Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, from November 10th-12th, in Rome, Italy, over 20 Nobel Peace Laureates and Nobel Peace organizations met and addressed core challenges to our world under the theme--``A United World or a Divided World? Multiethnicity, Human Rights, Terrorism.''

The Nobel Peace Summit was sponsored under the high patronage of the President of the Italian Republic, the city of Rome, and the Gorbachev Foundation.

My friend Jonathan Granoff, President of the Global Security Institute, lead the delegation of the Laureate organization the International Peace Bureau (IPB), and was instrumental in the drafting of the final statement of the Summit.

I believe it represents a valuable. contribution made by a group with profound moral authority. I believe we should consider their concerns in our deliberations here in the U.S. Congress.

Final Statement of the 5th Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates

November 12, 2004, Rome, Italy

Two decades ago, the world was swept with a wave of hope.

Inspired by the popular movements for peace, freedom,

democracy and solidarity, the nations of the world worked

together to end the cold war. Yet the opportunities opened up

by that historic change are slipping away. We are gravely

concerned with the resurgent nuclear and conventional arms

race, disrespect for international law and the failure of the

world's governments to address adequately the challenges of

poverty and environmental degradation. A cult of violence is

spreading globally; the opportunity to build a culture of

peace, advocated by the United Nations, Pope John Paul II,

the Dalai Lama and other spiritual leaders, is receding.

Alongside the challenges inherited from the past there are

new ones, which, if not properly addressed, could cause a

clash of civilizations, religions and cultures. We reject the

idea of the inevitability of such a conflict. We are

convinced that combating terrorism in all its forms is a task

that should be pursued with determination. Only by

reaffirming our shared ethical values--respect for human

rights and fundamental freedoms--and by observing democratic

principles, within and amongst countries, can terrorism be

defeated. We must address the root causes of terrorism--

poverty, ignorance and injustice--rather than responding to

violence with violence.

Unacceptable violence is occurring daily against women and

children. Children remain our most important neglected

treasure. Their protection, security and health should be the

highest priority. Children everywhere deserve to be educated

in and for peace. There is no excuse for neglecting their

safety and welfare and, particularly, for their suffering

in war.

The war in Iraq has created a hotbed of dangerous

instability and a breeding ground for terrorism. Credible

reports of the disappearance of nuclear materials cannot be

ignored. While we mourn the deaths of tens of thousands of

people, none of the goals proclaimed by the coalition have

been achieved.

The challenges of security, poverty and environmental

crisis can only be met successfully through multilateral

efforts based on the rule of law. All nations must strictly

fulfil their treaty obligations and reaffirm the

indispensable role of the United Nations and the primary

responsibility of the UN Security Council for maintaining

peace.

We support a speedy, peaceful resolution of the North

Korean nuclear issue, including a verifiable end to North

Korea's nuclear weapons program, security guarantees and

lifting of sanctions on North Korea. Both the six-party talks

and bilateral efforts by the United States and North Korea

should contribute to such an outcome.

We welcome recent progress in the talks between Iran and

Great Britain, France and Germany on the Iranian nuclear

program issue and hope that the United States will join in

the process to find a solution within the framework of the

International Atomic Energy Agency.

We call for the reduction of military expenditures and for

conclusion of a treaty that would control arms trade and

prohibit sales of arms where they could be used to violate

international human rights standards and humanitarian law.

As Nobel Laureates, we believe that the world community

needs urgently to address the challenges of poverty and

sustainable development. Responding to these challenges

requires the political will that has been so sadly lacking.

The undertakings pledged by states at the UN Millennium

Summit, the promises of increased development assistance,

fair trade, market access and debt relief for developing

countries, have not been implemented. Poverty continues to be

the world's most widespread and dangerous scourge.

Millions of people become victims of hunger and disease,

and entire nations suffer from feelings of frustration and

despair. This creates fertile ground for extremism and

terrorism. The stability and future of the entire human

community are thus jeopardized.

Scientists are warning us that failure to solve the

problems of water, energy and climate change will lead to a

breakdown of order, more military conflicts and ultimately

the destruction of the living systems upon which civilization

depends. Therefore, we reaffirm our support for the Kyoto

Protocol and the Earth Charter and endorse the rights-based

approach to water, as reflected in the initiative of Green

Cross International calling upon governments to negotiate a

framework treaty on water.

As Nobel Peace Prize Laureates we believe that to benefit

from humankind's new, unprecedented opportunities and to

counter the dangers confronting us there is a need for

better global governance. Therefore, we support

strengthening and reforming the United Nations and its

institutions.

As immediate specific tasks, we commit to work for:

--Genuine efforts to resolve the Middle East crisis. This

is both a key to the problem of terrorism and a chance to

avoid a dangerous clash of civilizations. A solution is

possible if the right of all nations in the region to secure

viable statehood is respected and if the Middle East is

integrated in all global processes while respecting the

unique culture of the peoples of that region.

--Preserving and strengthening the Nuclear Non-

Proliferation Treaty. We reject double standards and

emphasize the legal responsibility of nuclear weapons states

to work to eliminate nuclear weapons. We call for

continuation of the moratorium on nuclear testing pending

entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and

for accelerating the process of verifiable and irreversible

nuclear arms reduction. We are gravely alarmed by the

creation of new, usable nuclear weapons and call for

rejection of doctrines that view nuclear weapons as

legitimate means of war-fighting and threat pre-emption.

--Effectively realizing the initiative of the UN Secretary

General to convene a high level conference in 2005 to give an

impetus to the implementation of the Millennium Development

Goals. We pledge to work to create an atmosphere of public

accountability to help accomplish these vitally important

tasks.

We believe that to solve the problems that challenge the

world today politicians need to interact with an empowered

civil society and strong mass movements. This is the way

toward a globalization with a human face and a new

international order that rejects brute force, respects

ethnic, cultural and political diversity and affirms justice,

compassion and human solidarity.

