Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. Con. Res. 79, which expresses the sense of Congress that no U.S. assistance should be provided directly to the Palestinian Authority if any representative political party holding a majority of parliamentary seats within the Palestinian Authority maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel.

On January 25, Hamas won a majority of the seats in the Palestinian Authority parliamentary elections. Their charter calls for the ``obliteration'' of Israel and states that they can achieve their objectives only through violence. They have rejected the ``two-state'' solution and Road Map peace process. They continue to call for a Palestinian State which includes and ultimately subsumes the sovereign territory of Israel.

Mr. Speaker, this House has already gone on record on the issue of assistance to the Palestinian Government should Hamas become part of the government. On December 14, 2005, the House passed H. Res. 575, which I cosponsored, which in part calls upon the United States to reassess its financial assistance to, and its diplomatic relations with, the Palestinians should Hamas join the government.

I am pleased that the Quartet issued a statement on January 30, 2006, which ``concluded that it was inevitable that future assistance to any new government would be reviewed by donors against that government's commitment to the principles of nonviolence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including the Roadmap.''

I also agree with the Quartet that the Palestinian Authority must move quickly to ensure law and order, prevent terrorist attacks, and dismantle the infrastructure of terror. Finally, the new government must also take concrete steps to establish the rule of law, tolerance, reform and sound fiscal management in the Palestinian territories.

The foundation of the Road Map peace process hinges on Palestinian recognition of the right of Israel to exist and a pledge by the Palestinians to end violence and terrorism. Just as the United States will not negotiate with terrorists, neither will Israel. We cannot allow American taxpayer dollars to fall into the hands of terrorists who have no intention of renouncing violence.

I therefore urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, let me urge my colleagues to support this motion and point out that this motion makes it clear that if we work together, Democrats and Republicans, that we can get through a reconciliation bill that deals with expiring tax provisions that need to be dealt with, including the R&D tax credit and other provisions, but we need to do this in a financially responsible way. You cannot extend all of these tax provisions and fix the alternative minimum tax and not worry about the impact it is going to have on the Federal deficit. And I think that is a point Mr. Neal and others on this side of the aisle have been making. We are talking about trying to reduce the Federal deficit. The first thing you do is stop getting greater and deeper in debt.

So last week we cut programs for our students. We cut programs in health care. We cut programs for those who are the most vulnerable, and we said we were doing it to help reduce the deficit. But, no, we are using every dollar of those dollars for tax cuts. That is not what we should be doing.

We have lots of unmet needs, including rebuilding from Katrina and dealing with the financing of No Child Left Behind. So we have unmet needs. You cannot have these large tax cuts and try to deal with the unmet needs without further increasing the Federal deficit, and that is what this motion is about. This motion is about, yes, there are areas we need to move forward in the Tax Code, and, yes, there are additional investments that need to be made; but if we do it in a reasonable manner, we can reduce the Federal deficit.

Without us paying attention to what is in this motion, we are going to be digging a deeper hole and making it more difficult for us to get out. So I just urge my colleagues to support this motion, but more importantly, support action in this body that will bring us together and not have extensions of tax cuts that are going to make it more difficult for us to balance the budget. Support the motion.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to congratulate Howard Friedman on becoming the new President of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC. Howard Friedman is one of the most dedicated and talented individuals I know, and AIPAC will be in good hands under his leadership.

Howard is a resident of Baltimore. He also is the Managing Partner of Lanx Capital, a hedge fund advisory firm, and is the co-founder and Vice Chairman of Circa Group, an investment group. In addition to his success in the business world, Howard has a longstanding commitment to Jewish communal affairs. He has served as the Campaign Chairman of the Associated Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore and as President of the Baltimore Jewish Council. He also serves on numerous boards, including 1st Mariner Bank, AIPAC and Sinai Hospital.

In assuming the helm of AIPAC, Howard knows these are difficult times for Israel and the peace process. But he also knows that Israel is an island of democracy and freedom in a sea of totalitarian, repressive regimes. As the President of AIPAC, Howard will work to continue to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship. Israel is the only Western democracy in the Middle East and it's vital that our bond remains unshakable.

The enemies of Israel are strong, and AIPAC is an important ally in combating those who seek the destruction of Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to congratulate Howard Friedman on his new role as President of AIPAC, and affirm our support for the State of Israel.

Mr. Speaker, ``Struggle is a never ending process. Freedom is never really won--you earn it and win it in every generation.''--Coretta Scott King

Coretta Scott King not only spoke those words, she lived them. Today, America mourns her passing at age 78, and we celebrate her remarkable life.

So many images of Mrs. King's life are etched on the American canvas, and we recall them on this day.

Her exuberance as she marched alongside Dr. King, John Lewis, Ralph Abernathy, and Andrew Young through the 1950's and 1960's South, blazing new paths of hope for the disenfranchised.

Her joy as she called upon her New England Conservatory of Music training to organize Freedom Concerts across the country raising money for the movement.

Her grace in the depths of sorrow as she comforted her four young children at Dr. King's funeral in 1968.

