Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the COBRA Coverage Act of 2003. As you may know, our Nation's faltering economy has resulted in staggering unemployment, unemployment that has risen from 5.7 percent in January of this year to 6.4 percent in June, leaving millions of Americans out of work. The loss of one's job is often accompanied by the loss of employer-based health coverage and the ability to afford individual health insurance. In this time of economic hardship, we must act to make health care more accessible to the working and middle-class families of America.

In an attempt to reduce the growing population of those without health coverage, Title X of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) provided access to group health insurance for workers who had lost their employer-sponsored coverage. COBRA requires employers who offer health insurance to continue coverage for their employees under circumstances such as a change in their employment status. However, this law allows the employer to charge up to 102 percent of the premium for the covered beneficiary and up to 150 percent for disabled individuals who qualify for an additional 11 months of coverage.

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that in 2002 health care premiums increased by 12.7 percent, making the average cost for self- only coverage $3,060 while the average cost for the family coverage reached $7,954. These high costs make retaining health coverage extremely difficult for individuals without work, without an income. As a result many people and their families choose to go without health insurance until they find another job. This is unacceptable.

Not only do these prohibitive costs prevent people from maintaining their health coverage, they can also drive up the group costs of employers who offer COBRA coverage. Because health care premiums are so high, those who have costly, preexisting health problems are more likely to enroll in extended coverage than those who are healthy. These costs are often passed onto the employer and onto the others covered by the group insurance.

We can alleviate this problem by making COBRA health coverage more accessible and more affordable. With the COBRA Coverage Act of 2003, laid-off workers would be provided with a 50 percent tax credit toward the cost of COBRA coverage, up to a maximum of $110 for an individual and $290 for a family per month. This credit is entirely refundable, which means one can receive it regardless of one's tax liability, and it is advanceable, meaning that it's available to the recipient immediately. This is possible because the tax credit would be administered through the employer.

While we work diligently to improve our economy, we must not sit idle and turn our backs on the millions of uninsured Americans. We must assist those who are suffering by ensuring they retain access to affordable health insurance for themselves and for their families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 29th anniversary of the Turkish invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus. On July 20, 1974, Turkey invade Cyprus and Turkish forces occupied more than one-third of the island nation, in clear violation of international law.

Today, thousands of Turkish soldiers, armed with the latest weapons, are stationed in the occupied area, making it one of the most militarized regions in the world.

Eighty-five thousand Turks have been brought over from Turkey to colonize the occupied area with the aim of changing the demography of the island and controlling the political situation. The Greek Cypriot community that remains enclaved within the occupied villages continues to live under conditions of oppression, harassment, and deprivation. For 29 years, divided by a 113-mile barbed wire fence that runs across the island, Greek Cypriots were prohibited from visiting the northern Turkish-occupied towns and communities where their families had lived for generations.

Since 1974, the United Nations has been trying to encourage a solution to the Cyprus problem. U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan has sponsored proximity talks between the President of Cyprus, Glafcos Clerides, and Rauf Denktash, the self-proclaimed leader of the occupied area. Unfortunately, those talks were suspended due to Denktash's abrupt departure from the negotiating table.

In January 2002, U.N.-sponsored direct negotiations between the Greek and Turkish sides finally resumed. Later that year, Secretary-General Annan presented a comprehensive new plan aimed at reunifying Cyprus. Unfortunately, unlike the Government of Cyprus, which promptly accepted the Annan Plan as a basis for negotiations, the Turkish side rejected the plan. Furthermore, the newly elected Cypriot President, Tassos Papadopoulos, accepted Annan's proposal to submit the U.N. proposal to a referendum. Denktash, however, rejected a referendum, thereby denying the people in the occupied areas a chance to determine their future.

Mr. Speaker, the United States has a national interest in fostering peace and stability in the eastern Mediterranean region. We as a nation cannot continue to pretend our NATO partner is not in clear violation of international law for its continued illegal occupation of its neighbor.

