Floor Statements

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

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

My motion to instruct the energy conferees is very, very simple. There is no provision in the House or Senate energy bills that allow ozone nonattainment areas to extend, or ``bump up,'' deadlines to comply with the Clean Air Act.

Now, House GOP energy conferees, including my respected colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), want to include a rider in the energy conference report to overturn four Federal court rulings and amend the Clean Air Act to allow polluted areas to have more time to clean up, but without having to implement air pollution controls. Every time one looks up, it is another extension. This would delay the adoption of urgently needed antipollution measures in communities throughout the country.

Industry officials, environmentalists, local elected officials, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and the Environmental Protection Agency have been working hard in recent months to find a way of complying with the ozone standards in north Texas. The Barton provision destroys that process.

This special interest rider also shows reckless disregard for the health consequences that dirty air has on my constituents and others that live in smoggy cities across the country.

To further delay necessary emissions reductions in ozone nonattainment areas is unacceptable and a betrayal of the public's trust. It is unacceptable, most of all, because it is based on false information that ozone transport jeopardizes attainment for smoggy cities.

An article in my hometown newspaper, the Dallas Morning News, states today that documents and interviews from the Bush administration's EPA show little or no evidence to support claims that Houston's smog is harming the Dallas-Fort Worth attainment of clean air goals.

This is not about jobs versus clean air; this is about a small set of areas seeking to avoid their responsibility under the Clean Air Act, thereby gaining a competitive advantage over other industries in other areas that have complied. The disadvantaged area is quite likely to be in your district.

This provision is blatantly unfair to my constituents and the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Barton) constituents who write me all the time and live down wind from the smokestacks in my colleague's district. Under this provision, dirty, unhealthy air will continue to blow downward on to my constituents, possibly until the year 2012.

I am a nurse by profession. The health effects of air pollution imperil human lives. Ozone pollution burns cell walls in the lungs and air passages, causing tissues to swell, chest pain, coughing, irritation, and congestion. Ozone pollution decreases the ability of lungs to function properly. Air pollution aggravates asthma and increases susceptibility to bacterial infection. Long-term exposure to ozone in otherwise healthy individuals could set the stage for more serious illnesses. The cost for asthma, estimated at $11 billion annually, is only part of the total cost of the health care necessitated by exposure to harmful levels of ozone.

The American Lung Association reports that exposure to high levels of ozone air pollution appears to be responsible for up to 50,000 emergency room visits and up to 15,000 hospitalizations for respiratory problems each year. I had a dear friend lose her life this year from this very ailment, a 51-year-old M.D. who had never smoked a cigarette.

In my district, the effects of air pollution are especially compelling. The American Lung Association reports that nearly a half million people in the Dallas-Fort Worth area live with diseases that are aggravated by air pollution. EPA's own consultants found that each year almost 370 residents of the Dallas-Fort Worth area died just because of pollution from the oldest and dirtiest unregulated power plants, and 10,500 asthma attacks are triggered.

To further delay compliance and cleanup will increase health care costs for my constituents at a time when the health care system is broken. Clean air is crucial to the health of north Texans and the future economic well-being of our region.

The Barton ``bump-up'' provision has no business in the energy bill.

I suggest that if my colleague from Texas (Mr. Barton) and my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), gentlemen I respect, wish to amend the Clean Air Act, they should do so by showing respect for our legislative process and by using a more appropriate legislative vehicle. But instead, they have language they are not even sharing with people to do it.

Enough is enough. Hard deadlines are necessary to get the job done and clean up our air. This time has been lengthened and lengthened and lengthened and, each time, what is the answer? Another lengthened time.

Our Republican colleagues cannot continue to delay and stall. We have a greater obligation to protect public health than polluters' profits and campaign contributions.

I am disappointed that many Republicans will frame this debate as a trade-off between jobs and the environment. They are dead wrong. I urge my colleagues to vote against giving a clean air holiday to a few areas with the right political connections. I ask my colleagues to put the public health ahead of polluters' profits. Please vote for the motion to instruct.

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

Mr. Speaker, this really is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of clean air that people breathe. I am certain there are people on that side of the aisle that will stand with the gentlemen, who I consider both my good friends. But there will be some probably who will not because they want to breathe some clean air. That is all this is about. It has nothing to do with partisanship. It has nothing to do with the Clinton administration. They have been given time. That is all this indicates. They have already had time to clean the air.

Mr. Speaker, what I need to ask is that at what point will these polluters be responsible for cleaning up? If we stand here and change the goal post one time after another, the time never comes.

The Clinton administration, which you love to refer to on this, gave leeway, but it is time now to clean the air. People are dying from this dirty air.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I believe I have the right to close.

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

There are lots of areas in the country that have already implemented the controls that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) speaks about and had worse transport problems and are not seeking extensions. It is a matter of whether these companies want to do it and have the encouragement to come into compliance rather than to help to stay out of compliance.

I would also like to note that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) was here speaking, and I do not know about his application for an extension, but all the areas in Michigan have attained the 1-hour standard. So I do not know why the EPA policy would even apply to Michigan.