Her steadfast commitment to justice as she opened the King Center for Nonviolent Social Change in Atlanta in 1969 and continued to speak out against injustice everywhere.

And her beaming smile as she watched President Reagan sign into law the 1983 bill establishing the third Monday in January as a Federal holiday honoring her husband.

What would have shattered many others instead became a source of strength for Mrs. King. Throughout the nearly 4 decades that followed Dr. King's assassination, this daughter of the segregated South continued to carry the mantle of nonviolent social change, addressing students and activists, writing books,

and inspiring new generations to continue the struggle. America is a better place because of Coretta Scott King's life.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Marty, Dexter, Yolanda, and Bernice, who following in the steps of their legendary parents, have dedicated their lives to achieving equality through peace.

Mr. Speaker, since President Bush took office in 2001 I have voted to support every annual defense authorization and appropriations bill that has come before this House. Congress has an obligation to act responsibly in providing necessary resources to the troops to carry out the missions authorized by their government. Our troops are under a tremendous strain in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the global war on terrorism. They have performed admirably, made enormous sacrifices on behalf of their country, and have served longer deployments than expected. Congress also should act responsibly to provide adequate housing and benefits to military families, and to ensure that our veterans returning home to the United States receive the best medical care available.

I am therefore outraged, Mr. Speaker, that the House leadership has played politics with this bill in a time of war--a bill that is more than two months overdue--and has added extraneous provisions to this bill that have nothing to do with military spending, the war on terrorism, or the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House leadership is shamefully using this military spending bill as a shield for offensive provisions that could never pass in the light of day, such as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and more than $8 billion in across-the-board spending cuts, including a $4 billion cut in defense spending, along with cuts in homeland security, education and health care.

In this breakdown of the democratic process, after midnight we were given a few hours to review a 465-page bill. Members cannot possibly have a clear picture of what they are voting on in these circumstances, and we must read about what is really in this bill in the newspapers later this week.

One extraneous provision that was slipped into this military spending bill is a provision authorizing oil and gas drilling in Alaska. I have consistently voted against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We must establish a comprehensive energy policy that will not only help consumers in the short term, but also strengthen our nation's long term energy supply while simultaneously protecting our environment. The stated rationale for drilling in ANWR is achieving the admirable goal of American energy independence, but the oil reserves that may lie beneath ANWR would last a relatively short time based on current levels of energy consumption. There are also far more effective ways to achieve energy independence, through conservation and use of alternative energy sources. In the long run, gaining the oil that may lie below ANWR simply does not warrant the permanent environmental destruction and pollution that drilling would bring to this area.

This legislation also contains an unacceptable one percent across- the-board cut for most non-defense discretionary spending. Because of the billions of dollars in tax cuts contained in earlier budget reconciliation legislation, these budget cuts will not even pay down the deficit or cover the costs of rebuilding in the aftermath of Katrina. Instead, this bill will make unconscionable cuts in critical domestic services, in a bill that is supposed to provide funding for our military in a time of war.

These one percent cuts will have real impact: for example, with an additional one percent across-the-board cut, No Child Left Behind funding will be cut by $1 billion this year.

This bill cuts funding for the FBI by $57 million, at a time when we need to make additional investments in homeland security. Homeland security programs face a $300 million cut from this bill.

In a winter when home heating costs are projected to soar by 44 percent for natural gas and 24 percent for home heating oil, this bill will cut vital LIHEAP funding by $21 million. The House also rejected an effort to add $2 billion in additional funds for LIHEAP.

While 7.6 million Americans are out of work, this bill will bring the total cuts to adult and youth job training and help for dislocated workers to $529 million, affecting 2 million Americans who would lose critical adult and youth job training, as well as assistance for dislocated workers.

This legislation also omits critical funds needed to meet America's commitment to protect human rights. I am disappointed that this legislation does not contain, as I have requested to the President in a letter last week, $50 million for the African Union (AU) peacekeepers that are trying to stop the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of the Sudan. The United States has committed to provide these funds but has yet to provide them.

I therefore cannot support this legislation.

By way of contrast, Mr. Speaker, I will support H.R. 1815, the Defense Authorization bill for FY '06. I commend Armed Services Committee Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for working on a bipartisan basis to produce this' legislation. This legislation provides an average 3.1 percent pay increase for military personnel, and funds certain special pay and bonuses for reserve personnel. This bill also reduces the pay gap between the military and private sector, increases payments to survivors of deceased military personnel to $100,000 from $12,000, and further increases military health care (TRICARE) coverage for reservists and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the so-called Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Let's be clear about this: the majority is moving this bill to make way for tax cuts in the order of $106 billion over five years. To make room for those tax cuts, we have to cut programs that help middle-income and low-income Americans. That's correct: this morning, we are cutting nearly $40 billion over five years from important domestic initiatives. The net result will be a double-whammy on most Americans: an increased deficit that will fall on the shoulders of every man, woman and child and painful cuts to our neediest citizens. Let's take a closer look at who is targeted by this misguided legislation. First, college students. The conference report cuts $12.7 billion to student loan programs. Students will have to pay higher fees for their loans, parents will have to pay higher interest rates. The barriers to higher education just got higher.