We in the United States pride ourselves for our respect for fundamental freedoms. Human rights norms are the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. The war on terrorism and our efforts to restore democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq are centered on those principles. As we lead international efforts to rout out terrorists and dictators that usurp fundamental principles of justice and human rights, we should remain committed to finding a just and durable settlement to the Cyprus problem. An important first step to that commitment is our strong opposition to Turkey's 29-year occupation of Cyprus.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I want to join the chairman and my colleague and friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) from the San Gabriel Valley in strong opposition to the Markey amendment.

I appreciate the colleague's interest in increasing funding for the Superfund program, and I share that desire, but this is most emphatically not the way. To divert $115 million in funds away from a critical NASA project, Prometheus, is not the way.

Project Prometheus and the exploration of the icy moons of Jupiter has been rated as top priority by the National Academy of Sciences. JPL has recently launched two Mars Rovers, aptly named Spirit and Opportunity, to land on the red planet and determine whether there was or has been water on that planet and help science unlock the geologic mysteries of our solar system.

This work in Project Prometheus is a bold, new venture and will revolutionize solar system exploration using nuclear power and propulsion. Project Prometheus will enable more robust and ambitious scientific missions by supporting more complex scientific instruments, enabling significantly larger and faster data communication networks and allowing a single spacecraft to visit multiple targets per mission.

Using nuclear power and propulsion systems will exponentially increase the amount of power available to spacecraft instruments and enable vastly greater amounts of scientific data to be returned to home, 120 CDs worth of data compared to one or two floppy disks of information today. It will allow much more time for scientific observation of the moons, 180 days, opposed to only 1 to 5 hours using conventional technology.

This project's spearheading the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter mission will be the first application of these new technologies for a flight mission. It will search for evidence of global, subsurface oceans on Jupiter's icy moons.

This is a top priority, and I urge rejection of this effort to rob Peter to pay Paul.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the DeFazio- Bradley amendment to strike the Mr. Recreational Fee Demonstration program from the Interior Appropriations bill. This program is punitive, unfair, and mismanaged.

The Recreation Fee Demonstration program allows the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service to charge citizens to recreate on public land, including primitive trails and unimproved campgrounds. I believe--as do many of my constituents who hike and picnic in the Angeles National Forest in Southern California--that it is patently unfair to charge them a fee to hike or picnic in these undeveloped public lands that they already support with their tax dollars.

The GAO has recently found evidence of serious mismanagement of the Recreation Fee program. Only 50 cents of every dollar collected is actually used to maintain or improve our public lands. This mismanagement is unacceptable, and we must not allow it to continue.

Let me be clear that I strongly support the National Park System, and users have already paid fees for use of National Parks, as well as developed campsites, boat launches, and other developed areas. Evidence shows that the National Park Service has a much more impressive track record in utilizing its program fees towards maintenance backlogs in national parks.

Nonetheless, we must not allow the Recreation Fee Demonstration program to continue without enhanced Congressional oversight. I urge my colleagues to support the DeFazio-Bradley amendment to strike this wasteful program.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases the nonproliferation and disarmament funds by $15 million, from $20 million to $35 million. The effect of this amendment, therefore, is to restore the full amount of the President's request for the nonproliferation and disarmament fund. Why should we do that? Why should we meet the President's request for funding of this account?

Perhaps the single greatest threat we face as a Nation is from terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction. It is why we went to war in Iraq. It is why we established the Department of Homeland Security, to address

this significant threat to American lives. And within the threat of terrorist possession of weapons of mass destruction, the greatest danger within that threat is the potential access of terrorists to nuclear material and the ability to create a nuclear weapon.

We will survive another biological attack like the anthrax attacks. We will survive chemical attacks. But a nuclear attack in this country, on our soil or against our troops around the world would fundamentally change this Nation. And around the world there are literally hundreds of facilities that have some kilos, others that have tons of plutonium or highly enriched uranium in an unsecured condition.

