coalition. I am joined today by Congressman Tom Lantos
and Maggie Carey from Beverly, Massachusetts.
More than one-hundred years ago, Florence Kelley, first
executive secretary of the National Consumers League, led a
national effort to press Congress for tough laws to protect
working children. Her goal was achieved in 1938 with the
passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which includes child
labor provisions. The Act addresses child labor and the
workplace realities of the early 20th century--not the early
21st century. The early reformers would I am sure find it
inconceivable that these hard fought child labor laws have
not been revisited since that time. Updates to the Fair Labor
Standards Act are long overdue. Our nation's most vulnerable
workers--many of whom are too young to have a driver's
license--deserve 21st-century protection from unsafe and
inappropriate working conditions.
The National Consumers League and our more than 40 member
organizations in the Child Labor Coalition have been working
since for almost 15 years to protect the health, education,
and safety of working minors. We have advocated for stronger
child labor enforcement and for higher penalties for those
who violate the law--especially those that result in a young
worker's serious injury or fatality. We have focused on child
labor reform that reflects the realities of today's
workplaces and today's educational needs.
Young people who choose to have after school jobs should
not have to compromise their education to do so. Yet, many
do. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a 16- and 17-year-old
can try to juggle as much as 40 hours of work per week, in
addition to their 30 hours of school. Combined, this is more
work than is expected of most adults in this country. Whether
short-sighted about their own education or facing coercion
from employers, many young people work too many hours.
Studies show that when teens work over 20 hours a week while
school is in session that their grades go down and often
alcohol and drug abuses escalates. Many work well over 20
hours a week in after-school and weekend jobs.
Teen worker injuries are also escalating. The National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has raised
estimates on youth worker injuries from 200,000 in 1992 to
230,000 in 1998. Every year, between 60-70 young people die
in the workplace. Outdated child labor laws--written in the
1930s--cannot and do not adequately protect our nation's
young workers from workplace hazards.
We have high expectations for the passage of the Youth
Worker Protection Act. Our highest expectation is that
passage of the bill will lead to fewer injuries, fewer
deaths, and remove the too often scenario of a youth's first
job being his last job. I will leave it to Congressman Tom
Lantos to tell you how.
We have high expectations that the passage of the bill will
put youth employment in its proper place--as a positive first
experience in the world of work. But the first job of any
young person today is education--Education that will prepare
that teenager to be a productive worker tomorrow.
No teenager expects that they will get hurt on the after-
school or weekend job. And, as a nation, we are not assuring
young people that the law protects them from harm in the
workplace. The passage of the Youth Worker Protection Act
would be a step in the right direction. But for now, it is
the National Consumers League commitment to teen workers and
their parents to arm them with information they need to think
twice when choosing that job. Check out www.nclnet.org/
childlabor for new materials about laws that do exist and how
to avoid dangerous work, including NCL's five worst teen
jobs.
This fall, nine American families won't enjoy the back-to-
school festivities as usual. Nine families are mourning the
deaths of their children over this last summer. The cause of
death? Workplace injuries. Every 30 seconds, a young worker
under the age of 18 is injured on the job. On average, every
five days, one of the injuries is fatal.
Such losses are indefensible. Especially deaths from
workplace injuries, which could have been prevented with
stronger laws protecting young workers and stronger
government commitment to enforcement and prosecution under
the law.
____________________
HONORING THE HONORABLE ALSTON H. SMITH, JR.
______
HON. TOM DAVIS
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wolf and I rise today to
honor former Delegate Alston H. Smith, Jr., an outstanding citizen of
Winchester, Virginia, who, for nearly half a century, has served his
community and country.
Delegate Smith's successful career began in 1954 when he cofounded
Shenandoah Foods 2000, a major employer for the Shenandoah Valley. He
served on the boards of both Jefferson Bankshares and First Bank,
playing a critical role in assisting the economic development of
western Virginia.
Delegate Smith also faithfully served in the Virginia House of
Delegates for over 20 years, where he was a Democratic leader and
tireless advocate of public education. He was instrumental in the
development of the Winchester/Frederick County area, bringing critical
improvements to his beloved Shenandoah University.
Delegate Smith not only dedicated himself to the Winchester/Frederick
County area, but also worked to bring progress to the entire
Commonwealth. For nearly a decade, he served the interests of the
coalfields of Virginia as chairman of the House Mining and Mineral
Resources Committee.
Delegate Smith certainly has recognized that the surest way to make a
difference is to begin in his local community. Additionally, he
generously has donated much of his personal time to improving economic
development opportunities and education for all Virginians. Delegate
Smith loves the Valley and loves Virginia. All of Virginia extends
their heartfelt thanks for his continuing role in improving the lives
of our children, families, and seniors.
Mr. Speaker, the life and service of this Virginian serves as a
shining example to all who wish to improve education and opportunity
through civic and community involvement. I ask my colleagues to join me
in applauding Delegate Smith.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO KAROL SACCA
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise and pay tribute to
an outstanding educator from my district. Karol Sacca from Carbondale,
Colorado has dedicated her life to the betterment of young people and I
am proud to call her contributions to the attention of this body of
Congress and our nation.
Karol has been a teacher for a quarter of a century. She has spent
the last eighteen years at Roaring Fork High School, where she is
currently the school's librarian. In this position, Karol's endless
enthusiasm and tireless dedication to her students has resulted in many
accomplishments.
[[Page 32213]]
Karol created a student media center at Roaring Fork High School and
also spearheaded the creation of many innovative reading programs as
well. Karol's voluntary reading programs have attracted the
participation of over half of the school's students. This level of
student participation is a testament to Karol's ability to connect with
her students. Karol's ability and conviction have earned her the
respect of educators statewide. She is currently one of four finalists
for Colorado's Teacher of the Year Award.
Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to pay tribute to the contributions of
Karol Sacca. Karol has achieved a delicate balance between leadership
and friendship with her students. Karol's dedication has lead to many
young people becoming excited about learning. Thank you, Karol, for
your contributions.
____________________
COMMENDING SAINT AGNES HOSPICE FOR 25TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Saint Agnes
Hospice in celebrating 25 years of compassionate care. An open house
was held to commemorate this milestone on Monday, November 24th in
Fresno, California.
In its 25th year, Saint Agnes Hospice continues to focus on pain and
symptom management in patient care, and strives to raise awareness
among the public and physicians about the value of Hospice care. Since
its establishment in 1978, the organization's main purpose has been to
reflect the mission of the Saint Agnes Medical Center by extending
Christ's love to the terminally ill and their families; recognizing
that each person is unique and deserving of compassion while stewarding
the human and financial resources. Their goal is to meet and serve the
needs of individuals, promoting dignity, comfort, and peace to enable
them to live until they die. Founded by Sister Raphael McGrath, CSC,
BSN, MSNE, Saint Agnes Hospice has made it possible for terminally ill
patients to live out their final days with dignity in the comfort and
privacy of their own home. Hospice focuses on living and maintaining
the patient and family's quality of life.
Saint Agnes Hospice has grown dramatically over the years and
continues to offer patients and families a variety of levels of care.
During fiscal year 2003, it served 346 patients, an increase from 265
patients in 2002. The Hospice Team is staffed around the clock by an
outstanding group of individuals; physicians, nurses, chaplains, social
workers, and volunteers. The four levels of care available are Routine
Home Care, Continuous Home Care, Inpatient Respite Care, and General
Inpatient Care. FOOTSTEPS, an expressive arts support group is
available for children who have experienced difficult life losses and
their caregivers. Finally, Bereavement care is planned and available to
support families for a year following the loss of a loved one.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate Saint Agnes Hospice on
its 25th anniversary. I urge my colleagues to join me in wishing them
many years of compassionate care for the citizens of the Central
Valley.
____________________
THE YOUNG MASHADI JEWISH CENTER
______
HON. GARY L. ACKERMAN
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call to the attention of the
House an important event in my district: the groundbreaking for the
Young Mashadi Jewish Center in Great Neck on December 14, 2003. I want
to offer my best wishes and congratulations to all the men and women
who have contributed their time, energy and support to bring this
tremendous project into being.
America and New York in particular have been blessed by a growing
number of Jews of Iranian descent, who have made an enormous
contribution to the health and vitality of our Jewish community. Owing
to their bitter experience as a persecuted religious minority in Iran,
they--more than most--have come to understand the meaning of the
prophet Jeremiah, ``If you will remain in this land, then I will build
you up and not pull you down; I will plant you, and not pluck you up. .
. .'' The expansion of this community's physical presence through the
construction of this center is a sign of continuing growth and
maturity, and one which I happily encourage.
Mr. Speaker, as always, breaking ground on a new religious center is
a joyous event. Such structures are gifts to the future and expressions
of our most admirable goals for our posterity. The Young Mashadi Jewish
Center in Great Neck will include classrooms and a playground for
children, a youth center for young adults, a recreational lounge to
accommodate social, cultural, and educational programs for the
community seniors, and other spaces available to host all those events
which connect individuals and families to their community.
This center will be built with love, dedication, determination and an
abiding faith in the future of the Jewish people. In short, it will be
a center that reflects the values of the people who built it.
Mr. Speaker, in the Jewish faith, when a book of study is completed,
the accomplishment is celebrated by offering encouragement to
immediately return to the work ahead. The groundbreaking of the Young
Mashadi Jewish Center in Great Neck is a great step forward, a real
achievement. But it is a step which only promises greater things. In
the days ahead, I know the whole House will join me in saying ``Chazak!
Chazak! v'Nitchazayk!'' (Be strong! Be strong! And may we be
strengthened!)
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE SOUTH PASADENA KIWANIS CLUB'S 80TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. ADAM B. SCHIFF
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the South Pasadena
Kiwanis Club upon its 80th anniversary.
Kiwanis is a worldwide service organization of women and men who
share the challenge of community and world improvement. Since its
founding in 1915, Kiwanis has grown to include approximately 9,000
clubs in more than 80 nations.
The South Pasadena Kiwanis Club, founded in 1923, consists of
business and professional people who work or live in the South Pasadena
area that have an interest in volunteer service. A family-oriented
organization, South Pasadena Kiwanis members are committed to serving
the youth, families and senior citizens of South Pasadena.
Some of the club's charitable contributions include the South
Pasadena Educational Foundation, Farm City Youth, Special Olympics, the
Summer Reading Program, ``Terrific Kids,'' the Young Men's Christian
Association, ``Concerts in the Park,'' and Little League. The South
Pasadena Kiwanis Club is the main sponsor for South Pasadena High
School's Key Club and ``Grad Night'' Breakfast, in addition to
providing student scholarships at the high school, middle school and
elementary schools. In addition, some of the club's annual events
include a Fourth of July Pancake Breakfast, a Spaghetti Dinner in
conjunction with the South Pasadena Fire Department, and participation
in the construction of the city of South Pasadena's Rose Parade Float.
The time, energy and care that the South Pasadena Kiwanis Club has
given to the community are extraordinary, and the residents of South
Pasadena have benefited greatly. At this time, I ask all Members to
join with me in commending the South Pasadena Kiwanis Club for 80 years
of dedicated service to the South Pasadena community.
____________________
HONORING CHANA LYMON
______
HON. LINCOLN DAVIS
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, teaching is one of the noblest
professions I can think of. I rise today to honor one of those
teachers. Her name is Chana Lymon. Chana is the Director for Sylvan
Career Starters in Columbia, Tennessee. She recently received the
Educator Excellence Award from Sylvan Education Solutions. This award
is presented to individuals who meet and exceed all of the standards of
Excellence and Program Management. Award winners have developed well
trained motivated teams and ensure that all service activities meet
Sylvan standards.
The Career Center serves youth ages 18-21 who have dropped out of
school or have
[[Page 32214]]
not been able to complete traditional high school due to a barrier such
as teen-parenting, truancy, delinquency, debilitating illness, or an
academic deficiency. The centers help students prepare for the GED and
State TCAP or Gateway tests. They also offer employability and work
assistance as well as computer literacy training.
It has become evident through their work that Ms. Lymon and her staff
strongly believe in promoting the importance of self-worth. Self-esteem
is the most important factor that will go hand in hand with success. I
congratulate Ms. Lymon and her staff for promoting education as the key
to a better future.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE 2003 PEOPLE AND PERFORMANCE AWARD WINNERS
______
HON. JERRY WELLER
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Monical's Pizza
Corporation (Monical's) for receiving the People and Performance Award
(PAPA) during the Multi-Unit Foodservice Operators 2003 National
Conference.
Nation's Restaurant News and Coca-Cola North America established the
national PAPA awards to honor multi-unit chains for excellence in
employee recognition, retention and recruitment. Monical's President
Harry Bond received the PAPA award for retention.
For the past 14 months, Monical's achieved 0 percent turnover for
restaurant general managers, team leaders, regional trainers, and
support center coordinators. Very few companies can boast of the same
accomplishment. Monical's attributes their low turnover rate to several
company incentives such as: evaluation of restaurant management at
least once a year; all restaurant management and support staff team
members receive the same health insurance and profit sharing benefits
as the president of the company; the company's policy of a flexible
scheduling strategy; and a 50 percent discount on Monical's meals for
employees.
Monical's also values their employees who also have families. The
majority of management personnel work between 42-45 hours per week and
are eligible for two weekend days off per calendar month so their
managers are able to enjoy an active and productive family life as well
as a life at work. Monical's also encourages their employees to bring
their children to work for the day. This allows the children to see
where their parents work and have a day of fun working in a restaurant
or office.
Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to identify and recognize other
companies in their own districts whose actions have so greatly
benefitted and strengthened America's families and communities.
____________________
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, ONEONTA COLLEGE NCAA WOMEN'S SOCCER
CHAMPS
______
HON. SHERWOOD BOEHLERT
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
congratulate the State University of New York College at Oneonta
women's soccer team for their come-from-behind, emotional victory to
win their first ever NCAA National Championship on November 11, 2003.
The tying goal scored in the final seconds of regulation will forever
remain a great moment in Red Dragon history. It will also remain a
vivid moment of victory of each one of the team's members--for without
their collective talent and dedication, it would not have been
possible.
Head Coach Tracey Ranieri deserves special praise for leading this
fine group of student athletes to the highest possible achievement in
women's Division III soccer. Through Coach Ranieri's leadership these
young ladies have proven that hard work and dedication on the practice
field and in the classroom can produce champions on the playing field
and in academics.
I take great pride in representing the State University of New York
College at Oneonta. What I find truly special is while the opponent in
the National Championship Game, The University of Chicago, boasted a
lineup that featured players from across the country; Oneonta's roster
was almost completely comprised of New Yorkers. What pride they bring
not only Oneonta, but to the entire State of New York.
The 2003 Oneonta Women's Soccer team: Amanda LaPolla of New Hartford,
NY; Jami Leibering of Kendall Park, NJ; Laura Morcone of Mechanicville,
NY; Holly Bisbee of Burnt Hills, NY; Patricia DiMichele of Centereach,
NY; Alissa Karcz of S. Huntington, NY; Kelly Stevens of Rochester, NY;
Cassie Perino of Patchogue, NY; Sanada Mujanovic of Centereach, NY;
Patricia Jeager of Baldwin, NY; Liz Fermia of Rochester, NY; Leslie
Small of Clifton Park, NY; Rose Velan of Stamford, NY; Brooke Davis of
Grand Gorge, NY; Sarah Tauber of Valley Stream, NY; Cristina Gaspar of
New Rochelle, NY; Alex Desousa of Blauvelt, NY; Candance Grosser of
Levittown, NY; Meghan Putnam of Syracuse, NY; Colleen Wolbert of
Rotterdam, NY; Corinne Tisei of New Hyde Park, NY; and Brittany Gates
of Syracuse, NY.
____________________
DEDICATING H.R. 3139, THE YOUTH WORKER PROTECTION ACT TO THE MEMORY OF
ADAM CAREY
______
HON. TOM LANTOS
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, according to the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) an average of 230,000 teenagers
are injured on the job each year and even more shocking is the fact
that an average of 67 teen workers die each year from injuries
sustained while on the job. That means a teen worker dies from work
related injuries in this country every 5 days.
These are horrific statistics, and I believe that Congress must enact
legislation to prevent these unnecessary deaths. The grave nature of
these unfortunate accidents is made clearer when given a human face.
While I was preparing this legislation, I discovered the story of Adam
Carey, a 16 year-old boy who died while working on a golf course in
Massachusetts. Adam's death was the result of an accident while he was
driving a golf cart between the clubhouse and the driving range. Under
Massachusetts state law, youths Adam's age were prohibited from driving
golf carts.
I was honored to stand by Adam's mother, Maggie Carey when I
introduced H.R. 3139, the Youth Worker Protection Act, to modernize our
nation's child labor laws. Among other things, the Youth Worker
Protection Act would increase the penalties for employers who violate
laws designed to protect children.
I am proud to dedicate this legislation to her son's memory and I ask
that her poignant story be included in the Congressional Record so that
my colleagues can humanize statistics of young workers who die from
injuries suffered on the job once every 5 days.
Statement of Maggie Carey
Good Morning. I'd like to begin by telling you a little bit
about myself, my family, and what has brought me here today.
Again, my name is Maggie Carey. I am from Beverly,
Massachusetts, a small city on the north shore of Boston. I
have worked as an Obstetrical Register Nurse, with my focus
being Labor and Delivery, for over 30 years. My husband
Richard works in maintenance and grounds keeping for a local
hotel chain. We have been married for 30 years and were the
proud parents of 3 beautiful children. Our oldest daughter
Robin is 28 years old and has met the challenge of Downs
Syndrome, Leukemia and open-heart surgery. Our son Jonathan
who will be 27 in November has had open-heart surgery as a
child as well, now works successfully in the computer
software field in California. Our youngest son Adam would
have been 19 this past March.
Through the years as parents, one of our roles was to teach
our children the importance of responsibility for themselves
and as part of a community. We hoped to show them through
example, what that means and how to achieve it. In that way
they would become successful, productive, and ethical young
adults.
We began at an early age encouraging them to have their own
paper routes. Even our daughter Robin was able to have one
with our assistance. As they got older, we encouraged them to
have part time jobs after school, on weekends and during
summer vacations. Our daughter as a volunteer would come to
work with me on weekends and collate blank charts to be used
when new patients arrived. My son Jonathan worked as a bagger
and cashier at a local grocery store. We continued to teach
them the value of a dollar, how to earn it, save it, and
manage it appropriately. Little did we know that by trying to
teach these important values it would cost us dearly.
In August of 2000, our then 16-year-old son Adam began
working at a local country club
[[Page 32215]]
as a bag room attendant. On September 16, 2000, only 3\1/2\
weeks later, his life would come to an end while working at a
job that seemed so perfect for him. Adam loved golf, people
and being outdoors. He was driving a golf cart as part of the
job. He was using the cart to retrieve golf balls, wash them,
and return them to the golf barn. He had been in the pro shop
just prior to the accident and we were told that when he got
back on the cart he hit a deck that was only about 10 feet
away. On impact Adam's heart was ruptured. Supposedly no one
witnessed the accident even though it was the busiest day of
the season at the club and it was right near the practice
green, so exactly what happened is unknown.
What we do know is the devastating effect that the loss of
our son has had on our entire family. What we also know is
that child labor laws had been violated and continues to be
violated every day in our country. Approximately 20 or so
violations were found that day alone. Most importantly the
one affecting Adam under Massachusetts General Laws, which
prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from operating any type
of motor vehicle of any description while employed.
Many people and agencies investigated the accident, but the
only action taken against the employer was a $1000 fine by
OSHA for having failed to report the accident within 8 hours.
The Attorney Generals Office opted not to pursue any action,
because the only avenue they have is through the criminal
courts. They rarely prosecute unless the company is guilty of
grossly repetitive behavior. Supposedly this was the
employer's first offense, but in reality it was the only time
they were caught. Even though the law is clear, it has become
acceptable practice for teens to operate these carts for many
years now due to non-enforcement. Since when can a death not
be considered serious enough to pursue charges? So, is it the
second, third or one-hundredth death they may pay attention
to.
From what I have learned, even if they had pursued the case
and had found them guilty, the punishment is so minimal that
it is not financially sensible to spend the money and
resources to enforce these laws.
Most of the child labor laws have not been updated since
the 1930's. As we all know the world we live in is very
different 70+ years later. What few changes that have been
made have been to weaken the laws. We as a society have had
much to say about child labor in other countries, yet we do
nothing about our own. SHAME ON US!!! We spend a lot of time
looking at issues, making laws, but that is wasted time and
energy if we aren't out there enforcing them. It is vital for
our children's future to have adequate ways and means to
penalize the offenders.