Next, America's farmers. This bill cuts important farm conservation programs by $934 million. It cuts the Conservation Security Program by $649 million, it zeroes out the Watershed Rehabilitation Program; and it cuts the Environmental Quality Incentives Programs by $75 million.

Next are America's uninsured families. Even though the number of uninsured Americans at an all-time high of 45 million, this Congress has decided to decimate their safety net, the Medicaid program.

The conference report increases Medicaid cost sharing and will make it far more difficult for families to get the care they need. The Senate-passed bill had not included any provisions cutting health care benefits or increasing families costs to see their doctor. In addition, under this bill, States may provide any child, without regard to income, with a lesser benefits package than they have today. States may supplement this reduced level of coverage with additional benefits if they choose, but the requirement for a basic level of care is eliminated by this bill. As a result, low income children are no longer guaranteed vision screenings, therapy services, medical equipment, or other key benefits. From now on, States may offer a choice of coverage to beneficiaries between a ``benchmark'' package or a so-called Health Opportunity Account, eliminating any requirement that individuals are covered for needed benefits. This bill sharply increases cost sharing for prescription drugs and would allow States to charge up to 20 percent of the cost of each medication. Medicaid beneficiaries who take many drugs will have to forgo some needed medicines. It also lifts limits on emergency room copayments for all but the poorest beneficiaries.

Last but not least are our seniors and persons with disabilities who rely on Medicare. It has been 8 years since the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, a bill that Republicans said would ``slow the rate of Medicare growth'' by $130 billion, but in truth slashed more than $260 billion hurting nursing homes, home health agencies, hospitals, doctors, and most importantly, beneficiaries. Two years after BBA's enactment, Congress began passing a series of ``fix'' bills to repair the unanticipated damage from several provisions; to this day, some of the more egregious mistakes, such as outpatient therapy caps and the flawed ``sustainable growth rate'' formula for the physician fee schedule have still not been fixed. That is why it is so disappointing as we review this bill to see that Congress has not learned its lesson. Today, with the needs of children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities even greater than in 1997, the 109th Congress is back with a bill that ignores the urgent needs of those who care for Medicare beneficiaries and fails to address serious problems with a Medicare drug plan that has befuddled and frustrated millions of seniors and their loved ones.

I am deeply disappointed that the House did not even try to address needed reforms in Medicare. Now we are looking at $8 billion in Medicare cuts that were not considered in the Ways and Means or the Energy and Commerce Committees. We now have a band-aid physician payment fix; unjustifiable arbitrary caps on rehabilitation therapy services, no improvement in payments for lifesaving cancer screenings, higher Medicare Part B premiums for many seniors, no reduction in the unnecessary ``stabilization fund'' for Medicare HMOs. This was a flawed process and it led to an even more deeply flawed bill. I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report and return in the new year to consider real improvements to these vital programs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the fiscal year 2006 Labor-Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations Conference Report. I was dismayed to hear my friend, the Chairman of the Subcommittee, state that this bill ``more than any other, illustrates the compassion of the American people.'' But the American people did not produce this bill, and, judging from the hundreds of calls and letters to my office, they do not support its provisions.

Across the board, in nearly every area of importance to American families, our citizens are shortchanged by this bill. The Labor-HHS- Education bill is often the most contentious appropriations measure to move through Congress. This is because the programs it funds affect the health, the quality of life, indeed the future of every American. This year, the original version of the conference report was deemed so harmful that it was rejected once already on November 17. Today, the authors of this bill have returned it to the floor with a few cosmetic changes designed only to secure enough votes to squeak the bill through. But this so-called ``new and improved version'' will be no less objectionable to the sensibilities of the American people and certainly no less harmful to American families.

This legislation sends a clear message to the American people: for educational opportunity, for food assistance to elderly Americans, for help with heating bills next winter, for access to quality health care, for advances in medical research: do not look to this Congress for help.

The majority says it cares about families, about better education, about improved health care, about a productive workforce, about economic opportunity. But it has produced a bill that cuts the bootstraps of middle class families trying to stay afloat and aspiring families who are reaching for the American dream.

Overall, this bill cuts $1.5 billion from last year's funding levels. Let us examine what effect these cuts will have on our Nation.

A strong and productive workforce is key to our Nation's future. According to the Department of Labor, nearly 8 million Americans and 120,000 Marylanders are unemployed. But this Congress is poised to slash more than $400 million from job training and employment services funding.

It will also cut State unemployment insurance and employment service offices by $245 million, and assistance for approximately 1.9 million people will be jeopardized.

This bill also cuts by $250 million the Community College Initiative, which is President Bush's initiative to help community colleges train prospective workers for high-skill jobs. The conference report cuts funding for that effort by $125 million and rescinds $125 million from fiscal year 2005 funds.

A healthy America is key to our Nation's future. We have more than 45 million Americans without health insurance. Many of them rely on networks of community health centers to receive much needed care. I was encouraged by the President's initiative to increase the number of community health centers around the country, but the conference report provides $238 million less than the President's request. The Republican leadership supports this conference report, despite the fact that this House passed in July a resolution stating that community health centers are ``vital to the nation's communities.'' Surely, the dedicated workers at our health centers will find the words of that resolution hollow if this conference report is passed. This conference report cuts health care access for underserved areas of the country. It eliminates the community access program, which provides lifesaving and life- enhancing health care to many regions that lack a sufficient number of health care facilities.