The only transport occurring in my area is from the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Barton) district to mine. It is not from Houston to Dallas, and in today's article that was well-researched in the Dallas Morning News, it states that the region missed Federal deadlines in 1996 and 1999 to clean up its air. The last missed date made the region, now classified as a serious ozone violator, eligible to move to the next worse category, as severe. That would impose the new deadline set by a Federal law for 2005 and new orders for pollution cuts.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

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

(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Wherever we are dirtying this air, it is dangerous to the lungs, and it is dangerous to the health.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 127 million Americans breathe air that violates Federal standards for smog and soot pollutions. EPA's own consultants found that each year almost 370 residents of the Dallas-Fort Worth area died just because of pollution from the oldest and dirtiest unregulated power plants in the country, and 10,500 asthma attacks are triggered.

During the past several years, EPA gave several metropolitan areas a free pass, extending air deadlines for dirty areas without bumping them up to the higher pollution categories that would require more protective standards. Four separate Federal appellate courts all ruled that EPA's extension policy violated the language and purpose of the Clean Air Act. Appropriately, that led the agency to abandon the policy.

With so many Americans breathing in dirty air, it should be obvious that air quality standards are already not being enforced enough. Why would we make them weaker? But rather than accepting the judgment of the EPA and the courts, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and his allies are seeking to amend the Clean Air Act. His changes would turn the clock back, extend the air time frames once again, without raising the bar for air quality. What this means in real terms for real people is simple: Dirtier air for longer.

In their desire to pass any comprehensive energy bill, some of my colleagues may be willing to overlook the massive damage this bill would do to our existing clean air policies. Including the Barton dirty air rider, which I do not even know what it says because he will not let us see it, but it means ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence on the serious health effects of ozone pollution. It will mean that pollution in these areas will go unchecked for longer and longer in the future.

Asthma attacks, respiratory problems and pulmonary disease will go up, while the amount of time children can spend playing outside will go down. Developing lungs process 50 percent more air, pound for pound, than those of adults.

Children suffer most from the current air quality shortfalls. Letting the situation worsen for years and even decades does nothing for a child unable to go outside today.

It is true that we must secure our energy future, and this is why a comprehensive energy bill is attempting to move forward, but we must not roll back critical safeguards. We must not pass a bill with great shortfalls simply because we need to pass a bill. We must instead work toward a fair bill that protects us all and does not endanger ourselves and our children.

This is not an attack upon my colleague and nor is it Democrats versus Republicans. We see Democrats sitting over here that are for this, too. He is for dirty air, but while we agree that emissions from vehicles are significant contributors to ozone formation in north Texas, we also want to highlight the fact that the volume of the emissions coming from sources in Ellis County equals that of 2.5 million vehicles annually. These emission figures do not account for the two power plants that have sited their plants in Ellis County. Many of them have moved from Dallas County to Ellis County to avoid compliance with better emission controls because they knew they would find the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) there to protect them, which is not a part of this quote, with better pollution controls nor do these emission figures account for the three permit amendments that are pending at the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality to increase emissions.

Are we going to forget about the people and the health of the people altogether and not care what happens to the people's lungs, including those of us who are here, or are we going to say to the companies, get serious, comply with the standards?

Mr. Speaker, I also have testimony from that hearing from four witnesses in July, as well as other material that I have referred to, to place in the Record at this point.

[From the Dallas Morning News, Oct. 28, 2003]

Houston Link to D-FW Smog Doubted

(By Randy Lee Loftis)

Internal reviews at the Environmental Protection Agency

found little or no evidence to support Texas' contention that

Houston's smog was harming Dallas-Fort Worth's attainment of

clean-air goals, documents and interviews show.

Nonetheless, EPA officials publicly used much different

language--asserting that Houston's smog ``jeopardized''

Dallas' attainment--and proposed giving urban North Texas two

more years to clean up its smog than federal law allowed. The

move postponed a tougher smog crackdown.

Current and former EPA officials this week defended their

decisions and said there was no attempt to alter scientific

findings to justify their January 2001 proposal to extend

North Texas' smog deadline.

``I don't recollect anybody trying to hide a shell game on

Dallas-Forth Worth,'' said Tom Diggs, the EPA's chief air

planner for Texas. He said the agency's actions were in line

with national policy.

But a scientist at a major environmental group called the

discrepancy between the EPA's internal reviews and its public

statements ``damning'' evidence of collusion to avoid

statutory deadlines, at a cost to public health.

``It is shameful that the EPA was more worried about

appearing inflexible than upholding the law,'' said Dr. Ramon

Alvarez of Environmental Defense's Texas office.

time to clean up

North Urban Texas is under pressure to resolve one of the

nation's most stubborn smog problems. Emissions from vehicles

and industries combine to create hazy skies and health risks,

especially for children, the elderly and people with lung

ailments.

The region missed federal deadlines in 1996 and 1999 to

clean up its air. The last missed date made the region, now

classified as a serious ozone violator, eligible to move to

the next-worse category, severe. That would have imposed a

new deadline, set by federal law for 2005, and new orders for

pollution cuts.

