Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank my two very good friends, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) for yielding me time, and I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) for bringing forth this resolution, which I support because it is a resolution of disapproval.

Now, you should know where I am coming from, Mr. Speaker. In my congressional district there are almost 23,000 people being displaced because of BRAC. It is the equivalent of four major military bases. But we could accept that, and Senator Warner, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, has said as well we can accept that decision, but for the fact that it is inconsistent with the BRAC authorizing legislation which was designed to save money and to improve military effectiveness. It does neither.

Initially, its was supposed to save $48.8 billion over 20 years. The latest analysis tells us that it is actually going to save only $15.1 billion over 20 years, about $700 million per year, which, incidentally, is about as much as we spend in a day in Iraq now.

So the question is, why we would be disrupting the lives of so many thousands of people if we are going to save so little money. And, in fact, even this savings estimate is suspect because as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) has explained, it is based upon personnel savings, and all we are doing is moving the personnel around the country. That does not save any money.

In fact, what is going to happen based upon the surveys we have taken of the personnel that are going to be displaced from northern Virginia, as many as 50-75 percent of the employees are going to decide not to move, to leave the government. And who are these people?

Well, it turns out they are the most experienced, they are the most skilled, they are the very people that we need the most to lead our defense agencies. In other words, this is going to cause a brain drain, and it is one that we can ill afford at the Federal level. As many of you may know, because it applies to most urban metropolitan areas, with the cost of housing, both spouses have to be in the workforce, and it is very disruptive to tell families that one of the wage-earners has to move hundreds of miles away.

In this case, the Missile Defense Agency is a good example. About 2- to 3,000 people are going to be moving down to Alabama. Now, I like Alabama, I like the gentleman who represents that district, but the reality is not all of them are going to move, because they like our schools, their children are in the school system, their spouses have jobs here, and most of them have security clearances, which means they are going to be picked up by the private sector in a New York minute.

Is this in the national interest? I do not think so. I do not think it is in the national interest. I could see if we were going to save the money. I could see if we were going to follow the intent of the BRAC process, which was to improve military preparedness, but I do not know how we achieve that. We were supposed to take people that were in facilities that were overcrowded and move them to surplus facilities in other parts of the country. That is not being achieved.

Now, Senator Warner, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, did a very extensive analysis, of the BRAC legislation because he happened to be the architect of it, and he shows that these decisions, are inconsistent with the intent of that authorizing legislation. That alone is reason to oppose the BRAC conclusions and support this resolution.

We are going to, in fact, have to spend billions of dollars on building new facilities, and the fact that that money is going to have to come out of the Military Construction, Quality of Life appropriations subcommittee where we need to be conserving money to pay for veterans health care for the thousands of veterans that are coming back from the Iraq and Afghanistan war, defies common sense.

I do not think this is in the national interest, Mr. Speaker. I think that this body should support this resolution of disapproval until we get recommendations that show us how we are actually going to save money and improve military effectiveness.

Now, Secretary Rumsfeld has improved new building standards, and that was the justification that the BRAC Commission used to move these people. And the building standards necessitate that you cannot be within 100 feet of the sidewalk where the public is allowed. You cannot be near a public transit station. You cannot have public underground parking. You cannot do any of the things that you have to do in a metropolitan area like northern Virginia or the Washington metro area, even though we have buildings that are right on the sidewalk that are just as important in Florida and Texas that were not touched. But in northern Virginia they made the decision to implement these building standards as they apply to any DOD agency no matter how unlikely a terrorist target that agency might be.

But there are very different building standards that apply to the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the FBI, all of these other agencies that would be just as likely a terrorist target, so it does not seem to make sense. In fact, I question why we would have published the location of all of these defense agencies when terrorists did not know where they existed, could not even figure out the acronyms for the agencies.

But we have very different, inconsistent building security standards, one by the General Services Administration, which has the authorizing responsibility for building Federal buildings; and another by DOD, which is not supposed to be building its own buildings,

but are requiring enormous restrictions that preclude a location in a metropolitan area anyplace in the country, and that are going to cost such a premium to build, they are going to make them prohibitive for any other activity to be in those buildings.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on at greater length on why I do not think that these recommendations make sense from a cost standpoint, from a military effectiveness standpoint, from just a common-sense standpoint. I will not do that, but I will summarize by again pointing out that these recommendations are going to cost billions of dollars to build new buildings for DOD money that we do not have, that we are going to have to take from veterans health care. It is not going to improve our military preparedness. It is going to cause a brain drain in terms of many of the agencies that we rely so much on for technological superiority and intelligence. And when you have a recommendation that causes such additional cost and is going to make it so much more difficult to implement our military mission, I think the right thing to do is to reject it.

That is what this resolution does. That is what I would urge my colleagues in this body to do, to vote for the resolution of disapproval that has been offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) so as to have the administration go back and tell us ways they can, in fact, save money, ways they can, in fact, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our military mission.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act. As an advocate for reasoned and balanced reform to our American judicial system, I am afraid that today's bill overreaches and sets a dangerous precedent for future legislation. H.R. 420 treads unnecessarily on judicial independence and makes litigation overly burdensome for legitimate cases to have their fair day in court.

Primarily, this legislation encroaches on the judicial rulemaking process by changing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, over which Congress has no rightful jurisdiction. This rulemaking process is the responsibility of the Judicial Conference and the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the requirement that State courts apply these new Federal rules is an intrusion on State judicial authority.