This bill cuts title VII health professions programs by 69 percent and it eradicates several programs entirely. This is particularly outrageous coming from a Congress that claims to want to end health disparities. Johns Hopkins Institutions in my home town of Baltimore receive more than $2.5 million in funding for title VII grants. These programs serve different spheres of the health care system, from the Schools of Nursing, Public Health and Medicine. All of this funding is jeopardized by the bill before us today.

The National Institutes of Health is headquartered in my home State of Maryland. Over the past year, I have met with dozens of representatives from patient groups. They are aware that the President's budget for fiscal year 2006 proposed the smallest increase for NIH in 36 years. The paltry increase in this bill does not even keep pace with inflation. What does it mean in real terms? Not only will we not be able to increase our efforts to fight diabetes, HIV/ AIDS, cancer, brain injury, Alzheimer's and other pernicious diseases, we will actually see a reduction in the number of grants and the number of research projects funded by NIH.

Improvements in education are key to our Nation's future. This Congress speaks often about the need to hold our schools accountable, yet this conference takes away the funding our school districts need to improve students' achievement levels.

Title I funding for low-income children are given a 0.8 percent increase--the smallest increase in 8 years, and only a fraction of the increase requested by the President. Special education grants receive a 0.9 percent increase--the smallest increase in 10 years.

We talk a lot about the need to increase education technology, yet this conference report cuts that funding by nearly half. We speak of the need to protect our children from violence and illegal drugs, but this bill cuts Safe and Drug-Free Schools by one-fifth, and provides no increase for after-school programs for the fourth consecutive year.

Everyone in this House can agree that the cost of higher education is soaring, but this conference report fails to provide any increase whatsoever for Pell grants, without which so many college students could not continue their education. President Bush proposed a $100 increase, the House passed a $50 increase, but the conferees did not even provide that. Instead, they froze the maximum Pell grant amount at $4,050 for the fourth consecutive year.

Finally, our goodness as a nation is measured by how we treat the most vulnerable Americans. If we are to truly be a great nation, we must care for those who are less able to care for themselves. It is disappointing that this conference report slashes funding for the Social Security Administration, which is entrusted with processing disability claims for millions of Americans. In my district, the Third Congressional District of Maryland, I represent many employees of the Social Security Administration. They are hardworking, dedicated staffers, but they can only do so much without adequate funding for personnel and technological support. In the Ways and Means Committee, we have had several hearings about the backlogs of cases at SSA, and Commissioner Barnhart has sought congressional assistance in bringing her processing systems up to date. Unfortunately, this bill will not make SSA employees' jobs any easier nor will it help reduce the backlog of pending cases. In fact, the backlogs will get worse. The House failed to provide the President's request, it provides even less than the House- or Senate-passed bills.

Some of my colleagues have defended these cuts as necessary to restore fiscal discipline to our budget. When combined with a planned 1 percent across-the-board cut, this bill will save approximately $3 billion over last year's spending, and $15 billion over the next 5 years. But at the same time, the congressional leadership is advancing an agenda of tax cuts that exceed $70 billion. They are asking us to believe that it is necessary to eliminate programs and inflict pain on American families, but they are doing this not to balance the budget, but to make room for tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, when this House defeated the Labor-HHS bill prior to the Thanksgiving recess, it was because a majority of this House believed that it would jeopardize vital services for millions of Americans. The revisions in today's conference report are minimal and keep us on the same track toward wiping out key safety net programs. Therefore, I rise again in opposition to this conference report and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Lantos for yielding me this time to express what I think just about every speaker has said; that part of this resolution I support, and every Member of this body supports congratulating the Iraqis on the election. It was a critical step in developing democratic institutions in that government in its capacity to deal with its own problems. And we certainly all express our appreciation to our soldiers and their families for the sacrifices that they have made.

However, this resolution endorses the policy of this administration which got us into the war in Iraq and has prolonged our presence because of its current policy and unwillingness to change policy, and that I cannot support.

So what should we be doing? I think Mr. Lantos is 100 percent right. We should be having an open debate on this issue. Our soldiers deserve that. The American people deserve that. We should be expressing that our objective in Iraq is to make sure that the Iraqis are capable of defending themselves.

In order to accomplish that, we should be engaging international organizations that are better suited than we in helping to develop democratic institutions in Iraq and in training Iraqi soldiers and security forces so that 2006 can be a year for a substantial number of our troops coming home.

It is our responsibility to ask our President to submit such a plan to Congress and to the American people so that we can accomplish these objectives. Unfortunately, this resolution does not do that, and I regret another missed opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, we can all agree with the parts of this resolution that congratulate the Iraqis for holding a democratic election and commend the sacrifices made by our United States Armed Forces and their families. Unfortunately, this resolution also endorses a failed policy that got us into this war, and has prolonged our presence in Iraq. Therefore, I cannot support H. Res. 612.