When the EPA proposed postponing the deadline to 2007, it

also put off the area's designation as severe. That decision

two years ago has surged back into the headlines in recent

days as part of a bitter fight in Congress.

The agency gave such extensions to several metropolitan

areas, in each case saying scientific evidence supported

them. Federal courts have struck down the extensions as

illegal.

An effort by U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Enis, to legalize them

has helped to stall a major energy bill.

Some Senate Republican leaders and Democrats in both

chambers oppose Mr. Barton's attempt. ``We did some research

on the issue,'' Mr. Barton said Tuesday in Washington. ``We

had a hearing in the committee. And all but some of the more

radical environmentalists said we ought to give the EPA this

discretion.''

The EPA's policy on ``transport'' of smog, or ozone,

between cities was supposedly meant to keep a downwind area

from paying a price for an upwind area's pollution.

Starting with the Clinton administration, the EPA offered

to extend deadlines for any urban area that could demonstrate

that another area's smog was significantly affecting its

clean-air attainment.

Atlanta, Washington, D.C., St. Louis and Beaumont-Port

Arthur were among the takers.

So was Dallas-Fort Worth. The Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission, now the Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality, submitted technical findings in

September 1999 that it said showed Houston's effect on

Dallas-Fort Worth.

The EPA's Dallas office formally accepted the state's

evidence Jan. 4, 2001. The EPA cited the evidence in

proposing to postpone Dallas-Fort Worth's deadline to 2007

from 2005, the date set by law.

``We are proposing that this transported pollution affects

DFW's ability to attain by the current attainment date,'' the

EPA announced in the Federal Register.

``Thus, the DFW and HGA [Houston-Galveston] areas are

inextricably linked,'' the agency wrote. ``Without controls

in the HGA, the DFW area's ability to attain is

jeopardized.''

Environmentalists questioned that assertion at the time,

saying the EPA was using transport as an excuse to give

states more time for cleanups. The federal court rulings kept

the EPA from finalizing the North Texas extension. Future

smog plans are being negotiated.

Mr. Diggs, the EPA's chief regional planner, said Tuesday

that the state's submittal met the EPA national policy for

such claims. He acknowledged, however, that the EPA set the

scientific hurdle so low that it was easy for states to get

the deadlines extended.

``Whether [making the extensions easy] was a good decision

or not, it was out there for every state,'' he said.

``significant'' impact

Elsewhere in that Federal Register document, Mr. Diggs

noted, the EPA said Houston's impact on North Texas was small

and limited to some days, but met the agency's definition of

``significant.'' However, EPA technical reviews in 1999 had

found that Texas' scientific case was ``weak'' and that

Houston actually had ``minimal, if any'' effect on Dallas-

Fort Worth's attainment, documents and interviews show.

One former EPA staff expert who reviewed the evidence

concluded then: ``Thus, there is not much of an impact of HG

[Houston-Galveston] on the DFW [area] that would interfere

with DFW's ability to achieve attainment.''

Dick Karp said in an interview that he was given no new

information later that would change that conclusion.

too rigorous review

The problem, he said, was that supervisors told him his

review was ``more rigorous'' than the agency wanted.

``There was a lot of passing back and forth,'' Mr. Karp

said. ``I know in the beginning I was probably a bit more of

a stickler for them being able to prove it--show me that

there's a real impact from Houston.

``And I kind of got taken aside and told, `Well, that's not

exactly what this policy is about.' ''

EPA executives wanted to grant the extensions, but making

the states prove their claims would go against that goal, Mr.

Karp said.

So he was told that the burden was on the EPA to disprove

the states' claims, not on the states to prove them, he said.

``I wasn't real comfortable with that, but I don't get to

make the rules,'' said Mr. Karp, who has left the EPA.

Former EPA regional administrator Gregg Cooke, who made the

decision to delay Dallas-Fort Worth's deadline, said he was

never told that there were questions about the state's

evidence.

``The staff document that was sent to me [said that] we

think we should give the extension, ``he said. ``And I

approved that based upon whatever was given to me at the

time. . . . I thought the analysis from staff was that the

technical argument was well-taken.''

Asked whether knowing of lower-level staff concerns about

the state's case might have changed his decision, Mr. Cooke

said, ``It might have been germane.''

Mr. Cooke, who has since left the EPA, is an attorney

representing the governments of Dallas-Fort Worth-area

counties on clean-air planning.

Mr. Diggs said the EPA's final technical documents,

published along with the proposal to extend North Texas'

deadline, laid out the agency's policy requirements and

showed that Texas had met them. The documents did not claim,

he said, that Houston's smog was keeping Dallas-Fort Worth

out of clean-air attainment. That was clear in an Oct. 22,

1999, letter to Texas officials, he said.

``We would never say that Houston is the reason for Dallas-

Fort Worth's nonattainment,'' Mr. Diggs said, ``Houston

coming into attainment does not solve Dallas-Fort Worth.''

Even the Texas officials who assembled the state's evidence

knew that they couldn't prove that Houston was a big factor

for North Texas, said Brian Foster, an air planner with the

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

`minimal impact'

``We did show that there was a minimal impact. We admit

that it wasn't the greatest amount there was,'' Mr. Foster

said.