The technology of the atomic bomb is a half century old. It is not difficult to replicate. Obtaining the nuclear material is the terrorists' main obstacle and that challenge may be far too easily overcome.

Removing the weapons usable material from the most vulnerable facilities around the world is a national security imperative for this country. What are we waiting for? It is far easier to prevent the theft of nuclear material than to track down the thieves after the material is gone. Fifty million dollars for a global cleanout of this material would be sufficient for several years if we were maximally efficient; $35 million, the President's request, is barely adequate; $20, what we do today, is simply irresponsible.

The State Department has identified 24 top targeted sites of vulnerable stockpiles. If we look at our pace over the last decade, in August of 2002 in Project Vinca operation we removed 48 kilos of highly enriched uranium, enough to make one to three nuclear bombs from a vulnerable site in Yugoslavia.

To succeed we had to go hat in hand to a private organization, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, for $5 million. Project Sapphire some years before that airlifted 600 kilos of highly enriched uranium away from a vulnerable location in Kazakhstan.

We have had a total of three efforts like this in the last 10 years. At that pace our work will never be done. Our risks will be unacceptably high.

Meeting our national security needs in the post Cold War period means addressing the most immediate threats first and with adequate resources. Restoring the funds to the nonproliferation and disarmament account in an amount requested by the President is what this amendment would do. I ask for Members' support.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the chairman was prepared to offer this evening that he would work with me in conference.

Mr. Chairman, it is my intention.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me to try to improve the funding of this account in conference committee. The Senate, my understanding, has gone even beyond the President's request of $45 million. We are currently at $20 million, and I would hope that we would work together to meet the President's request of 35; and based on the Chairman's willingness to work together, I will move to withdraw my amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Schiff

Amendment No. 11: In the item relating to

``nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related

programs''--

(1) after the first dollar amount insert the following:

``(increased by $15,000,000)''; and

(2) after the second dollar amount insert the following:

``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

In the item relating to ``foreign military financing

program'', after the first dollar amount insert the

following: ``(reduced by $90,000,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of full and continued funding for the United Nations Population Fund, or UNFPA. Since beginning operations in 1969, the UNFPA has provided over $6 billion in vital maternal and child health programs to women in 150 countries around the world.

This makes the UNFPA the single largest global source of multilateral funding for maternal health and family planning programs. The United States' contribution alone to the UNFPA last year provided approximately 870,000 women in developing countries with modern contraception, thereby preventing 500,000 unwanted pregnancies, 200,000 abortions, and thousands of maternal and child deaths.

The programs supported by UNFPA are both timely and relevant. In the past eight months, UNFPA has delivered modern obstetric care to such locations as Kinshasa, in the

Democratic Republic of the Congo; Kabul, Afghanistan; and Baghdad, Iraq, helping to rebuild reproductive health services in the places where they are needed the most. Its campaigns to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS have reached five continents and more than 140 nations. It would be no exaggeration to say that the UNFPA has been on the cutting edge of health care delivery the world over.

These programs, so vital to families around the world, depend on the support of 136 donor countries, including the United States. By our continued support for UNFPA, we recognize the importance of global reproductive health services and ensure that the Population Fund will be able to continue delivering them.

Indeed, the costs of ending our support for UNFPA are staggering. The $34 million denied to UNFPA in 2002 would have prevented some two million unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, nearly 60,000 cases of maternal illness or disability, and 77,000 infant and child deaths.

The amendment offered in the House International Relations Committee by my colleague, Mr. Crowley, has made our support for these programs possible, while still maintaining the h1ghest standards for human rights, ensuring that each dollar provided to the UNFPA will be used for the promotion of the noble ends that it was created to serve. Any cuts or restrictions to UNFPA funding levels will only jeopardize the health and well-being of millions of women the world over.