We, the Nobel Peace Laureates and Laureate organizations,

pledge to work for the realization of these goals and are

calling on governments and people everywhere to join us.

Mikhail Gorbachev, Kim Dae-Jung, Lech Walesa, Joseph

Rotblat, Jose Ramos-Horta, Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan

Maguire, Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, Adolfo Perez Esquivel,

and Rigoberta Menchu Tum; and, United Nations Children's

Fund, Pugwash Conferences, International Physicians for the

Prevention of Nuclear War, International Peace Bureau,

Institut de Droit International, American Friends Service

Committee, Medicins sans Frontieres, Amnesty International,

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, International

Labour Organization, International Campaign to Ban Land

Mines, Albert Schweitzer Institute, United Nations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the ``Universal Service Antideficiency Suspension Act,'' legislation that is necessary to address an abrupt change in the accounting requirements for the E-rate program which has led to a suspension of funds previously committed to K-12 schools and libraries around the country.

Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), at the behest of the Bush Administration's Office of Management and Budget, decided to require that certain provisions of the ``Antideficiency Act'' (as contained in various provisions of title 31 U.S.C.) apply to the E-rate program for K-12 schools and libraries.

The result of the FCC's decision was that millions of dollars in committed funding to schools and libraries around the country was held up, and millions more put in jeopardy of not being released in timely fashion under the E-rate program. The decision to apply the provisions of the Antideficiency Act to the E-rate program also implicates other similar universal service programs for low income consumers and rural consumers in high cost areas.

Moreover, the FCC's decision will likely mean an unnecessary increase in consumer fees to all residential and business consumers starting January 1st to cover the new accounting requirements. This is why this bill needs to pass before Congress adjourns for the year.

The purpose of this legislation is to suspend the requirements of the Antideficiency Act for programs within the Universal Service Fund (USF), including the E-rate program, from the date of enactment through December 31, 2005. This will rectify for a period of time the problems caused by the FACC's decision to alter the accounting rules which govern such programs. This legislation is similar to legislation introduced in the Senate yesterday by Senator Olympia Snowe and Senator Jay Rockefeller.

The E-rate program has helped transform our country's schools and libraries. Since it was adopted as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it has assisted bringing the future into America's classrooms. While in 1996 only a small handful of classrooms and libraries were Internet capable, now approximately 95 percent of all public Internet access and over 90 percent of all K-12 classrooms have Internet access. It has become part of the educational experience for millions of schoolkids across the nation.

That's the reason why I named the program the ``E-rate,'' for ``education rate''--because I wanted to underscore the central educational mission for the program, especially for those poorer schools or more remote classrooms which might have been adversely affected by a ``digital divide'' in access to the skill set these kids would need in a new economy. The E-rate has been indispensable in assisting these schools and provides discounts between 20 and 90 percent to such educational entities depending upon their resources. I know from first-hand experience from my own State that this program has proven educational importance and value to millions of kids. In the last 5 years alone, over $180 million in supportive funding has gone to Massachusetts schools and libraries.

When I was Chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee in 1993, while that panel was considering proposals to revamp our nation's telecommunications laws, I wrote to the CEOs of the top 20 telephone and cable companies at that time to request that they provide free telecommunications links to our nation's schools. Only 3 reported their willingness to do so. As a result, I fought to make sure that our telecommunications legislation would include a requirement that such telecommunications companies better serve our schools because I felt this was vital for our educational system going into the digital era.

During the Subcommittee mark-up on the bill on the 1st of March, 2004, I introduced and successfully added the E-rate provision as an amendment to the pending telecommunications legislation. That bill, H.R. 3636, later passed the House of Representatives in June, 2004, by a vote of 423-4. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to pass similar legislation in that Congress and my legislative effort to establish the E-rate died on the Senate side prior to the 1994 elections. In the next Congress, with Republicans taking control of the House and Senate, similar efforts to pass a comprehensive Telecommunications Act were successful, and the E-rate provision was added to the Senate bill in the Senate Commerce Committee by Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), in an amendment that was also cosponsored by Senators Rockefeller (D-WV), Exon (D-NE), Kerrey (D-NE), and several others.

To administer this E-rate provision, as well as other universal service provisions from the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Universal Service Administration Company (USAC) was established. This is the entity that received the directive from the FCC to implement new accounting rules to govern the E-rate program. USAC had previously utilized accounting rules that private sector entities use, but now USAC has been compelled to utilize government accounting rules which compel it to hold large cash reserves on its books by the end of the fiscal year to cover its commitments. Since this accounting decision came late in the fiscal year, USAC struggled to comply and was forced to freeze the E-rate program. And while USAC and the FCC believe that the program can begin again to act upon applications for E-rate funding, USAC has notified the Commission that the new accounting rules will compel it to raise the USF contribution level. This increase will likely be passed along to consumers.

While the last hours of this session are approaching, I believe that this legislation can still pass and must pass now, as a standalone bill such as this one I am offering, or as part of another package of bills--and I urge my colleagues to join in efforts to correct the problem that the Bush Administration's OMB and the FCC have created for this invaluable program. This legislation is simply designed to rectify this situation until a long-term solution can be achieved.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

I have an offering for the House this evening with apologies to Ernest L. Thayer entitled ``The Curse Has Struck Out.''

The outlook wasn't guaranteed for the Red Sox nine this year. Since 1918 the boys had left us crying in our beer. And when they lost twice in New York and lost again at home, a pall-like silence fell upon the loyal Red Sox fans.

A straggling few got up to go in deep despair. ``Wait 'til next year,'' they said. Resignation filled the air. The rest clung to that hope that springs eternal in the human breast. ``It ain't over 'til its over'' they muttered half in jest. They thought, ``If only our boys could put some bat on that ball, we'd put Bambino's curse to rest once and for all.''

And then Ortiz let fly a homer, to the wonderment of all. And Johnny Damon, bases loaded, tore the cover off the ball. And when the dust had lifted on that memorable night, we had come back from three games down, the Curse was in our sights.