It is our responsibility to speak out individually and collectively. I will continue to communicate with the President and urge him to change course in Iraq. In order to achieve the goal of the Iraqis taking charge of their own security needs without the presence of U.S. troops, we must engage international organizations to assume primary responsibility for building democratic institutions including the training of Iraqi security forces. We need a strategy that will permit a substantial number of our troops to return home in 2006. The President should submit a plan to Congress and the American people that carries out these objectives.

As we pass yet another resolution that expresses support for our troops and our desire to achieve ``victory'' in Iraq, I must remind my colleagues that our soldiers have paid the heaviest price in Iraq. Thousands are dead, and tens of thousands are wounded. The American taxpayer has already invested hundreds of billions of dollars. Mr. Speaker, our soldiers deserve better than the resolution we are considering today with 1 hour of debate. The American people deserve serious consideration of how we can safely bring our soldiers home.

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely critical that Congress pass meaningful and effective border security and immigration reform. Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress has taken significant steps to secure our border and prevent another terrorist attack on our soil. Congress created the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, and a strong Director of National Intelligence, which constituted the largest reorganization of our law enforcement and intelligence services since WorId War II.

I supported the bipartisan version of the homeland security and immigration reform bill that passed the House Homeland Security Committee last month. As a former member of the committee, I agree that the United States must: move rapidly to establish operation control of all borders and ports; end our ``catch and release'' practice of aliens apprehended crossing the border illegally; effectively organize the border security agencies within the Department of Homeland Security; and promote international policies to deter illegal immigration.

I also agree with the former 9/11 Commissioners, who recently issued a report which concluded that Congress and the administration have much more work to do to make America safer, and gave our Government fair to poor grades for our current level of border security. I agree that Congress and the administration should take immediate action to: produce a terrorist travel strategy to intercept and disrupt their operations; create a comprehensive screening system for travelers; create a biometric entry-exit screening system for all land borders; improve international collaboration on borders and document security; and standardize secure identifications.

I am disappointed, therefore, that the leadership of the House of Representatives has failed to allow the House to take up a comprehensive homeland security and immigration reform bill that addresses the pressing vulnerabilities in our border security. The bill before the House, passed on a party-line vote in the Judiciary Committee, is not a balanced, thoughtful approach to the issue. This bill is a punitive bill which is neither enforceable nor workable. This bill has little chance of enactment. Border security is too important and should be included in legislation that can be quickly enacted.

This legislation is opposed by a vast number of groups from across the political spectrum, including businesses, labor unions, faith-based organizations, civil rights organizations, human rights organizations, and immigrant advocacy organizations.

I therefore ask my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the objective of this legislation should be to encourage the retention and expansion of traditional defined benefit plans. Traditional defined benefit plans generally offer a guaranteed benefit to the worker and, they are generally well managed and diversified. The passage of this bill, in my view, will set up a conference report that will come back to us that will accelerate the termination of well-funded and managed traditional defined benefit plans. And I say that for three reasons.

Three parts of this legislation will adversely affect well-funded and managed plans. First, the funding roles are more costly and more restrictive. That in and of itself will act as a disincentive for continuation of these plans.

Second, there is a failure to include relief for the airline industry, clearly putting pressure on well-funded and managed plans to pick up the costs for other industries, questioning whether they should stay and provide these plans.

Third, we continue to allow companies to go into bankruptcy in order to dump their costs onto the PBGC, once again affecting those well- funded plans that are going to be asked to pick up the tab.

For all these reasons this legislation is likely to accelerate the termination of plans that we would want to see continued. The termination of these plans will just adversely affect the funding of the PBGC, the guaranteed fund, complicating the situation and making it worse.

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that there are provisions in this legislation that are very good. The provisions dealing with the defined contribution provisions are needed and, as it was pointed out in the Ways and Means Committee, contain many of the provisions that were worked on through the Portman-Cardin process as

well as legislation presented by Mr. Emanuel and Mr. Pomeroy. It includes automatic enrollment, the split refunds where tax refunds can go partially into retirement savings, the extension of the savers credit, the ability for individuals to roll over funds and keep them in retirement funds longer.

All of those are positive aspects. However, when you look at this bill in balance, we do need to pass legislation; but on balance this legislation will cause more harm than good, and I urge my colleagues to reject the bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am curious: Is the majority on the Ways and Means side going to be using their time or not? Does the gentleman know?

Can I inquire as to the amount of time that remains on all sides?

The time for the gentleman from Michigan?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the senior Democrat on the Subcommittee for Social Security and who understands retirement security.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, first let me yield myself 30 seconds to point out that I wish we did have provisions in this bill to deal with the airline industry, because I think we should. The problem is that we do not, and we go to conference with a situation where those who have well-funded plans are now likely to be asked to pay because of the costs of the airline industry. And let me also point out from Mr. Boehner's comment about making the PBGC better funded, if we have a lot of terminated plans, it is not going to be better funded. And the gentleman brags about a permanent yield curve which is unpredictable to business. It would be better to have a corporate bond rate, and I am sorry that is not in the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a senior members of the Ways and Means Committee and one of the leading experts on retirement issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), one of the leaders in the Ways and Means Committee on pension issues, the former insurance commissioner from North Dakota.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), whose provisions are in this bill concerning split refunds and automatic enrollment and other issues that he has brought to the table.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that people who are watching this debate are somewhat confused about some of the technical provisions that we have talked about on the funding of a guaranteed fund. But let me try to simplify it.