Mr. Chairman, members of the House, I thank you for your time, and I urge my colleagues to oppose cutting amendments and resume our support for the UNFPA, which will continue--with our assistance--to deliver vital family planning and reproductive health services to families around the globe.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support today for this modest bipartisan amendment offered by Reps. Slaughter, Shays, Dicks, and Leach to increase funds for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

As a Member of the Congressional Arts Caucus, and a longtime supporter of the arts at the state level in California, I value the tremendous role arts funding and arts education programs play in the lives of our children and friends.

Several academic studies demonstrate the connection between music, dance, visual arts, and the development of the human brain. It is well known among researchers that arts education cultivates critical thinking skills that are so important in our information-age economy.

My congressional district was fortunate to receive NEA and NEH grants this year. Some of the recipients include:

Performing arts educational outreach programs at schools in my district combined with the assistance with one of the region's most respected theaters; A program to support the Chinese Community Initiative in arts education; Artist-in-residence programs in elementary schools to encourage student and teacher involvement; A program in my district that incorporates traditional music and dance from diverse cultures to improve student relations, coordination and memory; and an amateur chamber orchestra, and a symphony association program to bolster musical knowledge and skills for ethnically diverse student population.

As a parent of two young children, I am particularly interested in the most recent research. Children who learn to read music or play an instrument show improved proficiency in math and science. To further proficiency in history, I was proud to join a letter of support to House Appropriators last month that would increase funding to the NEH budget for its We the People Initiative, which is designed to boost American knowledge and appreciation for our history, culture and civic traditions.

This increase of $15 million under the Interior Appropriations for the NEA and NEH will go to fund so many rich programs offered and so many opportunities for us all.

Last year, an economic study conducted by Americans for the Arts found that America's nonprofit arts industry generates $134 billion in annual economic activity. This number includes full time jobs, household income and local, state and federal tax revenue. This study includes more than $80 billion in event-related spending by audiences. This is additional clear evidence that opportunities funded through NEA and NEH continue to bring us to new levels in our economy, culture, language, music, art and life.

I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment and commend our bipartisan colleagues who are leading the fight on this critical issue.

By supporting the arts and the humanities, the Federal Government has the ability to partner with state and local efforts to bolster the arts and educational opportunities in our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special recognition to Ms. Julie M. Austin. On July 30, 2003, the Foothill Transit Executive Board will wish a fond farewell to Ms. Austin, who is leaving her position as Executive Director of Foothill Transit and Vice President of Transit Management for ATC/Forsythe & Associates, Inc., a post she has held since 1997.

As Executive Director, Ms. Austin has overall responsibility for implementing Executive Board policies, developing policy recommendations and providing leadership and vision for the nationally recognized Foothill Transit. Foothill Transit was created in 1988, in one of the largest public-private transit partnerships in the United States, and has delivered cost-effective, safe and efficient bus service to commuters and residents in the San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys, located in the eastern portion of Los Angeles County in southern California. Foothill Transit now operates on 32 routes with nearly 300 buses and almost 17 million annual boardings, a marked increase from the 9.5 million boardings at the time of the creation of the transit agency.

The American Public Transportation Association recognized Foothill Transit in 2001 with a ``Bus Safety Gold Award,'' dubbing Foothill the safest transit agency of its size. Foothill was also named ``Outstanding Transit System'' of its size by APTA in 1993 and 1995. The National Safety Council, Greater Los Angeles Chapter, recognized Foothill Transit in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 2001 with first-place awards for its safety programs.

Ms. Austin played a leadership role in the accomplishments of Foothill Transit, both as Executive Director and as Deputy Executive Director from 1995 to 1997. She also contributed to the success of public transit in Los Angeles County as Director of Management Support from 1993 to 1995 at the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and as Senior Transit Analyst/Manager of Transportation Policy from 1989 to 1993 at the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, where she oversaw a three-year evaluation of the Foothill Transit Zone. She also worked for the Southern California Association of Governments for three years and spent several years as a transportation consultant.

