Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, in 1993 a gentleman in my community, Duncan Campbell, provided three full-time friends for 24 at-risk children, children who were at the bottom of the barrel, children who were guaranteed to fail, not just poor but without family support.

With the efforts of these full-time mentors and this innovative program, we have produced stunning results over the course of the last 12 years. Ninety-eight percent of these children are still in school. Ninety-seven percent have passing grades. Ninety-eight percent have never been incarcerated. Ninety-seven percent do not use drugs or alcohol on a regular basis.

Today, this program has spread across the country. It is in 11 different communities with over 600 children. First Lady Laura Bush is expected to visit the Friends of Children program in Portland tomorrow. I commend her for taking the time to visit with the kids and learning more about this program.

Tomorrow, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), my colleague, and I are introducing legislation that would authorize $7.5 million for Friends of Children to support local programs at existing sites and disseminate this information to policy-makers around the country to make a commitment to improving the lives of at-risk children.

Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago I voted against a bill that is similar to what is being considered in the House today. My position on the bill has not changed. In fact, H.R. 748, the ``Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act'' is worse. Not only will this anti-choice bill make it illegal for friends and relatives to assist young women with one of life's most difficult decisions, it will require physicians to notify a young woman's parents in person, regardless of whether they live in a different State, before the abortion services can be provided. The physician will be responsible for following the abortion laws of both the State where he is performing services and the State from which the patient has traveled. In effect, doctors will have to know the abortion laws of 50 different States.

I wish that every child was in a loving family that they could turn to first. The facts are, however, that many young women do not have that type of relationship with their parents and in too many cases we have seen the actual problem caused by abusive close family members.

People who would deny women reproductive choice have altered their tactics to chip away at women's reproductive freedoms; this is one of the most insidious examples. This bill would limit the choices for the most desperate women and is part of an overall anti-choice strategy that I reject.

Measures like H.R. 748 often have unintended consequences that can lead to desperate actions with dire consequences for the mental health and physical well-being of our nation's young women.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday evening I had the opportunity and the honor of attending a ceremony where the Lemelson Foundation awarded the annual Lemelson MIT Prize for Innovation, held for the first time in Portland, Oregon.

The foundation was established by one of the most prolific American inventors, the late Jerome Lemelson, and his family.

Although located in Portland, the foundation is truly international in scope. Jerome Lemelson endowed the foundation to promote innovation and to ensure that its application benefited humankind.

In the United States, their unique foundation supports several grantees whose programs celebrate extraordinary inventors as role models, illustrate the value of invention in the evolution of a great society, and nurture young adults to solve pressing social problems by pursuing careers in invention.

This year the foundation awarded a $500,000 Lemelson-MIT Prize, the largest cash award for innovation, to Elwood ``Woody'' Norris for revolutionizing acoustics.

Internationally, the Lemelson Foundation nurtures individual creativity to transform fundamental challenges into opportunities for sustainable progress. Its Invention for Sustainable Development program recognizes inventors and innovators in developing countries, fostering the institutions that support them, and applies their inventions to meet basic human needs and advance sustainable development.

Last week, foundation board member Eric Lemelson discussed foundation initiatives dealing with low-tech, high-impact innovation dealing with drip irrigation, an example of a cost-effective application of new technology to save scarce water resources, save money in a developing country while improving agricultural yields.

This is the type of commonsense approach of applied technology to sustainability that can truly transform people's lives.

I would hope that we in government can undertake the same spirit of innovation in our approach to USAID.

I was pleased to see Senator Frist return from his trip to Africa convinced that the United States needs to do more with water innovation and has introduced legislation in the Senate. I applaud his bill, the Safe Water Currency for Peace Act, S. 492. By the same token, I am offering complementary legislation in the House, the Water for the Poor Act of 2005.

This bill will make access to clean water and sanitation a major U.S. foreign policy objective and requires the USAID to develop a strategy to carry out this objective. It supports innovative financing mechanisms that can create additional resources for water and sanitation, while ensuring access and affordability to the very poor.

This legislation is critically needed. The lack of clean water and sanitation is perhaps the world's greatest single health need. More than 1 billion people worldwide lack access to safe drinking water. More than twice as many, 2.3 billion people, one in every three people on the planet, lack access to adequate sanitation, and the consequences are devastating.

Water-related diseases are a human tragedy, killing up to 5 million people every year. At any given time, half the population in the developing world is sick from water-related disease. Tragically, one child dies every 15 seconds for lack of water and sanitation.