But the state agency, hoping that new federal and state

measures would help ease Texas smog, readily took advantage

of the delays that the transport policy offered, he said.

``We felt that we needed more time,'' Mr. Foster said. The

key to getting it was EPA's low standard for showing

``significant'' impacts. ``Once again, it goes back to the

EPA policy,'' Mr. Foster said.

Dr. Alvarez, the Environmental Defense scientist, said the

EPA oversold Houston's impact to the public to justify the

extension. Added together, he said, such seemingly small

steps backward help explain why decades of efforts have

failed to clean up North Texas' air.

``It seems like sophomoric high school decision-making,''

he said. ``Unfortunately, the stakes are much higher: It is

the asthmatic children in the metroplex that pay the price of

yet another delay in the fight for clean air.''

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, October 27, 2003.

Hon. Pete Domenici,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Clean Air Act has reduced pollution

from many different sources, but there is still much more

work to be done. Nearly 150 million Americans are living in

areas that currently do not meet the nation's air quality

standards. As you know, in the Senate, the Environment and

Public Works Committee has the responsibility for reviewing

and revising that Act in a manner that will help us achieve

the unanimous goal of improved air quality for all our

citizens.

We understand that members of the energy bill Conference

Committee from the House of Representatives have proposed an

amendment to Title I of the Clean Air Act. That amendment, to

codify a policy with respect to ozone nonattainment

designations, is not relevant to energy issues, has been

overturned by the courts, and has not been the subject of

consultation with or legislative action by the Environment

and Public Works Committee or the Senate. Therefore, we

believe it is inappropriate to include such provisions as

part of the energy bill.

The effect of the proposed amendment would be to disregard

the compelling scientific evidence on the serious health

effects of ozone pollution and delay necessary emissions

reductions. This will increase pollution in those areas and

in downwind areas, increasing asthma attacks, the number of

hospital admissions for respiratory and pulmonary problems,

and reducing the number of days that children can play

outside safely. This would be contrary to the system

established by the Clean Air Act and unsound policy.

In addition, the precedent of bypassing the Committee on

Environment and Public Works would be unfortunate. Disregard

for the views of the committee of jurisdiction would be

compounded by incorporating a new matter such as the proposed

amendment, which is not in either Houses' version of H.R. 6,

into the conference report. Inclusion of the amendment in the

conference report on H.R. 6 will delay Senate consideration

and any final action on H.R. 6.

Finally, we clearly understand that this proposal is not

emanating from the Senate conferees and urge you to oppose

it. Energy Committee majority staff has indicated publicly

that you do not think that the energy bill is the appropriate

vehicle for amending the Clean Air Act.

We hope that you will maintain that position with respect

to this proposed amendment and any such proposals outside the

scope of what has already passed the Senate when the

conferees meet again.

Sincerely,

Jim Jeffords, Jack Reed, Patrick Leahy, Barbara Boxer,

Joe Biden, Ron Wyden, Dianne Feinstein, John F. Kerry,

Hillary Rodham Clinton.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I pay tribute to the life and the memory of Annie Mae Hunt. In one lifetime she has touched many lives and multiple generations. Born into grinding poverty, she triumphed over it and lived an enriched and noble life. Hers is an equally rich legacy. I extend my condolences to her children, her grandchildren, her great- grandchildren and her great-great-grandchildren.

Annie Mae Hunt was the co-author of her memoirs, aptly titled I Am Annie Mae: An Extraordinary Woman in Her Own Words. Published in 1983, the book has literally ``touched the hearts of thousands of people.'' It became the inspiration for the musical and the highly touted film Guts, Gumption and Go-Ahead: Annie Mae Hunt Remembers. As one reviewer said: ``The film shows how self-esteem and skills enabled one woman to change her life around.''

As her editor Ruthe Winegarten has written, ``Annie Mae Hunt is a survivor. Born in 1909 near Brenham, Texas, she grew up in a time and place where African Americans, although legally free, lived in circumstances that had changed little since the days of slavery. Much of her adult life was spent in backbreaking domestic service, until she created a modest independence for herself through sewing and selling Avon Cosmetics.'' Annie Mae Hunt's memoirs ``records a life not only filled with hardships but also the joys of family, of political activism, and of service to church and community.''

Although Annie Mae Hunt was telling the story of her life and times, she was, in reality, chronicling the ordeal and struggles of black women everywhere in America, especially in the south. Reared in a sharecropper system, she overcame hardship, heartbreak, discrimination and obstacles by juggling jobs and owning her own businesses.

Annie Mae Hunt's life was living proof that actions speak louder than words. Her mere presence spoke volumes. In several senses, she was the eminence grise (literally the ``gray eminence'') who exerted considerable influence behind the scenes in the political process. Her letter writing campaign to politicians and elected officials was legendary in its reach and its effectiveness.

Annie Mae Hunt was a lifelong role model and she will remain a source of inspiration for many generations to come. We mourn her passing and we salute her life. She will be long remembered for her good works in the community of man and the community of God, her devotion to others, and her perseverance, and her legacy of success in the face of extreme adversity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of one of Dallas's finest people, my good friend Rev. E. K. Bailey.