A resident of the City of Monrovia, California, Ms. Austin has a bachelor's degree in journalism from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. She is active in the American Public Transit Association (Legislative Committee), California Transit Association (Executive Committee), San Gabriel Valley Commerce and Cities Consortium Board, Women's Transportation Seminar, San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Transit Committee, and West Covina Chamber of Commerce.

I ask all Members of Congress to join me today in honoring this truly remarkable leader in the field of public transit in our region, in thanking for her efforts and in wishing her the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I am proud to join my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), as well as our other colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), as Chairs of the Democratic Study Group on National Security.

Mr. Speaker, we founded this group to advance principles and policies of national security which will strengthen America. We have been meeting with nations, top national security experts, and we have been taking to the House floor to respond to world events. We will also be introducing legislative matters to improve our safety here and around the world. I hope to address one of those tonight, that of the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

But, first, I would like to articulate 10 principles of national security which I believe unite those that have come to associate themselves with the Democratic Study Group on National Security.

First, our soldiers. We support our men and women in uniform, our soldiers, our sailors, our marines, our airmen and -women, our veterans, our reservists, our National Guard, completely and unequivocally. Our soldiers are the foundation of our Nation's security.

Second, military strength. We believe that America's military strength is superior in every respect, and we are committed to making sure it remains that way. The supremacy of America's military capability is the cornerstone of our security.

Number three, military transformation. We believe that America's military must be transformed to one that is more versatile, more agile, more capable of responding to multiple crises in far-away places and even more technologically powerful.

Number four, troop levels. We believe America's Armed Forces must not be overextended; that our reserves must not be stretched too thin; that the number of our troops must reflect the number of our military commitments we are likely to face and the severity of those commitments. We must either reduce the number of our commitments or increase the number of our troops. As General Shinseki recently said, ``Beware the 12-division strategy for a 10-division army.''

Number five, intelligence. We believe that in the war on terrorism, top-quality human and technological sources of intelligence are essential and that the reporting of intelligence must be accurate, timely, and properly weighted. The assimilation of that intelligence will be essential if we are to avoid another September 11.

Six, vision. We believe that America cannot make itself secure by virtue of its military power alone; that moral authority, integrity, generosity, and vision are vital to our peace and prosperity. An America that inspires hope in its ideals must complement an America that inspires awe in its strength. We are a more secure America when we rally the world to our side in a great cause.

Seven, democracy. We believe that the best hope for a secure America rests in the propagation of democracy around the world and that every instrument of American influence, diplomatic, military and economic, should advance the cause of democracy abroad. Democracies are poor breeding grounds for terrorism and war.

Eight, civil rights. We believe that America must be confident in its strength, vigilant in the defense of the homeland, supportive of police and firefighters on the front line, and jealously protective of the rights of all Americans. We will not let terrorists change our way of life, we will not live in fear, and we will not undermine the civil rights which characterize our democracy.

Nine, commerce. We believe that the free and fair flow of goods and commerce has the capability of lifting countries out of the despair of poverty and that we must act resolutely to eradicate the economic deprivation which allows the germ of terrorism to spread. Americans are blessed with great plenty. We are a generous people, and we have a moral obligation to assist those who are suffering from poverty, disease, war, and famine.

Finally, number ten, world community. We believe that America lives in

an interdependent world, made smaller by travel, technology, and the demands of a burgeoning population. America has a critical role to play as the most powerful member of the world community. And in this community, as in all others, the golden rule still applies: we must act toward other nations as we would have them act towards America.

Tonight, let me address very quickly, in the remaining time that I have, one of these 10 commandments of national security, and that is sound intelligence.

I believe we ought to have an independent commission investigate the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. I supported the authorization of force, as did many of my colleagues, in a bipartisan manner, on the basis of intelligence that showed that Iraq possessed chemical, biological, and nuclear programs. We must determine whether that intelligence was accurate. We must determine whether that intelligence was weighted properly. We must determine whether that intelligence was presented to this Congress and the American people in an accurate manner.