I strongly believe that the integrity of the judiciary is in question if we impose our own set of rules on this independent body, particularly as Congress continues to limit judicial discretion. This action is wrong, and one of the reason that judges from across the Nation overwhelmingly oppose this legislation.

Furthermore, I believe this bill inhibits legitimate cases from having their day in court. Plaintiffs that have just cause for action, particularly in cases dealing with civil rights, may reconsider because of the threat of mandated sanctions and the elimination of the 21-day ``safe harbor'' rule. This chilling effect on meritorious legal claims does not offer honest Americans justice.

I also have concern that this bill will not deter frivolous lawsuits. Despite the anecdotes my colleagues have offered, there is no empirical evidence that Rule 11, which this bill seeks to change, is not working. In fact, recent studies indicate that frivolous litigation is declining.

Mr. Chairman, I will continue to approach tort reform with the objective of ensuring that any legitimate cases have their day in court. I don't believe the bill before us today meets this standard.

Mr. Speaker, over 25 years, jazz enthusiasts in the Washington region have tuned to one program for their weekly jazz entertainment. Musicians such as Duke Ellington, Ina Ray Hutton, and the Boswell Sisters fill the radio waves every Saturday evening thanks to Rob Bamberger, creator, producer, and host of Hot Jazz Saturday Night.

Rob Bamberger began as a volunteer for WAMU in 1978, where he presented the first of several features on jazz performers during the news show, Morning Line. Two years later, in 1980, he created his own show, Hot Jazz Saturday Night, which he has hosted ever since. Rob's passion and dedication goes on display every Saturday night for three hours as he shares his love for jazz, swing, and big band music with WAMU listeners.

Rob's interest in vintage jazz and swing came at an early age. While at an elementary school book fair in 1963, he purchased, for a dime, a two-record set featuring broadcast performances by the Tommy Dorsey Orchestra. This seminal moment in young Rob's life sparked a consuming and scholarly fascination with American music from the '20s, '30s, and '40s and became the cornerstone of a record collection which fills the basement of his Arlington, Virginia home.

By day, Rob Bamberger serves Congress as a senior policy analyst with the Congressional Research Service. While Rob takes great pride in his work with CRS, his true love becomes evident to listeners both locally and abroad through broadcasts on WAMU, NPR, and the Armed Forces Network.

Over the years, Rob's passion for music has led him to give talks before audiences at the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian, and the Cosmos, Maryland and University Clubs. When discussing topics ranging from, the history of repertory jazz, to the meeting of jazz

and third stream of Hoagy Carmichael and Bix Beiderbecke, he clearly demonstrates not only his mastery of jazz history, but also his deep passion for this uniquely American art form.

I would like to thank Rob for his efforts to keep jazz alive in the hearts of enthusiasts and casual listeners alike who find too few options today when they turn on the radio. As Rob states, and I quote, ``There are virtually no places left on radio where someone like me is given three hours weekly to program music free of focus-group driven playlists and to present it as I hope works best for listeners and artists who might otherwise be totally forgotten.''

Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate Rob for spending these past 25 years sharing his passion with us through the radio. Hot Jazz Saturday Night is the highlight of the week for many local and international jazz aficionados. With a large and loyal listener ship, I am confident that we will continue to hear Hot Jazz Saturday Night for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the ``Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.''

This bill is an attempt to carve out an exclusive liability exemption, and its vote on the floor today is a giveback to the gun industry at a significant cost to the American people.

Under this bill, manufacturers and sellers of firearms or ammunition will not be held accountable for even the most irresponsible distribution of weapons that kill innocent people, including police officers, children and bystanders of gang violence.

While the wholesale prohibition against lawsuits may allow several exemptions, these exclusions overhaul years of legal negligence standards.

I'm concerned that this bill for the gun industry sets an impractical legal standard for even the most reasonable litigation.

In the Washington-area, we are particularly sensitive to gun violence. You may not all remember, but our nation was held captive for three weeks in October 2002 while two men systematically killed ten people and wounded three others with a sniper rifle obtained from an irresponsible gun dealer that ``lost'' over 200 other unaccounted for guns.

The language in this bill is so restrictive that survivors of the victims would not have had any legal recourse against the company whose negligent business practices led to the deaths of their family.

Under the bill, we are eliminating a powerful incentive for gun dealers to value accountability and keep guns out of the wrong hands. We are implicitly condoning their irresponsible behavior.

I understand the desire to protect the American judicial system from what some people perceive as frivolous lawsuits. But gun manufacturers and sellers should not be able to write their own liability standard into law.

We aren't debating a product that has an inconsequential impact on our nation.

Almost 30,000 people in our country die from firearm injuries, murders, and suicides each year.

According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, as recently as 2002, 2,893 young people were murdered by firearms. That accounts for the second leading cause of death for young people under 19 in the United States.

Our economy even suffers from this senseless violence. From the loss of productivity, medical treatment and rehabilitation and legal costs, gun violence costs the U.S. at least $100 billion annually.

Instead of putting forth a national plan to end this futile cycle of death, extending the

ban on assault weapons, or even prohibiting people we know are on our own terrorist list from obtaining weapons, we are debating how to best shield the gun industry from accountability and responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate today that we are sending the wrong message to gun manufacturers and the worst of all possible messages to the public: We are not willing to put special interests aside to protect the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues that October 2-October 8 is Nuclear Medicine Week. Celebrated at hospitals, clinics, imaging centers, educational institutions, and corporations around the world the first full week of October each year, Nuclear Medicine Week encourages members of the nuclear medicine community to take pride in their profession.