At a time when people in every corner of the globe understand the importance of water and the problems of its misuse, I was pleased that the United States and the Bush administration joined 185 other nations committed to cutting in half the percentage of people in the world without access to water and sanitation. I was there in Johannesburg in 2002, watching that consensus come together. I am hopeful that we will be able to follow through.

As Eric Lemelson pointed out in his remarks, the Lemelson Foundation does not have to be responsive to shareholders or the voters so they can afford to be cutting-edge, innovative, and creative. I would like to think that they are pointing the way to more liveable communities around the globe where all our families can be safe,

healthy, and more economically secure; and they are pointing the way for the Federal Government to follow their lead.

My congratulations to the foundation; and I look forward to working on their innovations, integrating them with U.S. Government policy around the globe.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Today I am introducing an amendment to the Energy Policy Act to create a new conservation and research program, Conserve by Bike. This is something that we discussed the last time we had an energy program before us. This was approved by a voice vote. This legislation represents a small but important step forward towards determining our energy future.

There is much discussion on the floor about things that are mandatory. There are lots of things that make people cranky. This is one thing that will be able to help us move forward to actually take advantage of proven technology, and something that is a very positive development in each and every community across the country.

Bicycling, as virtually every Member of this assembly knows, is one of the cleanest, healthiest, most efficient and environmentally friendly modes of transportation that exists. It is the most efficient form of urban transportation in history.

As an alternative to automobile travel, bicycling can be an important element of a comprehensive energy conservation strategy. However, the relationship has not been adequately studied. The Conserve by Bike amendment recognizes that it is time to better understand the positive effects that bicycling can have on the conservation of our energy resources.

The amendment seeks to ensure that the Federal Government educates the public and provides appropriate research into the benefits of bicycling as it relates to energy conservation.

We are well aware of the health impacts. We are well aware of the opportunities that bicycling affords to young people, for example, to being able to have access to school.

This assembly, just last month, has approved in our transportation legislation, almost $1 billion in Safe Routes to Schools. With ISTEA and TEA-21 we have increasingly supported bike facilities through State, Federal and local funding. This amendment will leverage these investments to help people take advantage of energy conservation choices they have in getting around their community.

First, the amendment would establish a Conserve by Bicycling pilot program in the Department of Transportation, oversee up to 10 geographically dispersed pilot projects across the country designed to conserve energy resources, providing education and marketing tools to convert car trips to bike trips.

In addition, the projects would encourage partnerships between stakeholders from transportation, law enforcement, education, public health, environment and energy fields. The project results in energy savings must be documented, and the Secretary of Transportation is instructed to report to Congress the results of the pilot program within 2 years of implementation.

According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, bicycles are second only to cars as a preferred mode of transportation, demonstrating their potential for commuter use.

In recent years there have been significant upgrades to bicycling environments in the communities across the country. At a time when these communities are seeking to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, increase the safety of their neighborhoods, decrease petroleum dependence, bicycles offer a relatively simple, energy-saving alternative to driving. At a time when we talk seriously about transportation alternatives as an important component to comprehensive energy conservation strategy, this gives us the elements to make sure that we can document the impact.

The Conserve by Bike program is a critical step in the right direction. I strongly urge its adoption.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Hall) willingness to accept the amendment. What he said is true: there are over 100 million bicycles in this country. We have

seen in community after community when there have been opportunities people bike. In my home town of Portland, Oregon, we have tripled the number of people who are commuting by bicycle. And when you take thousands of people off the road, it makes a difference in air quality. It makes a difference in congestion, and it makes a difference in terms of people's health.

This is a small step in the right direction. I urge its adoption, and I look forward to greater application in the future.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me this time and permitting me to speak on this and for his bringing this forward. It is an example of where we can take steps forward to deal with how we put the pieces together in terms of transportation.

Intelligent transportation has tremendous potential for energy savings, to put money back in the pockets of taxpayers and consumers around the country; and it is an example that we do not have to make this equation quite as hard as we tend to on the floor of the House. This, I hope, is going to lead to a broader sense of application about how we squeeze more value.

I appreciate the gentleman's leadership in focusing on the notion of the $800 billion that is spent dealing with energy in this country. That is $800 billion; yet the amount of money that is spent in research for government and for the private sector is arguably less than 1 percent, less than for any other major sector of our economy.

