Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep sorrow and heartfelt sympathy for the families of Lilibeth Gomez and Harrison Orosco, two beautiful children who lost their lives last week in a school bus accident in Arlington County, Virginia. As a parent, I understand that losing a child produces immeasurable grief that words cannot

adequately express. I can only hope that during this difficult time these families and the communities that embrace them will find strength and joy in fond memories of Lilibeth and Harrison.

In newspapers and on television we have been witness to the images of scared parents, forlorn classmates, and the devastation a single accident can cause. These scenes are heartbreaking for everyone. What hasn't been widely exposed, but serves as an equally powerful statement, is the effort of the community to support the Gomez and Orosco families in their time of need. Parents, teachers, students, local officials and other residents in Arlington County and Northern Virginia have demonstrated their love and goodwill by offering sympathy letters and cards, a needed friend for survivors, and thoughtful financial support. The collective strength and love of this community, many of whom didn't know any of the families affected but still wanted to help, serves as a beacon for those struggling with the loss. I have never been more proud to represent this wonderfully caring and diverse community.

Throughout this tragedy, the Parents and Teachers Association of Boston-Hoffman Elementary School has been centrally involved. Providing an outlet for the community to share in their collective grief and express their support, Boston-Hoffman PTA has established a donation fund, extra counseling for students, and a place to send flowers, cards and letters that respects these families' wishes to grieve privately. I greatly admire their noble actions and commend the Boston-Hoffman PTA for filling a needed void during such challenging circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will join me in expressing this body's condolences to these families who may never fully recuperate following the losses of Lilibeth and Harrison. In the midst of this tragedy though, we have experienced the Arlington community at its most caring best. This effort, along with the shared memories of these two children, will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity today to honor all those who own and work for small businesses as part of National Small Business Week. These men and women should be recognized for their spirit of entrepreneurship, determination, persistence, and contribution to our economic prosperity.

Small businesses represent 95 percent of all employers, create half of our economic growth, and create three out of four new jobs throughout the nation. As leaders in innovation and new technology, they produce up to fourteen more patents per employee than large corporations. Nearly half of these small businesses are owned by women entrepreneurs.

Owners of small businesses are risk takers who aren't afraid to take an idea they have and make it a reality. Because of their positive impact on our country, we should not make the risks they take any more difficult. The Bush Administration and Congress should cultivate small businesses by advancing policies that enable small businesses to start and flourish, not placing impediments that stunt their growth.

Under President Bush's budget, small business assistance programs are some of the hardest hit with cuts. Reductions to these assistance programs are much greater than the program cuts elsewhere in the budget he submitted to Congress. Half of all government small business assistance programs are for elimination or for severe cuts, with the average cut at nearly 80 percent. Among the programs cut or eliminated are the Community Development Financial Institutions which helps small businesses in underprivileged communities receive capital, the Microloan program which provides loans to people who would not normally be eligible to receive one; the Minority Business Development Agency which focuses only on the establishment and growth of minority owned businesses; and the Women's Business Centers which help aspiring female entrepreneurs.

These cuts are unacceptable, and I am hopeful that through the appropriations process we can restore the funding to these programs. The government should not be in the business of making it more difficult to receive start-up capital. We should also be encouraging minorities and women to begin businesses, especially in communities in need of thriving companies, not cutting the programs that make it easier to succeed.

Small business owners are the backbone of our economy. They deserve the respect and assistance of the federal government. Instead, they have seen the government cut the programs that help them become successes. I am looking forward to the day when the government is there to help every person who has ever dreamt of owning their own business and seeing those stores, restaurants and companies thrive.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 147, I was detained and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 2006 budget conference report. I believe that the federal budget is a reflection of values and priorities, and that the spending choices made in the 2006 budget bring into focus where this administration and House of Representatives leadership's priorities lie. Frankly, this budget is a travesty, and it's going to cost the American people dearly, and seriously imperil our nation's economic and national security.

The budget makes tax cuts for the most affluent members of our society a top priority. By contrast, it shortchanges investments in our future and fails to honor past commitments to our veterans, seniors, and those in need.

Mr. Speaker, this budget is surely not what the American people bargained for. Given what we know about our America's financial situation--a national debt approaching $8 trillion, interest payments of $280 billion, weakening economy, growing health care needs, a weak dollar, and weakening economy--why would the Republican leadership continue to cut taxes for the wealthy? The House voted two weeks ago to eliminate the estate tax.