I am proud to note that the Society of Nuclear Medicine is headquartered in Reston, Virginia in my congressional district. The Society is an international scientific and professional organization of more than 15,000 members dedicated to promoting the science, technology, and practical application of nuclear medicine. I commend the Society staff and its professional members for their outstanding work and dedication to caring for people with cancer and other serious, life-threatening illnesses that are diagnosed, managed, and treated with medical isotopes via nuclear medicine procedures.

Nuclear medicine is a medical specialty that involves the use of small amounts of medical isotopes called ``tracers'' to help diagnose and treat a variety of diseases. These tracers are introduced into the body by injection, swallowing, or inhalation. A special camera, called gamma camera, detects the medical isotope in the target organ, bone, or tissue and forms an image that provides data and information about the imaged area of the body. This is how nuclear medicine differs an x-ray, ultrasound or other diagnostic test--it determines the presence of disease based on function rather than anatomy.

Nuclear medicine tests are safe and painless and often identify abnormalities very early in the progression of a disease--long before some medical problems are apparent through other diagnostic tests. This early detection allows a disease to be treated in its beginning stages, which significantly improves the odds of a successful outcome.

An estimated 16 million nuclear medicine imaging and therapeutic procedures are performed on 20 million individuals each year in the United States. These procedures are a vital tool in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancers of the brain, breast, blood, bone, bone marrow, liver, lungs, pancreas, thyroid, ovaries, and prostate, as well as cardiovascular disease, neurological disorders such as stroke and Alzheimer's disease, and kidney disease.

Some of the more frequently performed nuclear medicine procedures include:

Bone scans to examine orthopedic injuries, fractures, tumors or unexplained bone pain.

Heart scans to identify normal or abnormal blood flow to the heart muscle, measure heart function or determine the existence or extent of damage to the heart muscle after a heart attack.

Breast scans that are used in conjunction with mammograms to more accurately detect and locate cancerous tissue in the breasts.

Liver and gallbladder scans to evaluate liver and gallbladder function.

Cancer imaging to detect tumors and determine the severity (staging) of various types of cancer.

Treatment of thyroid diseases and certain types of cancer.

Brain imaging to investigate problems within the brain itself or in blood circulation to the brain.

Renal imaging in children to examine kidney function.

Unfortunately, funding for nuclear medicine research is in jeopardy. The President's FY 2006 Budget cut the Medical Applications and Measurement Science, MAMS, Program at the Department of Energy, DOE, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, OBER, from $37 million to $14 million and earmarked the remaining funds for research unrelated to nuclear medicine. The DOE has funded nuclear medicine research for over 50 years. Fortunately, the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee restored $35 million for the MAMS Program, but the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill is silent on this matter. It is vital that this small but highly successful program receive funding at the House level in conference. The MAMS Program is directly responsible for the creation of positron emission tomography, PET, and current research projects will create the next generation imaging procedures that will save lives.

I encourage my colleagues to support Nuclear Medicine Week and to support the House funding level for the MAMS Program so that our nation will continue to be at the cutting edge of life saving nuclear medicine and imaging research.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and this legislation.

This legislation is a corruption of special energy interests, it displays an abject disregard for human health and the environment, and it fails completely to find consensus to address the impending energy crisis.

Today, we have the opportunity to lead and help the people of this country in a genuine and lasting manner.

Instead, we are turning our back on the people and are catering to the self-interests of the highest bidders.

History will not look favorably on the actions of this administration and this Congress.

Confirmation of this criticism is contained in today's rule.

The rule corrects an overreach by some within the oil and gas and electric utility industries.

It seems the majority could not muster the votes to perpetrate a complete gutting of the Clean Air Act's New Source Review provisions.

Under the pretext of lowering the cost of building new refineries by waiving certain environmental laws designed to protect the public, a few bad electric utilities operators tried to hitch a ride and enact what they have been trying for years to achieve: enable their older coal-fired power plants to operate without adding modern emission controls to reduce harmful emissions.

Given the refinery industry's high profits and cash reserves, I find it hard to believe that we need to endanger the public's health to increase refinery capacity, but why should electric utilities be granted the same exemption from the New Source Review provisions?

Despite the full support of the Bush administration, the utility companies' goals have been blocked by the courts and enforcement actions by the Justice Department which has continued to uphold the law and prosecute violators.

The bill approved by the Energy and Commerce Committee would have enabled refineries and utilities making physical changes that do not increase emissions above a maximum level the plant could have theoretically once emitted to be exempt from the New Source Review requirements.

The late Senator John Chaffee, when crafting the New Source Review provisions, stated:

[O]lder plants are operating well below their maximum

capacity. To allow a refurbished utility to emit at its old

potential levels could permit an almost twofold increase in

emissions. * * * So this amendment could permit a powerplant,

even one where its emissions directly affected a national

park, for example, to refurbish or add a new boiler, to

double its NO[x] and particulate emissions, triple

its SO2 emissions and cover these SO2

emissions by purchasing allowances and never have to

demonstrate what impact this would have on visibility or

other air quality standards. Similarly, a powerplant * * *

could increase emissions in one of these nonattainment areas

and neither have to demonstrate air quality impacts nor be

required to offset these increases of emissions as they are

required to do under existing law.