Then from all of Red Sox nation's throats there rose a wild call, it echoed on the Common, it shook Fanueil Hall. It pounded on the River Charles, and splashed upon the Bay, the Yankees were all through, kaput, a World Series we would play.

And they rolled out to St. Louis, jewel of the Midwest. The Cards had won their league with ease, but now they faced a test. Were they ready for the Boston boys? The town was dressed in red. The fans could not be nicer, the team was so well led.

But the Red Sox took the first three games, competing nobly one and all. They overcame their errors, they answered every call. And as game four proceeded, and a series win now loomed, all New England shivered with the thought we might still be doomed.

What deus ex machina would fall down from the sky?

What Bucky Dent/Bill Buckner ghost might steer things all awry?

Keith Foulke climbed up upon the mound, ball burning in his hand.

The Curse stepped up to face him, to make a final stand.

There was ease in the Curse's manner as he stepped into his place.

There was pride in Bambino's bearing, a smile on the Curse's face.

And when, responding to his fans, he lightly doffed his hat,

No stranger in the crowd could doubt 'twas the Curse at the bat.

A nation's eyes were on him as he rubbed his hands with dirt.

60,000 tongues applauded when he wiped them on his shirt.

Then, while Foulke rubbed the ball into his shifty hip,

Defiance flashed in the Curse's eye, a sneer curled on his lip.

And now the leather-covered sphere came hurtling through the air,

And the Curse stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there.

Close by the portly batsman the ball unheeded sped--

``I just can't hit that,'' said the Curse. ``Strike one!'' the umpire said.

From the canyons of Manhattan, there rose a muffled roar.

New York fans were screaming, ``Would the Curse really be no more?''

``Kill him, kill the umpire,'' they shouted in Yankee land.

The Curse looked smug. In 86 years the Curse had never fanned.

With a smile of overconfidence, the Curse's visage shone.

He stilled the rising tumult, he bade the game go on.

He signaled the Red Sox closer, and once more the dun sphere flew,

But the Curse couldn't hit it, and the umpire said, ``Strike two.''

``It's over,'' thought the Cardinals fans, who are brought up so well.

But the Curse gave a scornful look and an eerie silence fell.

They saw his face frown stern and cold, they saw his muscles strain.

And they really thought the Curse wouldn't let that ball go by again.

The sneer has fled from the Curse's lip, the teeth are clenched in hate.

He pounds, with cruel violence, his bat upon the plate.

And now the pitcher holds the ball, and now he lets it go,

And now the air is shattered by the force of the Curse's blow.

Oh, all across this favored land the sun is shining bright.

The band is playing happily and our hearts are oh so light.

And Red Sox Nation smiles and laughs, and little children shout.

And there is pure joy in Beantown--the Curse has struck out.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong concerns about the lack of adequate patient privacy protections in H.R. 3015, the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act of 2004.

H.R. 3015 is intended to support states' efforts to prevent the abuse of certain controlled substances through the provision of federal grants to the states for the purpose of establishing and implementing controlled substance monitoring programs. States would use the grants to develop and maintain an electronic database containing information about the type of medication prescribed, quantity dispensed, number of refills, and similar product information. The database also would collect personal information about each patient receiving prescriptions of the covered controlled substances, such as the patient's name, address and telephone number.

The abuse of controlled substances such as oxycontin and amphetamines is a serious problem that plagues many Americans. In response to the seriousness of the problem of prescription drug abuse, more than 20 states, including Massachusetts, have taken steps to

prevent such abuse through the establishment of reporting requirements on pharmacists and the creation of drug monitoring databases similar to those contemplated by H.R. 3015. In Massachusetts, for example, pharmacies are required to report the prescriptions they fill for substances in Schedules I and II to the state's department of Public Health.

The problem is that H.R. 3015 does not provide the safeguards that are required to shield patients--the vast majority of whom will be law- abiding citizens receiving medications as part of a legitimate plan of care--from unauthorized disclosure of their personal medical information. Instead, the legislation provides the states broad leeway to establish databases of patients' private medical records with little guidance on the privacy protections that must be in place in order to qualify for the grants.

For example, H.R. 3015 does not require states to limit access to the database information to a finite and identifiable number of individuals. Instead, the bill permits disclosure of individually- identifiable patient information in the database to a wide range of professionals in addition to practitioners and law enforcement personnel, including any local, state or federal ``narcotics control, licensure, disciplinary or program authority'' who can make specific certifications as to the need for access to the information. Any ``agent of another state'' with a monitoring program approved by the bill also could gain access to patient records in the database, provided that the purpose of the access is for ``implementing the state's controlled substance monitoring program.'' Such easy access puts the privacy of potentially hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens at risk of unauthorized disclosure.

Additional privacy protections that are missing from H.R. 3015 include: a requirement that states receiving grants under the terms of the bill periodically purge the database of information about any particular prescription after a limited amount of time; unambiguous language stipulating that the bill does not override established standards of medical ethics relating to privacy; establishment of specific penalties for unauthorized access and redisclosure; and a provision making clear that the term ``minimum necessary'' as it relates to the limitation of information to the ``minimum necessary'' needed to comply with a request for patient data be interpreted as defined under the Amended Privacy Rule.

While I strongly support efforts to prevent the abuse of controlled substances, H.R. 3015 does not contain sufficient guidance to the states on the level of privacy protections that they must provide in the creation and maintenance of the databases authorized under the legislation. The potential for the invasion of patient privacy resulting from such databases is not merely theoretical. The New York Times reported on October 1, 2004 that confidential records of nearly 4,000 abused and foster children in Central Florida were available to the public on the Internet for at least four months because of a security breach in a child welfare computer system. The records included the children's names, photographs, Social Security numbers, case histories and locations of the foster homes they were in, and were accessible on a Web site of a private children's agency under contract with the Department of Children and Families. I am including a copy of this article for inclusion in the Record.