This is essential, number one, because this Congress made the most important determination it can make, and that is the determination authorizing the use of force on the basis of that intelligence; and, number two, if we are to avoid another September 11, we must ensure we have a sound intelligence process. And, finally, our standing in the world, the willingness of other nations to cooperate with America in the future will be dependent on how we resolve this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me this

time. I wish to speak today on three amendments before the Committee on Rules, two of which were approved for the debate today and one which was not. I want to thank the Chair of the Committee on Rules for his work in supporting an amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) that would urge reconsideration of Mexico's extradition policy which currently precludes the extradition of Mexican nationals to face charges in the United States that may carry life imprisonment or the death penalty.

The addition by the Mexico Supreme Court of the life imprisonment clause fundamentally means that, for the most serious crimes in the United States, we are unable to extradite those who flee south of the border to seek refuge. That is not in our interest. It is certainly not in the interest of the people of Mexico to have fugitives from justice free south of our border.

Second, I want to thank the committee for their approval of an amendment that I offered calling attention to the problem that we have had in our nonproliferation efforts to obtain the assistance of Russian scientists, to bring Russian scientists into the United States for the purpose of improving our nonproliferation joint efforts. These have met obstacles, in part understandable as a result of September 11, but we cannot allow the September 11 visa changes to get in the way of our broad security interests by bringing these scientists in who are working on nonproliferation itself.

But most significantly, I want to comment about the one that got away and that was an amendment that I had offered calling for an investigation into the claim that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Niger, the claim that made it into the State of the Union address. There is a request on the Senate side, it is a bipartisan request, that the Inspector General of the CIA and the Inspector General of the State Department work together on an independent investigation of how that claim rose to the level of the State of the Union, now something the White House says was not substantiated and did not belong in that address.

This is, I think, critical for three reasons. First, the Congress made the most important decision it can undertake, the decision to authorize the use of force on the basis of our intelligence. Second, in the ongoing war on terrorism, it is essential that we have good intelligence if we are to prevent another September 11. If we have a problem with our intelligence agencies, we have got to find out about it and now. Finally, our standing, our credibility around the world, the willingness of other nations to cooperate with the U.S. in the war on terrorism will be dependent on whether they feel they can rely on what we represent to them about our intelligence and the quality of our intelligence.

As this is perhaps the most graphic example of intelligence gone awry, it is something that merits our most serious investigation and attention. I recognize that the intelligence committees in the Senate and the House are working on this issue, and they are doing good work. However, as the Senate concluded on a bipartisan basis, this investigation by the two IGs does not detract from what the Senate committee or the House committees are undertaking, but in fact supplies that information to both committees. This is complementary to the work that is already going on and I think it is essential.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, when the House adopted and the President signed the most recent tax cuts, at a time when we are at war and in deficit, we knew the other shoe had to drop soon. And it has, Mr. Speaker, with a great thud, in the form of this year's Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2004 (H.R. 2660). The House Leadership has followed the passage of these irresponsible tax cuts with an appropriations bill which underfunds a host of important programs and initiatives while breaking many of the pledges the Leadership made when the House adopted the FY04 Budget Resolution.

We cannot extol the virtues of programs like Head Start and organizations like National Institutes of Health while adopting legislation which threatens their very existence. These actions abandon this Congress' responsibility to provide resources necessary to improve schools, protect public health, provide for America's seniors and disabled, expand opportunities to higher education, and seek cures for diseases that threaten the health of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, we are starving our nation's most valuable programs. Last year alone, Head Start provided over 900,000 children with comprehensive early childhood education. But it is estimated that current funding levels leave behind over 40 percent of eligible children. This year I joined with Representative Loretta Sanchez in spearheading a letter signed by ninety of our House Colleagues calling on the House Appropriations Committee to increase funding to the Head Start Program by $1 billion which would result in the enrollment of 87,000 additional children.

