Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

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

The motion that the House has before it is really very simple. It instructs the House conferees on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act to insist on our House provision on section 415. Section 415 simply clarifies that all foreign-flag vessels that may be involved in a security incident in the United States must submit their vessel security plans to the Coast Guard for their review and approval before they enter the United States. It is pretty simple. We are trying to make sure that we do not have a terrorist incident caused by a ship coming to our shores.

We have seen clear evidence that terrorists have the means and capability to use vessels as a weapon. We all know about the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Most recently, insurgents in Iraq blew up their boat filled with explosives when a U.S. boarding team tried to inspect their vessel. Two members of our Navy and one member of the Coast Guard died in that attack.

When this Congress enacted the Maritime Transportation Security Act in November of 2002, foreign vessel owners were clearly required to submit vessel security plans to the United States Coast Guard. They were prohibited from operating after July 1 of this year if those plans were not approved and if they were not operating in accordance with those plans. But in the month after this MTSA, the Maritime Transportation Security Act, was enacted, the Coast Guard went to London and agreed to amendments to the Safety of Life At Sea Convention to require security standards for all vessels engaged in international trade. These amendments are called the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, or as we refer to them, the ISPS Code.

The Coast Guard never told Congress that they were intending to overturn the new security law by allowing foreign-flag vessels to enter the United States if their security plans were approved not by the Coast Guard but by the government in which the ship is flagged. As many Members know, thousands of ship owners choose to register their ships in so-called ``flag of convenience'' countries. The ship owners do this to save money because they know that these governments flaunt international law by not enforcing the international maritime conventions to which they are a party.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation has learned a great deal about terrorism since 9/11. One thing we have clearly learned is that not every nation in the world is our friend. Each day hundreds of ships enter U.S. ports with dangerous and hazardous cargoes. A weapon of mass destruction, a biological agent could easily be smuggled aboard a vessel in a foreign port. Look at some of the largest registries in the world, like Panama, Malta and Cyprus, and you will find vessels that are often detained by the Coast Guard for violations of international safety laws. Now we expect those same governments to protect U.S. citizens by making sure that their vessels have adequately implemented security plans? Give me a break! I for one am not willing to delegate our security responsibilities to the governments of Panama or Malta or Cyprus.

I raised this issue with the Coast Guard at two separate hearings. The Coast Guard argued that they do not have the resources to approve the security plans for the thousands of foreign-flag vessels that come to our country. I have a simple thing to say, as I said to the commandant: send us a budget request, and we will fight for every nickel you need to review and approve the foreign vessel security plans. The resources will be there if you ask for them. But do not compromise the security of our coastal communities and our whole Nation by placing our security in the hands of these foreign governments.

When Congress wrote the Maritime Transportation Security Act in 2002, we realized that it is up to the United States Government through the United States Coast Guard to protect our citizens. I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to support the motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 2443 to insist on the House provisions requiring all foreign-flag vessels, any one of which may

be a potential terrorist threat, to submit their security plans to the Coast Guard for review and approval before they enter the United States. We ask this in law. We ask now to reinforce the law.

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

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

I was a little surprised the gentleman was going to accept the motion after speaking out against it, but I appreciate that, and I hope we fight for this at the conference committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that there are no ships with American flags going to Liberia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present, and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 142, I was unavoidably detained, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 143, I was unavoidably detained, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 144, I was unavoidably detained, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 145, I was unavoidably detained, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 146, I was unavoidably detained, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to honor an American icon and an organization that we all know well, Girl Scouts of the USA. This year, Girl Scouts is celebrating 92 years of service to our communities and our nation. For 92 years, Girl Scouting has made a remarkable difference in the lives of girls in so many ways.

The Girl Scouts is an organization that has always been ahead of its time, and the experiences that girls have in Girl Scouting today are profound. For example, they travel the world, learn about science, math and engineering by working with some of the most innovative thinkers in these fields, and perform community service projects that are literally changing many of our communities for the better.

In March, I had the opportunity to meet with Girl Scout representatives from my district who came to Washington, D.C. with nearly 600 other Girl Scout executives, professional staff and volunteers from across the nation. The

Girl Scouts/San Diego-Imperial Council is the council that serves girls in my district, and I am proud of their work and leading expertise on the challenging issues affecting girls in today's world. This council serves over 30,000 girls in San Diego and Imperial Counties.

During their time in Washington, the representatives of Girl Scouts were discussing a very important issue: safety for girls. I am impressed by their dedication to helping all girls feel emotionally and physically safe, secure and strong. In our contemporary society where child abductions, rampant abuse and other violence against children occurs too frequently, their task is extremely important. I commend the Girl Scouts for their national and local leadership on this issue.