And then there are workman's compensation laws, which you
would think would encourage employers to put child safety
first. Again this is not true. For teens, the employers
financial liability is minimal because the majority of them
do not have dependents and their jobs are temporary and part
time. This again is not an incentive for employers to obey
the laws. I am not saying all employers are not concerned
about teens safety. Some are very responsible. Others aren't
even aware of most of these laws, although it is their
responsibility.
Our family has endured many trials and tribulations through
the years. We have always been able to pick up the pieces and
continue on with the help of loving, supportive family and
friends. The death of our beloved son Adam has been almost
too much to bear. How do we fill the huge gap in our hearts
that used to be Adam? He was so full of life and had so much
love to give. His friends describe him as always happy with a
smile on his face. He would do anything to make people laugh.
We miss that smile! We miss his energy! We miss his whole
being!
What do we tell his special needs sister Robin when she
asks almost every day, why can't we bring him back? There are
really no words that can express fully to anyone what losing
a child does to your soul. I hope that none of you will ever
know how this feels. We go on each day. We go to work. We
maintain our home, because we must, for the rest of our
family. But nothing will ever be the same.
What I am here today to say is that this should never have
happened and that there are many ways that we can address
these issues. The availability and easy access to educational
materials for parents, young workers and especially employers
must be improved.
The proposed legislation that Congressman Lantos is
submitting today will address some of these issues. One of
these being civil penalties in an amount that would have a
significant impact on employers. If there is anything that we
can do in memory of our son it would be to somehow prevent
this from happening to another child, another family.
Thank you and God bless and guide you in all the decisions
you make.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO VIRGINIA LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
______
HON. TOM DAVIS
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the
Virginia law enforcement officers, and those throughout the nation, who
have lost their lives this year in service to their communities. Every
day, these men and women display their courage, commitment and service
to their fellow man. The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial
recently held a wreath laying ceremony here in Washington, DC to honor
these eight brave officers who gave their lives to protect us, the
citizens of Virginia, and I would like to take a moment to recognize,
remember and honor these individuals.
On January 12, Henrico County Police Officer Andre Booker was
attempting to use his patrol vehicle to stop a person suspected of
firing gunshots in a shopping center when his car crashed through a
fence and landed in an icy pond. Six other officers at the scene were
unsuccessful in freeing Officer Booker from his vehicle. He was 26
years old.
On January 16, 39-year-old Norfolk Police Officer Sheila Herring was
killed after responding to reports of gunfire inside a bar. The
suspects opened fire on the responding officers, fatally wounding
Officer Herring. She worked with Norfolk Police Department for 11
months and had recently moved from Detroit, Michigan, where she spent
10 years as a law enforcement officer.
On January 29, Virginia State Trooper Michael Todd Blanton was killed
by a drunk driver he had pulled over on Interstate 64. As Trooper
Blanton attempted to reach into the car, the driver sped off, dragging
Trooper Blanton until the car crashed, pinning him under the vehicle.
Trooper Blanton is survived by his wife and 6-year-old son.
On May 9, 20-year law enforcement veteran Scott Allen Hylton of the
Christiansburg Police Department was shot and killed after responding
to a report of a hold up at a convenience store. Officer Hylton was
shot and killed as he exited his cruiser at the scene. Also a member of
the Army National Guard, Officer Hylton was the father of four.
On May 28, Officer Ryan Cappellety of the Chesterfield County Police
Department, a recent graduate from the police academy, was shot and
killed when he and other officers responded to reports of gunshots.
Upon arrival, a suspect standing on his front lawn with a gun opened
fire on the officers, fatally wounding Officer Cappellety. He was 23
years old.
On June 23, Officer Rodney Pocceschi of the Virginia Beach Police
Department was shot and killed during a traffic stop on Dam Neck Road
in Virginia Beach. Officer Pocceschi served the Virginia Beach Police
Department for 4 years and is survived by his wife and young son.
On July 30, Richmond Police Officer Douglas E. Wendel was shot and
killed by a suspected drug dealer. Officer Wendel had been with the
Richmond Police Department for 5 years. He was a 41-year-old father of
three.
On August 26, Sergeant Rodney Davis of the Greene County Sheriff's
Department was shot and killed while serving an arrest warrant on a
narcotics suspect near Stanardsville, VA. As Sergeant Davis and other
officers searched the house, the suspect opened fire and fatally
wounded Sergeant Davis. Davis worked with the Greene County Sheriff's
Office for 2\1/2\ years but had been in law enforcement since he was 19
years old. The 30-year-old left behind an expectant wife and two young
children.
Mr. Speaker, the eight officers killed in the line of duty this year
matches the highest total of law enforcement officer fatalities in the
Commonwealth's history. Nationwide, there have been 114 law enforcement
officers killed this year, a grim reminder of the vital and dangerous
role these officers play in our national well-being. We are all
eternally grateful for the service and sacrifice of these true American
heroes.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE ALAMOSA COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise and pay tribute to
the Alamosa County, Colorado, Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber recently
celebrated eighty years of service to Alamosa, and it is my honor to
call the attention of my colleagues and this nation to all that the
Chamber does for the citizens of Alamosa.
The Alamosa County Chamber of Commerce was incorporated in 1923. The
original
[[Page 32216]]
building was lost to fire in 1907. Recognizing the importance of the
Chamber, the city rallied together and built a new building the
following year.
The Chamber has a strong tradition of excellent leadership and a
dedicated staff. Since its inception, the Chamber has focused on the
organization and health of the County's economy. Able and dedicated
staff members always greet each citizen with a smile.
In addition to traditional activities, the Alamosa Chamber of
Commerce has always gone beyond the call of duty to be involved in the
community. The citizens of Alamosa have traditionally used the Chamber
as a meeting place for community events. There are often cribbage
tournaments, banquets and charity events throughout the year. In
addition, the Chamber funds scholarships for young people, has worked
to improve the County's emergency response system, and is also involved
in various projects such as the promotion of recycling.
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise and pay tribute to the
Alamosa County Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber works tirelessly for
the betterment of Alamosa County and I am honored to pay tribute to its
contributions. I am pleased to join the people of Alamosa County in
thanking the Chamber of Commerce for its hard work and many
contributions.
____________________
HONORING LARRY CARTER
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Larry Carter for
his induction into the 2003 Stanislaus County Ag Center Foundation Ag
Hall of Fame. On December 4th, he will be honored at the 2003 Ag Hall
of Fame Dinner at the Stanislaus County Ag Center in California.
The Stanislaus Ag Center Foundation honors individuals who work to
make agriculture Stanislaus County's number-one industry. Mr. Carter's
contributions to agriculture and his community have helped agriculture
in the county achieve this status. After receiving his Bachelor of
Science in Animal Husbandry from California Polytechnic University in
1952, Larry served in the United States Navy for 4 years. Between 1963
and 1972, he ran his own laying hen ranch. For the following 15 years,
he served as Executive Manager of the Stanislaus County Farm Bureau
while farming 25 acres of almonds. Since 1987, Mr. Carter has worked
for Stanislaus Farm Supply.
Larry's dedication to the community and agriculture organizations has
been evident through his work as a volunteer. He has worked with the
Denair Lions Club, Hughson 4-H, Modesto Chamber of Commerce, Stanislaus
County Jail Site Committee, Stanislaus Ag Foundation, and many others.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Larry Carter for his
induction into the 2003 Stanislaus County Ag Center Foundation Ag Hall
of Fame. I invite my colleagues to join me in thanking Larry for his
dedication and hard work.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE MARATHON JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER AND ITS RABBI
GARY GREENE
______
HON. GARY L. ACKERMAN
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the
Marathon Jewish Community Center in Douglaston, New York and its new
Rabbi Gary Greene who officially took the reins on December 7, 2003.
The Marathon Jewish Community Center is a conservative synagogue
which has served the communities of Douglaston, Little Neck, Bayside
and Great Neck for more than 50 years. The facility includes a
religious school, a junior congregation and adult education programs.
Earlier this year, the synagogue recruited Rabbi Gary Greene from
Temple Shalom in Framingham, Massachusetts. Prior to his service there,
Rabbi Greene served the members of Congregation B'Nai Jacob in
Longmeadow, Massachusetts. While at Temple Sholom, Rabbi Greene helped
to revitalize Adult Education, and for his efforts was the recipient of
the Solomon Schechter Award for Adult Education. Among other
accomplishments, Rabbi Greene has expanded the social and cultural
programs of the Temple and introduced services and rituals, including
Selichot, Tashlich, Healing Services and Meditation Services.
Rabbi Greene has also dedicated himself to teaching. Over the years,
he has educated and enlightened thousands of children and adults. He
taught most grades at the former United Hebrew School and served on its
Board of Directors, Education Committee and Rabbis' Committee. He was
instrumental in the creation of B'nai Jacob's Hebrew School and the
B'yachad Hebrew High School. Rabbi Green has served on its Board of
Directors, Education Committee and as the Co-Chair of the Education
Committee in charge of Judaic programming. Rabbi Greene also served as
a teacher and adviser to Camp Ramah in Palmer, Massachusetts.
Rabbi Green also served as the Jewish chaplain for students at
Westfield State College in Westfield and Bay Path College in
Longmeadow. He was also an active member of the Longmeadow Clergy
Association as well as the Interfaith Council of Western Massachusetts.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues in the House of Representatives
to join me now in congratulating Rabbi Gary Greene and the Marathon
Jewish Center for their service to the community. I am confident that
the Marathon Jewish Center will continue to enrich the lives of its
congregants for many years to come.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MS. MARGARET ANN ABDALLA
______
HON. ADAM B. SCHIFF
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding citizen
of California's 29th Congressional District, Margaret Ann Abdalla. Ms.
Abdalla has served on the South Pasadena Unified School District Board
of Education for 16 years and has been a positive force in the greater
South Pasadena area for much longer.
A Southern California native and University of Southern California
graduate, Margaret Ann moved to South Pasadena in 1969. She began her
community service by volunteering with the South Pasadena Parent
Teacher Association, Little League, and South Pasadena Educational
Foundation. Ms. Abdalla also raised three children, Lisa, Tony and
Alex, all who attended South Pasadena's public schools.
In 1987, Margaret Ann was elected to the South Pasadena Unified
School District Board of Education. Ms. Abdalla has worked with several
board members and four superintendents during her tenure, serving as
Board President three times. Under her leadership, some of the Board's
accomplishments include the passage of two school bond measures in 1995
and 2002, the formation and bonding of today's administrative team, and
the transition of the junior high to a middle school program 12 years
ago. In 1996, Margaret Ann was the recipient of the South Pasadena
Parent Teacher Association's Honorary Service Award for meritorious
service.
As a member of the South Pasadena School Board, Margaret Ann
participated in organizations such as the California School Boards
Association, the Downtown Revitalization Task Force and the Los Angeles
Annenberg Metropolitan Project. In addition, Ms. Abdalla was a founding
member of the Five-Star Coalition, a coalition of the Burbank,
Glendale, La Canada Flintridge, Pasadena and South Pasadena School
Districts, established for the purpose of collaborating with local
legislators on issues of mutual interest to the school districts.
The time, energy and love Margaret Ann has given to the community are
extraordinary, and the residents of South Pasadena have benefited
greatly. At this time, I ask all Members to join with me in commending
Margaret Ann Abdalla for her many years of dedicated service to the
South Pasadena community.
____________________
ON THE PASSING OF WAYNE T. PALMER
______
HON. LINCOLN DAVIS
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
one of the 4th Congressional District's finest citizens. On Saturday,
November 29, 2003, Wayne T. Palmer, of Sparta, Tennessee, passed away
at his home.
[[Page 32217]]
Wayne Palmer was not a master of business or of politics. Mr. Palmer
was a man of meager means but overwhelmingly generous spirit. He was a
man who cut a giant figure in his community through the devotion of his
time and energy to the causes he loved.
Wayne Palmer served as a volunteer leader in the Boy Scouts of
America for more than 35 years. During that long tenure, he served
variously as Assistant Scoutmaster and Scoutmaster of Troop 175 in
Sparta, as the camping chairman of both the Upper Cumberland and Black
Fox Districts, and as a leader of the camping committee of the Middle
Tennessee Council. Significantly, these are just a few of the roles he
fulfilled during his many years of service to Scouting.
Mr. Palmer was honored for his guidance to young men and leadership
in scouting repeatedly. He was awarded the Long Rifle Award for his
leadership in both the districts he served. Mr. Palmer was honored with
the Silver Beaver Award--the highest honor accorded adult leaders by
the Middle Tennessee Council--for his service to the council. In
addition, he was a Vigil Honor member of the Order of the Arrow--
Scouting's Honor Society--and was repeatedly honored for his service to
the Wa-HiNasa Lodge, including receipt of the Founders' Award and Josh
Sain Memorial Award.
Mr. Speaker, if we're lucky, we encounter few people in life who have
the kind of positive influence over the lives and maturation of young
men that Wayne Palmer had. He was a man utterly devoid of self-interest
and focused almost entirely on the education and improvement of the
lives of those boys and young men who had the tremendous good fortune
to be guided by his wisdom--be they Boy Scouts (his first and lifelong
love), Little League baseball players or otherwise. It is rare--very
rare indeed--to find a person who acts altruistically, who places the
interests of others consistently ahead of his own, and who is truly
selfless. Wayne Palmer was just such a person, and the lives of many
Tennesseans are far richer for having known him.
Wayne Palmer was a great teacher and a great man. The lessons he
taught were lessons for life. Of that, I have no doubt. Wayne Palmer
taught as much or more by example, as he did through more common
instruction. Mr. Palmer walked the talk. He never asked anyone to do
anything he was not himself willing to do. He was, in the eyes of so
many, the very embodiment of that pole star of principles, the Scout
Oath and Law. Mr. Speaker, Wayne Palmer was for many Tennesseans the
Great Scoutmaster of legend and myth.
White County and the Fourth Congressional District of Tennessee lost
one of those rare bright lights on November 29 when Wayne T. Palmer
passed from this mortal coil. Accordingly, I rise today to express my
deepest sympathy to his wife, Jan, and his son, Garrett, on their
tremendous loss. We honor his memory here today so that they will know
that we all share their loss. Wayne T. Palmer was a great Tennessean, a
man devoted to his family and to the education of young people, and an
exemplary American citizen.
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege as a Member of the People's House to
honor his lifetime of service to others.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE SWIFT FAMILY
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise and pay tribute to a
remarkable family from my District. Dean and Pattie Swift of Jaroso,
Colorado have done a great deal for the preservation of the
environment. Recently, the Colorado Association of Conservation
Districts named the Swifts as Conservation Farmers of the Year for the
work they have done as owners of the Swift Seed Company. I am honored
to call the attention of this body of Congress to the contributions the
Swifts have made to preserving the environment.
The Swifts began farming in the San Luis Valley in 1975. Their
company sells flower seeds worldwide. The seeds the Swifts sell are
used primarily for the reclamation of mining sites and the re-seeding
of areas devastated by wildfire.
Dean Swift serves as the Chairman of the Rio Grande Corridor Advisory
Committee. This committee is comprised of farmers and ranchers
throughout Costilla County who are dedicated to the preservation of the
Rio Grande on the Western border of Costilla County. In addition, Dean
works in conjunction with Ducks Unlimited to promote wetland habitat on
the Swift Farm.
Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise and pay tribute to Dean and
Pattie Swift. The Swifts have done a great deal for the environment,
not only on their family farm but also throughout our state. They have
managed these feats while happily serving as wonderful parents to their
two beautiful children. Congratulations, Dean and Pattie, on a well-
deserved award.
____________________
RECOGNIZING KAZAKHSTAN'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my
colleagues to the efforts of Kazakhstan, a predominantly Muslim secular
nation that spares no effort to promote better understanding and
dialogue between the Western world and the Islamic world. Some people
may wonder why Kazakhstan would engage in such efforts and why it is
succeeding in their efforts. I suggest they read a recent article by
the Ambassador of Kazakhstan, Kanat Saudabayev, published by the
Institute on Religion and Public Policy so they may learn of
Kazakhstan's experience in achieving these goals. I therefore ask
unanimous consent of my colleagues to introduce the article into the
Congressional Record.
[From www.religionandpolicy.org, Nov. 26, 2003]
We Call for Dialogue, Not Hate
(By Ambassador Kanat Saudabayev)
Extremists often use religion to create hate and further
their selfish agendas which have nothing to do with religion.
But, all religions are similar in that they denounce
terrorism and teach tolerance, harmony and brotherhood.
That was the message delivered to the world by participants
of the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional
Religions, who gathered in Astana at the initiative of
Nursultan Nazarbayev, the president of a secular Muslim-
majority Kazakhstan. At the end of the Congress, senior
clerics from Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism,
Hinduism, Taoism and other faiths adopted a declaration
stating, ``extremism, terrorism and other forms of violence
in the name of religion have nothing to do with genuine
understanding of religion, but are a threat to human life and
hence should be rejected.''
``Inter-religious dialogue is one of the key means for
social development and the promotion of the well-being of all
peoples, fostering tolerance, mutual understanding and
harmony among different cultures and religions,'' the
religious leaders said after the closing joint prayer.
Far from the ``clash of civilizations'' many see as part of
the world's future, this Congress was a strong response to
all who spread intolerance, hate and terrorism. The Congress
also showed the world the noble goals of inter-religious
peace are very real and very achievable. There's convincing
evidence of this in Kazakhstan, where Muslims, Christians,
Jews, Buddhists and others live in peace with each other and
where freedom of religion is the crucial value of our
society. Pope John Paul II called Kazakhstan ``an example of
harmony between men and women of different origins and
beliefs.''
Indeed, at the whim of often cruel fate in the past,
Kazakhstan, however paradoxically that may sound, has truly
become a center of unique diversity and tolerance.
During much of the 20th century, Kazakhstan was under the
totalitarian domination of Soviet communism. The Soviets
conducted cruel experiments with our land and our people. The
forced settlement of the traditionally nomadic Kazakh people
was followed by a widespread famine in the 1930s. Coupled
with almost 500 nuclear tests during 40 years, this led to
deprivation, death and emigration of millions of ethnic
Kazakhs. In the 1940s, Stalin dumped hundreds of thousands of
Germans, Chechens, Koreans and others in Kazakhstan as his
regime deemed them untrustworthy in the face of the invading
Nazis in the West and the Japanese in the East. Thousands of
ethnic Russians and others were sent to Soviet concentration
camps, part of the Gulag, in Kazakhstan. Many Soviet Jews
were exiled to Kazakhstan for their religious beliefs. In the
1950s, more than a million ethnic Russians, Ukrainians,
Byelorussians came to Kazakhstan to farm under the Virgin
Lands program.
In those difficult years, the native Kazakhs gave all these
people shelter and shared bread. Official Communist ideology,
however, did not encourage people in their natural yearning
for a religious life. Religious life was instead suppressed;
ancient mosques, churches, and synagogues were used as shops,
storage areas or even discos, rather than houses of worship.
Religious reawakening and freedom of conscience returned to
Kazakhstan only after our independence. During the short 12
years, ancient mosques, churches and synagogues were restored
and hundreds of new ones built across the country. In 2002,
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) put a cornerstone into the new
synagogue currently under construction in Astana. Today,
there are some 3,000 religious congregations representing
more than
[[Page 32218]]
40 religious denominations serving the needs of 100 different
ethnic groups. Recently, President Nazarbayev announced plans
to build a single center in Astana which will have houses of
worship of many religions.
This history of mutual respect and harmony is the
background which led President Nursultan Nazarbayev of
Kazakhstan to convene the recent Astana Congress. The eager
response of world's religious leaders to the call for the
Congress is a reflection of the respect they carry for the
President and his policies.
This is also the reason why many leaders from the United
States and other countries have supported our endeavors to
build bridges between religions and civilizations.
President George W. Bush, in his letter to President
Nazarbayev, said, ``For the United States, itself a multi-
ethnic and religiously diverse nation, these meetings
underscore the importance of working with our friends in
Central Asia to advance the values of tolerance and respect
that form the foundation of democracy.''