I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that Head Start is an extremely popular and effective program. In a 1999 study released by the President's Management Council indexing public support for and belief in government programs, Head Start rated a 94 percent, tops among all government programs. Moreover, studies have shown that the economic benefits of Head Start far exceed their costs, with one study showing that for every $1 spent by taxpayers, they received $7 in future benefits.

Yet, in the face of this data, with the passage of this legislation, we will close the door of the Head Start program to tens of thousands of deserving children and their families. This substandard funding increase means we will continue to leave nearly 40 percent of eligible children behind and severely undermine local Head Start organization' ability to provide training and technical assistance to teachers and parents.

But this bill will not only leave Head Start children behind. It will also shatter the promises Congress made to America's school children when it adopted the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This legislation falls $8 billion short of fully funding No Child Left Behind and continues this Congress' deplorable record of underfunding IDEA.

Students seeking higher education fair no better under this bill. In 1975, when the Pell Grant program was instituted, it financed approximately 84 percent of the cost of attending a 4-year public college. Today, that number is down to 40 percent. Under this bill that number will drop to approximately 38 percent. In my own Southern California district, higher education costs have increased with California's growing budget deficit forcing public universities to substantially raise tuition costs. This same scenario is being played our across our nation and a continued shortage of grant assistance threatens the higher education aspirations of millions of young people.

By adopting this legislation we will effectively shift a greater burden of college costs to students and working families and will undoubtedly ensure that too many of our children either leave college with overwhelming debt or are shut out of higher education all together.

But state budget crises do not only affect education costs, they also endanger the health care safety net which millions of Americans have come to depend on for needed health care services. And yet, under this legislation, struggling community health centers, which provide primary care services to low-income Americans, find no relief.

In Los Angeles County alone, over 30 community clinics have been forced to shut their doors. Under this legislation these clinics and those that find themselves on the brink of closure will be provided no relief because any funding appropriated to community health centers will be used to expand health center sites where they have not existed in the past. At this bill's funding level, the lowest since 1998, we are forced to choose between scaling back our expansion initiative or underfunding existing centers. This is simply an untenable solution to a growing health care crisis that affects low-income Americans.

Finally, H.R. 2660 abandons this Congress' commitment to double the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget thereby stifling improvements in science and medical research. This legislation increase NIH funding by 2.5 percent, an increase that according to NIH is not even enough to keep up with inflation in research costs. In comparison, over the last five years, Congress has adopted annual increase of 15 percent.

A funding increase which only allows NIH to introduce 21 additional research grants will not allow this agency to continue to provide our nation with the cutting edge research which we have come to expect.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is inadequate. I urge my colleagues to oppose it and work to adopt legislation which adequately funds America's priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I intended to offer an amendment to the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act that would allow Members to use their representational allowances to promote, sponsor and conduct congressional science competitions among high school students in their district. The very popular Congressional Arts Competition, which allows Members to sanction art competitions within their districts, has been successfully conducted for over 20 years. This competition helps to encourage young people to pursue their artistic education and ambitions and promotes the idea that art should be an integral part of our lives; yet no such congressional competition exists to reward the achievements of young scientists, as I learned last year when I had hoped to conduct such a competition in my district which is, I am proud to say, the home of Cal Tech and JPL and some of the finest scientists on the Earth. House rules prohibit any Member from conducting any competitions except for the Congressional Arts Competition.

Science is integral to our society and to our American spirit of ingenuity and innovation. Science fuels our technological entrepreneurship and has been the basis for remarkable technological advances in the span of only a few decades, including space exploration, biotechnology and medical advances to seek cures to human disease and afflictions, and tremendous gains in computing power, telecommunications, and information management.