Through a nationwide call to action, Girl Scouts of the USA is leading an effort to create communities in which all girls feel safe and empowered. I ask that schools, churches, youth-serving organizations, Congress, and other government entities join with Girl Scouts to bring attention to this very important issue. All of our nation's children deserve to feel safe, secure and strong.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I congratulate Girl Scouts for a job well done and look forward to working with them on ensuring the safety of our nation's youth.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to urge support for improvements for veterans who have become disabled in their service to our country. I have introduced H.R. 4229, the ``Fair Insurance for Disabled Veterans Act'' to address this need.

First, when the Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance, SDVI, began in 1951, it was intended to provide service-disabled veterans with the ability to purchase life insurance coverage at ``standard'' rates.

Unfortunately, these life insurance premiums are based upon mortality rates for 1940, while current standard life insurance policies have premiums based upon the 2001 mortality table. This means that service- disabled veterans are being charged premiums based on a table that is 60 years out of date. The Independent Budget, prepared and endorsed by many veterans service organizations, has recommended that the mortality table be updated so that service-disabled veterans pay lower premiums for insurance. My bill would provide insurance comparable to standard policies, based on 2001 tables.

Second, the VA provides mortgage life insurance, VMLI, up to $90,000 to severely service-disabled veterans who qualify for specially adapted housing grants. Currently, this amount covers only about 72 percent of the outstanding mortgage balances because the maximum amount has not been increased since 1992. We know how the cost of houses has skyrocketed since then in many areas of our country! In May, 2001, an evaluation by the Department of Veterans Affairs recommended that the coverage be increased to between $150,000 and $200,000. The Independent Budget has also recommended that the coverage be increased. H.R. 4229 implements those recommendations by increasing the maximum to $200,000 to cover 98 percent of mortgage benefits outstanding.

I invite my colleagues to support H.R. 4229 to improve insurance policies for our Nation's service-connected disabled veterans.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

We have heard the expression, ``It's the economy, stupid.'' Well, it's the infrastructure, stupid. It's jobs, stupid.

I know that the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), thinks about jobs all the time, as does our ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). It is jobs, jobs, jobs. And that is what the infrastructure of this country provides.

We have a bill here that is $100 billion less than it should be. To my simple math that works out to a loss of 4.5 million jobs. We are losing $600 billion worth of economic activities over the next 5 or 6 years. I do not understand an administration that is a ``donor'' administration in terms of its jobs that it has not created. By supporting a bigger bill, it could be a ``donee'' administration and actually create jobs, and that is what we need in this country today.

There is a controversy, I understand, about donor-donee. There does not have to be. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), both want a 95 percent guarantee for every State, and they had it in the bill that we should have passed. And I say to the people who want to have that 95 percent guarantee, do not change this bill; vote for a bigger bill. We can afford it. We can be fiscally responsible. It is an investment in this Nation to have the bigger bill.

But we will do part of the job by passing this one today.

I happen to represent the whole California-Mexico border in this country. I have in my district 250,000 people crossing the border every day and thousands and thousands of trucks. I want to thank our committee for providing a ``border infrastructure fund'' to help address the needs that this international traffic places on our local communities. These local communities do not have the funds and should not be responsible. The border infrastructure fund gives us the ability for the Federal Government to meet its responsibility.

So I say, Let's have the jobs. Let's get rid of the donor-donee controversy. I know the gentleman from Alaska wants to do that and the gentleman from Minnesota wants to do it. Hopefully, down the line we will do it.

Mr. Speaker, since the creation of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) health system, the Nation's doctors of chiropractic (DCs) have been kept outside the system and all but prevented from providing proven, cost-effective and much-needed care to veterans, including those among the most vulnerable and in need of the range of health care services DCs are licensed to provide. In 2002, 4.5 million patients received care in DVA health facilities, including 75 percent of all disabled and low-income veterans. Although the DVA health care budget is roughly $26 billion, in 2002, less than $370,000 went toward chiropractic services for veterans.

I am proud to introduce legislation--H.R. 4051, the Better Access to Chiropractors to Keep Our Veterans Healthy Act (BACK Our Veterans Health Act)--that is designed to provide veterans with direct access to a doctor of chiropractic, if that is their choice, through the veterans health care system. In developing this bill, I have worked closely with chiropractic patients, particularly our veterans, who know the benefits of chiropractic care and bear witness to the positive outcomes and preventative health benefits of chiropractic care. I was also pleased to work with the American Chiropractic Association (ACA), the Nation's largest chiropractic organization and the national voice of doctors of chiropractic and their patients. I am told by the ACA that there are more than 60,000 doctors of chiropractic and in excess of 25 million chiropractic patients across America.