A bipartisan group of U.S. Senators and Congressmen in a
letter to President Nazarbayev called the Astana forum
``Kazakhstan's worthy contribution to the promotion of peace
and harmony during these difficult times.'' Senators Sam
Brownback (R-KS) and Conrad Burns (R-MT), representatives
George Radanovich (R-CA), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Robert Wexler (D-
FL), Eni Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa), Edolphus Towns (D-
NY) and others also thanked Kazakhstan ``for taking
consistent and concrete steps to bridge the growing divide
between Muslims and Jews at a time when tension in the Middle
East is at a fulcrum, and intolerance and anti-Semitism are
rising worldwide.''
The recent report to Congress by the Advisory Group on
Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim worlds, led by
Edward Djerejian, points out the need for dialogue between
the Muslim and Western worlds is more important today than
ever before.
Such a conclusion is obvious. Similarly obvious are
difficulties in putting it into practice.
But the example of Kazakhstan, working well with the United
States, the West, and the Muslim world and speaking for
dialogue of religions and civilizations, gives us ground for
optimism that tolerance and mutual understanding, not hate
and violence, will prevail.
____________________
A BILL TO EXPAND THE WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT
______
HON. AMO HOUGHTON
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to add Trade
Adjustment Assistance Recipients as a targeted group for the Work
Opportunity Tax Credit, thereby permitting employers to receive a tax
credit when hiring these individuals. Most importantly, this bill would
help address the loss of our manufacturing and other jobs to foreign
competitors. The bill I'm introducing is a companion to a bill offered
in the Senate by my good friend, Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine.
The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) program provides a credit of
up to $2,400 based on wages paid in the first year to a new employee
for employers that hire workers from one of the targeted groups
(welfare recipients, ex-felons, high-risk youths, qualified food stamp
recipients, etc.). The WOTC program has been a major factor in moving
the unemployed from the welfare rolls into the workforce, serving as a
vital component of the welfare reform legislation.
The proposal in the bill is a very targeted approach. A Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) recipient is an individual who is
unemployed and has been certified to receive benefits under the TAA
program. TAA benefits include extended unemployment compensation and
worker training.
The latter program provides benefits to individuals who have been
laid off by an employer who has been disadvantaged by foreign imports
or has shifted production, and jobs, to a country that has a free trade
agreement with the United States or is a beneficiary country under
certain other trade agreements. Thus, the proposal deals directly with
the loss of jobs to countries abroad.
The TAA targeted group would be somewhat different than the other
groups. The TAA group has been disadvantaged by foreign trade and
competition. Even though the individuals may be skilled, they are
unlikely to find jobs in their former industries because the jobs have
moved offshore. Accordingly, the TAA recipient may need retraining.
Qualifying as a WOTC/TAA recipient would help the person obtain a job,
and the credit would contribute to the retraining costs incurred by the
new employer. The TAA recipient hired by an employer would no longer
receive TAA benefits, thus reducing the cost of that program.
The proposal is not the complete answer to unemployment.
Nevertheless, I believe it is a step in the right direction, because it
targets those workers who have lost their jobs due to foreign trade and
competition. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this proposed
legislation.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ANN CAMERON
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to
pay tribute to an extraordinary woman from Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Ann Cameron is a wonderful person who brings warmth to the hearts of
everyone she meets with her gentle laugh and remarkable sense of humor.
Her enthusiasm spreads throughout the community as she passes her
wisdom and knowledge on to future generations. I would like to join my
colleagues here today in recognizing Ann's tremendous dedication to the
Glenwood Springs community.
Ann celebrated her 101st birthday on November 12th. She was born in
1902 in the Indian Territory of Oklahoma before it became a state. As
one of eight children, she grew up milking cows and picking cotton on
the family farm before she went on to teacher's college. Ann became a
stenographer and worked for attorneys most of her life. She credits
reaching her second century with hard work and staying busy.
Mr. Speaker, Ann Cameron is a gracious individual who enriches the
lives of many members of her Glenwood Springs community. Ann has
demonstrated a love for humanity that resonates in her life-long work
ethic and compassionate personality that has led her to the exceptional
milestone she celebrates this year. Ann's enthusiasm and dedication
certainly deserve the recognition of this body of Congress.
Congratulations on your 101st birthday, Ann. May you have many more to
come!
____________________
ARMENIAN TECHNOLOGY GROUP AND CENTRAL DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY IN ARMENIA
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to
clarify a key provision in Fiscal Year 2004 Foreign Operations
Appropriations which was included in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2004.
As you know, this Congress continues to be a supporter of strong
U.S.-Armenian relations to include economic and related programs. In
fact, this bill appropriates $75 million to help Armenia with its
continued progress toward a market-oriented democratic nation.
However, it is not just economic assistance that Congress is voting
on today. We are also voting on a provision which expressed the intent
of Congress that the U.S. Agency for International Development provides
sufficient funding to establish and operate a Central Diagnostic
Laboratory in Armenia that can serve the Caucasus region. Currently,
there is no such resource in Armenia or the region to safeguard human
health and food safety against the threat of contamination or spread of
disease.
I believe it is the intent of this Congress that the U.S. Agency for
International Development utilize the services of the Armenian
Technology Group, a U.S.-based nonprofit organization, to work with
Armenian officials to establish and begin operations of this Central
Diagnostic Laboratory. Furthermore, I believe it is key that this work
begin as early as possible so that the Caucasus region, and by
extension the United States, can benefit from the protection provided
by this Central Diagnostic Laboratory.
____________________
HONORING THE LEGACY OF CONGRESSMAN DANIEL J. FLOOD
______
HON. PAUL E. KANJORSKI
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late
Congressman Dan Flood as his legacy is honored today, November 25,
2003, at King's College in Wilkes-Barre. The occasion will celebrate
the Congressman's 100th Birthday, 10 years after his passing.
[[Page 32219]]
Although it has been over 2 decades since he has served in the House
of Representatives, Congressman Dan Flood's record of accomplishments
and the legacy he left are still alive and well. Congressman Flood and
I worked on several legislative initiatives together. Spearheading the
effort to shape the recovery package for Northeastern Pennsylvania
following the floods left in the aftermath of Hurricane Agnes stands
out as an example of Congressman Flood's responsiveness to the district
he loved.
Mr. Speaker, I insert in my remarks at this point the complete text
of a story printed in the Wilkes-Barre Citizens Voice on the legacy of
Dan Flood.
Legendary Legacy
It has been 23 years since he left Washington and nine
years since his death in 1994.
Congressman Daniel J. Flood became a legend in his own time
while in office, and remained a much-respected popular figure
for 14 years after.
The fact that old friends, public officials, and news media
will gather at King's College on Tuesday to observe his 100th
birthday is yet another indication of just how much his long
life of service to the country and his region meant.
Much of the Flood years by way of public papers and
memorabilia are housed at King's College, through an
agreement Flood set up in 1964 with Mary Barrett, longtime
college librarian.
In the Flood collection room are tens of thousands of
pieces of correspondence, hundreds of photographs, awards,
plaques, and seals of the office he held and the departments
of government with which he dealt for so many years.
It is traditional in assessing the Congressman's career
that consideration comes on two levels--the federal
government in Washington and the 11th Congressional District
in Northeastern Pennsylvania.
Until 1966, he represented Luzeme County. But after the
Supreme Court's famous ``one man, one-vote'' decision, the
state's congressional districts were realigned.
Flood's territory expanded to include Carbon and Columbia
counties. In 1972, as part of the decennial reapportionment,
Montour and Sullivan counties were added.
Flood's lasting legacy on the national scene usually
centers on his three decades of policy to keep the Panama
Canal in U.S. control, the unending crusade to promote the so
called captive nations of eastern Europe which were under
Soviet domination, and his powers as a member of the House
Appropriations Committee.
Flood secured membership on the funding panel in 1949, and
kept it throughout the end of his congressional service on
January 31, 1980. His senior role on the Defense
appropriations subcommittee, where he served for nearly 30
years, was significant in such areas as funding new weapons
systems, supporting the Vietnam War and keeping the Tobyhanna
Army Depot in business.
In fact, it was his strong relations with the most senior
Department of Defense military and civilian commanders that
enabled him to gain permanent legend status for his role in
the recovery of the Agnes disaster in 1972. The effort was
led from his emergency headquarters at the Naval Reserve
Center in Avoca.
In 1966, after less than three years of service on the
appropriations subcommittee for Labor, Health, Education and
Welfare, election defeat for two colleagues and the
unexpected death of the panel's chairman thrust Flood into
the chairmanship of what quickly became an awesome
assignment.
Flood handled it well--for the country and his district.
President Lyndon B. Johnson called for the creation of the
Great Society, a program unprecedented in scope of social,
educational, and vocational opportunities, in which several
million Americans benefited. The assignment for funding
policy for the entire program fell upon Chairman Flood and
his subcommittee. During the 14 years of his chairmanship,
the National Institute of Health budget increased six-fold,
research for cancer intensified new federal programs for
educational development sprung up, and many national health
and research centers were created.
Also, for the first time, the government offered support
for psychiatric training, practical nursing and specialized
education.
It was his clout in the appropriations process that had
much to do with his successful leadership in the enactment of
the 1969 legislation which created the Black Lung program for
first retired coal miners, and later secured benefits for
their widows.
By the time of his retirement a decade later, his
constituents alone received several hundred million dollars
of benefits.
The powerful subcommittee assignment brought a multitude of
benefits for the folks back home.
Funds were obtained to help construct the new library at
King's College. The first family practice medicine program
between Wilkes University and Hahnemann University in
Philadelphia was inaugurated. Students could now take many of
their medical school classes on the Wilkes University campus.
The first federally funded rural health center on Route 940
in White Haven opened, with others in the area soon to
follow. The regional mental health center, headquartered in
Nanticoke, was the first of its kind in the country. Marywood
University's School of Social Work gained national
recognition because of its network of services funded by
Washington.
Beyond the realm of the Washington scene and significant
projects for his district, it was another legend, that of
individual constituent service, for which Flood perhaps
became best known.
There was, it seemed, no aspect of human need in which the
government could not play a part and that Flood did not
deliver assistance.
Flood's long public career brought many types of
recognition. There were 13 honorary degrees, the top national
awards of the American Cancer Society, the American Heart
Association, the Disabled American Veterans, the Cystic
Fibrosis Foundation and hundred more.
The lasting tribute that the congressman treasured most,
however, was the naming of Daniel J. Flood Elementary School
in the north end of Wilkes-Barre in his honor. The school is
located just a few blocks from the simple, family home where
his devoted wife, Catherine, resides to this day.
The ceremony in Flood's honor will be held Tuesday at 1:30
p.m. in the King's College chapel at North Franklin and
Jackson streets.
Mr. Speaker, Daniel Flood's wife, Catherine, who will be present at
the ceremony today, was indeed a partner in the Congressman's career
and family. His loyal staffers and allies such as Michael Clark, John
McKeown and Councilman Jim McCarthy, serve as a tribute to how Dan
Flood conducted himself as a Congressman.
My Colleagues, Congressman Flood serves as a model of responsiveness
to the people he represented and I feel fortunate to have had the
opportunity to work with him over the years. He is indeed a legend.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO KRIS JOHNS
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise and pay tribute to a
remarkable young man from my district. As Captain of a United States
Coast Guard ship, Lieutenant Kris Johns has dedicated his life to the
safety and security of our nation. I am honored today to call the
attention of this body of Congress and our nation to Kris and his
selfless and courageous service.
As a high school student, Kris set the lofty goal of becoming a ship
Captain in the United States Coast Guard. Kris' teachers and friends
knew that he was a special young man who would work tirelessly to make
his dream a reality. Following high school, Kris attended the United
States Coast Guard Academy. While there, he continued to excel and was
admitted to officer training school.
Upon graduation from the Coast Guard Academy, Kris was assigned to
the United States Coast Guard Cutter Sherman, where he began as a
Communications Officer and was soon promoted to Gunnery Officer. Last
June, Kris realized his dream, as he received orders to take command of
the United States Coast Guard Cutter Halibut stationed in California.
Kris has served honorably aboard the Halibut and earned the respect
of the men under his command. Kris and his crew spend each day
undertaking missions for homeland security, search and rescue, and drug
enforcement. Our nation is truly a safer place as the result of the
service of Kris and his men.
Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise and pay tribute to Kris Johns.
Kris spends his life protecting and serving all Americans. I am proud
of Kris and his many accomplishments. Thank you, Kris, for your
service.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO PRIVATE WILLIAM SCHAUB
______
HON. GINNY BROWN-WAITE
of florida
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor
Private William Schaub, a World War I veteran from New York. His son
lives in XXX.
This Veterans' Day, I will have the pleasure of recognizing Private
Schaub for his heroism and bravery as a United States Soldier who
fought in the First World War. He was sent to the battle fields in
Europe and fought in the major battles of St. Mihiel, Meuse-Argonne,
and Essey-Pannes.
[[Page 32220]]
There are few among us who can recall the horrors of this war to end
all wars that scarred an entire generation. One of the deadly
innovations that typified the battles fought by our soldiers was the
use of poisons gas. Mustard, Sarin, and Chlorine Gas were used
offensively to debilitate Allied Troops.
Often troops were not adequately supplied with gas masks to protect
them from this poison. Indeed an improvised method was developed by our
troops to protect those without masks. Taking advantage of naturally
occurring ammonia, troops tied handkerchiefs over their face to
destabilize the fumes.
Such method was employed by Private Schaub in a Mustard Gas attack on
his division. He was treated for Bronchitis, gas exposure and sinus
conditions and honorably discharged on April 15, 1919.
I will present Private Schaub's son with the Purple Heart, the oldest
military decoration in the world, more than 80 years overdue.
Though he earned this honor, he never received it from the Defense
Department and I am pleased to have the opportunity to present to his
family the Purple Heart for his selfless devotion to duty and service
to the United States.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO CHIEF LOUIS IMPARATO
______
HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the
life and work of an exceptional individual who I have long been proud
to call my friend, Fire Chief Louis Imparato. On Tuesday, November 25,
2003, members of the City of Passaic (NJ) Fire Department joined
together with the F.M.B.A. to celebrate Chief Imparato's retirement.
During his tenure as Fire Chief, Lou Imparato used his position of
leadership to serve as a powerful voice for the fire services both at
home and in Washington, DC. It is therefore only fitting that Chief
Imparato be recognized in this, the permanent record of the greatest
freely elected body on earth.
Over the past 35 years, Lou Imparato has tirelessly served the men,
women, and children of the City of Passaic. Appointed to the fire
department on January 8, 1968, Lou rapidly advanced up the chain of
command until 1988, when he was named Deputy Chief. Three short years
later, Lou became Passaic's Fire Chief--a position that he has held
with distinction for the past twelve years.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps Chief Lou's greatest achievement and lasting
legacy was his work in helping me to draft the Firefighter Investment
and Response Enhancement (FIRE) Act.
Early in my career in Congress, Lou came to me at one of our many
meetings addressing public safety needs and asked why the Federal
government spent nearly zero dollars supporting our Nation's 32,000
career, volunteer, and combination fire departments. I did not have a
good answer for him, so we began to investigate what could be done.
Together, we drafted the FIRE Act--the first ever comprehensive
Federal commitment to local fire departments. I introduced the
legislation in Congress and, after a massive lobbying effort from fire
departments across the country, it passed the House and Senate and was
signed into law by President Clinton in 2000, creating the Assistance
to Firefighters Grant Program.
In its first 3 years of existence, the program has distributed over
$1.2 billion directly to fire departments across the country from
equipment, training, and other fire prevention activities. Chief Lou's
own department in Passaic has already received close to $200,000
through the program.
The passage of the FIRE Act, which will help fire departments across
the country better serve their communities for years to come, has been
one of my greatest achievements while in Congress. I trust that Chief
Imparato feels the same way about this piece of history-making
legislation because we accomplished it together. Fire departments
across the Nation will long owe Lou an immense debt of gratitude for
his inspired work.
Committed to enhancing the work environment for firefighters
throughout the State of New Jersey as well as on the national level,
Lou served for 3 years as the President of the Local F.M.B.A., and for
10 years as the Local F.M.B.A. State Delegate. His great dedication and
personal valor has been widely noted by the people he has served and by
his peers--most notably when the New Jersey State F.M.B.A. honored him
by asking him to serve as the Chairman of their Valor Awards Dinner.
As you can see, every aspect of Chief Imparato's life's work
epitomizes the noble spirit of selfless service that we all strive to
achieve. The sense of excellence and initiative that has driven Lou's
life work has made him living proof that those who dedicate themselves
to helping others are among the most valued and loved members of the
community.
Mr. Speaker, the job of a United States Congressman involves so much
that is rewarding, yet nothing compares to recognizing the efforts of
public servants like Lou Imparato. I ask that you join our colleagues,
the men and women of the City of Passaic, fire departments across the
country, and me in recognizing the invaluable service of Chief Louis
Imparato.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE SHILOH BAPTIST CHURCH AND THE REVEREND JAMES B. RODGERS
______
HON. ROBERT T. MATSUI
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to The Shiloh Baptist
Church and The Reverend James B. Rodgers. On December 21, Reverend
Rodgers will officially be installed as the twenty-seventh Pastor of
the Shiloh Baptist Church, the oldest African-American church west of
the Mississippi River and the first Baptist Church organized by
African-Americans in Sacramento. I ask all my colleagues to join me in
congratulating the Shiloh Baptist Church family and Dr. James B.
Rodgers, Pastor, on this momentous occasion.
The Shiloh Baptist Church, located in the Fifth Congressional
District of the State of California, was established in 1856 as the
oldest African American Baptist Church West of the Mississippi River
and the second oldest African American church in the City of
Sacramento. Since the church had no facilities upon its establishment
in which to hold religious services, it forged a strong relationship
with the Chinese Americans in the area, which resulted in an offer
being extended for Shiloh to hold religious services at the Chinese
Chapel, located at historic Sixth and H Streets in Sacramento.
Shiloh has overcome many obstacles to its missionary services,
including bank foreclosure in the 1860s; significant reductions in its
membership because of relocations; destruction of the church facility
by fire in 1861 and 1905; and the inability to secure building loans on
several occasions. However, today Shiloh stands firm as a testament to
the strong faith, perseverance, determination, character and courage of
its founders and early congregations.
Since its establishment, Shiloh has provided dedicated service to the
citizens of the Capital Region, much of which was accomplished during
26 plus years of outstanding leadership by Pastor Emeritus Willie P.
Cooke. Shiloh has provided many services through its many ministries
and has participated in numerous community based programs, including
but not limited to, establishment of an Elderly Appreciation Day; the
participation in the annual Sacramento Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Celebration; host church for the Sacramento Children Summer Food
Program; organized a prison ministry for youth incarcerated in the
California Youth Authority and the Sacramento County Probation
Department; and instituted a Care-giver's Program to provide services
to sick and residence-bound citizens.
In recognition and appreciation of these community services, Shiloh
has received numerous Presidential, Congressional, Gubernatorial, and
State Legislative commendations dating back more than 40 years.
For the past 18 months, Shiloh has continued its mission under the
direction of Pastor Emeritus William P. Cooke. However, Shiloh recently
called on Dr. Rodgers to serve as its 27th pastoral leader and to add
to the rich religious and community history it has developed over the
past 147 years.
The Reverend James B. Rodgers has served faithfully in the ministry,
preaching and teaching the gospel for over 32 years. In preparation for
his calling to the ministry and in continuation of his ministerial
duties, Dr. Rodgers commenced his academic studies with the United
States Naval Academy and has earned an Associate of Arts Degree in
Business; a Bachelor of Arts in Theology; a Masters of Theology; a
Doctorate of Theology; and a Masters in Education Administration.
Dr. Rodgers' official installation as pastor will occur during a
three-day ceremony at Shiloh Baptist Church commencing with a community
night on Friday, December 19, 2003, and concluding with the
installation on Sunday, December 21, 2003. These services are designed
to introduce Dr. Rodgers to the Shiloh family and to the Greater
Sacramento community.
[[Page 32221]]
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to thank and congratulate the Shiloh
Baptist Church for nearly 150 years of invaluable service to the City
of Sacramento. I would like to especially welcome Dr. James B. Rodgers
to our community and to the Shiloh Baptist Church. I ask all my
colleagues to join me in wishing the Shiloh Baptist Church and Dr.
Rodgers continued success in all their future endeavors.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO TABETHA SALSBURY
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise and pay tribute to a
remarkable young lady from my district. Tabetha Salsbury is a fifteen-
year-old resident of Pueblo, Colorado who spent last summer restoring a
1935 John Deere tractor. Tabetha did a wonderful job that resulted in a
finely renovated machine. Recently, Tabetha's hard work paid off when
she became a national champion in tractor restoration. I am proud to
recognize her accomplishments here before my colleagues today.