The bottom line is that the total changes that are being suggested make it more rigid and less predictable for those companies that have traditional pension plans as to how much money they have to put into the guaranteed fund. Understand that the guaranteed fund is funded by the companies making contributions to the guaranteed fund. It is not funded by the government.

So if you have a plan that is well-funded and you are now being told it is going to cost you more to stay in that plan, there is an incentive for you to freeze your plan or to leave. That is what is going to happen, and that is why we are very concerned about many people losing their traditional pension plans as a result of this legislation.

The second point, let me point out, is that many Members have been talking about the airline industry and to try to help the airline industry. I pointed out that I think we should do that. We should do that because, A, it will allow the guaranteed fund to concentrate on other plans, and companies will not arbitrarily cancel their plans because they are afraid they are going to be stuck with the costs of bailing out the airline industry. That makes sense. But we are told: We are going to do that in conference, trust us.

We are the legislative body. We should do it. How do we know what is going to come out of conference? It is our responsibility to make sure it is done. We made some changes for the auto industry. Why have we not brought in those provisions? It is our responsibility to do it.

And I haven't heard anyone talk about how we are going to correct the problem of an industry going into bankruptcy in order to save their costs. Is there any hope that that will come out of conference? I doubt it.

We can do better. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Let me thank Mr. Miller for offering this substitute. I am pleased to join him.

I listened to a lot of my colleagues talk in favor of this bill, telling me things they do not particularly like about it, things that will be, they hope, corrected in conference, and now we have a motion to recommit that does exactly that.

So if we are sincere in wanting to move the process forward so that we can get to conference, let us speak to what we want to get from the conference report. Let me make it clear that the rule did not permit us to offer this directly as a substitute, so the only way we can do it is by the motion to recommit.

But it does contain the issues that many have talked about. It has the good without the bad. It has the provisions for the defined contributions, so that we can deal with the 401(k)s and the IRAs and the savers credits and automatic enrollments and those provisions that are important. But it also deals with the issue of the airline industry directly, not on a promise that we will deal with it in conference, and it deals with the revolving door of bankruptcy, which, if we do not correct, we are going to have other problems in addition to the airline industry. So it deals with those problems.

But it does one more thing, Mr. Speaker, that is critically important: It takes away the additional deficit that this bill would create. This bill will add an additional $14 billion to the deficit of this country. The substitute pays for the cost of the legislation so that we do not add to the growing problem of the deficit of this Nation.

This is a responsible motion, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Dr. Robert E. Fischell, a mechanical engineer, biomedical engineer, inventor, physicist, researcher and teacher. Robert Fischell is one of the brightest, most accomplished people I have ever met.

Let me tell you a little bit about his career. After graduating cum laude from Duke University in 1951 with a degree in mechanical engineering, Bob earned a Masters degree in

physics from the University of Maryland, where he also holds an honorary Doctor of Science degree.

In 1959, he went to work for the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab (APL), where he developed a number of inventions dealing with the control of satellites. His work at APL has led to numerous awards, including the IR-100 Award which is presented annually for the 100 most significant inventions. He has won this honor twice; once in 1970 for a rechargeable pacemaker, and again in 1973 for a drag-free satellite.

Dr. Fischell holds nearly 200 U.S. and international patents. His inventions--which include an implantable insulin pump, a rechargeable pacemaker, a flexible stent for placement in coronary arteries, and a microminiaturized computer that can be implanted to prevent epileptic seizures--have changed the practice of medicine and saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

On December 19, the University of Maryland at College Park is announcing the establishment of the Fischell Department of Bioengineering and the Robert E. Fischell Institute for Biomedical Devices.

I urge my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in honoring Robert E. Fischell, an innovative American inventor who has made enormous contributions to medicine, space discovery and higher education.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005.

Through the PATRIOT Act Congress has attempted the essential task of modernizing law enforcement tools to effectively combat the 21st century terrorist, who can now use cell phones, the internet, and e- mails to plan and coordinate attacks in the United States. As originally enacted in October 2001, many PATRIOT Act provisions are set to expire at the end of this month if Congress takes no action.

The conference report before us extends and improves many provisions of the PATRIOT Act. It is a substantial improvement to the bill that was passed by the House in July 2005. I do have significant concerns and misgivings about the administration's use of the new powers of the PATRIOT Act, and I am pleased that this legislation addresses many of these concerns. This legislation: includes three sunset provisions for PATRIOT Act authorities; requires greater oversight by Congress and the judiciary of the Justice Department; and gives new rights to subjects of a government investigation. Given the complexity and importance of this measure, let me review these provisions in some detail.