I appreciate my colleague's leadership in focusing on what impact research and technology can have in this critical area. By focusing on intelligent transportation, it will be one important area of research application that will make a difference for millions of Americans, it will save hundreds of millions of gallons of fuel, and it will improve the quality of life for our communities in the offing.

This is the sort of approach that will truly make our communities more livable, make our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership and strongly urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, three brief points. We are back here because of the obsession of the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), to provide the relief to the oil companies. My friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), said that this was one of several oxygenated options. That is what the chairman of the committee raised. He did not pick one of them.

The second point is that we have not voted on this. The procedural vote that we had yesterday was without the focus from the CBO that this is, in fact, an unfunded mandate. The people of this Chamber will be voting with the knowledge that if they do not approve the Capps amendment, they will be imposing unfunded costs.

Last, but not least, it is obscene that we would be transferring these costs to local communities when we are giving billions to the oil companies under this bill, and they are already enjoying unprecedented profits.

It is not fair. It is not right. I strongly urge the approval of the Capps amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is commonly heard that the world changed after September 11, 2001; yet the energy bill did not.

What Congress is considering this week is virtually identical to that which came forth from Dick Cheney's energy task force and the Congressional process four years ago. The ever growing concerns about energy reliability, the Enron scandal, skyrocketing gas prices, increasing demands on ever scarce supplies in unstable areas of the world all have not produced a change in the mindset of Congress. At a time when we should call forth our best, the energy bill is both a mediocre effort and more appropriate for the 1950s than this new century.

With the American energy experience over the last third of a century, public opinion has grown clearer while Congress' vision has not.

With 10 percent of our energy use tied directly to our vehicular traffic, it is selfevident to the majority of Americans that our fuel efficiency standards should be significantly increased. The Japanese and Europeans are already far ahead of us. Even the Chinese have now adopted more stringent fuel efficiency standards. Congress cannot keep up with the American public or the policymakers in China, Japan or Europe.

The public knows that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the last place that America should look for oil, not the next place.

The public supports investing in renewable energy sources, but this bill is heavily skewed towards more public subsidy of oil and gas interests, already awash in cash. These companies have ample money available to exploit energy resources in this country if they wish. Alternative energy sources are shortchanged in this bill. It has been estimated that they get one dollar for every $363 invested in other sources. Wind and solar energy are abundant, and non-polluting; with a fraction of the resources lavished on traditional energy sources, alternative energy could increase the production and reduce cost.

The public is not interested in cutting deals with special-interests at the expense of the environment and public health. This bill poses significant risk to air pollution and makes an unnecessary and unwise compromise with MTBE manufacturers at the expense of state and local authorities and the quality of local drinking water.

I am opposed to a provision in the bill that shortchanges public participation in the hydropower relicensing process. By denying rights to private landowners, farmers, local businesses, tribes, fishermen, conservationists and others who share a direct interest in dam operations, the bill would make it less likely that license applicants would agree to an outcome that allows for energy generation as well as protection of the river ecosystem. In Oregon, PacifiCorp is in the process of relicensing a number of dams on the Klamath River. The company has been involved in an open and cooperative process with stakeholders, and I am concerned that the language in the bill would both undermine that progress as well as reduce incentives for other companies to engage in this type of open process.

I am disappointed that Congress defeated a number of Democratic amendments that would have boosted fuel efficiency, removed language allowing drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, kept in place important consumer protections, and reduced our dependence on foreign oil. I am pleased that one small, but important, step was taken by the acceptance of my amendment to establish a Conserve by Bike program. This amendment authorizes pilot programs and a national study that will help us better understand the benefits of converting trips from cars to bikes and how to educate people about these benefits

In short, this bill looks at our energy problem through a rearview mirror; it gives too much to the wrong people to do the wrong thing and is dramatically out of step with what the American public needs and wants. One can only hope that as it works its way through the Senate, and as the public discovers what's in this bill, that some of the more unfortunate provisions will be eliminated or modified.

There will come a time in the foreseeable future when the needs of our country and the wishes of the public are heard and that will be reflected in an energy policy for this century that is cost effective and rational.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

We are fond of saying around here that the world changed after September 11, but the energy bill did not. This bill is virtually identical to Dick Cheney's energy task force and where the House has been these last 4 years with concerns, notwithstanding the Enron scandal, skyrocketing gasoline prices and demands on scarce oil supplies in unstable parts of the world.