All summer, Tabetha worked tirelessly disassembling, fixing and
reassembling the tractor. When she had finished, Tabetha and her family
took the time to transport the newly refurbished tractor to its
previous owner so that he could see his old machine in its newfound
glory.
Through her talent and dedication in the garage, Tabetha has achieved
a historic first. As national champion, Tabetha is the first female
that has ever finished in the top three in the national competition.
She has proven herself as capable as any young tractor mechanic in
Colorado.
Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise and pay tribute to Tabetha
Salsbury. She has proven what can be accomplished through hard work.
Tabetha's tenacity and dedication set a fine example for young men and
women throughout our nation and it is my honor to rise and congratulate
her on a well-deserved award.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO STAFF SGT. JOHN FOLSOM
______
HON. GINNY BROWN-WAITE
of florida
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor
Staff Sgt. John L. Folsom, a Korean War veteran from Lady Lake, Florida
in my Fifth Congressional District.
On Sunday, November 2nd, I had the pleasure of recognizing Staff Sgt.
Folsom for his heroism and bravery as a United States Soldier who
fought in the Korean War from January 1951 to February 1954. He
continued his service to the Nation for 10 years after the conclusion
of the Korean War, retiring in November 1964, having achieved the rank
of Staff Sergeant (E-6).
On February 5, 1953 Staff Sgt. Folsom was wounded in his right leg by
a sniper attack as his unit was ``digging in'' at the top of a hill in
Seoul.
I will present Staff Sgt. Folsom with the Purple Heart, the oldest
military decoration in the world, 50 years overdue.
Though he earned this honor, he never received it from the Defense
Department and I am honored to have the opportunity to present to him
the Purple Heart for his selfless devotion to duty and service to the
United States.
____________________
A PROCLAMATION HONORING JOSEPH BRUNO MANASSE
______
HON. ROBERT W. NEY
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker:
Whereas, Donald and Dilla Manasse are celebrating the birth of their
son, Joseph Bruno Manasse; and
Whereas, Joseph Bruno was born on the Twenty-third Day of September,
2003 and weighed 3.3 kilograms; and
Whereas, the Manasse's have all occasion to celebrate with friends
and family as they welcome Joseph Bruno into their family, and
Therefore, I join with Members of Congress and their staff in
congratulating Mr. and Mrs. Manasse and wishing Joseph Bruno a very
Happy Birthday.
____________________
CONGRATULATING MIDDLE SCHOOL EDUCATORS OF THE YEAR
______
HON. RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the educators
honored by the California League of Middle Schools as ``Educators of
the Year.'' It is an honor to acknowledge the contributions they have
made in the effort to implement education reform in California's middle
school curriculum.
The California League of Middle Schools (CLMS) Educator of the Year
Award Program annually recognizes the achievements of 11 educators from
regions throughout California. Awardees exemplify educators who are
able to inspire and motivate diverse groups of students in their
educational endeavors. I am proud to nominate these eleven
distinguished recipients of this award along with the thousands of
educators from the State of California for the tremendous and exemplary
work they do everyday in the classroom.
CLMS honors those displaying outstanding understanding of their
teenage students and who are supportive of upward middle school
movement. They are committed to employ the principles of Caught in the
Middle, Turning Points, and Taking Center Stage, and incorporate State
Frameworks and Standards into their curriculum. These leaders are
dedicated to motivating and inspiring students while utilizing
innovative educational tools. As enthusiastic role models, these
educators are proactive in the pursuit of improving Middle School
education for students now and in the future.
I am pleased to honor the following Middle School Educators: Jane
Karcher, from Washington Middle School, Raiford Henry, from Roosevelt
Middle School, Gabriele Calvin-Shannon, from Madison Middle School,
Jami Phillips, from Woodland Park Middle School, Teresa Allen, from San
Marcos Middle School, Julie Doria, from Olive Peirce Middle School,
Mehrak Selby, from Marston Middle School, Steve Rodriguez, from
Montgomery Middle School, John Lazarcik, from Kennedy Middle School,
Lawrie Kueneman, from Oak Crest Middle School and Dr. Larry Maw from
the San Marcos Unified School District.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize the Middle School
Educators of the year today for the outstanding contributions they have
made to the education system. I thank them for their service and wish
them continued success in the future.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO RUSSELL STOVER CANDIES
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise and pay tribute to
an outstanding business in my district. Russell Stover Candies in
Montrose, Colorado recently celebrated its thirtieth anniversary.
Russell Stover is dedicated to bringing smiles to Americans throughout
the nation and it is my honor to call the attention of this body of
Congress to their contributions.
Russell Stover first opened the doors to its Montrose factory in
1973. Since that time, the staff and management have managed to find a
delicate balance between traditional hand-craftsmanship and twenty-
first century technology. The dedication and artistry that Russell
Stover employees put into their work results in a product that is
unparalleled.
Since its inception, Russell Stover has benefited the economy of
Montrose. The 600 employees at the factory love their work and there is
very little turnover. The length of tenure for the factory's employees
is a testament to the loyalty the company has to its employees.
In addition to bringing joy to others through its production of
candies, Russell Stover is also involved in the community. Each year,
the factory dedicates time and resources to various non-profit
organizations and charitable activities throughout the region.
Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to call the attention of my colleagues
and our nation to Russell Stover Candies. The company has done a great
deal for the betterment of the Montrose community. I would like to
congratulate Russell Stover on thirty years of service in Montrose and
wish them the best in the years to come.
[[Page 32222]]
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ROSE PELLGRIN
______
HON. GINNY BROWN-WAITE
of florida
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor
Rose Pellgrin, a dedicated, loving mother in my Fifth Congressional
District of Florida. At 91 years old, Rose continues to be a shining
example of devotion and selflessness for mothers young and old.
In 1949 at the age of 40, Rose Pellgrin became a mother to a baby
girl she named Marian. Unfortunately Marian was born with a mental
disability and Rose was advised that she would not live very long. Her
doctors even told her to have another child and to not worry about
Marian.
Rose insisted that she would raise Marian and did just that. She
raised Marian despite several obstacles. When her husband's affliction
with cancer forced the family to move from her native New York to
central Florida, Rose learned that there was no school in the area for
mentally disabled children. She then had to drive Marian to a school at
the Key Training Center, nearly an hour away.
When her husband's cancer finally took his life, Rose had to make the
difficult decision to place Marian at the Key Training Center to live
and return to teaching, retiring at the age of 82.
Years later a nephew of Rose's who had a fondness for Marian died and
left his inheritance to the women. Rose took the inheritance and bought
a house with it. The house, which will become a licensed group home,
will be maintained by the Key Training Center as one of its own group
homes. This made it possible for Marian, and two other disabled adults,
to have a place to live.
Mr. Speaker, with this act Rose Pellgrin made an incredible donation
to the Key Center and to her daughter. What's more amazing is that she
views it as nothing special, but as what mothers do for their children.
I am honored to be her representative in Congress and want to take a
moment before this body today to call attention to her sacrifice and
devotion to her daughter. We should all be so lucky as to have a mother
like Rose.
____________________
WARS OF CHOICE
______
HON. BARNEY FRANK
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important
debates now being carried on in the United States has to do with the
reasons for our war in Iraq. The administration and its defenders have
argued that we had to go to war as a matter of self-defense. In varying
combinations, the administration has argued that Iraq was deeply
involved with al Qaeda and that the Iraqi war to a great extent was a
logical next step after the war in Afghanistan, and also that Iraq
possessed weapons of mass destruction that were ready to be used
against us. In short, they argued that this was a war of necessity.
Many of us believe to the contrary that the linkage between Iraq and
al Qaeda was slight, and that the weapons of mass destruction argument
had been grossly exaggerated. Of course evidence since America's
military victory have strengthened greatly the case of those of us who
were skeptical on both counts.
But the debate continues to be an important one. I was therefore
struck by the article in the November 23 Washington Post by Richard
Haass. Mr. Haass who is now the President of the Council on Foreign
Relations was a very high ranking national security official of the
Bush administration from its early months in office until June of this
year--after the major military activity in the war against Iraq. While
he does not explicitly rebut the Bush administration's case for the
war, his article is in fact a strong argument against it.
Talking of the distinction between wars of necessity--which is how
the administration has characterized the war in Iraq--and wars of
choice, in which countries use war as a means of policy, Mr. Haass, the
Director of the State Department's policy planning team while the war
was being planned and carried out, clearly asserts that Iraq was an
example of the latter.
As he notes, ``the debate can and will go on as to whether attacking
Iraq was a wise decision, but at its core it was a war of choice. We
did not have to go to war against Iraq, certainly not when we did.
There were other options; to rely on other policy tools, to delay
attacking, or both. Iraq was thus fundamentally different from World
War II or Korea or even the Persian Gulf War, all of which qualify as
wars of necessity.'' Mr. Speaker, the significance of this analysis
from a man who occupied so high a post in the Bush administration is
great, and because of that, I ask that Mr. Haass's very thoughtful
article be printed here.
[From the Washington Post, Nov. 23, 2003]
Wars of Choice
(By Richard N. Haass)
Any number of lessons can be learned from the handling of
the aftermath of the war in Iraq, but none is more basic than
this: Democracies, in particular American democracy, do not
mix well with empire.
Empire is about control--the center over the periphery.
Successful empire demands both an ability and a willingness
to exert and maintain control. On occasion this requires an
ability and a willingness to go to war, not just on behalf of
vital national interests but on behalf of imperial concerns,
which is another way of saying on behalf of lesser interests
and preferences.
Iraq was such a war. The debate can and will go on as to
whether attacking Iraq was a wise decision; but at its core
it was a war of choice. We did not have to go to war against
Iraq, certainly not when we did. There were other options: to
rely on other policy tools, to delay attacking, or both.
Iraq was thus fundamentally different from World War II or
Korea or even the Persian Gulf War, all of which qualify as
wars of necessity. So, too, does the open-ended war against
al Qaeda. What distinguishes wars of necessity is the
requirement to respond to the use of military force by an
aggressor and the fact that no option other than military
force exists to reverse what has been done. In such
circumstances, a consensus often materializes throughout the
country that there is no alternative to fighting, a consensus
that translates into a willingness to devote whatever it
takes to prevail, regardless of the financial or human costs
to ourselves.
Wars of choice, however, are fundamentally different. They
are normally undertaken for reasons that do not involve
obvious self-defense of the United States or an ally. Policy
options other than military action exist; there is no
domestic political consensus as to the correctness of the
decision to use force. Vietnam was such a war, as was the war
waged by the Clinton administration against Serbia over
Kosovo.
Wars of choice vary in their cost and duration. Vietnam was
long (lasting a decade and a half from the American
perspective) and costly in terms of both blood (more than
58,000 lives) and treasure (hundreds of billions of dollars).
By contrast, Kosovo took all of 78 days, claimed no American
lives in combat and cost less than $3 billion.
What these experiences suggest is that the American people
are prepared to wage wars of choice, so long as they prove to
be relatively cheap and short. But the United States is not
geared to sustain costly wars of choice.
We are seeing just this with Iraq. The American people are
growing increasingly restless, and it is not hard to see why.
We have been at war now in Iraq for some eight months. More
than 400 Americans have lost their lives. Costs are in the
range of $100 billion and mounting.
The Bush administration knows all this; hence the
accelerated timetable to hand over increasing political
responsibility for Iraq to Iraqis. Such a midcourse
correction in U.S. policy reflects in part the political
realities of Iraq, where enthusiasm for prolonged American
occupation is understandably restrained; even more, though,
the policy shift reflects political realities here at home.
Domestic tolerance for costs--disrupted and lost lives above
all--is not unlimited. As a result, the president is wise to
reduce the scale of what we try to accomplish. Making Iraq
``good enough''--a functioning and fairly open society and
economy if not quite a textbook model of democracy--is plenty
ambitious.
None of this is meant to be an argument against all wars of
choice. There may be good and sound reasons for going to war
even if we do not have to, strictly speaking. Such reasons
can range from protecting a defenseless population against
ethnic cleansing or genocide to preventing the emergence of a
threat that has the potential to cause damage on a large
scale.
But wars of choice require special handling.
First, it is essential to line up domestic support.
Congress and the American people need to be on board, not
just in some formal legal way but also to the extent of being
psychologically prepared for the possible costs. Better to
warn of costs that never materialize than to be surprised by
those that do.
Second, it is equally essential to line up international
support. The United States needs partners: to facilitate the
effort of fighting the war, to share the financial and human
costs of war and its aftermath, to stand with us
diplomatically should the going get tough. We possess the
world's most powerful military and economy, but the United
States is not immune from the consequences of being stretched
too thin or going deeply into debt.
Third, no one should ever underestimate the potential costs
of military action; no one
[[Page 32223]]
should ever assume that a war of choice, or any war, will
prove quick or easy. Here as elsewhere the great Prussian
military theorist Carl von Clausewitz had it right: ``There
is no human affair which stands so constantly and so
generally in close connection with chance as war.''
____________________
PLEDGING CONTINUED UNITED STATES SUPPORT FOR GEORGIA'S SOVEREIGNTY,
INDEPENDENCE, TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, AND DEMOCRATIC AND ECONOMIC
REFORMS
______
HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS
of florida
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, Georgian President Eduard
Shevardnadze resigned on November 23, 2003. Mr. Shevardnadze's
resignation caps a political career during which he has won my
admiration, and that of freedom-loving people everywhere, for helping,
as Soviet foreign minister under Mikhail Gorbachev, end the Cold War.
However, in spite of this remarkable accomplishment, during his 10
years as president, Georgians widely became disheartened with Mr.
Shevardnadze for allowing corruption to infest the country, while most
of its people fell into poverty and despair. These conditions fed the
uprising against him, but it was triggered by the fraudulent
parliamentary elections of November 2, 2003.
Opposition began daily protests that attracted thousands, demanding
the elections be annulled or Mr. Shevardnadze's resignation, or both.
Throughout nearly 3 weeks of protests, both sides remained mindful of
Georgia's interest in peace and safety, and avoided provocations.
Mr. Speaker, his fall ended a political crisis astonishing for its
speed and lack of violence in a blood-washed region. There was no
blood. No killing.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, this resolution congratulates both Eduard
Shevardnadze and the leaders of the opposition, Nino Burdzhanadze,
Mikhail Saakashvili, and Zurab Zhvaniva, for their courage and
patriotism in dealing with the crisis bloodlessly.
Moreover, the resolution pledges support and help for the people of
Georgia so as to consolidate the democratic process. Furthermore, it
urges all political segments, as well as social sectors and
institutions in Georgia, to strive, through dialogue, to achieve the
national reconciliation for which both the Georgian people and the
international community yearn.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly and wholeheartedly support Georgia's new
leaders, while I also urge them to pursue stability, abide by their
constitution and hold democratic elections.
And, I look forward to working with Interim President Nino
Burdzhanadze in her effort to maintain the integrity of Georgia's
democracy as she strives to ensure that this change in government
follows the constitution.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO EARL VanTASSEL
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you with a heavy heart to pay
tribute to a remarkable man from my district. Earl VanTassel of Craig,
Colorado passed away recently at the age of 85. Earl contributed a
great deal to the Craig community, and it is my honor today to rise and
pay tribute to his life before this body of Congress and our nation.
Earl was born in Craig in 1918. He attended Craig High School, where
he graduated in 1937. In 1943, Earl married Florence Prather, his wife
of sixty years. Earl and Florence raised four wonderful children
together.
Earl was an excellent and knowledgeable rancher who used his
expertise for the betterment of his community. He was a mentor and
leader for 4-H participants, and in that capacity, he passed along his
knowledge of livestock and ranching to young people throughout the
region. Earl was also a dedicated volunteer at the Moffat County Fair,
numerous livestock sales, and local rodeos. He delighted in helping
with the Craig Sale Barn for many years. In addition, Earl was an
active member of the Colorado Cattlemen's Association, the Young
Farmers Association and the 4-H Foundation.
Earl's contributions to his community went well beyond ranching. As a
member of Colorado's first Conservation Board, Earl worked tirelessly
on behalf of the environment. In addition, Earl served over forty years
as a member of Craig's Rural Fire Protection District Board. He was
also an active member of the Elks Club, and a volunteer with the
Sheriff's Posse as well. Craig is definitely a better place as the
result of Earl's many contributions.
Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise and pay tribute to Earl
VanTassel. Earl spent a great deal of his life working for the
betterment of his community and our State. Above all, Earl was a
wonderful father, husband and a friend to many. My heart goes out to
Earl's loved ones during this difficult time of bereavement.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SGT. LaVON C. HOVE
______
HON. GINNY BROWN-WAITE
of florida
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor
Sgt. LaVon C. Hove, a Korean war veteran from Brooksville, FL, in my
fifth congressional district.
This Veterans Day, I will have the pleasure of recognizing Sgt. LaVon
Hove for his heroism and bravery as a United States soldier who fought
in the Korean war from January 16, 1951 to August 1952.
This conflict enlisted the services of 6.8 million American men and
women between 1950 and 1955.
On January 16, 1951 in Chorwon, Korea, Sgt. Hove was wounded in both
legs and feet by shell fragments from a nearby explosion.
I will soon present Sgt. Hove with the Purple Heart, the oldest
military decoration in the world, 50 years overdue.
Though he earned this honor, he never received it from the Defense
Department and I am honored to have the opportunity to present to him
the Purple Heart for his selfless devotion to duty and service to the
United States.
____________________
REMEMBERING W.E.B. DuBOIS
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the 1963 March on Washington,
the life of one of the 20th century's most brilliant individuals came
to an end. W.E.B. DuBois--scholar, Pan-Africanist, political leader,
champion of the struggle against white supremacy in the United States--
died in Ghana on August 27, 1963. This year marks the 40th anniversary
of DuBois' death.
DuBois was born on February 23, 1868 in Great Barrington,
Massachusetts. At that time Great Barrington had perhaps 25, but not
more than 50, Black people out of a population of about 5,000.
While in high school DuBois showed a keen concern for the development
of his race. At age fifteen he became the local correspondent for the
New York Globe. While in this position he conceived it his duty to push
his race forward by lectures and editorials reflecting the need for
Black people to politicize themselves.
Upon graduating high school DuBois desired to attend Harvard.
Although he lacked the financial resources, the aid of family and
friends, along with a scholarship he received to Fisk College (now
University), allowed him to head to Nashville, Tennessee to further his
education.
In his three years at Fisk (1885-1888), DuBois' first trip to the
south, his knowledge of the race problem manifested. After seeing
discrimination in unimaginable ways, he developed a determination to
expedite the emancipation of his people. As a result, he became a
writer, editor, and a passionate orator. Simultaneously, he acquired a
belligerent attitude toward the color bar.
After graduation from Fisk, DuBois entered Harvard through
scholarships. He received his bachelor's degree in 1890 and immediately
began working toward his master's and doctor's degrees. After studying
at the University of Berlin for some time, DuBois obtained his doctor's
degree from Harvard. Indeed, his doctoral thesis, The Suppression of
the African Slave Trade in America, remains the authoritative work on
that subject, and is the first volume in Harvard's Historical Series.
At the age of twenty-six, DuBois accepted a teaching job at
Wilberforce in Ohio. After two years at Wilberforce, DuBois accepted a
special fellowship at the University of Pennsylvania to conduct a
research project in Philadelphia's seventh ward slums. This gave him
the opportunity to study Blacks as a social system. The result of this
endeavor was The Philadelphia Negro. This was the first time such a
scientific approach to studying social
[[Page 32224]]
phenomena was undertaken. Consequently, DuBois is known as the father
of Social Science. After completing the study, DuBois accepted a
position at Atlanta University to further his teachings in sociology.
Originally, DuBois believed that social science could provide the
knowledge to solve the race problem. However, he gradually concluded
that in a climate of violent racism, social change could only be
accomplished through protest. In this view, he clashed with Booker T.
Washington, the most influential black leader of the period. Washington
preached a philosophy of accommodation, urging blacks to accept
discrimination for the time being and elevate themselves through hard
work and economic gain, thus winning the respect of whites. DuBois
believed that Washington's strategy, rather than freeing the black man
from oppression, would serve only to perpetuate it.
Two years later, in 1905, DuBois led the founding of the Niagara
Movement; a small organization chiefly dedicated to attacking the
platform of Booker T. Washington. The organization, which met annually
until 1909, served as the ideological backbone and direct inspiration
for the NAACP, founded in 1909. DuBois played a prominent part in the
creation of the NAACP and became the association's director of research
and editor of its magazine, The Crisis.