Beyond making it easier and cheaper to increase refining capacity and to prosecute for price gouging, what does this legislation do to wean our dependency from oil and from a growing worldwide shortage in oil?

Nothing.

In fact, this rule blocks us from even considering what is clearly one greatest opportunities to reduce the country's dependence of imported oil.

My colleagues Representatives Boehlert and Markey had an amendment that this rule does not allow us to consider that would require auto manufacturers to improve the fuel efficiency of their automobiles by raising the Corporate Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE) for SUVs and minivans.

Had the current President's father adopted tougher CAFE standards, put us on a gradual path to 27 miles per gallon for light trucks and 34 gallons for cars, we would have displaced all oil we import from the Persian Gulf today.

Of course we would still be importing oil from the Persian Gulf, but our economy and our transportation sector and today's auto manufacturers would not be reeling from the consequences of $60 barrels of oil and $3.00 gallons of gasoline.

We are an oil-based economy, with about 60 percent of our oil imported from abroad. While coal, uranium and some renewable sources such as wind and hydro comprise a majority of the fuel used to generate electricity, most of our economy is dependent or exclusively reliant on oil, from fertilizers for agriculture, plastics for manufacturing to gasoline and diesel for transportation.

You would think that, in light of world events and the vulnerabilities Hurricane Katrina and Rita illuminated, we would have a different bill. World oil supplies have tightened, the price of oil has shot up to over $60 a barrel and many of our foreign sources of oil, the Middle East, in particular, but Africa and Venezuela as well, have grown even less stable.

This bill, while better than what was approved by the Energy and Commerce last week, is woefully deficient and heads our country in the wrong direction. It rushes us closer to the day oil shortages occur and sets us backward on our ability to address it.

Oppose today's rule and oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and particularly the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. Wiesenthal's living spirit must have soared to hear the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) speak on this resolution.

Simon Wiesenthal spent most of his adult life in pursuit of justice, the justice that is achieved through accountability. And while many of us would like to believe that all people are at heart decent and God- fearing, the reality is that evil does exist among us. And it is that threat of justice being served, of people's deeds and people themselves being held accountable that in fact does deter evil, and thus is an instrument that we can use to reduce suffering and to save lives. And that is what Simon Wiesenthal's life's work was designed to do.

I would like to just use some of his own words because I think they are fitting in the context of this resolution. He said: ``I am someone who seeks justice, not revenge.'' He said: ``When history looks back, I want people to know the Nazis were not able to kill millions of people and get away with it. This is a warning for the murderers of tomorrow that they will never rest. When we cannot through some action warn the murderers of tomorrow, then millions of people will die for nothing. And when we come to the other world and meet the millions of Jews who died in the camps and they ask us what have you done, there will be many answers but I will be able to say `I did not forget you.' ''

And just one last thing. On the Austrian policeman who was arrested for the murder of Anne Frank because of Mr. Wiesenthal's dogged determination, he said: ``My most hard work, and I am very proud of this case, was to find the man who arrested Anne Frank. The Family Frank was like 10,000 other families, but Anne Frank became a symbol of the million murdered children. And I tell it to the father of Anne Frank, the diary of his daughter had a bigger impact than the entire Nuremberg trial. Why? Because people identified with the child. This was the impact of the Holocaust. This was a family like my family, like your family and so you could understand this.''

Simon Wiesenthal was a mere mortal human being. But his legacy and his lessons should be immortal for all our sakes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of this appropriations bill.

As State and local governments await critical homeland security funding, I do not want to stand in the way of the bill's passage, particularly as we proceed further into the fiscal year with so few spending bills already law.

I do, however, feel the need to register my concerns with a number of this bill's shortcomings and identify pressing needs that are not being adequately addressed by today's actions.

First, let me start with the obvious; the amount spent to protect our homeland is too little in too many areas.

There are few Americans that would suggest the threats of terrorism or natural disasters have diminished over the past year, yet this agreement cuts funding for several of our most vulnerable weaknesses. Reductions include:

State and local domestic preparedness grants are cut by $585 million (19 percent) below FY 2005;

Firefighter Assistance Grants cut by $60 million (8 percent) below FY 2005;

Pre-disaster mitigation, perhaps our best weapon of preemption, is cut by $50 million below last year; and

Aviation security is reduced by $83 million below the President's request, resulting in 2,000 fewer screeners.

These cuts irresponsibly penetrate the core of our Nation's ability to prepare and respond to national emergencies.

Second, I am concerned about what Congress isn't focused on.

On an average weekday, 32 million people make trips on public transportation, but funding for transit security makes up less than one-half of one percent of the DHS's budget.

The conference agreement includes $4.6 billion for private aviation security, but only $150 million for State grants to improve mass transit security. Transit industry experts estimate we need more than forty times this amount. Put another way we spend $30 on planes for every $1 on transit which carries tens of millions more people.

Furthermore, only $8 million will be available for rail security and $4 million to track hazardous truck traffic even though tons of hazardous material capable of becoming weapons of mass destruction travel our highway and rail lines every day.

While we have made obvious adjustments in our airline security, I ask that we be as proactive in preventing other commercial carriers from being used as weapons against us.

If the concern is that there isn't a sound transit plan or that regional coordination is proving inadequate, we should impel DHS to find solutions that make transit more secure.

It would be a national travesty of tragic proportions if we had to wait until another attack similar to Madrid to occur in the United States in order to commit the resources necessary to properly secure our rail and transit systems.