Now that H.R. 3015 has been approved by the House, I urge the Senate to strengthen the privacy provisions in the legislation so that the important goal of preventing prescription drug abuse can be advanced without sacrificing the privacy of law-abiding patients.

[From the New York Times, Oct. 1, 2004]

Confidentiality for Foster Children Is Broken

(By Terry Aguayo)

Miami, Sept. 30.--Confidential records of nearly 4,000

abused and foster children in Central Florida were available

to the public on the Internet for at least four months

because of a security breach in a child welfare computer

system, the Department of Children and Families said on

Thursday.

The records included the children's names, photographs,

Social Security numbers, case histories and locations of the

foster homes they were in, and were accessible on the Web

site of Kids Central, a private children's agency under

contract with the Department of Children and Families, the

state's child welfare agency.

In April or May, Kids Central began using a computer system

designed to let private caseworkers review state child

welfare records through the Internet, said to Janice Johnson,

chief executive of Kids Central in Ocala. Although a user

name and a password were needed to reach the records, some

passwords and user names became available online in

unrestricted files created when caseworkers sought technical

help with the system.

``Confidentiality is critical,'' said Don Thomas, district

administrator for the Department of Children and Families in

Central Florida. ``If these kids are in the child welfare

system to begin with, they have a far from ideal life, and if

their personal information is available to those who don't

have to know, it violates their privacy.''

Department administrators ordered the Web site shut down on

Wednesday after a reporter for The Miami Herald, which first

reported the problem, informed them of the flaw. It was back

up Thursday morning after the security issues were resolved,

Mr. Thomas said.

Mr. Thomas said he knew of no one, other than the reporter,

who gained access to the records because of the flaw.

``A child's case record is a child's life. It should be

treated as sacred,'' said Richard Wexler, executive director

of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform and a

strong critic of the department. ``Given the kind of

information, I think there is a clear danger, particularly

since the locations of these children were made available to

anyone.''

The Department of Children and Families has been afflicted

by numerous problems that surfaced after it lost track of a

4-year-old foster child, Rilya Wilson, and did not notice she

was missing until 15 months later, in April 2002. She remains

unaccounted for. Jerry Regier, the department's secretary,

resigned in August as a result of accusations that he and two

top aides took favors from contractors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Fair Access to Clinical Trials (FACT) Act. This bill is designed to ensure that the public has complete and accurate information about the drugs and devices they use.

Recent revelations in the press and in the oversight hearings conducted by the Energy and Commerce Committee's Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee have raised serious concerns that some companies in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries have failed to properly disclosed important information from the public about the safety of certain drugs or medical devices. For example, there is now evidence that several pediatric anti-depressant trials that produced important new adverse information about the safety of certain drugs were not released to the public. The public is now demanding to know why these trials never saw the light of day. Although much attention has focused on disclosure problems involving the effects of certain anti-depressants on young people, the problem of selective disclosure and publication is not limited to a specific type of drug or scenario--the same concerns exist whether we are talking about drugs to treat depression, heart disease or arthritis, or even a medical device that would be implanted into the human body.

I am sure that some clinical trials do not become part of the medical literature for innocent reasons. But we cannot ignore the possibility that some studies were and continue to be intentionally buried by companies who are worried about the impact of a negative trial on their bottom line. Regardless of the motivation, however, the fact remains that we don't know what trials are currently being conducted, so it is impossible to determine whether the companies and researchers are actually telling us the whole truth about their drugs and devices or whether they are painting a distorted picture of their products by picking and choosing which trials they want to reveal.

This creates two huge problems.

The first is that in order for doctors to make good medical decisions and provide their patients with the best possible care, they need to have access to complete and sound scientific data.

The second is that when people enroll in clinical trials they give up a certain control of

their own personal medical decisions, willingly taking experimental drugs and subjecting themselves to potential harm in the belief that their participation in the studies will add to the advancement of medical knowledge and potentially unlock the secrets of disease. But if a researcher or a company that sponsors a trial does not publicize the results, the knowledge gained from putting those participants at risk remains forever buried in some researcher's computer. That information will not be available to doctors, or to other medical researchers, who could use it.

In order to ensure that clinicians have all the information they need in order to make sound medical decisions, uphold the ethical responsibility to patients and protect public health, I am proud to join with the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, to introduce the Fair Access to Clinical Trials (The FACT Act) a bill to create a mandatory, public, federal registry of all clinical trials.

The FACT act will require researchers to register their clinical trials in a federal registry before starting them and report the results of those trials at the conclusion. The federal database will include both federal-funded and privately-funded clinical trials so that clinicians, patients and researchers will be able to know the universe of clinical trials on a particular drug and have access to the results of those trials. Our bill also establishes strong enforcement mechanisms, including monetary penalties of up to $10,000 per day for manufacturers who refuse to comply.

The registry established under the bill is intended to meet all of the minimum criteria for a trial registry set out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and will satisfy the American Medical Association's call for the results of all clinical trials to be publicly available to doctors and patients. Our legislation has been endorsed by the New England Journal of Medicine and the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation.

The FACT act will ensure that patients have the tools they need to make informed decisions, maintain the integrity of the medical community, and protect the health of their patients and our families.

I look forward to working with everyone concerned about this important issue so that we end up with a system that preserves a robust system of research and ensures robust system of disclosure.

Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by 14 of my colleagues in introducing the ``Crosby-Puller Combat Wounds Compensation Act,'' a bill to remedy the lapse in support that a wounded soldier experiences from the moment he/she is evacuated from the combat zone for medical treatment. Although some of that support can eventually be restored if a soldier is discharged and applies under certain VA programs, this bill deals with the immediate burden placed on soldiers like James Crosby, a Marine who was seriously wounded while fighting for his country in Iraq. The bill has been named after James Crosby and, at his request, Lt. General Lewis ``Chesty'' Puller, USMC, the most decorated Marine in the history of the Corps.