The 4-year sunsets adopted by the conference report apply to business records, roving wiretaps, and ``lone-wolf' terrorist suspects who operate alone rather than as an agent of a foreign power. Congress must revisit these provisions in 4 years, which will expire unless approved again. The conference report adopts the Senate position of 4-year sunsets, and rejected the House position of 10-year sunsets.

Under the business records provision, section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the bill provides that the government may seek a court order for ``any tangible item'' if law enforcement officials assert that the records are sought in an effort to obtain foreign intelligence or in a terrorism investigation. The application to the FISA court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, must provide a ``statement of facts'' proving that the information sought is ``relevant'' to the investigation. This bill provides greater protection than current law, which simply requires the government to certify the records were sought for an authorized investigation without any factual showing.

The conference report also explicitly provides--unlike current law-- that anyone who receives a request for records under this provision may consult with an attorney in order to challenge the request in court. The bill requires new high-level approval by one of the top three FBI officials for certain records, including library records, medical records, educational records, and tax return records. The bill has several new requirements for the Justice Department, including: issuing ``minimization procedures'' which limits the retention of, and prohibits dissemination of, information concerning U.S. persons; conducting two separate audits of the FBI's use of section 215 orders, which will examine any improper or illegal use of this authority, and the manner in which such information is collected, retained, analyzed, and disseminated by the FBI; and requiring the public reporting of the aggregate use of section 215 orders, and a breakdown of its use to Congress--comparisons of library, medical, educational records, for example.

The roving wiretaps provision, section 206 of the PATRIOT Act, provides that the FISA court may issue ``roving'' wiretaps to conduct surveillance on a foreign power or their agent when the target of surveillance has taken steps to thwart the investigation by changing accommodations, cell phones, internet accounts, or other forms of communications. Court orders would apply to a person or persons, not a particular device or location, so

that the government does not have to return to court each time that a target changes a communications device or moves to another location. The bill requires court orders for roving wiretaps to describe in detail the specific target in cases in which the target's identity is unknown, higher burden than current law, and requires more detailed and timely reporting by the FBI to the courts and Congress on the use of this authority.

The conference report also makes substantial improvements to the national security letter, NSL, process, which existed before Congress enacted the PATRIOT Act in 2001. NSLs allow the FBI to request customer records from communications companies and financial institutions related to an investigation. The bill explicitly provides a new right to NSL recipients to consult with an attorney to challenge the letter in court. The court is also given a new explicit right to review NSL requests. The bill provides that courts may block an NSL if it is ``unreasonable, oppressive, or otherwise unlawful'' (same standard as used to modify or quash a subpoena in a criminal case). Recipients are also given a new right to challenge the nondisclosure requirement in court. Congress also requires the Justice Department to report to Congress on the number of NSLs sent to U.S. persons or entities, and requires the department's inspector general to conduct an audit of the effectiveness of NSLs. The bill also provides that the Justice Department submit to Congress the annual aggregate number of requests made concerning different U.S. persons in an unclassified format.

Finally, the conference reports places some new restrictions on delayed notice search warrants, commonly called ``sneak and peek'', under section 213 of the PATRIOT Act. This type of search warrant, which existed before the PATRIOT Act was adopted, requires that a Federal judge must find that there is probable cause to believe that: (1) A crime has been or is about to be committed; (2) evidence of those crimes will be found at the location to be searched; and (3) immediate notice would cause harm under certain specified criteria. The conference report restricts the government's authority to delay notice to 30 days, and allows for an extension only if approved by a court. The bill also requires new reporting to Congress on the use of this provision.

Madam Speaker, we must not repeat the mistakes of the past, when the United States sacrificed the civil rights of particular individuals or groups in the name of security. Whether in times of war or peace, finding the proper balance between government power and the rights of the American people is a delicate and extremely important process. It is a task that rightly calls into play the checks and balances that the Founders created in our system of government. All three branches of government have their proper roles to play in making sure the line is drawn appropriately, as we uphold our oaths to support the Constitution. This legislation attempts to strike a balance as we seek to prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, while protecting Americans' constitutional civil liberties. I will continue to work in Congress to exercise our critical oversight responsibilities to protect our civil liberties.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support and as an original cosponsor of H.R. 972, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005. As the Ranking Member of the Helsinki Commission, let me commend Chairman Chris Smith for all of his hard work on this issue both in the United States and around the world. I also want to thank International Relations Committee Ranking Member Tom Lantos for his strong support.

In 2000 Congress enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVRA), which for the first time provided definitive protection for victims of human trafficking. Governments estimate that between 600,000 and 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders every year, yielding approximately $10 billion annually in illegal gains. When considering internal trafficking within a country, this number rises to an estimated 4 million persons.

Human trafficking destroys families and communities across the world. Human trafficking is a modern-day form of slavery, which traps people into forced labor or sexual slavery. Human traffickers violate the most basic human rights of their victims. The international community must oppose human trafficking in all its forms, and work together to eradicate this scourge on humanity. I commend the work of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) for addressing this issue in a comprehensive manner, by creating an Action Plan to combat trafficking and appointing a Special Representative on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings.