As Members of Congress, we must do our part to advance scientific knowledge and scientific explanation as core values of our society. One important way we can engender a sense of excitement about scientific inquiries is to reward the achievements of young scientists by allowing Members to conduct congressional scientific competitions in each of our 435 districts. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue at the earliest possible opportunity.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I agree with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston). The intention is not to seek any additional appropriations, but rather to allow Members to use their existing allowances to host, if they choose, science competitions in their districts.

I think we have seen the dramatic success of the arts competition in stimulating interest in the arts. This would be a way of heightening the awareness of the importance of science in our lives and getting young people engaged. We need more scientists in this country, and this is a good way to tap into that young talent.

I can tell my colleague had a greater head start than I did. I think my science project when I was in school consisted of how to drop an egg from a light tower in a contraption that would not allow the egg to break, which is a little less sophisticated than counting the number of protozoa in a pond. Nonetheless, there are great opportunities for us to reach into our districts, tap into that talent and cultivate the future scientists that will lead this Nation forward. I look forward to working with the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

I am proud to be a consponsor of this legislation to award Mr. Blair with the Congressional Gold Medal. I would like to recognize Mr. Blair's--and Britain's--longstanding staunch support of our nation's democratic ideals.

Whether one supported or opposed the war in Iraq, it is true that under Blair's leadership, Britain has provided extensive military support in the war in Iraq. He has argued passionately and consistently about the threats Saddam Hussein posed in the Persian Gulf and ultimately to the Western world. Honoring Prime Minister Blair with the Congressional Gold Medal would be a fitting tribute to him, the people of Great Britain, and the thousands of British troops who fought valiantly alongside American soldiers in Iraq. We now have a historic opportunity to reaffirm our Nation's friendship with Great Britain, and our mutual commitment to freedom and democracy.

I hope that the occasion of Mr. Blair being awarded the Congressional Gold Medal will be an opportunity to invite Mr. Blair to address a joint session of Congress. I have worked with my colleague Mr. Royce to encourage our Congressional leaders to invite Mr. Blair to do so, and I can think of no occasion more fitting. In light of Mr. Blair's enduring friendship with the United States, I look forward to hearing his views on the future of Iraq and the Middle East.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the Markey amendment, and that issue is the glaring hole that remains in our airline security. It is a shocking realization for most Americans to learn that almost fully half of the cargo that is in the hold of an air passenger plane when they get on a plane to go on vacation or work travel, that almost half of that cargo is commercial cargo that is

never screened by anyone for explosives.

That is a massive failure in our airline security. Some months ago I introduced the Airline Cargo Security Act modeled after legislation by Senators Feinstein and Hutchison which would require the TSA to adopt comprehensive measures to inspect airline cargo. It gives the TSA flexibility to use a variety of different methods to accomplish this, from new technologies to blast-proof containers, to a database of known shippers; but it requires that the job get done. The airline industry is hanging by a slender thread. Terrorists do not have to hijack our airplanes any more to wreak chaos on this industry and wreak devastation on this country and our economy. They just have to blow a plane out of the sky. Given the fact that so much of the cargo is not screened for anything, this is tragically too easy to accomplish. This has to change. This has to change.

It is hard to overstate the significance and the disparity of this security problem. All of us have had the experience of going through the airport now and having to take our belt and shoes off and remove the toenail clippers from our carry-on luggage, but imagine the fact that in the hold of that plane are huge containers which have not been inspected by anyone. And when we consider the security lapses in shipping that cargo, the opportunities when that freight is forwarded to include explosive or other dangerous materials in that cargo, it is extraordinary.

Indeed, I think most Americans would find it baffling that we go through these personally intrusive measures when we go to the airport, but our cargo goes through nothing. We cannot fight the last battle; we cannot simply predict that terrorists are going to use the same technique they used before. We have to be forward-thinking and recognize that there are wholesale gaps in what we are doing to protect the American people. I applaud my colleague for raising this issue in this legislation. I want to urge my colleagues both here today and in the future to address the issue of cargo security. Let us not wait for a tragedy to awaken us to this problem.