It is ironic that the American public's vision is much clearer than Congress. They want to increase the CAFE standards. The public has very clear views about the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, that it is the last place America should look for oil, not the next place.

They oppose a waiver and relief to the MTBE manufacturers at the expense of State and local authorities and the quality of local drinking water.

This bill is looking at our energy problem through a rearview mirror. It gives too much to the wrong people to do the wrong thing and is dramatically out of step with what the American public wants and needs.

The politics of today and yesterday's policies do not provide an energy road map for the future. It is true that lots of people have been working very hard on this bill, but I would suggest that never have so many worked so hard and so long to do so little to change the direction of this country's energy future.

For the sake of the country, one hopes that there will come a time when the needs and wishes of the public is heard and it will be reflected in an energy policy for this century, cost-effective and rational; preserving the quality of life, rather than operating on the cheap.

Mr. Speaker, we commemorate Earth Day at a time when American soldiers are in Iraq, in part as a consequence of our energy dependence. No matter what the press releases say, the way this Congress is commemorating Earth Day is by recycling the energy bill.

It is replete with massive subsidies that will continue to tie us to the past. Rather than the development of true energy independence gained by working with renewables and a massive effort at energy conservation, this energy bill is a monument to Congress's inability to think comprehensively about the future. Our energy dependence and wasteful policies mean that we are desperately dependent on a volatile Middle East, especially Iraq and Saudi Arabia, as we spend a major portion of our defense budget protecting the stability in that oil-rich region.

The Pentagon is also the largest single consumer of fuel in the United States, almost 2 percent of the country's total transportation fuel. And much of this fuel use is due to highly inefficient vehicles, from an Abrams tank, weighing 68 tons, that gets only about half a mile to a gallon, to an aircraft carrier that gets 17 feet to a gallon.

The United States military now uses 1.7 million gallons of fuel a day in Iraq. The cost of this fuel can be up to $400 a gallon depending on how it is delivered. Our military itself is clearly held hostage by the philosophy that energy efficiency does not matter. As the lines of supply are dangerously stretched with more points of vulnerability, while the flexibility and nimbleness of our troops are compromised by having to have huge amounts of gasoline close at hand. Lighter, more energy efficient vehicles are harder targets for the enemy to strike, and they can move greater distances between refueling and do not need this long chain of supply with more points of vulnerability for the vehicles and for our soldiers.

The situation the military faces in Iraq and other potential trouble spots demands action on an ambitious energy policy with a significant commitment to fuel conservation and renewable technologies, if only for the sake of the security of our Nation and the safety of our troops.

The skyrocketing gas prices this spring further demonstrates that we are hostage to an inadequate energy infrastructure with constrained refining capacity. The energy bill contains almost no incentives for change, as all those currently in control profit by this restricted supply, vulnerability, and volatility. As gasoline prices have increased 50 cents a gallon in a matter of weeks, every tank of gasoline is a reminder that the Republican leadership in Congress for 10 years has refused to significantly increase fuel efficiency standards, which would have meant significant money in the pocket of every American family.

The inability or unwillingness to establish a predictable window for wind energy development, by making the production tax credit permanent means that tens of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in new investment are delayed, with the advances in technology and additional elements of supply are denied to the public. This is ironic, when our military is touting the contribution that wind energy is making to the security and efficiency of operations at Guantanamo.

The energy bill continues to spend too much for the wrong people to do the wrong things and shortchanging the technologies and strategies that ultimately will make a difference for the future. There is no question that America in this century will rely much more heavily on renewables and conservation. The sad note is that we are slipping behind the Chinese, who are increasing their cars' fuel efficiency standards, and further behind the European and Japanese, who are already racing ahead of us in energy efficiency.

Even in a defense-dominated, security-obsessed environment that this Congress operates in, we cannot make energy investments that will at least enhance our military to make the military and America's families more secure. We can and should do better.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 1: In title VII, subtitle D, after section

754, insert the following new section (and amend the table of

contents accordingly):

Mr. Speaker, for as long as I've been in Congress I have supported bankruptcy reform on two simple principles; I believe people should pay their debts, if they are able, and that we should end abuses in the system, whether by people who deliberately run up their bills or by businesses who exploit the gullible and the unfortunate.