Indeed, DuBois' Black Nationalism had several forms. The most
influential of which was his advocacy of Pan-Africanism; the belief
that all people of African descent had common interests and should work
together in the struggle for their freedom. As the editor of The
Crisis, DuBois encouraged the development of Black literature and art.
DuBois urged his readers and the world to see ``Beauty in Black.''
Due to disagreements with the organization, DuBois resigned from the
editorship of The Crisis and the NAACP in 1934 and returned to Atlanta
University. He would devote the next 10 years of his life to teaching
and scholarship. He completed two major works after resuming his duties
at Atlanta University. His book, Black Reconstruction, dealt with the
socio-economic development of the nation after the Civil War and
portrayed the contributions of the Black people to this period. Before,
Blacks were always portrayed as disorganized and chaotic. His second
book of this period, Dusk of Dawn, was completed in 1940 and expounded
his concepts and views on both the African's and African American's
quest for freedom.
In 1945, he served as an associate consultant to the American
delegation at the founding conference of the United Nations in San
Francisco. Here, he charged the world organization with planning to be
dominated by imperialist nations and not intending to intervene on the
behalf of colonized countries. He announced that the fifth Pan-African
Congress would convene to determine what pressure to apply to the world
powers. This all-star cast included Kwame Nkrumah, a dedicated
revolutionary, father of Ghanaian independence, and first president of
Ghana; George Padmore, an international revolutionary, often called the
``Father of African Emancipation,'' who later became Nkrumah's advisor
on African Affairs; and Jomo Kenyatta, called the ``Burning Spear,''
reputed leader of the Mau Mau uprising, and first president of
independent Kenya. The Congress elected DuBois International President
and cast him the ``Father of Pan-Africanism.''
This same year he published Color and Democracy: Colonies and Peace,
and in 1947 produced The World and Africa. DuBois's outspoken criticism
of American foreign policy and his involvement with the 1948
presidential campaign of Progressive Party candidate Henry Wallace led
to his dismissal from the NAACP in the fall of 1948.
During the 1950's DuBois's continuing work with the international
peace movement and open expressions of sympathy for the USSR drew the
attention of the United States government and further isolated DuBois
from the civil rights mainstream. In 1951, at the height of the Cold
War, he was indicted under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.
Although he was acquitted of the charge, the Department of State
refused to issue DuBois a passport in 1952, barring him from foreign
travel until 1958. Once the passport ban was lifted, DuBois and his
wife traveled extensively, visiting England, France, Belgium, Holland,
China, the USSR, and much of the Eastern bloc. On May 1, 1959, he was
awarded the Lenin Peace Prize in Moscow. In 1960, DuBois attended the
inauguration of his friend Kwame Nkrumah as the first president of
Ghana. The following year DuBois accepted Nkrumah's invitation to move
there and work on the Encyclopedia Africana, a project that was never
completed.
On August 27, 1963, on the eve of the March on Washington, DuBois
died in Accra, Ghana at the age of 94. Historians consider DuBois one
of the most influential African Americans before the Civil Rights
Movement of the 1960's. Born only six years after emancipation, he was
active well into his 90's. Throughout his long life, DuBois remained
Black America's leading public intellectual. He was a spokesman for the
Negro's rights at a time when few were listening. By the time he died,
he had written 17 books, edited four journals and played a leading role
in reshaping black-white relations in America.
____________________
HONORING THE DOWNTOWN FORT SMITH SERTOMA CLUB'S 50TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. JOHN BOOZMAN
of arkansas
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Downtown Fort
Smith Sertoma Club for their fifty years of service to the community of
Fort Smith, Arkansas.
The Downtown Fort Smith Sertoma Club exists for the high and noble
purpose of service to mankind by communications of thoughts, ideas and
concepts to accelerate human progress in health, education, freedom and
democracy.
The club, which is part of the international charity the Sertoma
Foundation, provides a number of services to the community. Most
notably, they aid the hearing-impaired acquire hearing related products
for persons who otherwise could not afford them.
I appreciate what they have done for the people of Fort Smith. They
truly are an example of what can be accomplished if we make sacrifices
for the greater good of our communities.
Mr. Speaker, 50 years of dedicated service and support to local
charitable organizations and the educational good of mankind is truly a
glorious reason to celebrate. I ask my colleagues to join me today as
we honor this wonderful organization and encourage them to continue
their work on behalf of the community.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MIKE ALSDORF
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise and pay tribute to
my friend Mike Alsdorf. Mike is retiring after 25 years of devoted
service with the Glenwood Springs, Colorado Fire Department. I have
personally witnessed Mike's selfless and courageous service on behalf
of the citizens of my hometown and I am proud to call his contributions
to the attention of this body of Congress and our nation.
As a firefighter and arson investigator, Mike's career has been
defined by great ability and outstanding courage. Over a quarter
century ago, Mike and I attended fireman training together. It was
clear from the outset that Mike was a natural leader who would become
an excellent fireman.
In the face of danger, Mike has an uncanny ability to assume control
and quickly orchestrate the best approach to any emergency. As an arson
investigator, Mike used his vast knowledge, and his strong conviction,
to prevent additional fires and ensure that justice was done. I have
great respect for Mike's ability as a fireman and investigator.
Mike served courageously in the face of some of the worst disasters
ever to occur in the Mountain West. He fought bravely to protect his
fellow citizens in the Rocky Mountain Gas Explosion, the fires on Storm
King Mountain and the recent Coal Seam Fire of 2002. In addition to his
work as a fireman, Mike continues to serve as a dedicated Red Cross
Volunteer. In this capacity, Mike has worked to improve the Red Cross
communications system, organized disaster assessment teams and provided
victims of disasters with lodging, food, clothing and counseling.
Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise and pay tribute to Mike Alsdorf.
The citizens of Glenwood Springs are certainly better off as the result
of Mike's tireless dedication to their safety. Mike will be missed as a
member of the Glenwood Springs Fire Department. However, he will now
have more time to spend with his four children, his beautiful wife Lynn
and his many friends throughout Glenwood Springs. Thanks, Mike. I
appreciate your friendship and your service to our town.
[[Page 32225]]
____________________
TRIBUTE TO KENNETH L. BRADSHAW, JR.
______
HON. GINNY BROWN-WAITE
of florida
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor
Kenneth Bradshaw, Jr., a Korean War veteran from Inverness, Florida in
my Fifth Congressional District.
I had the pleasure of recognizing Private Bradshaw for his heroism
and bravery as a soldier who fought in the Korean War from January 8,
1948 until April 30, 1952 when he received a permanent disability
retirement as a private first class.
On February 6, 1951, Bradshaw's Company was engaged in a fierce
battle with the Chinese Army in South Korea just below the 38th
parallel. He was wounded in his right arm by a shot fired by an enemy
soldier.
Bradshaw was treated at two different field hospitals before being
evacuated to a hospital in Japan. Shrapnel was also discovered lodged
in his back.
I recently presented Private Bradshaw with the Purple Heart, the
oldest military decoration in the world, more than 50 years overdue.
Though he earned this distinction, he never received it from the
Defense Department and I am honored to have the opportunity to present
to him the Purple Heart for his selfless devotion to duty and service
to the United States.
____________________
COMMENDING BARBARA REYNOLDS FOR HER YEARS OF SERVICE ON CAPITOL HILL
______
HON. DAVE WELDON
of florida
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to pay
tribute to a long-time member of my staff who is retiring this
December. Barbara Reynolds has worked for me as my scheduler and
executive assistant since I was elected in 1994. Barbara's career on
Capitol Hill preceded mine by 13 years. This experience, along with her
talent and willingness to accommodate the busy schedule of a
Congressman, was invaluable.
Before coming to work on the Hill, Barbara had been a stay-at-home
mom, taking care of her two children. She had never really given much
thought to getting involved in the political world, but in 1979, at the
suggestion of her father-in-law, she handed a resume to a friend at the
Republican Policy Committee and, in about a week, landed a job with
then-Representative Carlos Moorehead from California. This, however,
was not her only job at the time. Barbara often spent her weekends as a
professional model--many say she looked just like Jackie Kennedy
Onassis. Her modeling took her all over the world as well as provided
her with many commercial advertising opportunities. As a result of
this, some current House maintenance workers who were around at the
time still refer to Barbara as ``Jackie'' when they see her in the
halls.
In 1985 Barbara began working for then-Representative and eventual
Presidential candidate Jack Kemp. In addition to working in his
personal office she also worked on his campaign in New Hampshire.
After working with Jack Kemp, Barbara moved on to work for my Florida
colleague, Representative Cliff Stearns in 1988. Barbara spent 6 years
working for Representative Stearns where she established her Florida
roots.
In 1995 Barbara came to work for me and has worked in my Washington
office since my first day in office. I am incredibly grateful for her
loyalty to me and my staff. It will be nearly impossible to replace her
uplifting spirit. Her presence in my office added a touch of class and
style, which are sometimes hard to find in the world of politics.
I, along with her coworkers and others outside my office whose lives
she has touched, will miss her presence on Capitol Hill. Barbara
Reynolds's retirement is well earned. She plans to pursue her hobby of
boating on the Chesapeake with her husband, Bob, as well as continue to
be a loving mother and grandmother to her two grown children and to her
grandchildren. We all wish her many blessings and much happiness in the
years to come.
Thank you Barbara, for your service to my office, the people Florida,
and the many others with whom you have worked on Capitol Hill.
____________________
2003 OHIO STATE CHAMPIONS
______
HON. STEVE CHABOT
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, on the blustery evening of November 29,
2003, the Elder High School football team won their second consecutive
state championship--joining an elite group in Ohio high school football
history. With their 31-7 victory over Lakewood St. Edward, the Elder
Panthers, under the guidance of Coach Doug Ramsey, became just the
fourth school ever to win back-to-back Division I championships.
While last year's championship run was epitomized by hard-fought,
closely-contested victories, this year's Panther team dominated the
playoffs. The dynamic leadership of quarterback Rob Florian and the
sensational running of Bradley Glatthaar--including an Ohio Division 1
championship game record 252 rushing yards--spearheaded the offense,
while Elder's swarming defense held opposing teams to just seven points
in four of the five playoff games. And, as always, thousands of Elder
faithful traveled across the state braving the cold to support the
Panthers throughout the playoffs.
The hard work and sacrifice of the young men at Elder have brought
pride and honor to Price Hill and our entire community. Football fans
throughout the Cincinnati area congratulate the Panthers on their back-
to-back championships and share in their celebration.
Mr. Speaker, to appropriately honor these young men and coaches, I'd
like to submit for the Record the roster of the 2003 Elder Panthers and
a copy of their schedule and game results.
Elder High School, 2003 Ohio High School State Football Champions,
Final Record: 14-1
Regular Season
Game 1: August 21, 2003, Elder 33--Winton Woods 14
Game 2: August 30, 2003, Indianapolis Warren Central 45--
Elder 20
Game 3: September 5, 2003, Elder 50--Western Hills 8
Game 4: September 12, 2003, Elder 17--Indianapolis Bishop
Chatard 16
Game 5: September 19, 2003, Elder 42--LaSalle 7
Game 6: September 26, 2003, Elder 49--Covington Catholic 21
Game 7: October 3, 2003, Elder 21--Moeller 20
Game 8: October 10, 2003, Elder 28--St. Xavier 7
Game 9: October 17, 2003, Elder 21--Indianapolis Cathedral 7
Game 10: October 24, 2003, Elder 24--Oak Hills 21
playoffs
Round 1: November l, 2003, Elder 28--Anderson 7
Round 2: November 8, 2003, Elder 33--Clayton Northmont 7
Regional Championship: November 15, 2003, Elder 24--Colerain
23
State Semi-Final: November 22, 2003, Elder 31--Dublin Scioto
7
State Championship: November 29, 2003, Elder 31--Lakewood St.
Edward 7
2003 Elder Panthers Varsity Football Roster
head coach
Doug Ramsey.
assistant coaches
Ken Lanzillotta; Ray Heidorn; Mike Kraemer; Craig James;
Tim Schira; Matt Eisele; and Pat Good.
Seniors
No. 34 Eric Andriacco; No. 54 Steve Baum; No. 58 Kenny
Berling; No. 26 Ryan Brinck; No. 20 Michael Brown; No. 50
Dave Bullock; No. 68 Alec Burkhart; No. 23 Mark Byrne; No.
5 Charlie Coffaro; No. 71 Justin Crone; No. 29 Brett
Currin; No. 12 Rob Florian; No. 84 Kurt Gindling; No. 11
Bradley Glatthaar; No. 99 Alex Harbin.
No. 97 Steve Haverkos; No. 70 Chris Heaton; No. 82 Nick
Klaserner; No. 7 Dan Kraft; No. 48 Joe Lind; No. 47 Pat
Lysaght; No. 53 Corey McKenna; No. 60 Mike Meese; No. 92
Tim Mercurio; No. 30 Drew Metz; No. 72 Mark Naltner; No. 28
Alex Niehaus; No. 21 Billy Phelan; No. 31 Seth Priestle.
No. 65 Nick Rellar; No. 2 Jake Richmond; No. 91 Tony
Stegeman; No. 88 Ian Steidel; No. 9 Mike Stoecklin; No. 45
Tim Teague; No. 24 John Tiemeier; No. 90 Matt Umberg; No.
10 Jeff Vogel; No. 16 Eric Welch; No. 74 John Wellbrock;
No. 87 Mike Windt; No. 75 Eric Wood; and No. 94 Mike
Zielasko.
juniors
No. 52 Steve Anevski; No. 6 Brian Bailey; No. 41 Guy
Beck; No. 18 Matt Bengel; No. 57 Nick Berning; No. 38 Joe
Broerman; No. 13 Craig Carey; No. 89 Kevin Crowley; No. 14
Andrew Curtis; No. 95 Andrew Dinkelacker; No. 76 Alex
Duwel; No. 33 Tim Dwyer; No. 66 Phil Ernst; No. 37 Eric
Harrison; No. 36 Alex Havlin; No. 78 Josh Hubert.
No. 39. D.J. Hueneman; No. 15 R.J. Jameson; No. 43 Reid
Jordan; No. 96 Eric
[[Page 32226]]
Kenkel; No. 44 Bradley Kenny; No. 51 Chris Koopman; No. 42
Nick Kuchey; No. 67 Mark Menninger; No. 69 John Meyer;
No. 32 Robert Nusekabel; No. 22 Billy O'Conner; No. 8 Mike
Priore; No. 17 Andrew Putz; No. 46 Zack Qunell; No. 77
Brandon Rainier.
No. 3 Jeremy Richmond; No. 93 Jake Rieth; No. 73 Scott
Roth; No. 19 Parker Smith; No. 98 Jared Sommerkamp; No. 86
Louis Sprague; No. 27 Rickey Stautberg; No. 79 Ben Studt;
No. 62 Joe Super; No. 1 Pat Van Oflen; No. 61 Kurt Weil;
No. 25 J.T. Westerfield; No. 40 Ben Widolff; No. 4 Nick
Williams; and No. 81 Ben Wittwer.
sophomores
No. 35 Adam Baum and No. 49 Gerald Walker.
managers
T.J. Weil and Andy Brunsman.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO CORPORAL SEBASTIAN DEGAETANO
______
HON. GINNY BROWN-WAITE
of florida
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor
CPL Sebastian Degaetano, a veteran of the second world war and a
resident of Port Richey, Florida in my Fifth Congressional District.
I will soon have the pleasure of recognizing CPL. Sebastian Degaetano
for his heroism and bravery as a U.S. soldier who fought in the
European Theater from January 19, 1943 through March 28, 1946.
During the pivotal Battle of the Bulge, which turned the tide against
the Germans and was the largest land battle of World War II, CPL
Degaetano was hit in his leg by shrapnel.
I will present CPL Sebastian Degaetano with the Purple Heart, the
oldest military decoration in the world, nearly 50 years overdue.
Though he earned this honor, he never received it from the Defense
Department and I am honored to have the opportunity to present to him
the Purple Heart for his selfless devotion to duty and service to the
United States.
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2622, FAIR AND ACCURATE CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ACT OF 2003
______
speech of
HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Friday, November 21, 2003
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my appreciation for
the work Congress has done to pass H.R. 2622, the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act of 2003. H.R. 2622 includes numerous consumer
protection measures designed to combat the growing crime of identity
theft and to improve the accuracy of the credit reporting system. This
landmark legislation will also ensure the continued vibrancy of our
national credit markets.
Given the complexity of H.R. 2622, it is both appropriate and
important to submit for the record a section-by-section summary of the
legislation in order to help provide an understanding of the
legislation and its impact on the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The legislation provides significant measures to help consumers,
financial institutions and consumer reporting agencies prevent and
mitigate identity theft. For example, the legislation establishes
requirements for the placement of fraud alerts on consumer credit
files, investigation of changes of address, truncation of credit card
and debit card account numbers on receipts, and the manner in which
information identified as having resulted from identity theft is
blocked.
In addition, the legislation establishes requirements for verifying
the accuracy of consumer information and preventing the reporting of
consumer information that results from identity theft. Financial
institutions must also take certain steps before establishing new loans
and credit accounts for consumers who have fraud alerts on their credit
files.
Lastly, the legislation includes provisions entitling consumers to
obtain free credit reports and access to their credit scores. This
provision will likely do more for financial literacy and consumer
education than any legislation in decades.
I am submitting this section-by-section analysis on behalf of myself
and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the Chairman of the
Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee, who introduced
H.R. 2622 and presided over a series of hearings over the past year
that laid the groundwork for this landmark legislation.
Section by Section Analysis of the Legislation
Section 1. Short title; table of contents
This section establishes the short title of the bill, the
``Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003'' (the
FACT Act).
Section 2. Definitions
This section adds a number of definitions for use in
provisions of the Act that are not amendments to the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.
Section 3. Effective dates
This section specifies effective dates for the legislation.
Several sections are given specific effective dates. For
sections adding new provisions or standards where no
effective date is provided, this section provides a general
rule providing for the Federal Reserve Board (the Board) and
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) within 2 months to jointly
determine the appropriate effective dates for the remaining
provisions, not to exceed 10 months from making their
determination.
TITLE I--IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION AND CREDIT HISTORY RESTORATION
Subtitle A--Identity Theft Prevention
Section 111. Amendment to definitions
This section includes a number of definitions, including
definitions for fraud alerts, identity theft reports,
financial institutions, and nationwide specialty consumer
reporting agency.
Section 112. Fraud alerts and active duty alerts
The section sets forth a uniform national consumer
protection standard for the processing of credit and
verification procedures where there is an elevated risk of
identity theft. The section allows certain identity theft
victims and active duty military consumers to direct
nationwide consumer reporting agencies to include a fraud
alert or active duty alert in each consumer report furnished
on them that can be viewed by creditors and other users of
the report in a clear and conspicuous manner. Upon receiving
proof of the consumer's identity and the consumer's request
for an alert, the agency must place the alert in the
consumer's file for a certain time period (or such other time
agreed to upon the request or subsequently) in a manner
facilitating its clear and conspicuous viewing, inform the
consumer of the right to request free credit reports within
12 months, provide the consumer with the disclosures required
under section 609 within 3 business days of requesting the
disclosures, and refer the necessary information related to
the alert to the other nationwide credit reporting agencies.
The request must be made directly by the consumer or by an
individual acting on their behalf or as their representative.
This limitation on the request is intended to allow a
consumer's family or guardian to request an alert for the
consumer where appropriate, while preventing credit repair
clinics and similar businesses from making such requests.
Resellers of credit reports must reconvey any alert they
receive from a consumer reporting agency. Agencies other than
those described in section 603(p) must communicate to the
consumer how to contact the Commission and the appropriate
agencies.
The national standard creates 3 types of alerts. A consumer
with a good faith suspicion that he or she has been or is
about to be a victim of identity theft or other fraud may
request an initial alert. The initial alert must be placed in
the consumer's file for 90 days and the consumer may request
one free credit report within 12 months. If the consumer has
an appropriate identity theft report (typically a police
report) alleging that a transaction was the result of fraud
by another person using the consumer's identity, then the
consumer may alternatively request an extended alert. The
agency must place the extended alert in the consumer's file
for 7 years, inform the consumer of the right to 2 free
credit reports within 12 months, exclude the consumer's name
from lists used to make prescreened offers of credit or
insurance for 5 years, and include in the file the consumer's
telephone number (or another reasonable contact method
designated by the consumer). An active duty member of the
military may alternatively request an active duty alert,
which does not imply the immediate threat of identity theft,
but as a preventative measure, a nationwide consumer
reporting agency must respond to such a request by placing an
active duty alert in the member's file for one year and
exclude the member from lists used to make prescreened offers
of credit or insurance for 2 years.