Reverend Bailey, founder and pastor of Concord Missionary Baptist Church in Dallas, dedicated his life to the betterment of the city of Dallas. Dr. Bailey founded Concord in 1975 with fewer than 200 members and quickly turned it into one of the city's most vibrant African- American churches. Its current membership numbers 3,500.

In 1989, he founded E. K. Bailey Ministries Inc., a progressive non- profit organization that helps black pastors and lay leaders improve their own churches. He was a tireless public advocate who was not afraid to fight for his constituents. Dr. Bailey's accomplishments are great. When Dr. Bailey tackled a project, no matter how challenging, he did so with enthusiasm, vigor, and integrity.

He will long be remembered for his mission to provide the basic principles and practices of Biblical church growth to African American pastors and lay leaders in order to empower and revitalize African American churches to impact the world for personal and social change. Based in part upon the name recognition of Dr. E. K. Bailey in the African American community and the needs the organization was designed to meet, this ministry found instant credibility. At its first conference--Discipline and Developing the African American Male--over 600 men came to Dallas to learn and acquire resources to take back to their churches.

Above all else, Reverend Bailey was a devoted father and loving husband. Dr. Bailey is survived by his wife, Sheila, and their three grown children. Those who knew Reverend Bailey well understood that the time he spent with his wife and family were the greatest times of his life. After 33 years of marriage and three cancer diagnoses, he said ``If I found myself in a ship, or on a ship, in the middle of a storm, there's only one person I'd want on that ship with me, and that's Sheila Bailey,'' he said.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Reverend E. K. Bailey. And I join with the city of Dallas and the State of Texas in mourning the loss of an outstanding citizen and friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 395. This bipartisan resolution was introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). They are both Ph.D. physicists who appreciate the importance of chemistry. I want to congratulate them for bringing this resolution forward.

Chemistry and chemical engineering contributes to public health through such things as new biomaterials, drug design and drug-delivery technologies and gene therapy. These disciplines help develop new structural and electronic materials and advance technologies that improve energy utilization and transportation systems. In short, chemistry and chemical engineering contribute in critical ways to the economic strength, security and well-being of our Nation.

National Chemistry Week was started as an annual event in 1987 by the American Chemical Society. It sponsors activities to make elementary and secondary school children, and the public in general, more aware of what chemistry is and its importance to their everyday lives.

National Chemistry Week activities are carried out by the local sections of the American Chemical Society, which are found in all parts of the Nation. They work with local industries, schools and museums to design hands-on activities, provide chemical demonstrations and develop exhibits. By these means, the local organizations provide opportunities to stimulate the interests of young people in science and in pursuing scientific careers. And the activities of the National Chemistry Week help advance the important goal of increasing public understanding of science generally.

For 2003, the theme of the National Chemistry Week is Earth's Atmosphere and Beyond. This is very appropriate because it is in honor of the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers' first powered flight.

I congratulate the American Chemical Society for their efforts to establish and sustain National Chemistry Week. I support this resolution, and recognize the value of chemistry and the goals of National Chemistry Week. I ask for its adoption by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 279. This resolution recognizes the 30th anniversary of the Congressional Fellowship Program instituted by the American Association of Advancement of Science. I congratulate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for taking the initiative to develop this resolution.

The AAAS Congressional Science and Engineering Fellowship Program has provided congressional committees and Members' offices with scientific and technical expertise that has greatly benefited governmental decision-making for three decades. The Committee on Science has made frequent use of AAAS fellows over the life of the program, and several subsequently have served on the professional staff of the committee.

I know that many of my colleagues have repeatedly sought AAAS fellows for their personal offices because of the quality of the contributions they have made. The issues confronting Congress increasingly involve scientific and technical aspects. Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers serving as congressional fellows bolster the technical expertise available to Members and staff by bringing to bear extensive knowledge and fresh insights and perspectives.

The presence of congressional fellows enhances the public policy formulation process. In addition, the program provides fellows with a window of the policy formulation process and the workings of Congress that they take back to their home institutions. It also provides a mechanism that many fellows have used to transition to careers in public service.

Mr. Speaker, the American Association for the Advancement of Science is to be congratulated for creating this successful and valuable congressional fellows program. And it is appropriate for us to recognize the contributions of more than 800 fellows who have participated in this program since 1973. I urge my colleagues to support this worthy resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003.

The form of the motion is as follows:

Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas moves that (1) The House

conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference

report the provisions of section 837 of the Senate Amendment

that concern reformulated gasoline in ozone nonattainment

areas and ozone transport regions under the Clean Air Act.

(2) The House conferees shall be instructed to confine

themselves to matters committed to conference in accordance

with clause 9 of rule XXII of the House of Representatives

with regard to any matters relating to ozone nonattainment

and ozone transport.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues that October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month and today, October 17, 2003, is especially important as National Mammography Day. Today we celebrate the significant contributions that early detection through mammography has made in reducing deaths from breast cancer.