My first vote in favor of bankruptcy reform was cast with reservations because some of the provisions of the bill seemed unduly harsh, but I had hoped that the legislative process would ultimately improve the product. Unfortunately, for 8 years we have been unable to see the bill move through the legislative process and improve; it appears as though the bill, if anything, is actually less adequate due to increasing predatory lending by credit card companies and skyrocketing medical costs.

One of my deep concerns has been credit card mills, which send out millions of credit cards to people who are not creditworthy. In 2001 there were 5 billion solicitations by credit card companies. Meanwhile, skyrocketing fees have been coupled with reduced minimum payments. Bait-and-switch techniques have been employed that change the terms and raise the interest rates of cardholders who have never missed a payment.

While S. 256 contains overly harsh punishments for middle class Americans that have been preyed upon by the credit card industry, it preserves loopholes for the very rich. S. 256 maintains a homestead exemption that allows people with lots of money to shield their assets by purchasing multimillion dollar homes in certain states. O.J. Simpson was able to shield many of his assets by doing this in Florida. There are even sophisticated trust arrangements that enable people with substantial sums of money to be protected from the provisions of this bankruptcy bill.

There are some simple, common sense changes that could be made to this bill that would make it more fair to all parties involved. The Senate, however, was unwilling to compromise and approve any of these provisions and the House leadership has prevented any of these proposals from even being debated on the floor. Perhaps the most glaring example of the majority's unwillingness to compromise is the rejection of an amendment that would protect soldiers injured in Iraq and Afghanistan from the unfair ``means test'' within this bill.

I have had meetings over the years with individuals who represent all sides of this issue: the bankruptcy trustees, judges, and lawyers who represent the debtors, and the people who extend credit to businesses large and small and to individuals rich and poor. As a result of these meetings, it is clear that the loopholes do remain and that the abuses of lending practices are not being reigned in. The bill provides a mandate for unnecessary and burdensome paperwork and the most extreme requirements, including personal certification of the facts by the attorneys assisting the debtor that are not found anyplace else under any other legal provisions. This is going to shut down programs like the legal clinic at Lewis and Clark law school in Portland and will make it harder for legitimate creditors to be able to get their money back in a timely fashion.

The sad fact is that most bankruptcies are due to large medical bills, family breakup, and job loss. This legislation is going to put an unnecessary burden on the vast majority of unfortunate people and still allow too many of the unscrupulous to avoid their responsibilities. It does not have to be this way. I continue to hope that the political process will respond to these problems with sympathy and concern for the unfortunate. Until that point, I cannot support S. 256 in good conscience.

Madam Speaker, I was moved by the words of Dr. Dodd from Omaha and thought about today's continuation of the charade our friends in the Republican leadership play, a very cynical game that they have done every Congress since I have been here that is both unnecessary and unjustified.

Instead of allowing the legislative process to work here to deal with the consensus that exists to raise estate tax limits and solve problems of family businesses and farms, instead they are going to go through an empty effort to repeal it altogether, which ultimately they know will not happen.

In the meantime, this week, 2.9 million families are caught in the snare of the Alternative Minimum Tax, not the fabulously wealthy who are dodging taxes but hundreds of thousands of hard-working, non-rich Americans, whose only sin is, they pay their taxes, they are raising their family and they are saving for the future.

Rather than the fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax, today's charade is a shameful dereliction of duty for American taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my namesake's courtesy in permitting me to speak on his substitute. I appreciate his hard work and clarity in dealing with this issue and a step forward to stop a cynical game that I have watched be played here in this Congress since I was first elected 9 years ago.

There is today, and there has been throughout these 9 years, a consensus to make adjustments to the inheritance tax, to make it less steeply graduated, to raise the exemptions, to be able to do fine- tuning, to deal with the legitimate problems of small, closely held businesses and farms. And if the Republican majority would have permitted a fair and honest debate on this floor of the inheritance tax, we would have enacted significant permanent adjustments that would have solved the vast majority of the problems for 99.9 percent, I dare say. But that is not to be.

Instead, we have been involved with a cynical process that we are seeing played out here today. Nobody expects over the long haul that we are, in fact, going to eliminate in its entirety the inheritance tax. Our Republican friends have been involved with a roller coaster of a 10-year phase-out, and then insanely reinstating it in its entirety. As a result nobody has been able to plan thoughtfully for the last 5 years.