Users of consumer reports that contain an alert cannot
establish a new credit plan or provide certain other types of
credit in the name of a consumer, issue additional cards at
the request of a consumer on an existing credit account, or
grant an increase in a credit limit requested by the consumer
on an existing credit account, without utilizing reasonable
policies and procedures to form a reasonable belief of the
requester's identity. In the case of an initial or active
duty alert, if the requester has specified a telephone number
to be used for identity verification, then the user may
contact the consumer using that number or must take other
reasonable steps to verify the requester's identity and
confirm that the request is not the
[[Page 32227]]
result of identity theft. In the case of an extended alert,
the user may not grant the request unless the consumer is
contacted either in person (such as in a bank branch or
retail store location), by telephone, or through any another
reasonable method provided by the consumer, to confirm that
the request is not the result of identity theft.
Section 113. Truncation of credit card and debit card account
numbers
This section creates a uniform national standard requiring
businesses that accept credit or debit cards to truncate the
card account numbers (printing no more than the last 5
digits) and exclude card expiration dates on any
electronically printed receipts. This requirement becomes
effective 3 years after enactment for any cash registers in
use on or before January 1, 2005 and 1 year after enactment
for any register put into use after January 1, 2005. The
requirement does not apply to transactions in which the sole
means of recording the person's credit card or debit card
number is by handwriting or by an imprint or copy of the
card.
Section 114. Establishment of procedures for the
identification of possible instances of identity theft
This section directs the Federal banking agencies, the
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), and FTC to
jointly formulate various red flag guidelines to help
financial institutions and creditors identify patterns,
practices and specific forms of activity that indicate the
possible existence of identity theft. These agencies also
must prescribe regulations creating uniform national
standards for the entities they supervise requiring the
entities to establish and adhere to reasonable policies and
procedures for implementing the guidelines. The policies and
procedures established under this section are not to be
inconsistent with the policies and procedures required by
section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act, particularly with respect
to the identification of new and prospective customers. In
issuing regulations and guidelines under this Act, the
Federal agencies are expected to take into account the
limited personnel and resources available to smaller
institutions and craft such regulations and guidelines in a
manner that does not unduly burden these smaller
institutions.
The red flag regulations shall include requiring issuers of
credit cards and debit cards who receive a consumer request
for an additional or replacement card for an existing account
within a short period of time after receiving notification of
a change of address for the same account to follow reasonable
policies and procedures to ensure that the additional or
replacement card is not issued to an identity thief.
Specifically, before issuing a new or replacement card the
issuer must either notify the cardholder of the request at
the cardholder's former address and provide a means of
promptly reporting an incorrect address change; notify the
cardholder of the request in a manner that the card issuer
and the cardholder previously agreed to; or otherwise assess
the validity of the cardholder's change of address in
accordance with reasonable policies and procedures
established by the card issuer pursuant to the ``red flag''
guidelines applicable to the card issuer.
The Federal banking agencies, the NCUA and the FTC also are
directed to consider whether to include in the red flag
guidelines instructions for institutions to follow when a
transaction occurs on a credit or deposit account that has
been inactive for more than 2 years in order to reduce the
likelihood of identity theft.
Section 115. Authority to truncate social security numbers
This section allows consumers, upon providing appropriate
proof of identity, to demand that a consumer reporting agency
truncate the first 5 digits of the consumer's social security
or other identification number on a consumer report that the
consumer is requesting to receive pursuant to section 609(a)
of the FCRA.
Subtitle B--Protection and Restoration of Identity Theft Victim Credit
History
Section 151. Summary of rights of identity theft victims
This section requires the FTC, in consultation with the
banking agencies and the NCUA, to prepare a model summary of
the rights of consumers to help them remedy the effects of
fraud or identity theft. Consumer reporting agencies must
provide any consumer contacting them expressing the belief of
identity theft victimization with a summary of rights
containing the information in the FTC's model summary and the
FTC's contact information for more details. The section also
requires the FTC to develop and implement a media campaign to
provide more information to the public on ways to prevent
identity theft. It is important for the agencies to let
consumers know that identity thieves target home computers
because they contain a goldmine of personal financial
information about individuals. In educating the public about
how to avoid becoming a victim of identity theft, the FTC and
the federal banking regulators should inform consumers about
the risks associated with having an `always on' Internet
connection not secured by a firewall, not protecting against
viruses or other malicious codes, using peer-to-peer file
trading software that might expose diverse contents of their
hard drives without their knowledge, or failing to use safe
computing practices in general.
The section further includes a provision creating an
obligation to make certain records of identity theft victims
more available to those victims and law enforcement. This
section requires businesses that enter into a commercial
transaction for consideration with a person who allegedly has
made unauthorized use of a victim's identification to provide
a copy of the application and business transaction records
evidencing the transaction under the businesses' control
within 30 days of the victim's request. The records are to be
provided directly to the victim or to a law enforcement
agency authorized by the victim to receive the records. The
business can require proof of the identity of the victim and
proof of the claim of identity theft, including a police
report and an affidavit of identity theft developed by the
FTC or otherwise acceptable to the business. A business may
decline to provide the records if in good faith it determines
that this section does not require it to; it does not have a
high degree of confidence it knows the true identity of the
requester; the request is based on a relevant
misrepresentation of fact; or the information is navigational
data or similar information about a person's visit to a
website or online service. The business is not required under
this section to retain any records (the obligation only
applies to applications and transaction records that the
business already is retaining under its otherwise applicable
record retention policy), nor is it required to provide
records that do not exist or are not reasonably available
(such as those that are not easily retrieved, in contrast to
records such as periodic statements listing transactions made
on a credit or deposit account that are easily retrieved).
Businesses are also not required to produce records not
within their direct control.
Section 152. Blocking of information relating to identity
theft
This section provides that a consumer reporting agency must
block information identified as resulting from identity theft
within 4 business days of receiving from the consumer
appropriate proof of identity, a copy of an identity theft
report, an identification of the fraudulent information, and
confirmation that the transaction was not the consumer's. The
agency must then promptly notify the furnishers of the
information identified that the information may have resulted
from identity theft, that an identity theft report has been
filed, that a block on reporting the information has been
requested, and the effective date of the block.
Section 153. Coordination of identity theft complaint
investigations
This section directs nationwide consumer reporting agencies
to develop and maintain procedures for referring consumer
complaints of identity theft and requests for blocks or fraud
alerts to the other nationwide agencies, and to provide the
FTC with an annual summary of this information. That summary
may be a brief description of the estimated number of calls
received pertaining to identity theft, the number of fraud
alerts requested, and other issues which may be relevant. The
FTC, in consultation with the Federal banking agencies and
the NCUA, is directed to develop model forms and model
standards for identity theft victims to report fraud to
creditors and consumer reporting agencies.
Section 154. Prevention of repollution of consumer reports
This section creates a national standard governing the
duties of furnishers to block refurnishing information that
is allegedly the result of identity theft. Specifically,
companies that furnish information to a consumer reporting
agency are required to establish reasonable procedures to
block the refurnishing of the information if they have
received a notification from the agency that the information
furnished has been blocked because it resulted from identity
theft. Similarly, if a consumer submits an identity theft
report to a company furnishing information to a consumer
reporting agency and states that the information resulted
from identity theft, the furnisher may not furnish the
information to any consumer reporting agency, unless the
furnisher subsequently knows or is informed by the consumer
that the information is correct.
The section also restricts the sale or transfer of debt
caused by identity theft. This provision applies to any
entity collecting a debt after the date it is appropriately
notified that the debt has resulted from an identity theft.
The entity is then prohibited from selling, transferring, or
placing for collection the debt that is identity theft-
related. The prohibition does not apply to the repurchase of
a debt where the assignee of the debt requires such
repurchase because the debt results from identity theft; the
securitization of debt (public or private) or the pledge of a
portfolio of debt as collateral in connection with a
borrowing; or the transfer of debt as a result of a merger,
acquisition, purchase and assumption transaction or transfer
of substantially all of the assets of an entity.
[[Page 32228]]
Section 155. Notice by debt collectors with respect to
fraudulent information
This section requires third-party debt collectors who are
notified that the debts they are attempting to collect may be
the result of identity theft or other fraud to notify the
third party on whose behalf they are collecting the debt that
the information may be the result of identity theft or fraud.
The debt collector must also then, upon the request of the
consumer to whom the debt purportedly relates, provide the
consumer with all the information that the consumer would be
entitled to receive if the information were not the result of
identity theft and the consumer were disputing the debt under
applicable law.
Section 156. Statute of limitations
This section extends the statute of limitations for
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The section
requires claims to be brought within 2 years of the discovery
of the violation (instead of the original standard of 2 years
after the date on which the violation occurred), but with an
outside restriction that all claims must be brought within 5
years of when the violation occurred.
Section 157. Study on the use of technology to combat
identity theft
This section directs the Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Federal banking agencies, the FTC, and
other specified public and private sector entities, to
conduct a study of the use of biometrics and other similar
technologies to reduce the incidence of identity theft.
TITLE II--IMPROVEMENTS IN USE OF AND CONSUMER ACCESS TO CREDIT
INFORMATION
Section 211. Free consumer reports
This section provides consumers with new rights to obtain
an annual free consumer report from each of the nationwide
credit bureaus (including the nationwide specialty consumer
reporting agencies). With respect to agencies defined in
603(p), the free report only has to be provided if the
consumer makes the request through the centralized source
system established for such purpose. The centralized source
shall be established in accordance with regulations
prescribed by the FTC in a manner to ensure that the consumer
may make a single request for the free reports using a
standardized form for mail or Internet. With respect to the
nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies (as defined
in 603(w)), the FTC may prescribe a streamlined process for
consumers to request their free reports directly from that
agency, which shall include, at minimum, the establishment of
a toll-free telephone number by each agency, and shall take
into account the costs and benefits to each agency of how
requests may be fulfilled and the efficacy of staggering the
availability of requests to reduce surges in demand.
The nationwide consumer reporting agencies must provide the
report to the consumer within 15 days. Any disputes raised by
a consumer who receives a free report under this section must
be reinvestigated within 45 days after the consumer raises
the dispute, which is a 15-day increase over the 30-day
reinvestigation time frame that would otherwise apply. The
new right to free reports shall not apply to any agency that
has not been furnishing consumer reports to third parties on
a continuing basis for the 12 months previous to a request.
This exclusion is intended to allow credit bureaus that have
just begun to fully operate on a nationwide basis (as defined
in section 603(p) and (w)) a window of time to ramp up for at
least 12 straight months before being subjected to the costs
of complying with free requests under this section. The FTC
is directed to prescribe regulations preventing consumer
reporting agencies from avoiding being treated as an agency
defined in section 603(p) by manipulating their corporate
structure or consumer records in a manner that allows them to
operate with essentially identical activities but for a
technical difference.
In addition, the FTC is directed to prepare a model summary
of the rights of consumers under the FCRA, including: the
right to obtain a free consumer report annually and the
method of doing so, the right to dispute information in the
consumer's credit file, and the right to obtain a credit
score and the method of doing so. The FTC is further directed
to actively publicize the availability of the summary of
rights, and make the summary available to consumers promptly
upon request.
Section 212. Disclosure of credit scores
This section establishes a Federal standard governing the
provision of credit scores to consumers. Consumer reporting
agencies are required to make available to consumers upon
request (for a reasonable fee that the FTC shall prescribe)
the consumer's current or most recently calculated credit
score, as well as the range of scores possible, the top 4
factors that negatively affected the score, the date the
score was created, and the name of the company providing the
underlying file or score. The disclosure of the top factors
is intended to be consistent with the provisions of the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) requiring a creditor making an
adverse action to disclose the principal reasons in a credit
score that most contributed to the adverse action. Credit
scores are to be derived from models that are widely
distributed in connection with mortgage loans or more general
models that assist consumers in understanding credit scoring,
and must include a disclosure to the consumer stating that
the information and credit scoring model may be different
than that used by a particular lender.
Credit scores do not include mortgage scores or automated
underwriting systems that consider factors other than credit
information, such as loan to value ratio. Consumer reporting
agencies that do not distribute credit scores in connection
with residential mortgage lending or develop scores in
connection with assisting credit providers in understanding a
consumer's general credit behavior and predicting the future
credit behavior of the consumer are not required to develop
or disclose any scores under this section. Consumer reporting
agencies that distribute scores developed by others are not
required to provide further explanation of them or to process
related disputes, other than by providing the consumer with
contact information regarding the person who developed the
score or its methodology, unless the agency has further
developed or modified the score itself. Consumer reporting
agencies are not required to maintain credit scores in their
files.
If a consumer applies for a mortgage loan, and the mortgage
lender uses a credit score in connection with an application
by the consumer for a closed end loan or establishment of an
open end consumer loan secured by 1 to 4 units of residential
real property, then the mortgage lender is required to
provide the consumer with a free copy of the consumer's
credit score. In addition, the lender must provide a copy of
the information on the range of scores possible, the top 4
negative key factors used, the date the score was created,
and the name of the company providing the underlying file or
score, to the extent that the information is obtained from a
consumer reporting agency or developed and used by the
lender. A lender is not required to provide a proprietary
credit score, but instead may provide a widely distributed
credit score for the consumer together with the relevant
explanatory information regarding the consumer's credit
score. Beyond the information provided to the lender by a
third party score provider, the lender is only required to
provide a notice to the home loan applicant. This notice
includes the contact information of each agency providing the
credit score used, and provides specific language to be
disclosed to educate consumers about the use and meaning of
their credit scores and how to ensure their accuracy.
A mortgage lender that uses an automated underwriting
system to underwrite a loan or otherwise obtains a credit
score from someone other than a consumer reporting agency may
satisfy their obligation to provide the consumer with a
credit score by disclosing a credit score and associated key
factors supplied by a consumer reporting agency. However, if
the lender uses a numerical credit score generated by an
automated underwriting system used by the Federal National
Mortgage Association or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation or their affiliates, and the score is disclosed
to the lender, then that score must be disclosed by the
lender to the consumer.
Mortgage lenders are not required by this section to
explain the credit score and the related copy of information
provided to the consumer, to disclose any information other
than the credit score or negative key factor, disclose any
credit score or related information obtained by the lender
after a loan has closed, provide more than 1 disclosure per
loan transaction, or provide an additional score disclosure
when another person has already made the disclosure to the
consumer for that loan transaction.
The only obligation for a mortgage lender providing a
credit score under this section is to provide a copy of the
information used and received from the consumer reporting
agency. A mortgage lender is not liable for the content of
that information or the omission of any information in the
report provided by the agency. This section and the
requirement for mortgage lenders to provide credit scores do
not apply to the Federal National Mortgage Association or the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or their affiliates.
Any provision in a contract prohibiting the disclosure of
credit scores by a person who makes or arranges loans or a
consumer reporting agency is void, and a lender will not have
liability under any contractual provision for disclosure of a
credit score pursuant to this section.
This section also amends section 605 of the FCRA to provide
that if a consumer reporting agency furnishes a consumer
report that contains any credit score or other risk score or
other predictor, the report must include a clear and
conspicuous statement that the number of enquiries was a key
factor (as defined in section 609(e)(2)(B)) that adversely
affected a credit score or other risk score or predictor if
that predictor was in fact one of the key factors that most
adversely affected a credit score. This statement will be
made in those instances in which the number of enquiries had
an influence on the consumer's credit score, and it will thus
alert a user of
[[Page 32229]]
the consumer report when the number of enquiries has had an
adverse effect on the consumer's credit score.
This section's technical and conforming amendments clarify
the application of certain Federal standards. State laws are
preempted with respect to any disclosures required to be made
as a result of various provisions of the FACT Act, including
the summary of rights to obtain and dispute information in
consumer reports and to obtain credit scores, the summary of
rights of identity theft victims, providing information to
victims of identity theft, and providing credit score and
mortgage score disclosures under this section, except for
certain State laws governing credit score disclosures that
are grandfathered. State laws that regulate the disclosure of
credit-based insurance scores in an insurance activity are
similarly not preempted by the requirements of those specific
provisions. State laws governing the frequency of credit
report disclosures are also preempted, except for certain
specific grandfathered laws.
Section 213. Enhanced disclosure of the means available to
opt out of prescreened lists
This section relates to the disclosure that has to be
provided in connection with a prescreened offer of credit or
insurance using a consumer's credit report. This section
provides that the disclosure must include the address and
toll-free number for the consumer to request exclusion from
certain prescreened lists and must be presented in a format,
type size, and manner that is simple and easy for reasonable
consumers to understand. The FTC, in consultation with the
Federal banking agencies and the NCUA, shall establish
regulatory guidance concerning the format of the disclosure
within one year of enactment. The length of time a consumer
can request to be excluded from lists for prescreened
solicitations is increased by this section from 2 years to 5
years. The FTC is directed to publicize on its website how
consumers can opt-out of prescreened offers (including
through the telephone number now required) and undertake
additional measures to increase public awareness of this
right. The Federal Reserve Board is directed to study and
report to Congress on the ability of consumers to opt out of
receiving unsolicited written offers of credit or insurance
and the impact further restrictions on these offers would
have on consumers.
Section 214. Affiliate sharing
This section adds a new Section 624 to the FCRA creating a
uniform national standard for regulating the use and exchange
of information by affiliated entities. While affiliates are
allowed to share information without limitation, they may not
use certain shared information to make certain marketing
solicitations without the consumer receiving a notice and an
option to opt-out of receiving those solicitations.
Specifically, an entity that receives certain consumer report
or experience information from an affiliate that would be a
``consumer report'' except for the FCRA's affiliate sharing
exceptions may not use that information to make a marketing
solicitation to the consumer about the products or services
of that entity, unless it is clearly and conspicuously
disclosed to the consumer that information shared among
affiliates may be used for marketing purposes and the
consumer is given an opportunity and simple method to opt out
of those marketing solicitations. The notice must allow the
consumer to prohibit those types of marketing solicitations
based on that affiliate's information, but also may allow the
consumer to choose from different options when opting out.
The opt-out notice may be provided to the consumer together
with disclosures required by any other provision of law, such
as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act or other information sharing
notices required under FCRA. This provision (as well as a
parallel coordination and consolidation provision in the
rulemaking directions to the regulators) is intended to allow
an entity to time its notice to a consumer (after the
effective date of the regulations) in the next regularly
scheduled mailing to that consumer of other legally required
notices. This coordination and consolidation is intended to
reduce consumer confusion and avoid duplicative notices and
disclosures.
The consumer's election to opt out is effective for at
least five years, beginning on the date the person receives
the consumer's election, unless the consumer revokes the opt
out or requests a different mutually agreeable period. After
the expiration of the five-year period, the consumer must
receive another notice and similar opt-out opportunity before
the affiliate can send another covered marketing solicitation
to the consumer.
There are a number of exceptions to the limitations on the
use of affiliate information for marketing solicitations,
where notice and opt out are not required. For example, the
notice and opt-out do not apply to an entity using affiliate
information to make a marketing solicitation to a consumer if
the entity already has a pre-existing business relationship
with that consumer. An entity that has a pre-existing
business relationship with the consumer can send a marketing
solicitation to that consumer on its own behalf or on behalf
of another affiliate. For the purposes of determining a pre-
existing business relationship, an entity and the entity's
licensed agent (such as an insurance or securities agent or
broker) are treated as a single entity, with the pre-existing
business relationships of one imputed to the other.