And tomorrow, on October 18th, thousands of people in my district in Dallas, TX, will turn out for the Race for the Cure 5K event sponsored by the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, headquartered in Dallas. This year marks the 20th anniversary of the celebrated Komen Race for the Cure Series. The first Race for the Cure was held in 1983 in Dallas with 800 participants. At a time when breast cancer remained a taboo topic for many people, this life-affirming event was a public way to discuss breast cancer issues positively and meaningfully. Breast cancer survivors were celebrated, and those who had lost their battle with the disease were honored by their friends and family. In addition, participants were able to do something healthy and proactive to support the cause. The event was a tremendous success and quickly gained momentum and visibility. Today, the Komen Foundation hosts Race for the Cure events in 112 U.S. cities and in two foreign countries with nearly 1.5 million participants each year, making it the largest series of 5K events in the world. Each participant receives the life-saving message of early detection. Perhaps most importantly, the Komen Race for the Cure has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for critical breast cancer research, education, screening and treatment programs.

This year, more than 200,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and nearly 40,000 women will die from this disease. Every 3 minutes a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, and every 13 minutes a woman dies from this disease. Breast cancer is the leading cause of death among women ages 40-59. Men also succumb to this disease, particularly in the elderly African American male population.

All of us here today will be touched by breast cancer in some way during our lifetimes. There is no simple way to prevent breast cancer, but there are ways to detect it early, at a time when patients have more treatment options and a greater chance of survival. The most effective method used today in detecting breast cancer early is mammography screening.

Today, to celebrate ``National Mammography Day,'' the Komen Foundation is launching a campaign to urge Congress to renew the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). Unfortunately, the authorization for this highly successful program expired on September 30, 2003. Congress must move immediately to reauthorize the NBCCEDP program at a higher funding level of $250 million for FY2005.

By reauthorizing the program and providing at least $250 million for the program, Congress will help provide low-cost mammograms and follow- up care to thousands of women who otherwise could not afford these potentially life-saving services. The NBCCEDP is essential to help eradicate breast cancer as a life-threatening disease. Since the program's inception 13 years ago: approximately 2 million women have been screened, mammography use has increased by approximately 20 percent among women over 50 years of age, and nearly 13,000 cases of breast cancer have been detected.

The tragic fact is that the current NBCCEDP funding level allows it to cover only about 18 percent to 20 percent of the eligible population--which means that four out of five eligible women are not being served. Additional funding is needed to ensure that no eligible woman is denied quality screening and care. Raising the funding to $250 million next year would enable the NBCCEDP to provide approximately 122,000 additional screenings to women in need next year.

During my tenure in Congress and the Texas State Legislature, I have always strived to ensure that America has the resources needed to combat the terrible diseases that plague our communities. I absolutely share your support for an increase in funding for stronger medical research. As a former nurse, that's why I support the National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIH is an investment that saves lives, and helps Americans to live longer and to live better.

That is why I am so proud to be a cosponsor of the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2003 (H.R. 1886), the Mammogram Availability Act of 2003 (H.R. 736), and the Better Screening Test for Women Act (H.R. 1241). H.R. 1886 improves treatment for breast cancer patients. H.R. 736 requires that health insurance companies provide coverage for annual screening mammography for women 40 years of age or older. H.R. 1241 authorizes additional appropriations to the National Institutes of Health for research on early detection of breast cancer.

To help recognize National Mammography Day, and make it much more than just a commemorative day, I urge my colleagues to join me in calling for the immediate reauthorization of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program at $250 million and more for the coming years. We owe nothing less to our grandmothers, mothers, daughters, sisters and the men in our lives in the race to find a cure for breast cancer.

Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall No. 559, because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay.''

Mr. Chairman, during the lead-up to this war in Iraq, this body had great assurances from the President and his staff that in the aftermath, the United States would not be tagged with the bill. Here we are debating to commit $87 billion to this war.

And this war has been described to us as fighting terrorists. Not a single terrorist has come from this area. And this really could not come at a worse time because we have no money. Our economy is the worst we have seen in 70 years. We have lost many, many jobs. Just in my area, 105,000 jobs have been lost in Dallas.

Protecting our troops in Iraq, or anywhere they are, is important and necessary. But I have been to Iraq, and they are not protected. I have been to Germany to look at those who have been injured, and here. Where is the money going? There is no accountability. No accountability for the first money that has been appropriated. Now, we are asking for more.

And we are financing this war in Iraq with deficit spending. We are borrowing money to pay for this war. We are not cutting spending, we are not raising taxes. If anything, we are going to see another tax break coming soon. We are endangering Social Security.

Vote against this spending. We do not need another blank check being handed to the President.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a Texas leader in civil rights, who after 91 years, passed on Friday. Mildred Coleman Holloway.

Throughout her career, Mildred was a trailblazer among African- American women who fought tirelessly for equal rights in an era when blacks were still required to pay a poll tax to vote.

Originally from Waco, Texas, Mildred attended Samuel Huston College, which later merged to become Huston-Tillotson College. For more than 40 years, Mildred was a Democratic Party icon in Texas.

Mr. Speaker, this great leader spent much of her time in Austin fighting for equal opportunity for all people.