My friend from Missouri says, well, on the one hand, it is only 1.5 percent of Federal revenues; but that is half of the problem of Social Security that has driven some people into a frenzy. It is not an insignificant number, in the neighborhood of $1.5 to $2 trillion over the period of time we are talking about.

But my Republican friends do not want to allow the legislative process to work, and have a permanent solution that will stop the ambiguity and that will solve the problem for closely held businesses and yet, not allow vast amounts of wealth, wealth that is so significant that Bill Gates's own father does not think that it should eliminate

the inheritance tax and has even written a book about it.

The gentleman from North Dakota has proposed not that we game the system. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) found out that his parents, like 99 percent of the people, are not subjected to the inheritance tax.

The Pomeroy amendment would immediately raise that threshold to $6 million, with further adjustments to $7 million in 4 or 5 years from now, I forget the exact period of time; he will correct me, I am sure. This brings it up so that 99.7 percent of the American public are exempt, and it does it today. Not with games, not with promises but by solving the problem. I think this is so important as I think of the millions of Americans today that are struggling with the 1040 form, the 2.9 million Americans subjected to the alternative minimum tax, soon to be 16 million families next year. Not enough money, not enough time to solve that yet we are going to be involved with this cynical game of the inheritance tax.

I strongly urge the adoption of the Pomeroy substitute, which will solve the problem once and for all for the vast majority of the family farms, the small businesses, and, in fact, a number of people of significant wealth; and it will provide resources so that we can solve problems like Social Security and the alternative minimum tax and be about our business.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to honor Mr. Harold Arendt, Jr., Korean War veteran and Oregon resident. While in service, Harold Arendt sustained an injury inflicted by enemy forces. Now, 54 years later, it is my pleasure to award the actual Purple Heart medal for one of Oregon's treasured veterans. On Friday, April 8, 2005 Harold Arendt will be presented with this prestigious honor in recognition of his service to our nation during the Korean War. Though his injury has stayed with him throughout the years, he has been without this well-deserved recognition far too long. Today, we honor the extraordinary service of this courageous individual and recognize him and his family for their sacrifices. I am also very honored to congratulate Mr. and Mrs. Harold and Karen Arendt on their recent 50th wedding anniversary. On behalf of the Congress, I wish them our most sincere congratulations and best wishes.

Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest my colleague from Florida talking about Ida May Fuller, the first recipient of a Social Security check January 31, 1940. I, too, think that she is a symbol of what this debate is about. The debate is about our commitment to assure that our seniors and disabled and widows and survivors are not subjected to a life of poverty.

We do have far fewer workers today than we had for each Social Security recipient. We also have far fewer dependents today. In many households today there are more workers than there are dependents. We are changing, but this was part of a plan that was approved by President Reagan and Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill to change the Social Security program in 1983 to build up a $1.3 trillion surplus that will continue building up in the future.

We do not have a problem if we keep the trust in Social Security and use that surplus for what it is used for, rather than spend it on tax cuts for people who do not need it or other frivolous government spending.

I strongly urge that we keep the commitment to the Ida May Fullers of the future by using that money for what it was intended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and join my colleague from Michigan in commemorating the extraordinary life and the tragic death of Zurab Zhvania, the late Prime Minister of the Republic of Georgia.

While he served in the position of Prime Minister for a relatively short time, all independent observers conclude that he contributed immeasurably to the democratic reform of the Republic of Georgia. He was committed to opening the minds of the Georgian people and inspiring them to move away from the regressive wrongdoings of the Communist establishment.

He will always be known as a true reformer, a strong believer in democratic values, and a good friend of America. We are all saddened by his loss, and I join my colleagues in expressing condolences to the family of Mr. Zhvania.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I wish to thank my colleague from Michigan for joining me in cosponsoring this resolution, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), for introducing the resolution with me.

This resolution commends the action of civilian employees of the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development and the members of the Armed Forces for their response to last December's tsunami tragedy in the Indian Ocean.

Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege to journey with a congressional delegation to the affected areas immediately in the aftermath of the disaster. As we viewed the stricken region, we were all impressed by the quality of the relief effort and the coordination between all parties. It was truly gratifying to see the governments, particularly of these four affected countries, stepping forward in some areas where we had simmering conflicts and military actions. People would put aside the hostilities to deal with those in need.

I must confess that the pictures of our military, the rapid response, spoke volumes. I had an opportunity to visit with the leadership, starting with Admiral Crowder, and other senior officers, down the chain of command, visiting with men and women on the front lines. It was clear that they were not just acting out of a professional dedication and a military ethic, but they were doing it for the profound and heartfelt desire to help people in need.