A pre-existing business relationship exists between an
entity and a consumer when, within the previous 18 months,
the consumer has purchased, rented, or leased goods or
services from the entity, or where some other continuing
relationship exists between the consumer and the entity--for
example where a financial transaction has been made with
respect to the consumer, where the consumer has an active
account (such as an unexpired credit card), or where the
consumer has an in-force policy or contract. The term
``active account'' is intended to include any account where
continuing legal obligations are in-force (such as a multi-
year certificate of deposit) or for which a consumer
regularly or periodically receives statements (even if there
have been no recent transactions) such as a securities
brokerage, bank, or variable annuity account. A pre-existing
business relationship also exists when the consumer makes an
inquiry or application regarding the entity's products or
services during the three-month period immediately preceding
the date on which the consumer is sent a solicitation. The
financial functional regulators and the FTC are allowed to
create further categories of pre-existing business
relationships, which is in part intended to build upon the
extensive recognition of customer relationships in existing
regulations and guidance issued by the regulators under the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
In addition to the pre-existing relationship exception, the
notice and opt-out requirements do not apply to a person
using information to facilitate communications with an
individual for whose benefit the person provides employee
benefit or other services pursuant to a contract with an
employer related to and arising out of the current employment
relationship of the individual participant or beneficiary of
an employee benefit plan. The requirements also do not apply
to the use of affiliate information to perform services on
behalf of an affiliate, unless the affiliate could not send
the solicitation itself because of a consumer opt out. Thus,
an affiliate cannot act as a servicer for another affiliate
and send out solicitations for its own products or services
to a consumer who has opted out of receiving such
solicitations. However, an entity can send a marketing
solicitation on behalf of an affiliate that has a pre-
existing business relationship with the consumer regarding
the products or services of that affiliate or another
affiliate. Furthermore, the notice and opt-out do not apply
to a person using information in response to a communication
initiated by the consumer, to a consumer request about a
product or service, or to solicitations authorized or
requested by the consumer. Additionally, the notice and opt-
out are not required where they would conflict with any
provision of State insurance law related to unfair
discrimination. This last exception is in part intended to
enable insurers and agents to continue full compliance
nationwide with State laws prohibiting insurers from
discriminating against similar risks or placing similar risks
in different rating programs, laws that provide for ``mutual
exclusivity'', and ``best rate'' laws that may require
insurers to provide customers with the best qualified rates
from among their affiliated entities.
These provisions governing the exchange and use of
information among affiliates do not apply to information used
to make marketing solicitations if that information was
shared into a common database or received by any individual
affiliate before the effective date of the regulations
implementing this section. Furthermore, the section makes
clear that any State law that relates to the exchange and use
of information to make a solicitation for marketing purposes
is preempted.
The Federal banking agencies, the NCUA, the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), and the FTC are directed to
prescribe regulations to implement this new section. To the
extent that the section is applicable to insurers, it is
intended that any enforcement of FCRA would continue to be
performed by the State insurance departments. The Federal
agencies also must jointly conduct regular studies of the
information sharing practices of affiliates of financial
institutions and other persons who are creditors or users of
consumer reports to examine how that information is used to
make credit underwriting decisions regarding consumers.
Finally, the section includes a technical and conforming
amendment to Section 603(d)(2)(A) of the FCRA. This amendment
is simply intended to integrate the new Section 624 into the
FCRA and does not affect the definition of a ``consumer
report.''
Section 215. Study of the effects of credit scores and
credit-based insurance scores on availability and
affordability of financial products.
Section 215 requires the FTC and the Board to study the use
of credit scores and credit-based insurance scores on the
availability and affordability of financial products.
[[Page 32230]]
Section 216. Disposal of consumer credit information
Section 216 directs the Federal banking agencies, the NCUA,
the SEC and the FTC to issue regulations requiring the
appropriate classes of persons that maintain or possess
consumer information ``derived'' from credit reports to
properly dispose of such records. The provision clarifies
that it does not apply to other types of information (other
than consumer report information) and does not impose an
obligation to maintain or destroy any information that is not
imposed under other laws. The provision does not alter or
affect any such requirement, either.
TITLE III--ENHANCING THE ACCURACY OF CONSUMER REPORT INFORMATION
Section 311. Risk-based pricing notice
This section establishes a new notice requirement for
creditors that use consumer report information in connection
with a risk-based credit underwriting process for new credit
customers. If a creditor grants credit to a new credit
customer ``on material terms that are materially less
favorable than the most favorable terms available to a
substantial proportion of [the creditor's other new]
consumers'' based on information from a consumer report, the
creditor must give the consumer a notice stating that the
terms offered to the consumer are based on information from a
consumer report. Nothing in the section, however, precludes a
creditor from providing such a notice to all of its new
credit customers, such as in a loan approval letter or other
communication that the credit has been granted. Such a notice
is not required, however, if the consumer applied for
specific material terms and was granted those terms and those
terms are not changed after the consumer responds to the
credit offer. Also, such a notice is not required if the
person has provided or will provide an adverse action notice
pursuant to section 615(a) of the FCRA in connection with an
application that is declined. In addition, the creditor is
provided with flexibility in the timing of providing such
notice, which can be given to the consumer at the time of
application for credit or, at communication of loan approval,
except where the regulations issued under this section
specifically require otherwise.
The notice is intended to be a concise notice that
includes: a statement that the terms offered are based on
information from a consumer report; the name of a consumer
reporting agency used by the creditor; a statement that the
consumer may receive a free consumer report from that
consumer reporting agency; and the consumer reporting
agency's contact information for obtaining a free credit
report. The creditor is not required to tell the consumer
that it has taken or may take any unfavorable action, only
that it used or will use credit reporting information in the
underwriting process.
The FTC and FRB are directed to jointly prescribe rules to
carry out this section. The rules are to address the form,
content, time and manner of delivery of the notice; the
meaning of the terms used in the section; exceptions to the
notice requirement; and a model notice. The section provides
creditors with a safe harbor if they maintain reasonable
policies and procedures for compliance, and the section is
only subject to administrative enforcement by the appropriate
Federal agencies.
This section also adds a national uniformity provision
prohibiting any State from imposing a requirement or
prohibition relating to the duties of users of consumer
reports to provide notice with respect to certain credit
transactions.
Section 312. Procedures to enhance the accuracy and integrity
of information furnished to consumer reporting agencies
This section directs the Federal banking agencies, the NCUA
and the FTC, with respect to entities subject to their
respective enforcement authority and in consultation and
coordination with one another, to establish and maintain
guidelines for use by furnishers to enhance the accuracy and
integrity of the information they furnish to consumer
reporting agencies. ``Accuracy and integrity'' was selected
as the relevant standard, rather than ``accuracy and
completeness'' as used in sections 313 and 319, to focus on
the quality of the information furnished rather than the
completeness of the information furnished. The agencies also
are directed to prescribe regulations requiring furnishers to
establish reasonable policies and procedures for implementing
the new guidelines. In developing the guidelines, the
agencies are instructed to: identify patterns, practices and
specific forms of activity that can compromise the accuracy
and integrity of the information furnished; review the
methods used to furnish information; determine whether
furnishers maintain and enforce policies to assure the
accuracy and integrity of information furnished to consumer
reporting agencies; and examine the policies and processes
that furnishers employ to conduct investigations and correct
inaccurate information.
In addition, this section modifies the standard in the FCRA
regarding the duty of furnishers to provide accurate
information. The FCRA prohibits furnishers from reporting
information with knowledge that it is not accurate. The
standard in section 623(a)(1) of the FCRA, ``knows or
consciously avoids knowing that the information is
inaccurate,'' is amended to ``knows or has reasonable cause
to believe that the information is inaccurate.'' This section
defines the new standard, ``knows or has reasonable cause to
believe that the information is inaccurate,'' to mean
``having specific knowledge, other than solely allegations by
the consumer, that would cause a reasonable person to have
substantial doubts about the accuracy of the information.''
This section also enables a consumer to dispute the
accuracy of the information furnished to a nationwide
consumer reporting agency directly with a furnisher under
certain circumstances. Specifically, the Federal banking
agencies, the NCUA and the FTC are required to jointly
prescribe regulations that identify the circumstances under
which a furnisher is required to reinvestigate a dispute
concerning the accuracy of information contained in a
consumer report, based on the consumer's request submitted
directly to the furnisher, rather than through the consumer
reporting agency. While the section authorizes a consumer to
submit a dispute directly to a furnisher, it is not to be
used by credit repair clinics to submit disputes on behalf of
one or more consumers.
In developing the regulations required by this section, the
regulators are directed to weigh the benefits to consumers
against the costs on furnishers and the credit reporting
system; the impact on the overall accuracy and integrity of
consumer reports of requiring furnishers to reinvestigate
disputes brought directly by consumers; whether direct
contact by the consumer with the furnisher would likely
result in the most expeditious resolution of any such
dispute; and the potential impact on the credit reporting
system if credit repair organizations are able to circumvent
the prohibition on their submission of disputes on behalf of
one or more consumers,
A consumer who seeks to dispute the accuracy of information
directly with a furnisher must: provide a dispute notice
directly to such person at the mailing address specified by
the person; identify the specific information disputed;
explain the basis for the dispute; and include all supporting
documentation required by the furnisher to substantiate the
basis of the dispute. Upon receipt of a consumer's notice of
dispute, the furnisher has specified responsibilities. The
furnisher must: conduct an investigation of the disputed
information; review all relevant information provided by the
consumer with the notice; and complete the investigation and
report the results to the consumer before the expiration of
the period under section 611(a)(1) ``within which a consumer
reporting agency would be required to complete its action if
the consumer had elected to dispute the information under
that section.'' Accordingly, for example, where the agency
would have 30 days to complete the investigation of disputes
regarding a consumer report obtained by the consumer
following receipt of an adverse action notice, the furnisher
would have 30 days as well. Similarly, where the consumer
reporting agency has 45 days to complete a reinvestigation of
a consumer dispute because the consumer has requested a
consumer report through the centralized system under section
612, a furnisher also would have the 45 days to complete an
investigation if the consumer has requested a consumer report
through the centralized system and then disputed information
on that consumer report directly with the furnisher. In
addition, if the investigation finds that the information
reported was inaccurate, the furnisher must promptly notify
each consumer reporting agency to which information was
furnished and provide the agency with any correction
necessary to make the information accurate.
The furnisher requirements do not apply if the person
receiving a notice of a dispute directly from a consumer
reasonably determines that the dispute is frivolous or
irrelevant. Upon making such a determination, the person must
notify the consumer of this determination within five
business days after making the determination, by mail, or if
authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by any other
means available to the person. The notice provided to the
consumer must include the reasons for the determination, and
identification of any information required to investigate the
disputed information, which may consist of a standardized
form describing the general nature of the information.
This section also amends section 623(a)(5) of the FCRA to
provide that a person that furnishes information to a
consumer reporting agency regarding a delinquent account may
rely upon the date provided by the entity to whom the account
was owed at the time that the delinquency occurred, so long
as a consumer has not disputed such information.
Section 623 of the FCRA also is amended to clarify
liability and enforcement under the FCRA. Specifically, the
new requirements imposed upon furnishers of information are
subject to administrative enforcement, not private rights of
action. Section 623 is amended by providing that ``Except as
provided in section 621(c)(1)(B), sections 616 and 617 do not
apply to any violation of'' the furnisher responsibilities
under section 623(a),
[[Page 32231]]
the accuracy guidelines and regulations under section 623(e)
and the red flag guidelines and regulations and the
requirements dealing with the prohibition of the sale or
transfer of a debt caused by identity theft under sections
615(e) or (f) respectively. As a result, the various sections
cited in section 312(e) will be subject to the administrative
enforcement mechanisms provided under the FCRA, and such
mechanisms represent the exclusive remedy for violations of
such sections. A similar rule applies to any other section of
the legislation that limits enforcement remedies to those
administrative remedies set forth under the FCRA, including
section 151, which adds a new section 609(e) relating to
assistance to identity theft victims.
Section 313. FTC and consumer reporting agency action
concerning complaints
This section directs the FTC to compile a record of
complaints against nationwide consumer reporting agencies. If
a complaint is received by the FTC about the accuracy or
completeness of information maintained by a consumer
reporting agency, the FTC must transmit the complaint to the
consumer reporting agency for response. Each nationwide
consumer reporting agency under section 603(p) that receives
a complaint from the FTC must: review the complaint to
determine if the agency has met all legal obligations imposed
under the FCRA; report to the FTC the determinations and
actions taken by the agency with respect to the complaint;
and maintain, for a reasonable time, records regarding the
disposition of such complaint in a manner sufficient to
demonstrate compliance with the FCRA.
In addition, the FTC and the Board are directed to study
and report jointly on the performance of consumer reporting
agencies and furnishers of credit reporting information in
complying with the FCRA's procedures and time frames for the
prompt investigation and correction of disputed information
in a consumer's credit file.
Section 314. Improved disclosure of the results of
reinvestigation
This section amends sections 611 and 623 of the FCRA to
require consumer reporting agencies to promptly delete
information from a consumer's file, or modify that item of
information as appropriate, if the information is found to be
inaccurate, and to promptly notify the furnisher of that
information that the information has been modified or deleted
from the consumer's file. In addition, this section requires
that furnishers, upon completion of a reinvestigation, if the
information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot
be verified, must, for purposes of subsequently reporting to
a consumer reporting agency, modify the item of information,
delete the information, or block the reporting of the
information.
Section 315. Reconciling addresses
This section amends section 605 of the FCRA to require a
nationwide consumer reporting agency under section 603(p),
when it provides a consumer report, to inform the user
requesting that report if the request received from the user
includes an address for the consumer that substantially
differs from the addresses in the file of the consumer. The
Federal banking agencies, the NCUA and the FTC are directed
to prescribe regulations regarding reasonable policies and
procedures that users of consumer reports within the
agencies' respective enforcement jurisdiction should employ
when they receive notice of an address discrepancy. These
regulations are to describe reasonable policies and
procedures that a user may employ to form a reasonable belief
that the user knows the identity of the person to whom the
consumer report pertains and, if the user establishes a
continuing relationship with the consumer, to furnish the
consumer reporting agency with the appropriate address, as
part of information that the user regularly furnishes for the
period in which the relationship is established.
Section 316. Notice of dispute through reseller
This section amends section 611 of the FCRA to require
consumer reporting agencies to reinvestigate consumer
disputes forwarded to them by resellers of consumer reports.
Furthermore, if a reseller receives notice from a consumer of
a dispute concerning the accuracy or completeness of any item
of information contained in a consumer report, the reseller
must, within five business days and free of charge, determine
the accuracy or completeness of the information in question
and either correct or delete it, if it is the reseller's
error, within 20 days after receiving the notice, or convey
the notice of dispute with any relevant information to
each consumer reporting agency that provided the
information that is the subject of the dispute, if the
error is not the reseller's. In the latter circumstance,
the consumer reporting agency must report the results of
its reinvestigation to the reseller that conveyed the
notice, and the reseller must then reconvey the notice to
the consumer immediately.
Section 317. Reasonable reinvestigation required
This section amends section 611 of the FCRA to provide that
when a consumer disputes the accuracy of information
contained in a consumer report, the consumer reporting agency
that prepared the report must conduct a reasonable
investigation free of charge to determine whether the
disputed information is inaccurate.
Section 318. FTC study of issues relating to the Fair Credit
Reporting Act
This section requires the FTC to study and report to
Congress within one of the date of enactment of the FACT Act
on ways to improve the operation of the FCRA. The FTC is
directed to study and report on: the efficacy of increasing
the number of points of identifying information that a credit
reporting agency must match before releasing a consumer
report; the extent to which requiring additional points of
identifying information to match would enhance the accuracy
of credit reports and combat the provision of incorrect
consumer reports to users; the extent to which requiring an
exact match of first and last name, social security number
and address and ZIP Code of the consumer would enhance the
likelihood of increasing the accuracy of credit reports; and
the effects of allowing consumer reporting agencies to use
partial matches of social security numbers and name
recognition software. The FTC also must report on the impact
of providing independent notification to consumers when
negative information is included in their credit reports, and
to consider the effects of requiring that consumers who
experience adverse actions receive a copy of the same credit
report used by the creditor in taking the adverse action.
Finally, the FTC is to study and report on common financial
transactions not generally reported to consumer reporting
agencies that may bear on creditworthiness, and possible
actions to encourage the reporting of such transactions
within a voluntary system.
Section 319. FTC study of the accuracy of consumer reports
This section directs the FTC to conduct an ongoing study of
the accuracy and completeness of information contained in
consumer reports, and to submit interim reports and a final
report to Congress on its findings and conclusions, together
with recommendations for legislative and administrative
action.
TITLE IV--LIMITING THE USE AND SHARING OF MEDICAL INFORMATION IN THE
FINANCIAL SYSTEM
Section 411. Protection of medical information in the
financial system
Section 411 amends section 604 of the FCRA to generally
prohibit a consumer reporting agency from providing credit
reports that contain medical information for employment
purposes or in connection with a credit or insurance
transaction (including annuities). Medical information may be
included in a report as part of an insurance transaction only
with the consumer's affirmative consent. Medical information
may be included in a report for employment or credit purposes
only where the information is relevant for purposes of
processing or approving employment or credit requested by the
consumer and the consumer has provided specific written
consent, or if the information meets certain specific
requirements and is restricted or reported using codes that
do not identify or infer the specific provider or nature of
the services, products, or devices to anyone other than the
consumer.
In general, creditors are prohibited from obtaining or
using medical information in connection with any
determination of a consumer's eligibility for credit. Certain
exceptions are provided where authorized by Federal law, for
insurance activities (including annuities), and where
determined to be necessary and appropriate by a regulation or
order of the FTC or a financial regulator (including the
State insurance authorities). Any person who receives medical
information through any of the exceptions of this section is
prohibited from further disclosure of the information to any
other person, except as necessary to carry out the purpose
for which it was originally disclosed or as otherwise
permitted by law. The Federal banking agencies and the NCUA
are directed to prescribe regulations that are necessary and
appropriate to protect legitimate business needs with respect
to the use of medical information in the credit granting
process, including allowing appropriate sharing for verifying
certain transactions as well as for debt cancellation
contracts, debt suspension agreements, and credit insurance
that are generally not intended to be restricted by this
provision.
This section further amends section 603(d) of the FCRA to
restrict the disclosure among affiliates of consumer reports
that are medical information except as provided in the
exceptions above. Specifically, the exclusions from the term
``consumer report'' in section 603(d)(2) (e.g., sharing among
affiliates of transaction and experience information) do not
apply if the information is medical information, an
individualized list or description based specifically on the
payment transactions of the consumer for medical products and
services, or an aggregate list of consumers identified based
on their payment transactions for medical products or
services. The section also creates a new definition for the
term ``medical information'', defining it as information
derived through a health care provider with respect to an
individual consumer relating to the individual's
[[Page 32232]]
past, present, or future physical, mental, or behavioral
health, the provision of health care to the individual, or
the payment for the provision of health care to the
individual. The definition specifically excludes information
that is age, gender, demographic information (including
addresses), or other information unrelated to the individual
consumer's physical, mental, or behavioral health.
Section 412. Confidentiality of medical contact information
in consumer reports
Section 412 requires furnishers whose primary business is
providing medical services, products, or devices to notify
the consumer reporting agencies of their status as a medical
information furnisher for purposes of compliance with the
medical information coding requirements. Once an entity
notifies a consumer reporting agency of its status as a
medical information furnisher, the agency may not include in
a consumer report the furnisher's name, address, or telephone
number unless that contact information is encoded in a manner
that does not identify or infer to anyone other than the
consumer the specific company or the nature of the medical
services, products, or devices provided. An exception is
provided for consumer reports provided to insurance companies
for insurance activities (including annuities) other than
property and casualty insurance. The encoding requirement for
medical information furnisher contact information applies
regardless of the dollar amounts involved.
TITLE V--FINANCIAL LITERACY AND EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT
Section 511. Short title
This section establishes the short title of ``Financial
Literacy and Education Improvement Act.''
Section 512. Definitions
This section defines the terms ``Chairperson'' and
``Commission'' for purposes of this title.
Section 513. Establishment of Financial Literacy and
Education Commission
This section establishes the Financial Literacy and
Education Commission with the Secretary of the Treasury as
the Chairperson. The section sets forth the membership of the
Commission to include federal agencies with significant
financial literacy programs, and authorizes the President to
designate up to five additional members. The Commission is
required to meet at least once every four months and all such
meetings shall be open to the public. The initial meeting
shall take place not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of the FACT Act.
Section 514. Duties of the Commission
This section sets forth the duties of the Commission to,
among other things, review financial literacy and education
efforts throughout the federal government; to identify and
eliminate duplicative federal financial literacy efforts; to
coordinate the promotion of federal financial literacy
efforts including outreach between federal, state and local
governments, non-profit organizations and private
enterprises; to increase awareness and improve development
and distribution of multilingual financial literacy and
education materials; to improve financial literacy and
education through all other related skills, including
personal finance and related economic education; to develop
and implement within 18 months a national strategy to promote
financial literacy and education among all Americans; and to
issue a report, the Strategy for Assuring Financial
Empowerment (``SAFE Strategy''), to Congress within the first
18 months of the Commission's first meeting and annually
thereafter, on the progress of the Commission in carrying out
this title. The Commission also shall establish a website and
a toll-free number as a one-stop-shop for all federal
financial literacy programs. The Commission's Chairperson is
required to provide annual testimony to the relevant
congressional committees.