Specifically, my bill seeks to amend title 38 of the United States Code to permit eligible veterans to have direct access to chiropractic care at Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals and clinics. Section 3 of the measure states that ``The Secretary [of Veterans Affairs] shall permit eligible veterans to receive needed [health care] services, rehabilitative services, and preventative health services from a licensed doctor of chiropractic on a direct access basis at the election of the eligible veteran, if such services are within the State scope of practice of such doctor of chiropractic.'' The measure goes on to directly prohibit discrimination among licensed health care providers by the DVA when determining which services a patient needs.

Over the years, Mr. Speaker, representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs have come before the House Veterans Affairs Committee, a panel on which I serve, and have insisted that chiropractic benefits are available to veterans and that no bias exists within the DVA against the chiropractic profession. But the facts I cited above speak otherwise. For all practical purposes, access to chiropractic care has been nonexistent within the DVA system. Chiropractic care has so seldom been offered to veterans that it can be fairly said to be a phantom benefit--and for years, Mr. Speaker, the DVA has done nothing to correct this deficiency. There is simply no evidence that the DVA has ever acted proactively in any meaningful and substantive way to ensure that chiropractic care is made available to veterans--and because of that

track record of neglect that the U.S. Congress felt compelled to take action. And as a result, Congress in recent years has enacted three separate statutes seeking to ensure veterans access to chiropractic care--Public Law 106-117, Public Law 107-135 and Public Law 108-170. The last of those statutes gives explicit authority to the DVA to hire doctors of chiropractic as full-time employees. I'm proud to have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help advance those initiatives--and I am hopeful that a reluctant DVA has finally seen the light.

I understand that the VA Secretary Principi has just released some new policy directives regarding chiropractic care and that, at last, we may be on our way to seeing the true and full integration of chiropractic care into the DVA. But Mr. Speaker, if the past is any guide to the future, then I must remain concerned until I see these new polices firmly in place and working well in all DVA treatment facilities. To help ensure that in the future, barriers to veterans who want and need chiropractic care are fully removed, I am pleased to introduce legislation that would require the DVA to make chiropractic care available on a direct access basis to our veterans. If the previous legislation had actually been implemented, my legislation would not be necessary--because referrals to doctors of chiropractic would actually be taking place with the encouragement and support of the DVA leadership. I hope this is what happens under Secretary Principi's new guidance--but as insurance, Mr. Speaker, in case the Department loses their newfound enlightenment somewhere along the way-- perhaps under a less supportive Secretary--then the enactment of the legislation I propose would guarantee the right of a veteran to obtain this important service without the cost and stumbling blocks of going through potentially hostile gatekeepers. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting unimpeded access to chiropractic care throughout the veterans health care system and help enact this measure.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 34, due to urgent constituent support commitments in my congressional district, I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 35, due to urgent constituent support commitments in my Congressional District, I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 36, due to urgent constituent support commitments in my Congressional District, I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 32, due to urgent constituent support commitments in my Congressional District, I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 33, due to urgent constituent support commitments in my Congressional District, I missed

the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker:

I rise today as many have before, To honor Theodor Seuss Guisel for his contributions galore!

The literary world will never be the same, After being introduced to Dr. Seuss' name

We remember the dreamer, the artist, the man, Who taught us about life, green eggs and ham

For 60 years he captivated us with stories for all to know, And left a legacy of cherished books about the places we'd go

He may not have been a real doctor--but boredom he cured, With rhythm and rhyme and colorful words,

When our troops needed morale during World War II, He was too old to serve but did what he could do,

With satire and imagery he inspired platoons With silly and potent political cartoons!

We celebrate today, a man who dreamed, And created for all an unending stream

Of insights and poems, books and tales, Of red fish, blue fish and others with scales

He gave us the Lorax to speak for the trees, A little creature to save saplings from corporate greed

And we cannot forget the Grinch with a heart so cold, Or the innocence of a child, ``Who,'' touched his soul

His 46 books weren't meant to be silly, Barbaloots were for grown-ups and leaders of cities,

Ahhh--So many stories, yet so little time, To commend this man for his gift of rhyme

So when the sun does not shine, When it is too wet to play, When you are sitting in your house, On a cold, cold, wet day

Always remember in December or September, The spell of wonder, Dr. Seuss put us under.