Third, we haven't exercised sufficient oversight to determine whether the money we've appropriated has been spent appropriately or accomplished its intended objectives.

I am aware of the large unexpended balance the Metropolitan Washington Region may be sitting on.

Admittedly, this unaccounted-for balance is troubling. But what is more disturbing is that we have no consistent explanations: It's red tape and unnecessary Federal bureaucratic procedures, or it's the delay in reaching regional consensus on how it should be spent, or it's a snafu in procurement.

I suspect that this region's experience is not unique. Remaining silent or stubbornly oblivious of these problems abdicates our responsibility to use tax dollars wisely, and we should demand accountability of our spending commitments.

Mr. Speaker, I worry that we may be living on borrowed time.

If there's one thing Katrina showed us it's that emergency response plans that are not rigorously tested and retested won't work in a crisis.

Even worse, public skepticism is growing over whether the Federal Government is now capable of responding effectively to another catastrophic event.

A natural disaster is one thing, but terrorists can strike anytime, anywhere and use our own resources against us.

I urge my colleagues to consider fully funding the needs of securing our homeland, and I challenge us as a body to meet the vital challenge of protecting our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, my friend, for yielding me this time.

``Shortsighted men, in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by the reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things.'' So said Republican President Theodore Roosevelt almost 100 years ago, and how relevant his remarks are today.

If we cannot find a way to live in harmony and conserve our natural resources in a sustainable way, we humans may, too, be doomed to extinction. The Endangered Species Act is a litmus test on the degree to which we are willing to conserve our livable environment.

To date this act has succeeded. Its success rate is 99 percent. Only 7 out of 1,200 species, according to Fish and Wildlife Service, have become extinct, and they became extinct because of their status before they were listed.

There are problems with the Act that need to be addressed, but many of the changes embodied in this bill are not designed to fix the problems. They are designed to eviscerate the law. The proposal before us today will gut the law by making any recovery plan unenforceable and by creating a new compensation program for those who own land that may host a threatened or endangered species.

We are a Nation of laws and constitutional rights, but where in the Constitution does it say property rights are an immutable and an open- ended entitlement?

Where would we be as a Nation if the law did not allow reasonable government regulations of private property without payment of compensation if undertaken for the public good? That kind of regulation occurs every day in every State in every locality throughout the country. It occurs as a result of practically every regulatory statute we pass. It is a long-standing principle of the jurisprudence of our courts. But this bill turns that principle on its head, and in so doing it creates a very dangerous precedent that this body should not knowingly adopt.

Section 13 of the bill establishes a new program of conservation aid; and under this program the government must provide compensation to landowners whenever an ESA restriction prevents a particular use of property, regardless of the fact that other uses of the property remain and those uses are very valuable.

This new aid program, therefore, requires the payment of compensation to landowners even though no governmental taking of their property has occurred. And rather than compensation being required where a restriction essentially strips property of all of its valuable uses, the standard under the takings clause, which exists today, this bill requires compensation whenever a restriction prevents a single use of property.

It is a standard for compensation that goes far beyond the standard imposed under the Constitution's ``taking'' clause, and it does not exist in any other Federal statute. If enacted, this bill will set a very dangerous precedent that could lead to the insertion of similar provisions in other environmental and regulatory statutes. It has to be rejected.

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, I know that there are some problems with the implementation of this Act. The current ``critical habitat'' designation needs to be revised and should be established later in the process during the development of species recovery plans.

In that regard, the approach taken by the substitute put together by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and others is the right way to go and should be adopted.

Mr. Chairman, Federal land belongs to all of us. The Endangered Species Act is a vehicle through which we can conserve our land and balance the needs of all against the short-term and destructive interests of the few. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act, but strongly support the substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the provisions contained in the Justice Department authorization bill that relate to the Violence Against Women Act. It is fitting that we are considering this measure today, as yesterday this body passed H. Con. Res. 209, which will designate October as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

The Violence Against Women Act was first authorized in 1994. Since that time, the rate of family violence has dropped from 5.4 to 2.1 victims per 1,000 U.S. residents over the age of 12. These provisions expand upon the many successes of the Violence Against Women Act since its inception. They will enhance the civil and criminal response to violence against women, will improve services and outreach to victims, and will provide additional resources for sexual assault victims through rape crisis centers and State coalitions.

I am also pleased that provisions in this Act will address the needs of victims from communities of color, and which aid immigrant and tribal victims have been strengthened. However, I am concerned that the manager's amendment will strike the phrase ``ethnic and racial'' from several sections in the bill, which will have the effect of specific racial and ethnic communities not having their specific concerns addressed.

This amendment should be rejected, thereby helping to ensure that racial and ethnic minority women will have their safety needs met through culturally-appropriate services.

By leaving the language as it stands, the Violence Against Women Act will ensure that racial and ethnic minority women will have their safety needs met through culturally appropriate services.

Rejecting the amendment also will ensure that culturally specific, community-based organizations will have the opportunity to access Federal funds that address domestic violence, sexual violence and other social ills.

Two years ago, I was pleased to support a Federal earmark for Communities Against Domestic Violence, a worthwhile organization in Northern Virginia which provides public awareness and education programs designed to discourage domestic violence in the Hispanic, Vietnamese and Korean communities.

Finally, I would like to pay tribute to my constituents from the local offices on Women in the city of Alexandria and Fairfax County, Arlington County's Domestic Violence Services and Violence Intervention Program and the numerous non-profit organizations which work to address domestic violence issues and break this devastating and destructive cycle of violence.