Section 515. Powers of the Commission
This section authorizes the Commission to hold hearings and
receive testimony as necessary to carry out the title; to
receive information directly from any Federal department or
agency; to undertake periodic studies regarding the state of
financial literacy; and to take any action to develop and
promote financial literacy and education materials in
languages other than English, as the Commission deems
appropriate.
Section 516. Commission personnel matters
This section provides that members of the Commission shall
serve without compensation in addition to that received for
their primary duties, however, the Commission may pay for
travel expenses of members for official duties of the
Commission. In addition, the Director of the Office of
Financial Education of the Treasury Department shall provide
assistance to the Commission. The section also permits
federal employees to be detailed to the Commission.
Section 517. Studies by the Comptroller General
This section mandates that the General Accounting Office
(GAO) submit a report to Congress not later than 3 years
after the date of enactment of the FACT Act on the
effectiveness of the Commission, and conduct a separate study
to assess the extent of consumers' knowledge and awareness of
credit reports, credit scores, and the dispute resolution
process, and on methods for improving financial literacy. The
GAO is required to report the findings and conclusions of
this study to Congress within a year of the date of
enactment.
Section 518. The national public service multimedia campaign
to enhance the state of financial literacy
This section directs the Secretary of the Treasury, after
review of the recommendations of the Financial Literacy and
Education Commission, to develop, in consultation with
nonprofit, public, or private organizations, a pilot national
public service multimedia campaign to enhance the state of
financial literacy and education in the U.S. The campaign is
required to be consistent with the national strategy
developed pursuant to section 514, and to promote the toll-
free telephone and the website required by that section.
The Secretary shall develop measures to evaluate the
performance of the public service campaign for each fiscal
year for which there are appropriations, and shall submit a
report to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and
the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, describing
the status and implementation of the provisions of this
section and the state of financial literacy and education in
the United States. Appropriations of $3 million are
authorized for fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006, for the
development, production, and distribution of the pilot
national public service multimedia campaign.
Section 519. Authorization of appropriations
This section authorizes appropriations to the Commission of
such sums as may be necessary to carry out this title,
including administrative expenses.
TITLE VI--PROTECTING EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS
Section 611. Certain employee investigation communications
excluded from definition of consumer report
This title amends section 603 of the FCRA to provide that
communications to an employer by an outside third party
retained to investigate suspected workplace misconduct or
compliance with legal requirements or with the employer's
preexisting written policies do not constitute a ``consumer
report'' for purposes of the FCRA. This provision is intended
to address the ill effects of certain regulatory guidance
issued by the FTC staff in 1999 that had the unintended
consequence of deterring employers from using outside firms
to investigate alleged employee misconduct, including racial
discrimination and sexual harassment claims. Employers that
take an adverse action based on the communication by the
outside investigative agency, however, continue to be
required to disclose to the employee a summary of the nature
and substance of the communication, although certain sources
of information are protected from disclosure. In particular,
the disclosure duty is not intended to require violation of
any confidentiality obligations, such as confidentiality
requirements regarding an individual's medical or other
private information (social security number, home residence,
etc.), or privileges, such as doctor-patient, attorney-
client, or state secrets.
TITLE VII--RELATION TO STATE LAWS
Section 711. Relation to state laws
Section 711 eliminates the January 1, 2004 sunset of the
uniform national consumer protection standards contained in
current law and makes those preemptions permanent. It also
clarifies that all of the new consumer protections added by
the FACT Act are intended to be uniform national standards,
by enumerating as additional preemptions the 11 new
provisions of the FACT Act that do not contain specific
preemptions in those sections. Specifically, the section
establishes national uniform standards and preempts State law
with respect to the truncation of credit card and debit card
numbers (113), establishing fraud alerts (112), blocking
information resulting from identity theft (152), truncating
social security numbers on consumer reports given to
consumers (115), providing free annual disclosures (211) (in
addition to the preemption for disclosures provided under
section 212), any consumer protections addressed under the
red flag guidelines (114), prohibiting the transfer of debt
caused by identity theft (154), notice by debt collectors
with respect to fraudulent information (155), coordination of
identity theft complaints by consumer reporting agencies
(153), duties of furnishers to prevent refurnishing of
blocked information (154), and the disposal of consumer
report information (216). Under this new preemption
provision, no state or local jurisdiction may add to, alter,
or affect the rules established by the statute or regulations
thereunder in any of these areas. All of the statutory and
regulatory provisions establishing rules and requirements
governing the conduct of any person in these specified areas
are governed solely by federal law and any State action that
attempts to impose requirements or prohibitions in these
areas would be preempted. This section also clarifies that
with
[[Page 32233]]
respect to any State laws for the prevention or mitigation of
identity theft that address conduct other than those for
which a national uniform standard is created under FCRA,
those laws are not preempted to the extent they are not
inconsistent with FCRA.
TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS
Section 811. Clerical amendments
Section 811 makes a number of technical and clerical
amendments.
____________________
HONORING THE MEMORY OF THE HON. DEVON WIGGINS
______
HON. JO BONNER
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, Escambia County, AL, and indeed the entire
First Congressional District, recently lost a dear friend, and I rise
today to honor him and pay tribute to his memory.
Judge Devon Wiggins was a devoted family man and dedicated public
servant throughout his entire life. Following a lengthy tenure on the
Escambia County Commission, twelve years of which he spent as the
commission chairman, Judge Wiggins was elected to the position of Judge
of Probate, a position he held until his retirement three years ago.
Throughout his professional career, he was dedicated to bringing better
opportunities to all the residents of Escambia County and was a
tireless advocate for local business and industry. He also was
dedicated to making himself and other county offices as accessible as
possible to the general public and, through his efforts, garnered the
respect and admiration of many individuals in both the public and
private sectors.
As a small business owner in Brewton, Alabama, Judge Wiggins was
extremely familiar with the challenges and goals of running a
successful business and providing employment opportunities for
hardworking men and women. It was this background and his tremendous
work ethic which became hallmarks of his career in public office and
which marked his efforts on behalf of all residents of Escambia County.
Judge Wiggins was also actively involved in his community,
participating in church-related organizations and taking a leadership
role in the activities of the Brewton Lions Club. His devotion to his
fellow man was unmatched, and I do not think there will ever be a full
accounting of the many people he helped over the course of his
lifetime.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering a
dedicated public servant and long-time advocate for Escambia County,
Alabama. Judge Wiggins will be deeply missed by his family--his wife,
Nell Wiggins, his daughters, Dawn Wiggins Hare, Donna Wiggins Schlager,
and Daphne Wiggins Martin, his son, Maxwell Devon Wiggins, and his six
grandchildren--as well as the countless friends he leaves behind. Our
thoughts and prayers are with them all at this difficult time.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ROSS FISCHER
______
HON. STEVE BUYER
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, one of the most rewarding aspects of
representing Indiana's Fourth District is to have the opportunity to
honor outstanding Hoosiers for his or her contributions to the
community, State, and Nation.
For over fifty years, Ross Fischer has been the owner and President
of McCord Auto Supply in Monticello, Indiana. McCord is the largest
distributor of flotation tires in the world--a device of which Ross was
instrumental in its design and development.
Ross Fischer was born in 1931 and grew up on a farm in Cissna Park,
Illinois. He attended Possum Trot, a one-room schoolhouse.
He served in the United States Army, from 1952-1955 as the Squad
Leader in the Alaskan Recoiless Rifle Regiment.
Throughout his over 40 years in Monticello, he has never forgotten
his beginnings and it shows everyday in his treatment and compassion of
others. Ross has made enormous contributions to the city, including
providing free tire repairs to the community after a 1974 tornado. He
is a member and supporter of the American Legion, the John Purdue Club,
and the Monticello Jaycees and also sits on the Board of the White
County Airport.
He and his wife Beverly are the parents of three daughters--Jo Anna,
De Anna, Anna Lyn, as well as grandparents to seven grandchildren.
On the eve of his retirement from McCord, as well as his 49th wedding
anniversary, I salute Ross Fischer for his dedication to family,
community and the State of Indiana.
____________________
HONORING RANDY STRUCKOFF OF GRINNELL, KANSAS
______
HON. JERRY MORAN
of kansas
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a devoted
member of the Grinnell, Kansas community, Randy Struckoff.
Coach Randy, as he is affectionately called, has become one of the
most well known sports fans in Northwest Kansas. At every game in the
Grinnell high school gymnasium, Coach Randy always sits at the end of
the score table, right next to the home team's bench. On December 19th,
USD 291, the Grinnell Public School District, will honor Coach Randy by
dedicating the high school's brand new score table to him.
A life-long resident of Grinnell, Coach Randy has touched the lives
of all who have had the opportunity to know him. Although born with a
mental handicap, he has never let that challenge get him down. Randy
has a smile on his face year-round, and his bright spirit helps to
carry Grinnell sports teams through hard times and add to their joy
during the good times.
Coach Randy's love for his community, its schools, and its youth is
visible to everyone around him. Whether he is helping to coach,
officiate, lead cheers, or do all three at once, Coach Randy gives his
heart and soul in supporting the coaches, students, and entire
community. During the playing of the national anthem at any sporting
event in Grinnell, Coach Randy stands at rapt attention, singing along
with every word. He is present during every sports season, through
summer league baseball and softball, football and volleyball in the
fall, basketball in winter, and track in the spring.
I join Grinnell, Kansas in thanking Coach Randy for all of his
encouragement and his dedication to the community.
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE OF BARBER B. CONABLE, JR.
______
HON. THOMAS M. REYNOLDS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House of Representatives
today in remembrance of a great man who once served in Congress--former
Representative Barber B. Conable, Jr. During his twenty years in
Congress he represented both his constituents and this institution with
grace and integrity. Regardless of where his service led him, Barber
always remained true to his Western New York roots.
While he distinguished himself as a Member of Congress and earned the
respect of colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Barber was also
notable for his esteemed academic career, his professional knowledge on
a wide variety of issues from taxes to Social Security, and his
willingness to tackle any problem head on. Always lending a helping
hand was a signature trait of Barber's; he never let partisanship get
in the way of progress.
Barber Conable was the best example of what a public servant ought to
be. He loved his country, his community and his family, never straying
from the strong values he was raised on. His genuine sophistication as
a legislator came so effortlessly, revealing the compassion and
unselfishness that was a hallmark of his public service.
In devoting his life to serving others, Barber exemplified loyalty to
his country as a veteran of both World War II and the Korean War. With
a thirst for knowledge, Barber shared his experiences when he taught at
the University of Rochester and later went on to become President of
the World Bank. Though no matter what national or global stage he was
on, his commitment to the community never waned as he joined countless
local boards and organizations over the years.
As a fellow Member of Congress, Barber was the model representative
we should all aspire to. As a fellow Western New Yorker, I strive to
serve the region with the same humility and regard Barber once did. The
legacy of his warmth and generosity will live on in those who had the
pleasure of knowing him. He will always be remembered as a true leader
and a true friend. Like the many others fortunate to call Barber
Conable a friend, I will miss him dearly.
[[Page 32234]]
____________________
IN SUPPORT OF THE AIR FORCE ACADEMY
______
HON. HENRY BONILLA
of texas
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I ask to enter the editorial ``Aiming High:
Academy Still Soars Above Rivals in Terms of Academics and Research
Work,'' which appeared in the Colorado Springs Gazette on October 30,
2003, into the Congressional Record.
Aiming High: Academy Still Soars Above Rivals in Terms of Academics and
Research Work
Wednesday in this space we dabbled in the negative,
wrestling with some of the continuing fallout from the Air
Force Academy sex scandal. Today we accentuate the positive,
mindful, as we all should be, that the occasionally
disheartening headlines we see concerning the academy hardly
present a fair and balanced reflection of what remains one of
the nation's premier military and academic institutions.
What brings this to mind is a document that landed on our
desk this week, the school's ``Annual research Report,''
which will be distributed to the four-star and invited three-
star generals attending next week's Corona Conference at the
academy. While not something the academy is attempting to
spoon-feed the media in an effort to polish its
reputation,the report catalogs some truly impressive
accomplishments out at the academy--in part a result of the
leadership shown by the dean of faculty since 1998, Brig.
Gen. David A. Wagie.
Wagie, as readers may be aware, last month was singled out
for special criticism by the Fowler Commission, a
congressionally appointed panel responsible for the latest
regurgitation of the academy sex scandal. Its report
suggested that Wagie hadn't been held accountable for
problems that occurred during his tenure. And that's led to
speculation that Wagie could be the next Air Force official
invited to fall on his sword to assuage Washington witch
hunters. But by at least one critical measure of
performance--the school's academics--the general seems to
have been doing an outstanding job.
The school's academic environment in recent years
consistently has been ranked among the nation's best by the
Princeton review. In 2000, the academy earned the review's
top ranking for providing the best overall academic
experience for undergraduates; and it tied for third in that
category in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Last year the school also
took top honors in terms of professor accessibility, the
study habits of students and the excellence of its library.
FAA's undergraduate engineering program was ranked fourth
best in the nation by U.S. News & World Report in 2000, 2001
and 2002; and sixth in the nation in 2003.
We read a lot these days about cadet surveys, mostly
revolving around the school's sexual climate or reform
efforts. But in another survey, the National survey of
Student Engagement, fourth-class and first-class cadets in
2002 ranked the school highly in terms of academic challenge,
active and collaborative learning, student-faculty
interactions and a supportive campus environment.
During his tenure, Wagie has brought the academy into its
own as a top-flight research university. Funding for research
has quintupled since 1997, from $2.6 million to $123 million
this year, collaborative research work with private
companies, universities and federal agencies has increased,
and five new research centers have been added, engaging the
talents of 887 faculty or staff and 230 students.
And the research has real world relevance for the Air Force
and the nation. One team of academy researchers solved a
battery problem plaguing the unmanned serial vehicles playing
such an important role in the war on terror, doubling the
air-crafts's range and greatly reducing battery costs. And
they did it in less than two months. The school also in the
past year provided high performance computing supporting
addressing stability problems that have plagued the V-22
tilt-rotor aircraft program, and helped enhance the
capabilities of C-130 ``Commando Solo'' aircraft, which
handle psychological operations and civil affairs broadcast
missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world.
In spite of being buffeted by occasionally ugly news, it's
clear that on at least one important front--academics--Wagie
and the academy continue to soar high above most other U.S.
institutions of higher learning.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MAYOR PAUL TAUER
______
HON. THOMAS G. TANCREDO
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Monday, December 8, 2003
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, profound political change has come to
Aurora, Colorado, and that change provides an opportunity to reflect on
the contributions of Mayor Paul Tauer and City Councilors Barb Cleland,
Bob LeGare, Bob Perosky and Dave Williams.
These dedicated public servants had a profound impact on a growing
and vibrant city. Aurora has grown dramatically and it is now one of
the largest city in the nation--indeed people now refer to the Denver-
Aurora Metro area. Aurora's population is approaching 300,000, or
almost the size of Buffalo, New York and St. Paul, Minnesota. During
this period of rapid growth, these civic leaders insured that services
kept pace with growth, and that growth met the needs of the residents.
Few people contributed more to this process than the out going Mayor
Paul Tauer. He served as Mayor from 1987 to 2003, and sat on the city
council for eight years prior to his election as Mayor. During his
tenure, the face of the city was literally reconfigured to respond to
the demands of the 21st century.
During the Mayor's tenure Fitzsimmons Army Medical Center was closed
and it was replaced by the largest medical facility between Chicago and
California. The former Fitzsimmons campus is now home to the University
of Colorado's Health Science Center, the University Hospital, the
Lion's Eye Bank, the University Physicians HMO and a large and growing
biotechnology research park which has become a magnet for research and
development firms in the Rocky Mountain Region. Soon the former
Fitzsimmons campus will be the location of a new Denver Children's
Hospital and a new Veterans Administration Hospital, replacing the
antiquated facility in Denver. The Fitzsimmons campus will employ more
than 30,000 people and generate untold millions in revenue.
The phenomenon of Fitzsimmons was not the only notable development
contributing to the increasing dynamism of Aurora. Buckley Air National
Guard Base became Buckley Air Force Base, a new facility of the Air
Force Space Command. Ongoing growth at Buckley is likely to continue as
the role of space-based defense in our national security grows to meet
the requirements of military transformation and the war on terror. It
was Mayor Tauer who worked actively with the Air Force to make the new
base a reality ensuring that the requirements for national security
were balanced against the requirements of a growing urban community.
Mayor Tauer also presided over the redevelopment of ``original''
Aurora and development of the Southeast area of the city. This
revitalization was accomplished by a city-wide growth management plan
which created realistic, yet forward-looking standards for ``quality''
and ``smart'' growth. Aurora's implementation for these policies has
won widespread recognition for its excellence.
Perhaps in no area was Mayor Tauer's foresight more evident than his
leadership on water resource issues. During his time in office Aurora
has acquired new water resources, increased distribution and treatment
facilities and implemented innovative recycling and drought management
policies. The result has been an effective doubling of water system
capacity. Among his most notable achievements was forging an agreement
with the Department of Interior's Bureau of Reclamation that ensured
the city's storage facility in the Bureau's Pueblo Reservoir. I am
currently working with Representatives Beauprez and Hefley to codify
that agreement in federal law.
Mr. Speaker, Mayor Tauer has been the force that has given shape,
form and a distinctive identity to Aurora. Nowhere is this more evident
than in the new Aurora Municipal center. The new urban core of the city
includes a recently opened municipal building, public safety building,
a central library and museum. Together, they constitute the virtual
center of this increasingly urbane metropolis. This distinctive city
locus took shape during the tenure of Mayor Tauer.
Paul Tauer did not do it alone. Working with him for growth and
progress in Aurora was an exceptional cadre of city councilors whose
vision and understanding contributed mightily to the city.
Barb Cleland served on the council for two decades and focused on
insuring that public safety and public services in Aurora were
unrivaled. An early advocate of victims' rights, her leadership and
influence extended beyond Aurora to the National League of Cities and
other municipal groups. The valuable contributions to all areas of city
governances will be sorely missed.
Edna Mosely spent 12 years on the city council. Edna, whose husband
was one of the original ``Tuskegee Airmen,'' worked tirelessly on
behalf of military veterans and was actively involved in military
cultural diversity issues. She served with distinction on a host of
city boards including the Fitzsimmons Commission and served with
distinction on the Fitzsimmons
[[Page 32235]]
Redevelopment Authority Executive Committee, Aurora Economic
Development Council, Denver International Airport Business Partnership,
Lowry Economic Recovery Project, Adams County Economic Development
Council, Community College of Aurora Advisory Council and Aurora's
Business Advisory Board.
In 10 years on the council John Parosky was a voice for fiscal
prudence and effective and efficient government. He brought his
financial expertise to bear in ensuring that tax dollars were used as
optimally as possible. His commitment to the city can also be found in
his work; he devoted countless hours to make Aurora a better place
through his work on the Economic Development Committee, E-470
Authority, Aurora Chamber of Commerce, Utility Budget Committee,
Visitors Promotion Fund, Aurora Education Foundation, Spirit of Aurora,
Community Housing Services and Aurora Rotary club.
An eight year veteran of the council, Bob LeGare was a passionate
advocate of small business, who took in a leadership role in many
economic development programs. Bob was devoted to the importance of
small business, he worked to make Aurora a partner with business to
provide jobs and services. He provided leadership on a variety of
economic development initiatives including the Fitzsimmons
Redevelopment Authority, Colorado Commission on Taxation, Aurora
Citizens Advisory Budget Committee, Colorado Office of Regulatory
Reform Advisory Board, Aurora Chamber of Commerce, Aurora Association
of Realtors and the Aurora Realtor Governmental Affairs Committee and
further contributed to the community through Leadership Aurora, Aurora
Museum Foundation, and Aurora Open.
Dave Williams served 11 years as a member of the Aurora City Council.
He worked to improve the efficiency of the city by encouraging better
review processes and more efficient administration. He has been a
leader in the business community as illustrated by his experiences on
the Aurora Economic Development Council, E-470 Authority, Aurora Rotary
Club and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District.
Mr. Speaker, these dedicated officials deserve our thanks. At a time
when cynicism about public officials appears to be the prevailing
sentiment, they provide models of dedication and selflessness that defy
these contemporary stereotypes. I am honored to have worked with them
and wish them well in the days ahead.
____________________