She was instrumental in the founding of three politically powerful groups in Austin and the state of Texas, the Texas Coalition of Black Democrats, Black Austin Democrats, and the United Political Organization.

Mildred Coleman Holloway was a trailblazer and champion of minority rights in Texas. She was not just a leader in Texas politics but an inspiration to all of us in the Texas delegation. I am certainly proud to have known her and learned from her example.

I will miss her caring spirit. The people of Texas and her friends and colleagues in Austin and throughout Texas will miss her. Although she is no longer with us, Mildred Holloway will fondly be remembered for her courage, determination, humility, and devotion to public service.

Mr. Speaker, on September 6, I hosted my 11th Annual Community Appreciation Day in Dallas, Texas.

A To highlight the talent of the youth in my district, Frederick Douglass Elementary School of Pleasant Grove held a student essay contest. The top 10 essays were selected from over 137 essays submitted. Each winner was awarded a Congressional Certificate of Appreciation and an Autographed Bicycle Helmet.

The Grand Prize winner of the student essay contest, Maria Beltran (3rd grade), was awarded a Congressional Certificate of Appreciation, an Autographed Bicycle Helmet and a New Red Unisex Bicycle. The grand prize winner read the following beautiful essay to the audience.

Maria provided us with words that should be shared with all. I extend her remarks for fellow Members of Congress. I know that we can benefit from her words as we face international challenges.

If I could change the world, I would change it by doing

something to stop the violence, because the violence is

destroying the world. I would like to have a better place to

live. I wish everybody would help each other and no fighting

and no pushing and no killing people. I wish I could change

the drugs for food, because a lot of children are hungry, I

will help the homeless because they don't have any food,

water or homes to live. If the people stop smoking they could

have a better life for themselves. Because smoking can make

you sick, I wish the children would listen to their parents

and their teachers and respect them so they can have the best

information of what is the best for everybody. I wish I could

stop the wars. I wish a peaceful place to live, with no wars,

with out drugs, only peace and love for everybody in the

whole world. I am glad when the people are nice to each

other.

If I could change the world, these are the things I would

do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1303, and ask my colleagues to vote for it. H.R. 1303 will address serious concerns expressed by the U.S. courts about the E-Government Act of 2002. I believe the legislation will address these concerns while still serving the worthwhile purposes of the E-Government Act.

In the wee hours of the last day of the 107th Congress, the House and Senate both passed the E-Government Act of 2002 by unanimous consent. The President later signed the act into law as Public Law 107-347.

Section 205 of that legislation required the U.S. courts to establish and maintain Web sites containing a variety of information. Required information includes access to docket information for each case, access to the substance of all written opinions issued by the court, and access to documents filed with the courthouse in electronic form.

The legislation wisely recognized that the public interests in access to court documents and the protection of privacy must be balanced. Many court

documents contain a variety of personal information, including bank account numbers, tax returns, and home addresses. Unrestricted Internet access to all court documents in their entirety might, therefore, seriously compromise the privacy of certain individuals.

In acknowledgment of these serious privacy concerns, section 205 requires the U.S. Supreme Court to prescribe rules ``to protect privacy and security concerns relating to electronic filing of documents and the public availability under this subsection of documents filed electronically.'' The Supreme Court is required to submit its prescribed rules to Congress, and the prescribed rules would be adopted if Congress failed to act to amend or reject them within 6 months.

Section 205 also further dictates the substance of the rules that the U.S. Supreme Court must prescribe. Most relevant to the legislation before us, section 205 requires that the privacy rules adopted by the courts allow parties to file unredacted versions of court documents under seal.

This language addressed Justice Department concerns that the privacy rules could impede the introduction into evidence of information it deemed necessary to prove the elements of certain cases.

Because of the last-minute nature of the E-Government Act, neither the Committee on the Judiciary nor the U.S. Courts had adequate opportunity to review the final text of Section 205 before passage. Having now reviewed and reflected on Section 205, the Committee on the Judiciary had some concerns about the language. It is those concerns that H.R. 1303 addresses today.

In allowing parties to file both redacted and sealed, unredacted sets of court documents, the U.S. courts believe Section 205 creates needless potential for confusion and error. In particular, the Courts assert Section 205 will needlessly complicate the process of making appropriate versions of documents available to juries and to the public, and for certifying appropriate versions of the documents for purposes of appeal.

These concerns have been addressed in the legislation before us today. H.R. 1303 addresses the concerns of the courts, while accomplishing the objectives of the Department of Justice. In fact, H.R. 1303 as adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary represents a negotiated compromise between the Department of Justice and the U.S. courts.

H.R. 1303 requires the courts to prescribe rules that allow parties to file a reference list with the court. This reference list would include both a complete and partially-redacted version of each personal data identifier. The redacted version would be used in lieu of, and be construed to refer to, the complete version in subsequent filings in the case. The list, which would be maintained under seal, would, therefore, serve as a type of key.