Lance Corporal James Crosby of Winthrop, Massachusetts enlisted in the United States Marine Corps when he was 17 years old. He is married to Angela and was living in California before his service and his injury.

On March 18, 2004, James was wounded by enemy fire while riding on the back of a U.S. military vehicle in Iraq. A rocket fired at the vehicle killed the driver and injured two Marines including James. A piece of shrapnel pierced James' side and penetrated his intestines and spine.

James was taken immediately to a hospital in Kuwait. He had his first operation there, was stabilized and finally flown to a U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany. In Germany, James underwent several surgeries to remove shrapnel and repair wounds. James's wife, Angela, was flown to Germany to be with him during these difficult times. James was flown to Bethesda military hospital in Maryland in late March. Congressman Markey visited James in April at which time he received the Purple Heart. James eventually returned to Massachusetts and continued to receive care at the West Roxbury Veterans Hospital in Boston. He has lost over 50 pounds since his injury and requires a colostomy bag at all times. He has undergone 14 surgeries thus far, but remains paralyzed from the waist down.

The Boston Red Sox honored James on June 25, 2004 as he threw out the first pitch before a Red Sox-Phillies game at Fenway Park.

James's pay was immediately cut when he was transported out of the combat zone in Iraq. While serving the U.S. Marine Corps in Iraq, James received his base pay as well as Combat Zone Tax Exclusion (CZTE), Imminent Danger Pay (IDP), Hardship Duty pay (HDP), Per Diem and Flight Pay. He also lost his Family Separation Allowance (FSA) once he returned to the United States for medical care. The tax exclusion and pays amounted to more than $1,000 per month. James is now still a member of the Marine Corps and has not yet been discharged. He is not entitled to Veterans benefits until he is officially discharged. James was being paid about $2,500 a month while serving in Iraq, but now is only receiving $1,300 a month.

He has relied on family and friends to help him pay for a handicapped accessible apartment as well as daily expenses, because his current military pay of $1,300 a month does not cover all of his expenses. James has also been helped by the Shutt Detachment, an association of former Marines, which held a fundraiser for him on August 19 at the Rack in Boston. Without the help of family, friends, and former Marines, James and his young wife would not be able to afford an apartment in the Greater Boston Area and cover expenses.

James eagerly wants to work to help other members of our nation's armed services that are in a similar situation. He and his family have worked with my office to address in this legislation the problems that they have experienced, first hand, in coping with wounds incurred in James's service to his country. I urge my colleagues to join us in ensuring that members of the Armed Forces that are wounded while serving in a combat zone will continue to receive certain special pays, tax exclusions and allowances associated with such service until the member recovers from the wound or injury.

Mr. Speaker, the Honorable Judge Learned Hand once said:

. . . Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it

dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no

constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.

While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no

court to save it.

These famous words emphasize the fact that civic participation is vital to the maintenance of a healthy democracy. A national effort is currently underway to promote the civic engagement of our citizens by focusing on the youth of our nation. By creating effective civic education programs in our elementary and secondary schools, we can educate kids at an early age and encourage them to become active in local politics.

In September of last year, the First Annual Congressional Conference on Civic Education was launched to begin a national conversation about how to encourage civic participation. One of the positive outcomes of the congressional conference was the establishment of state delegations that would enact specific policies designed to restore the civic mission of our schools.

I would like to recognize Diane N. Palmer, the facilitator, and the whole Massachusetts delegation for their leadership in working to design a strategy to improve civic education in our State. These Massachusetts activities include: Holding a statewide conference on civic education for new teachers; creating a commission to plan better civic education; and conducting a survey to determine what civic education programs are already used in high schools.

I look forward to seeing the accomplishments of the Massachusetts civic education delegation and their participation at the Second Annual Congressional Conference on Civic Education on December 4-6 of this year.

Mr. Speaker, this week the price of oil rose to more than $53 a barrel, a record that will translate into higher home heating oil prices this winter and higher gasoline prices at the pump.

Last night, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives responded to this news by passing a tax bill that renews an expiring tax loophole for small businesses to buy huge, gas-guzzling SUVs, like the Hummer.

Our tax code should offer incentives for people to conserve energy. Unfortunately, the SUV tax loophole does just the opposite. The Republican Hummer tax loophole entices Americans to buy the biggest, heaviest, and least fuel efficient vehicles on the market. Under this loophole, a small business that purchases a large SUV, such as a Hummer or Cadillac Escalade, can deduct up to $25,000 of the vehicle's cost. In contrast, citizens who purchase a fuel efficient hybrid vehicle this year will be entitled to just $2,000; starting in 2006, the hybrid vehicle tax deduction will shrink even further until it disappears entirely by 2009.

In 2003, nearly 1,000,000 large SUVs were sold in the US, outnumbering the number of hybrid vehicles sold by a ratio of 23 to 1.

The best-selling hybrid vehicle, the Toyota Prius, achieves an estimated 55 miles per gallon. In contrast, the Hummer H2, Ford Excursion, and Land Rover Range Rover all achieve less than 15 miles per gallon.

The Toyota Prius emits 3.5 tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually; the annual greenhouse gas emissions for the Hummer H2, Ford Excursion, and Land Rover Range Rover each emit more than 4 times the amount of greenhouse gases than the Prius.

Instead of working towards independence from Middle East oil, the Republicans have voted to extend tax loopholes that will only help make us even more dependent. So far, we have had 1,066 American soldiers die in a misdirected, misguided attempt to stabilize the government holding the world's second largest oil supply. The war in Iraq has made our country more vulnerable to the extremists of the Middle East.

Instead of making our air cleaner and protecting our environment, the Republican Hummer tax loophole is making our air dirtier, making our planet warmer, and contributing to the pressure to drill for oil in one of the last pristine ecosystems remaining in not only America but on the planet. Large SUVs are extremely polluting, particularly in regards to greenhouse gases. Due in part to the oil wasted by large SUVs, the Administration would like to open the ecologically pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling in order to extract a total of 6 months worth of oil--oil that would be pumped right into the tanks of Hummers and other SUV gas guzzlers.