The United States also has a problem with human trafficking as a destination country for many trafficking victims, as we heard in a recent Helsinki Commission hearing on domestic trafficking. The State Department believes that more than 14,500 people are trafficked into the U.S. every year, either for forced labor or sexual exploitation and slavery. Traffickers bring these victims--mainly women and children-- from all over the globe, including Southeast Asia and the Americas. Traffickers often use criminal gangs to transport their human cargo. I am pleased that the government has created special ``T'' visas for victims of human trafficking who cooperate with law enforcement officials.

In 2003 Congress adopted the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which created a new country ``watch list'' under the supervision of the Department of State. This list has had a measurable effect on the behavior of offending countries. The State Department places the worst offenders on Tier 3 and makes these countries subject to certain economic and trade sanctions by the U.S. The number of Tier 3 countries has dropped from 27 in 2001 to 14 in 2005, so we have made measurable progress in raising awareness on this issue, but more work needs to be done.

This legislation will require USAID and the Department of Defense to include anti-trafficking policies in post-conflict and humanitarian assistance programs. Governments must put in place special measures to combat trafficking in countries that do not have a functioning and effective central government. This bill would enhance U.S. efforts to combat trafficking involving international peacekeepers.

The bill also authorizes $15 million annually for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to carry out a pilot program to establish U.S. residential treatment facilities for minors who are victims of domestic trafficking. The bill also expands counseling programs for victims of severe forms of trafficking. In total, the bill authorizes $68 million annually to combat human trafficking and assist victims.

We must keep the pressure up on other countries that do little to stop human trafficking, by implementing sanctions when needed and by using all available diplomatic channels. United States courts need to prosecute those individuals who commit these crimes on U.S. soil to the full extent of the law, and to send a message that the United States does not and will not tolerate human trafficking. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution as the ranking member of the Helsinki Commission. I visited Croatia in 2000, shortly after new leadership came into power, and I was confident of the country's commitment to reform. I believe, 5 years later, we have seen that the people of Croatia truly are committed to reform.

Of particular interest to me as a determinant of U.S. policy toward southeastern Europe has been the degree to which countries cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, located in The Hague. While Croatia has had a generally good record in this regard, the Gotovina case remained as a blot on that record. Fortunately, with Gotovina's recent apprehension on Spain's Canary Islands, Croatia can put this issue behind it.

I hope, however, that the people of Croatia will view the work of the Tribunal as a necessary step to determine guilt or innocence, and that Croatian courts will similarly seek justice regarding cases relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity that it considers, regardless of who was responsible for these crimes and who were the victims.

I also call for all remaining indictees to be apprehended and transferred to The Hague, in particular Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic. The House made a similar call earlier this year when passing the resolution marking the massacre at Srebrenica in Bosnia. There has been some progress this year, but both Bosnian Serb and Serbian authorities need to do more. Otherwise, they will fall further behind in European and Euro-Atlantic integration to their own detriment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support and as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 312, to urge the Russian Government to alter or withdraw the proposed legislation affecting nongovernmental organizations, NGO's, operating in Russia. The Russian legislation would severely restrict foreign assistance to NGO's in Russia and would also force existing Russian NGO's to reregister with the government.

The draft Russian bill raises a number of serious concerns, and may violate Russia's commitments to the OSCE. Several hundred thousand nongovernmental organizations currently operate in Russia, representing all sections of society. By forcing all NGO's to reregister, the Russian Government will have the power to subjectively deny registration to some organizations and limit the activities of others. This legislation strikes at the heart of basic democratic freedoms: the right of individuals to freely associate and participate in society. Some of the provisions in this bill would also increase the oversight of financial auditing of NGO's, which the government could use to place restrictions on opposition groups.

Just months ago, the Russian President Vladimir Putin outlawed any foreign funding of political parties in Russia. This legislation goes further and affects human rights groups and other NGO's who are only seeking to improve the nature of Russia's civil society. Foreign organizations would be required to register as legal Russian entities, seriously hindering their attempts to promote democracy and accountability in Russia. Many organizations which have conducted prominent and important human rights work in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union would see their activities curtailed under the Russian bill, which may lead to the partial or complete closure of critical offices inside of Russia.

Last month, the State Duma in Russia approved the first reading of the bill by 370 to 18 votes, despite more than 1,000 NGO's appealing for the Duma to reject it. This Friday, December 16, the Duma has scheduled a second reading of the bill. As the ranking member of the Helsinki Commission, I have worked closely with Commission Cochairman Chris Smith in opposition to this bill. The Helsinki Commission sent a bipartisan, bicameral letter

in November--which I cosigned--to the Chairman of the Russian State Duma urging the rejection of this legislation. In particular, the letter emphasized the importance that nongovernmental organizations play in civil society and in fulfilling Russia's obligations as a democratic state and member of the international community.

Russia has made great strides since the end of the Cold War. There were serious concerns that Russia would not have a smooth transition to a fully functioning democracy. I am gravely concerned about recent developments in Russia. President Putin himself has said that ``modern Russia's greatest achievement is the democratic process (and) the achievements of civil society''. I therefore call on President Putin and the State Duma to be true to their word and reject this bill, to reaffirm their commitment to the democratic process and civil society.