I urge all my colleagues to oppose the manager's amendment, and to support the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Campagna Center, the leading nonprofit human services organization in the city of Alexandria, Virginia. For 60 years, the Campagna Center has served low-income citizens in my district, providing both Early Head Start and Head Start programs to over 300 income-eligible families. The center also provides child care, tutoring, and mentoring programs to school-aged children, and meaningful volunteer opportunities to older members of my district.

The work of organizations like the Campagna Center is crucial to the development of children who come from lower-income households, offering the opportunity to truly level the playing field for these children and prepare them for school. The programs offered at the Campagna Center include early childhood education, as well as health and nutritional services. The Campagna Center, however, recognizes that family is the most important influence in a child's life, and parents and other family members are strongly encouraged to be active contributors to these programs.

Recognition of this wonderful organization is especially poignant as this body debates HR 2123, School Readiness Act of 2005. It has been said that Education is the great equalizer in a democratic society, and we must ensure that programs like these continue to receive the funding required to help children achieve. The impact of Head Start programs is not measured in dollars, but in the faces of children who finally have the opportunity to excel in their education.

The Campagna Center has provided such opportunities to students in my home district, and the impact on these children is significant. I congratulate the Board of Directors, staff members, and all of the selfless volunteers that make this organization such a success. Under their leadership, hundreds of young children go to school prepared for the challenges that lie before them.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the School Readiness Act which will reauthorize the Head Start program, but this measure will not get my vote if the amendment allowing for religious discrimination is adopted by this House.

I think that we can all agree that this is not a perfect bill, though it is certainly an improvement over the Headstart reauthorization bill that the 108th Congress considered.

As a former mayor of the city of Alexandria, Virginia, I know just how important Head Start programs are to communities because they help to provide our low-income preschool-aged children much needed services such as child development, educational, health, nutritional activities which help them receive greater advantages in life. More importantly, these programs help to level the playing field for disadvantaged children and prepare them for school.

In addition to the educational services that are provided by Head Start programs, some of the other services include health screenings, such as dental and eye care. Statistics have shown that children who receive these crucial services, along with a hot breakfast every morning, have increased their readiness for school.

In my congressional district, one of the most successful Head Start programs is the Alexandria Head Start. This is a collaboration that the Campaign Center, the city of Alexandria and the Alexandria City Public Schools system formed about 37 years ago.

AHS serves over 250 Head Start children and because of a wonderful group of dedicated educators and involved parents, these children are truly getting a ``head start.''

I am pleased that many of my low-income constituents are served by Head Start programs. I am concerned, however, that the School Readiness Act's authorized funding levels, with limitations, will allow less than one-half of the eligible preschoolers, to participate in Head Start.

Unfortunately the cost of the Iraq war and massive tax cuts have produced a fiscal crisis which now translates into the under-funding of critical programs like Head Start and others focused on our low-income citizens.

I am saddened that so many children, who truly would benefit from participation in a Head Start program, will not be given a chance of doing so, and as a result, will be far less likely to reach their true potential.

Another area of concern in this bill relates to teacher quality.

The School Readiness Act will require that half of the Head Start teachers nationwide have at least a B.A. in child development or a related field by 2011, and that all new teachers, beginning three years after the enactment of the bill have at least an associate's degree or be enrolled in a program to achieve an associate's degree.

While I certainly agree that our Head Start teachers should be highly educated, however, unless additional funding is provided for increased salaries, it will be extremely difficult for Head Start programs to attract and more importantly, retain the highly educated teachers the bill requires.

Why would someone who is interested in being a teacher and possesses the education and background the bill requires, choose to make $25,000 a year as a Head Start teacher instead of $41,000 as a kindergarten teacher for a school system that provides its teaches with cost-of- living adjustments?

The non-profit Trust for Early Education said it best in a recent report, ``If we do not provide appropriate compensation for our pre- kindergarten teachers, they will leave the pre-kindergarten classroom.''

The School Readiness Act needs to provide Head Start programs with the financial ability to recruit and retain our Nation's brightest teachers to educate our Nation's most disadvantaged.

I am also adamantly opposed to the Boustany amendment.

If a Head Start program is being administered by a faith-based institution and it is receiving federal funding for the program, it must not be permitted to discriminate on religious grounds when making employment decisions.

It is as simple as that.

Head Start teachers and workers not only provide cognitive development services to children; they help in the development of children's character.

Most preschoolers have a strong sense of right from wrong. This will be setting a confusing example if we authorize discrimination of any kind. This amendment is opposed by every credible anti-discrimination an civil rights protection organization, and I ask my colleagues to oppose it.

It was once said that ``Education is the great equalizer in a democratic society, and if people are not given access to a quality education, then what we are doing is creating an underclass of people who will ultimately challenge our very way of life.''

While I recognize the shortcomings of the School Readiness Act, it is a worthwhile effort that will help our low-income children by working to level a very un-level playing field, so they will be prepared and successful in school.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the School Readiness Act which will reauthorize the Head Start program, but this measure will not get my vote if the amendment allowing for religious discrimination is adopted by this House.

I think that we can all agree that this is not a perfect bill, though it is certainly an improvement over the Head Start reauthorization bill that the 108th Congress considered.

As a former Mayor of the city of Alexandria, Virginia, I know just how important Head Start programs are to communities. They help to provide our low-income preschool-aged children much needed services in the area of child development. These educational, health and nutritional activities help them receive greater opportunities in life. More importantly, these programs help to level the playing field for disadvantaged children by preparing them for public school.