Instead of working to pay down the nation's debt, the Republican Hummer tax loophole is digging our children's financial hole even deeper. For every 100,000 taxpayers that drive through the Hummer loophole, the Treasury is denied almost $900 million.

Instead of helping the poor, the tax loophole is once again aiding the wealthy. Because Hummers and other large SUVs use an inordinate amount of fuel, they increase the demand for gasoline, which in turn causes the price of gasoline to rise. The price of gasoline in Massachusetts currently is $1.93 a gallon. The price of oil is almost $53 a barrel. These price increases make a disproportionately higher impact on the bank accounts of the nation's poorest households. In addition, because the SUV tax poolhole is designed for type-S corporations, the beneficiaries include lawyers, doctors, and real estate agents.

Clearly, something needs to be done to help wean the United States off of oil and free ourselves from the chains of OPEC. A step in the right direction would be for the United States to promote the use of high fuel economy hybrid vehicles.

This problem could be solved easily if we only had the willpower to do so. By changing one sentence in the tax code, we could preserve the tax deduction to small businesses owners, such as farmers, who were intended to benefit, and eliminate the benefit to those who abuse it. In the current version, some long overdue language was added to distinguish between large SUVs and industrial vehicles. That change somewhat improved the situation, dropping the deductible amount for large SUVs from a ridiculous $100,000 to a sublime $25,000; however, the fact that $25,000 deductions for large SUVs are being extended until 2008 while the already minuscule deductions for hybrid vehicles are disappearing is ludicrous.

By not extending the SUV tax loophole and not eliminating the deductions for hybrid vehicles, we can help to increase our nation's security, protect our environment, reduce the national debt, and ease the financial burdens of the poor. It is time for the majority in the Congress to steer our nation in the right direction by saying no to the special interests who are working to keep this loophole open. The House vote last night to approve the Republican tax bill represents a failure of vision. We can only hope now that the Senate will block this legislation to extend the Republican Hummer loophole from 2006 until 2008.

Last year when we tried to get rid of this loophole during the energy conference, I resorted to bad poetry as a way of prying my colleagues free of this obscene subsidy. It didn't work. But I am told by people in the business of psychological operations that you can sometimes free a hostage by playing the same thing over and over again until the hostage-taker comes screaming out of the house saying ``Stop It! I Can't Take It Anymore!'' So, for the sake of good policy, I am resorting once again to the same bad poetry.

``A Taxpayer's Lament,'' or ``Why Am I Paying for Other People's

Humvees?''

I don't mind paying taxes, for energy and such

As long as I don't have to pay very much,

And as long as I don't end up subsidizing trucks

Called ``Humvee Ones'' and ``Humvee 2s'' for 25,000 bucks!

They don't fit in a parking space; they guzzle gas like a

hog,

And they leave our children gasping for air turned in to

smog.

I'm not for banning Humvees--some people think they're cool.

But subsidizing this luxury treats taxpayers like a fool.

With our soldiers now in Baghdad fighting for the oil

Wasting gasoline this way just makes my blood boil.

Voting for this subsidy is impossible to defend.

All we want to know out here is when will this end?

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

I rise in strong opposition to the Hostettler amendment. The Hostettler amendment amends the ill-considered and counterproductive torture provisions in H.R. 10 in a way that still allows foreigners to be subjected to torture.

How does it do this? The Hostettler amendment gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to detain certain foreigners that, ``in the Secretary's unreviewable discretion,'' the Secretary has determined to be a specially dangerous alien that should be detained until removed. Such persons would be held behind bars indefinitely with no recourse to a court or another independent fact finder empowered to review the basis for the Secretary's decision. Any foreign person that the Secretary of Homeland Security decides is ``especially dangerous'' can just be locked up forever with no trial or just deported.

And the Hostettler amendment stipulates that the ``Secretary of State shall seek diplomatic assurances that such alien shall be protected if removed from the United States.'' That means that the State Department is supposed to seek diplomatic assurances from a country that it will not torture somebody after a U.S. judge already has found that this country likely would, in fact, torture that person. Are we really going to trust the assurances of the countries that our own State Department says torture detainees?

Mr. Chairman, we should really call this the ``In Syria we trust'' amendment or perhaps the ``In Sudan we trust'' amendment. The assurances that these countries have provided that they would not torture have proved completely unreliable in practice.

In 2002, Maher Arar, a Syrian-born citizen, was intercepted at New York's JFK Airport and deported to Syria, where he was detained and reportedly tortured. The Washington Post has reported that while Syria provided ``diplomatic assurances'' that Arar would not be mistreated, these assurances proved worthless. Maher Arar was tortured anyway.

America should not be outsourcing torture to countries like Syria and the Sudan. America should be relying not on diplomatic assurances from countries that we already know practice torture, particularly when a U.S. judge has already found that it is more likely than not that the deported person would be tortured if they were sent there.

We as America cannot preach temperance from a bar stool. If we want to protect our own Marines and soldiers from torture, we must have the same standard for protecting prisoners that we have under our control from torture. We cannot build a new generation of nuclear bunker busters and then tell the Muslim nations they should not want nuclear weapons, and we cannot tell the Muslim world not to torture American prisoners at the same time we are sending Muslim detainees to countries that we know are going to torture those prisoners.

We cannot exist in a world where the United States is not the moral leader. This amendment must be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 10. This bill is nothing more than a cynical sham masquerading as reform. It purports to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but it actually implements only 11 of the Commission's 41 recommendations. What was left off the table? The bill on the House Floor today: Fails to strengthen our efforts to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons; fails to give the National Intelligence Director sufficient authority over the budget and personnel of the intelligence agencies; and fails to secure U.S. borders by integrating disparate screening systems.