While the pictures spoke volumes of the affected people throughout that region, I think it is important that we also recognize the efforts of the civilians from the State Department and USAID who do the tireless work of diplomacy and development that form the backbone of our foreign policy. They contribute day in and day out with far less fanfare and too often less of our support.

I was struck by individual cases of Foreign Service officers. Two examples that had been brought to my attention while I was visiting was that of Richard Hanrahan and Michael Chadwick, who were junior consular officers from American embassies who were on vacation in Phuket when the disaster struck.

They were there with their own families and had to make sure they were safe, but then they acted to set up their own remote control command post in Phuket to ensure the safe return of Americans. They dealt with traumatized families under the most difficult of circumstances, being able to borrow cell phones and deal with the communication difficulties; dealing with really very difficult situations, going from hospital to hospital, identifying injured Americans, and reporting on the situation before others had a chance to arrive.

Having seen and heard how these people behaved in such difficult circumstances, hour after hour, day after day, using their own independent action and individual motivation is something that all of us in Congress can be proud of. Having seen the impact that the officials from the State Department and USAID, working together with our military in response to the tsunami, highlights for us all the need to continue to enhance our diplomatic development and humanitarian capabilities.

As I heard these stories and met these people, I thought of the work that former Secretary of State Powell performed when he invested the prestige of his office, used the leverage of his position and his own experience to increase the support, ramping up the hiring of a new class of officials and making it a personal priority to make sure that the men and women in the front lines of the State Department around the world had the resources that they needed.

I hope that our new Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, will build upon his actions and as we in this Congress go through our appropriations cycle, we support her and our diplomats with the necessary funding.

We should strengthen the ability of the State Department to respond to

these crises, both natural and man-made, in part to minimize the challenge for our over-stretched military who are not always going to be able to be available in force to make the contributions that we saw in the aftermath of the tsunami. Often, frankly, there are tasks better left to civilian hands.

This disaster was an illustration of the value of the services provided by many of these agencies. I think of the USAID's outstanding individuals who were there as part of the briefing, indicating how they were equipped and ready to go to help fight the problems after the tsunami, and deal with the aftermath of poverty and environmental degradation. Hopefully, their work will make these communities less vulnerable in the future, and we can invest in disaster mitigation and planning to reduce the loss of life the next time the inevitable disaster strikes.

It is the selfless commitment of these individuals in the military, the State Department, and USAID that is making a difference. At a time when our prestige, particularly in this region, as a Nation is at an all-time low, according to independent opinion surveys, the contributions in the aftermath of the tsunami is making a difference, particularly with Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country. Two- thirds of the Indonesians are now more favorable to the United States because of what they saw, Americans responding and dealing with the aftermath of this disaster.

We should continue to invest in diplomacy and development along with our national defense, extend the kindness and compassion demonstrated by American people into a full-time commitment to those who suffer around the world. These efforts will pay dividends not just for the people in need but for our security as well.

The civilian employees of the State Department, the USAID, and our men and women in uniform went beyond the call of duty in responding to the tsunami. Through this demonstration of their professionalism, skill, creativity and commitment, they saved lives and took important steps for peace and security. I strongly urge the adoption of this resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter), in commending our friend and colleague from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) for the gentleman's introduction of this resolution, and his concern and leadership on Sikh-American issues. We are grateful for his work on these matters.

Mr. Speaker, the contributions made by Yogi Bhajan to Sikh-Americans and others across the globe are enormous. In addition to teaching peace through spiritual and yogic education, Yogi Bhajan applied his motivational skills to business and civil society. Most notably, he founded 3HO, an educational nonprofit organization that promotes human rights and health care education.

Given those enormous contributions, the passing of Yogi Bhajan last October was a loss not only to the Sikh-American community but to the entire Nation.

Mr. Speaker, in the post-9/11 era, it is increasingly important to recognize the contributions and participation of our Sikh-American brethren in American society since Sikh-Americans have unfortunately been the target of many hate crimes since 9/11. Yogi Bhajan was a man who helped educate and enlighten Americans about Sikh philosophy, further enhancing this country's great diversity and tolerance of all faiths.

We extend our condolences to his family, his children and grandchildren, and to the Sikh community around the world. I strongly support the passage of

this resolution and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

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