In addition to the educational services that are provided by Head Start programs, some of the other services include health screenings, such as dental and eye care. Statistics have shown that children who receive these crucial services, along with a hot breakfast every morning, have increased their readiness for school.

In my congressional district, one of the most successful Head Start programs is the Alexandria Head Start. This is a collaboration that the Campagna Center, the City of Alexandria and the Alexandria City Public Schools system formed about 37 years ago.

AHS serves over 250 Head Start children and because of a wonderful group of dedicated educators and involved parents, these children are truly getting a ``head start.''.

I am pleased that many of my low-income constituents are served by Head Start programs. I am concerned, however, that the School Readiness Act's authorized funding levels, with limitations, will allow less than one-half of the eligible preschoolers to participate in Head Start.

Unfortunately the cost of the Iraq war and massive tax cuts have produced a fiscal crisis which now translates into the under-funding of critical programs like Head Start and others focused on our low-income citizens.

I am saddened that so many children, who truly would benefit from participation in a Head Start program, will not be given a chance of doing so, and as a result, will be far less likely to reach their true potential.

Another area of concern in this bill relates to teacher quality.

The School Readiness Act will require that half of the Head Start teachers nationwide have at least a B.A. in child development or a related field by 2011, and that all new teachers, beginning three years after the enactment of bill have at least an associate's degree or be enrolled in a program to achieve an associate's degree.

While I certainly agree that our Head Start teachers should be highly educated. However, unless additional funding is provided for increased salaries, it will be extremely difficult for Head Start programs to attract and more importantly, retain the highly educated teachers the bill requires.

Why would someone who is interested in being a teacher and possesses the education and background the bill requires, choose to make $25,000 a year as a Head Start teacher instead of $41,000 as a kindergarten teacher for a school system that provides its teachers with cost-of- living adjustments?

The non-profit Trust for Early Education said it best in a recent report, ``If we do not provide appropriate compensation for our pre- kindergarten teachers, they will leave the pre-kindergarten classroom.''

The School Readiness Act needs to provide Head Start programs with the financial ability to recruit and retain our nation's brightest teachers to educate our nation's most disadvantaged.

I am also adamantly opposed to the Boustany amendment.

If a Head Start program is being administered by a faith-based institution and it is receiving federal funding for the program, it must not be permitted to discriminate on religious grounds when making employment decisions.

It is as simple as that.

Head Start teachers and workers not only provide cognitive development services to children; they help in the development of just as importantly, they aid them in their character development skills.

Most preschoolers have a strong sense of right from wrong. This will be setting a confusing example if we authorize discrimination of any kind.

This amendment is opposed by every credible anti-discrimination and civil rights protection organization, and I ask my colleagues to oppose it.

It was once said that ``Education is the great equalizer in a democratic society, and if people are not given access to a quality education, then what we are doing is creating an underclass of people who will ultimately challenge our very way of life.''

While I recognize the shortcomings of the School Readiness Act, it is a worthwhile effort that will help our low-income children by working to level a very un-level playing field, so they will be prepared and successful in school.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of Dr. Marie V. McDemmond, immediate past president of Norfolk State University and the 2005 Forever Upward award designee for her service and dedication to the cause of higher education in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Dr. McDemmond retired from Norfolk State University as president earlier this year, and while her indelible leadership skills will be sorely missed by all, I am pleased that Marie has chosen to continue to continue to serve NSU by teaching.

Dr. Marie McDemmond made great strides in 1997 when she began her presidency at Norfolk State University by not only being the first woman to lead the university, but also the first African-American woman to head a public, 4-year institution of higher education in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Under her leadership, Norfolk State University has developed into a vibrant institution with cutting edge programs and operations, and is poised to be a leader in information technologies and other

fields that significantly contribute to our Nation's economy.

Under Dr. McDemmond's leadership, Norfolk State University's reputation as a leading minority-serving institution has soared. Dr. McDemmond's vision has also helped to bridge both the digital divide and opportunity divide at several Historically Black colleges and other universities. Her innovative style, while working with other leading educators and government officials, contributed to these great successes will benefit the entire higher education community for many years to come.

I am pleased to rise in honor Dr. Marie McDemmond, a true education leader who embodies Norfolk State University's creed of ``Achieving with Excellence.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a lifetime commitment of service to the United States of America. On October 14th, 2005, Major General Daniel G. Mongeon of Alexandria, Virginia will retire after 34 years of dedicated service in the United States Army.

General Mongeon was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the Quartermaster Corps through the Reserve Officers Training Corps program at the University of Arizona, where he earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Public Administration and was designated a Distinguished Military Graduate. Thereafter he received his Master's degree in Logistics Management from the University of Arkansas. His military education includes the Quartermaster Officer Basic and Advanced Courses, the Command and General Staff College, and the Army War College.

After commissioning and initial training, his initial assignments included a posting as Logistics Officer for the United States Army Security Agency's Communication Unit at Camp Drake, Japan. From there he transferred in December 1972 to Camp Zama, Japan where he was Executive Officer for the U.S. Army Garrison and subsequently as Welfare/Sundry Funds Division Chief and Installation Club Manager.