H.R. 10 has numerous additional flaws: There is no requirement to screen all cargo being placed on airplanes to ensure they do not contain explosives. There are NO whistleblower protections for TSA baggage screeners or employees of the FBI and the CIA who are retaliated against for disclosing security problems to their supervisors. Any reorganization of the intelligence community is rendered meaningless by the failure to protect modern day Paul Reveres like Coleen Rowley and Sibel Edmonds when they blow the whistle. An amendment offered by Mr. Nadler to increase the security of nuclear facilities and shipments of extremely hazardous materials that was actually ACCEPTED during the Judiciary Committee markup was inexplicably removed by the Rules Committee.

What was added to the bill? Dozens of pages of extraneous material that have nothing to do with anything that the 9/11 Commission recommended. The underlying bill actually contains a provision that would authorize the outsourcing of torture and limit any judicial review of this process! That's right--in this bill--H.R. 10--the House Republican leadership would actually make it easier for certain foreign persons to be sent to countries where they would be tortured in interrogations. I call this the Abu Ghraib-by-Proxy provision.

It's outrageous that these provisions have been snuck into the 9/11 bill behind closed doors when the 9/11 Commission specifically called for the United States to ``offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the law. . .'' Nothing could be farther from the 9/11 Commission's intent when it issued this recommendation.

Where does the Bush Administration stand on this Abu Ghraib? The White House's Legal Counsel sent a letter to the Washington Post saying that the Administration does not support these provisions in this bill.

Earlier this year I introduced H.R. 4674, a bill that would explicitly bar the U.S. from deporting, extraditing, or otherwise rendering persons to foreign nations known to engage in the practice of torture. If we really want to implement the 9/11 commission recommendations, we would be including this type of proposal in the bill before us today. I asked the Rules Committee to approve an open Rule that would allow me to do this, but they refused.

What the Rules Committee did approve was a Rule that makes in order an amendment by the Gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler). What does the Hostettler amendment do? It would rely on ``diplomatic assurances'' that detainees would not be tortured. We should not be trusting ``diplomatic assurances'' from torturers that they won't engage in torture.

Both H.R. 10 and the proposed Hostettler amendment would legitimize the practice of sending suspected terrorists to other countries to be tortured. That is wrong.

I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 10, and a NO vote on the Hostettler amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of a friend and former colleague, Jack Fields of Texas. Today the House has designated a post office in Jack's home state of Texas the ``Congressman Jack Fields Post Office.'' On the House Floor this afternoon, we're naming a post office for a man who always knew how to deliver for his constituents. This is a fitting tribute to a gifted legislator who represented the 8th Congressional District of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1980 to 1996.

I was proud to serve with Jack on the Committee on Commerce from 1982 to 1996. In 1995, Jack became the Chairman of the Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance. As the Subcommittee's Ranking Member, I worked closely with Jack on the first comprehensive reform of the Communications Act of 1934--The Telecommunications Act of 1996--which was designed to encourage competition in all telecommunications-related industries and create an environment in which new telecommunications technologies could thrive. President Clinton signed the bill into law in February 1996.

Jack was a trusted colleague. More importantly, he was, and is, one of my best friends. He was a master legislator and a master basketball player. On the House Floor or on the basketball floor, he was always an MVP. He worked across party lines to move legislation forward that benefited the American people. He has retired from Congress, but his distinguished legacy remains.

Mr. Speaker, oil prices are approaching $50 a barrel, more than 1,000 young American men and women dead in Iraq, 6,000 wounded.

What are we debating here on the floor of Congress? We are talking up a bill to inject discrimination into the Constitution of the United States of America. Apparently, the Republican Congress believes that the fact that some States want to recognize the loving relationships of gay and lesbian couples is such a threat to our country that they are prepared to take the extreme measure of amending the Constitution.

Conservative activist Paul Weyrich shed some light on the current thinking in Republican circles which explains why this bill is really on the floor today. Here is what Mr. Weyrich had to say:

The President has bet the farm on Iraq. Right or wrong, he

has done it. Even if you disagree with the decision, you have

to admire the President for putting it on the line and

staying the course despite overwhelmingly bad news for months

now.

Therefore, Iraq will be an unavoidable topic of discussion

in this campaign. The problem is that events in Iraq are out

of the control of the President.

Mr. Weyrich writes, ``There is only one alternative to this situation: Change the subject.'' He dismisses the option of taking up oil prices or the economy. Apparently, even he does not think those are winners for the President.

``No,'' he concludes, ``what I have in mind to change the subject is a winner for the President. The Federal Marriage Amendment.'' The gay marriage issue, he gleefully advises, ``will cause Senator Kerry no end of problems.''

So that is what it is really all about. Republican leaders in Washington are running scared. They look at the polls on Iraq, on the economy, on jobs and they fear that the voters are going to rise up in November and toss them out of office, and as a result they bring up a resolution to alter the most sacred document in the land.

The Constitution was written to ensure that all Americans are treated equally. This provision will undermine that principle and tarnish the Constitution. I believe that any State should have the right, if it so chooses, to grant same-sex couples or unmarried couples the same legal rights as those conferred to heterosexual couples. This is the same policy supported by Vice President Dick Cheney who stated during the 2000 Presidential election that same-sex marriages should remain a State issue and the Federal Government should recognize those State laws.

Vote ``no'' on this bill. It is a disgrace against the United States Constitution.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, just think for a second what is going on in the world this week.

The assault weapons ban expired yesterday, freeing the way for an assault weapons buying frenzy. The Republican Congress refuses to allow a vote on extending the ban on the sale of assault weapons.

Companies all over America continue to offshore American jobs to foreign countries with tax breaks as incentives that the Republicans refuse to take off the books.

Oil prices remain sky high, with analysts expecting them to stay sky high for the foreseeable future, but the Republicans have no plan to protect American consumers from being tipped upside down as they pay gasoline prices and home heating oil prices.

The 9/11 Commission has come back with recommendations that they insist that Congress pass to make sure there is not a repetition of 9/ 11. The Republican Party refuses to bring those bills out here on the floor.