This approach resolves the concerns of the courts by eliminating the need to file two versions of a court document. It meets the needs of the Department of Justice by allowing for the filing of unredacted identifiers where necessary to accomplish the elements of a case.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation is a proportionate cure for a previously-overlooked defect in the E- Government Act of 2002. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation today.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 234. H. Res. 234 condemns bigotry and violence against Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, South Asian-Americans and Sikh-Americans, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

This resolution condemns bigotry and violence against individuals of Arab-American, Muslim-American, South Asian-American, and Sikh-American dissent. It was introduced in response to concerns about an increase in discriminatory backlash crimes following the commencement of military action in Iraq in March of 2003. Specifically, House Resolution 234 recognizes the many contributions of Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, South Asian-Americans, and Sikh-Americans to the Nation and calls upon law enforcement authorities to work vigorously to prevent discriminatory backlash crimes against such persons and to investigate such crimes that do occur and reaffirms the House of Representative's commitment to assuring that civil rights of all Americans, including individuals of Arab-American, Muslim-American, South Asian-American, and Sikh-American dissent, be protected.

In the weeks and months following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, this Nation saw a significant increase in the number of crimes committed against those perceived to be Arab-Americans, Muslim- American,

South Asian-American, and Sikh-American descent.

According to hate crimes statistics compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, criminal acts motivated by bias against ethnicity/ national origin were the second-most frequently reported bias in 2001, more than doubling the number of incidents, offenses, victims and known offenders from 2000 data and the anti-other ethnicity/national origin category quadrupled in incidents, offenses, victims, and known offenders.

Similarly, the number of anti-Islamic incidents grew 1,600 percent between the year 2000 and 2001, taking such incidents from the second- least reported category of reported religious-bias incidents in 2000 to the second-highest category of religious-bias in 2001.

Mr. Speaker, there can be no room for hatred and bigotry in America. Our history has taught us that when we rise above such hatred, we are stronger as a Nation. Too often in our history, fear and panic have resulted in discrimination and even oppression by our government of groups perceived to be a threat. Invariably, when things calm down and cooler heads prevail, there is a great sense of national shame at the injustices perpetuated against innocent people whose only crime was their race, religion, national origin or ethnicity.

It is important that this House go on record as condemning these reprehensible acts which betray what is best about our Nation. We are a diverse Nation, and we are the stronger for it. We are we cannot permit blind hatred to destroy that.

In addition to this resolution, I would hope that this House will also turn its attention to the extent to which the government has assaulted the rights of innocent individuals simply because of their race, religion or national origin. In addition to the hate crimes perpetuated by individuals, we must be vigilant that the power of government not be abused and that people not be targeted by law enforcement even if they have done nothing wrong.

The right to live free from violence and discrimination is a fundamental right of all Americans. So long as one American is denied that right, no one can truly be free. I urges all my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of H.R. 2655.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2655 amends the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program Act of 1998 to extend through fiscal year 2008. The Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program provides for admission into the United States each fiscal year of up to 4,000 young, disadvantaged aliens from designated countries in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. These youths suffer from sectarian violence and high unemployment. This program helps these youth develop job skills and conflict resolution skills in a diverse and peaceful environment so that they can return to their homes better able to contribute toward economic regeneration and a lasting peace in Ireland.

This bill also makes a few changes to the program to ensure that the disadvantaged youth are those who benefit from the program. H.R. 2655 clarifies that a qualifying alien must be a citizen of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. It also clarifies that no qualifying candidate may have a degree from an institution of higher education. All participants in the program must also return home for 2 years, rather than 1, at the conclusion of the visa term.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I pay tribute to the memory of a remarkable woman who was the first black player to win Wimbledon and a pre-eminent figure in women's tennis, Althea Gibson. I would like to extend my greatest sympathy to the Gibson family by taking a moment to reflect on the rich life of this fine person.

The eldest of five children, Gibson was born in South Carolina but raised in the Harlem section of New York City. While her future opponents were developing their tennis on the courts of country clubs she was getting into trouble on West 143rd which was a play area blocked off to traffic. She learned paddle ball, a sort of poor-girl tennis with solid wooden rackets.

She was a self-described ``born athlete'' who broke racial barriers not only in tennis but in the Ladies Professional Golf Association. She even toured with the Harlem Globetrotters basketball team after retiring from tennis in the late 1950s.

On Aug. 28, 1950, three years after Jackie Robinson had broken the color barrier in major league baseball, Ms. Gibson became the first black player to compete in the precursor to the U.S. Open.

Ms. Gibson dominated women's tennis from 1956-58, winning 11 Grand Slam titles: five in singles, five in doubles and one in mixed doubles.

She captured the Wimbledon and U.S. championships in 1957 and 1958, and also won the French Open, and three Wimbledon doubles titles (1956- 58).

After the circuit, she launched herself into the business of supporting herself. She toured with the Harlem Globetrotters. She was a proud member of a community service organization, Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc.

Mr. Speaker, Ms. Gibson was known as a proud woman who for years declined to take money from friends who tried to help when she was living on Medicare and Social Security payments. Her front door bore a simple plaque: ``Bless this home and all who enter.''

I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering the honorable and gracious memory of Althea Gibson. I am certain that her legacy will endure for years to come.