From 1978 to 1984 he served as the Division Services Officer, Property Book Officer and finally Commander, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, of the 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) at Fort Carson, Colorado. After completing graduate school he was transferred to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, United States Army. There he served initially as a Logistics Staff Officer and then as Assistant Executive Officer. He ended his tour on the Army Staff with an appointment as Military Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff, Logistics.

In 1985 he was transferred to United States Army Europe and 7th Army where he was the S-3 (Operations) and later Executive Officer of the 203rd Forward Support Battalion. In July 1987 he was transferred to Headquarters 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) to be the Deputy G-4 (Logistics). In January 1988 he was selected for the position as Aide- de-Camp to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).

In February of 1990 he assumed command of the Support Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment at Fort Bliss, Texas. From there he deployed with his unit to Operation Desert Shield and the first Gulf War-- Operation Desert Storm.

Following a year of study at the Army War College, he again transferred overseas to United States Army South and assumed command of the 41st Area Support Group in Panama. In July 1995 he returned to Washington and joined the Joint Staff, initially as Deputy Director for Logistics, Readiness, and Requirements and then as Executive Officer to the Director of Logistics J-4. In September of 1997 he was designated Special Assistant to the Director for Logistics, J-4.

He was promoted to rank of Brigadier General and assumed command of the Defense Logistics Agency's Defense Supply Center Philadelphia in 1998. From there he again returned to the Army Staff to be the Director of Sustainment in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics. He was then transferred to Headquarters United States Army Forces Command at Fort McPherson, Georgia to become the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4. Major General Mongeon entered into his current assignment Director of Logistics Operation J-3, Defense Logistics Agency in October of 2003 where he has been able to bring his wealth of experience and singular talents to bear on solving some of the most intricate sustainment challenges faced by our nation's military establishment.

His tireless and selfless dedication to serving his country is represented by the many decorations he has earned including the Distinguished Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Defense Superior Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Legion of Merit with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters, the Bronze Star Medal, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Commendation Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Army Achievement Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, two awards of the Joint Meritorious Unit Award, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge, and the Army Staff Identification Badge.

In closing I wish to commend General Mongeon for his many years of distinguished service to our nation, protecting our freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I wish him and his wife, Schele, Godspeed in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the exceptional contributions of Rita Balian, a humanitarian activist and community leader who has worked tirelessly on behalf of women and children in the United States and Armenia.

Ever since the earthquake in Armenia in 1988, Ms. Balian has dedicated her time, talent and expertise to help the people of Armenia. She has realized many projects in support of women, schools, and universities. Since 1996, she has concentrated her efforts on women's health, taking American technology, management skills and medical expertise to Armenia.

She is the founder, president and chief executive officer of the Armenian American Cultural Association (AACA), a non-profit charitable organization incorporated in 1995 in Arlington, Virginia. Through AACA, Ms. Balian established the Armenian American Wellness Center in Yerevan, a humanitarian project dedicated to saving, prolonging, and improving the lives of women through the early and accurate detection of breast and cervical cancer and to providing primary health care services to ensure the good health and well-being of families in Armenia. To facilitate the Wellness Center's work, Ms. Balian partnered the Center with seven major U.S. medical institutions. Since the Wellness Center's establishment in 1997, it has screened over 60,000 women and saved the lives of over 1,500 through the early detection of life-threatening illnesses.

Ms. Balian has dedicated herself to expanding the services offered at the Wellness Center and providing increased access to those services. The Center has added protocols in gynecology, family medicine, and pathology and reaches out to Armenians living in rural areas through monthly outreach missions and the establishment of two satellite clinics.

Along with her work on behalf of the Wellness Center, Ms. Balian's accomplishments also include the establishment of a sister-city program between the cities of Gyumri, Armenia and Alexandria, Virginia. She co- chaired the Alexandria/Gyumri Sister City Committee for six years, organized several municipal, cultural and educational exchanges and established the Alexandria Armenian Day Festival, which is now an annual celebration.

Through her work with the Armenian General Benevolence Union (AGBU), the largest and oldest Armenian philanthropic organization in the world, Mrs. Balian and her husband cofounded the AGBU New York Summer Intern Program for Armenian college students from around the world. She continues to manage the intern program, which is now in its nineteenth year.

She has received many awards in recognition of her work with the Wellness Center; most notably the ``Spirit of Life Cancer Advocacy Award'' in September 2003 from the International Spirit of Life Foundation and the Washington Cancer Institute, the ``Outstanding Citizen Achievement A ward'' from the United States Agency for International Development in January 2003, and the Armenian Church's highest medal of honor, the St. Nersess Shnorhali Medal, bestowed upon her through a Pontifical Encyclical by His Holiness, the Catholicos Karekin II, in October 2001.

The Armenian people have acknowledged Ms. Balian's humanitarian work as well. She has received honorary doctoral degrees from three different universities in Armenia, and in April 1996, Rita and her husband, Vartkess Balian, became honorary citizens of the Republic of Armenia through a special presidential decree presented to them at the Armenian Embassy in Washington, DC.

She has also been honored by the United Nations for her advocacy on behalf of women's and children's rights and by the American Red Cross for her leadership in obtaining humanitarian assistance for the victims of the 1988 earthquake in Armenia.

Since March of 2004, Ms. Balian has served as a member of Governor Warner's Virginia/Armenia Advisory Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize the numerous accomplishments of Rita Balian. Her dedication to the people of Armenia and her efforts to increase international understanding reflect a deep sense of purpose and

remarkable ability to achieve difficult and worthy goals. Her work serves as an inspiration to us all.