Osama bin Laden is still at large, and just last week, we had a videotape from his top deputy threatening further attacks on the United States.

We have 1,000 troops who have died in Iraq. We have suffered 5,000 wounded in Iraq, and no end in sight.

North Korea may have exploded a nuclear bomb this week. South Korea is now enriching uranium and plutonium.

So what has the Republican United States Congress decided to do this week? What important issue are we debating? Will it be Iraq? Will it be terrorism? Will it be oil prices? Will it be a stagnant economy? No.

The Republicans have decided that this week, 3 weeks before we adjourn, is lawsuit abuse week, so that we can deny families in our country that have been injured by large corporations from being able to sue those corporations for the damage they did to the children, to the families. And the centerpiece is this Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act that really should be called the Legislative Abuse Expansion Act.

This bill contains unconstitutional provisions that would force every State court to implement entirely new court rules and procedures. The bill contains unfunded mandates that would force States to conduct an inquiry about what the outcome of the case will be before discovery and trial have even taken place. How is the court supposed to know that? If a case is not lucky enough to be brought before Judge Carnac, the court may have to subpoena witnesses, hold evidentiary hearings and ask the individuals involved to the litigation proceeding to spend time and money on the new ``pretrial trial'' mandated by this bill to block individuals from suing corporations who have hurt American families.

The simple fact is that the amount of civil litigation in this country is not expanding. The Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics and National Center for State Courts track civil cases and verdicts in the Nation's 75 largest counties. They reported in April that, in the last decade, the number of cases has gone down, not up. The bureau reported that the number of general civil cases disposed of by trial in the Nation's largest counties declined from 22,000 in 1992 to 11,000 in 2001, a 47 percent decline.

There is no urgency on this issue. There has been a 47 percent decline in these kind of cases. The plaintiffs won about half the time. And the overall median award was $37,000 in 2001, down from $65,000 in 1992.

Why are we taking these bills up when there is no litigation explosion? Why are we running roughshod over the rights of the States to set rules? Why are we restricting the flexibility of judges to protect ordinary families in our country?

There is only one reason why, because the Republican Party wants to shut down the access that every citizen currently has to our legal system to seek justice and compensation when they have been harmed by the actions of a wealthy corporation. That is what this is all about. Vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important amendment, which I am pleased to join in cosponsoring.

This amendment would provide a modest boost to the funding levels for these two programs--$11 million more for LIHEAP and $11 million more for Weatherization. This additional funding is desperately needed, but it would still leave many needs unmet. LIHEAP alone needs $1 billion above the $1.9 billion level in this bill to simply maintain the purchasing power it enjoyed in 1982. Meanwhile, we are seeing greatly increased volatility in oil and natural gas markets which threaten consumers with higher home heating prices this winter. The Department of Energy reports that consumers are expected to pay 55 percent more for natural gas; 45 percent more for heating oil; and 41 percent more for propane than they did in the years between 1998 and 2000. As a result, heating a home with natural gas will cost an average of $1,049 this winter; heating with fuel oil will cost $1,094; and, heating with propane will cost $1,361.

According to the Census Bureau, nearly 36 million Americans-- including almost 13 million

children--now live in poverty. That is an increase of over a million people in the last year alone. Faced with a growing number of families in poverty, the Republican leadership has brought to the floor an appropriations bill that does little to help those Americans who have fallen below the poverty line. It seems the Republican leadership would rather protect President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans than lend a helping hand to the poorest Americans.

For the low income families and seniors of Massachusetts and the rest of New England, winter--and increased utility bills--will be here too soon. Many families and seniors will once again be faced with the difficult decision between heating and eating.

Two crucial programs that help low-income families and seniors deal with the high cost of heating their homes in the winter are the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the Weatherization Assistance Program. This appropriations bill's funding levels for these two crucial programs are inadequate to meet the current and growing needs of low-income Americans.

There is bipartisan support from legislators representing warm and cold climates to raise LIHEAP's funding to $3 billion, but this appropriations bill is nowhere near that level of funding. I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment today as a first step to meeting LIHEAP needs in the very near future. We owe the low-income families that rely on this program no less.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, oil prices at $40 a barrel, nearly 1,000 young American men and women dead in Iraq, 6,000 wounded.

What are we debating here on the floor of Congress? We are taking up a bill to strip the Federal courts of the power to hear cases challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Apparently, the Republican Congress is so concerned that a gay or lesbian couple might someday have their marriage in one State recognized in another that they are prepared to take the extreme measure of preventing judges from interpreting the law.

While every other American will continue to enjoy the checks and balances that come from three branches of government, the Republicans have decided that if you are gay you should be able to get along with just two branches of government. Why are they doing this?

Conservative activist Paul Weyrich shed some light on the current thinking in Republican circles which explains why this bill is really on the floor today. Here is what Mr. Weyrich had to say: ``The President has bet the farm on Iraq. Right or wrong, he has done it. Even if you disagree with the decision, you have to admire the President for putting it on the line and staying the course despite overwhelmingly bad news for months now.

``Therefore, Iraq will be an unavoidable topic of discussion in this campaign. The problem is that events in Iraq are out of the control of the President.''

Mr. Weyrich writes, ``There is only one alternative to this situation: Change the subject.'' He dismisses the option of taking up oil prices or the economy. Apparently, even he does not think those are winners for the President.

``No,'' he concludes, ``what I have in mind to change the subject is a winner for the President. The Federal Marriage Amendment.'' The gay marriage issue, he gleefully advises, ``will cause Senator Kerry no end of problems.''

So that is what it is really all about. Republican leaders in Washington are running scared. They look at the polls on Iraq, on the economy, on jobs and they fear that the voters are going do rise up in November, and as a result they bring an unconstitutional act out on the floor that will strip gays and lesbians of their rights to be able to go to the Federal courts.

Vote ``no'' on this bill. It is a disgrace against the United States Constitution.