The conference report will take $40 billion from programs for the poor, much of it in from Medicaid, yet it protects $70 billion in new tax cuts for the wealthy. After the five year budget window, these tax cuts will balloon, costing $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. It's sad that we're debating how much to cut from Medicaid, TANF and other programs for the poor, yet few of my colleagues on the other side of the isle are criticizing the additional tax cuts in this budget.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, independent CBO projections show that the proposed budget would add another $5.135 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years, a more than 50 percent increase over the current total. If Congress passes the President's Social Security plan, then you can add several trillion more to that figure.

The Administration has cleverly (and dishonestly) hidden both the projected cost of the war in Iraq and the plan to take money out of Social Security from its budget documents. They have to know that the costs, in the long run, will be exceedingly high. Yet they stubbornly continue to cut taxes for high income tier individuals, shifting the burden on the already squeezed middle class and poor. These fiscal policies, I contend, are without precedent in their level of irresponsibility.

In an attempt to hide the full ramification of the budget, documents submitted by the White House and the resolution adopted by the House purposely withheld cost estimates of the war in Iraq and the President's Social Security privatization plan. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), when you combine the cost of the war with that of the plan to privatize Social Security and other unstated expenses such as relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax, you get a deficit that moves from $427 billion in fiscal 2006 to $621 billion in 2015.

When President Bush assumed office in 2001 we had a projected budget surplus of $236 billion. Not only do I oppose these fiscally irresponsible policies that will produce growing deficits and debt, I object to the false claim that non-defense discretionary spending programs are responsible for the budget deficits. While these programs ate the principal target of the proposed spending cuts, the total non- defense discretionary budget is at the lowest level in the past 30 years.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this sham conference report.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my colleagues that what we are talking about are young girls who are in trouble, young girls who are unmarried, young girls who invariably, according to the statistics, have been impregnated by older men exploiting them. While it should be common for parents to be responsible, to be nurturing and not to be punitive, it unfortunate is not always the case.

Proponents of this measure claim that this bill will ``give parents a chance to help their daughters during their most vulnerable times'' and would require doctors to give 24 hours' notice to the minor's parent before allowing her to have an abortion.

It is not quite as simple as that. In a perfect world, teenagers would be able to tell their parents that they are pregnant, but many are unable to due to fear of rejection at home, threats of physical and emotional abuse, and in the most troubling of situations, because it was a family member, such as a stepfather, that put them in that position in the first place.

These teenage girls should have a right to seek help from a trusted adult, such as a grandmother or a member of the clergy.

This bill will create a complicated patchwork of State and Federal law that will apply differently depending on the minor's State of residence and the State where the abortion is performed.

More importantly, it will be nearly impossible for teenagers to understand and physicians to comply with.

While this measure includes all the provisions of the Child Custody Protection Act, a measure considered in previous Congresses which would make it a Federal crime for a caring adult other than a parent to accompany a young woman across State lines for an abortion, the Child Interstate Notification Act, CINA, goes even further by mandating that doctors be fully aware and knowledgeable of the mandatory parental involvement laws in each of the 50 States, their specific requirements, their judicial-bypass procedures, and their interaction with the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act or face criminal fines.

CIANA would make it a Federal crime for a doctor to perform an abortion on a minor who is a resident of another State unless the doctor notifies the minor's parent, in person, a minimum of 24 hours before the procedure.

It is also disturbing that this measure, not unlike the partial-birth abortion ban law, does not include an exception for emergency circumstances where a minor's health would be threatened by this delay. It is no wonder that the constitutionality of this law is being challenged in several Federal courts as we speak.

The intent of this measure is not to ensure that caring parents have access to their teenage daughters who are contemplating having an abortion. The true intent is to make it so difficult for doctors to comply with this law that they simply give up.

What would be compassionate of teenage girls is for this body to consider legislation such as the Prevention First Act, H.R. 1709, which would help to reduce the number of unintended teenage pregnancies by providing annual funding to both public and private entities to establish or expand teenage pregnancy prevention programs.

This measure would also require these entities to incorporate teenage pregnancy prevention programs that have been proven to delay sexual intercourse or sexual activity, increase contraceptive use or reduce teenage pregnancy, such as comprehensive sexual education.

Why are we not doing more to help the 820,000 teen girls who get pregnant each year?

This is the second time in as many months that the House of Representatives is legislating morals when we do not know the individual circumstances that may apply. We should leave this to the States.

I urge all my colleagues to vote against the Child Interstate Notification Act, a regressive measure, which will have no impact on reducing the number of unintended teenage pregnancies and will do more harm than good.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sherrie Anderson who is retiring as the Deputy Director of the Mass Transit Security Programs Office of the Transportation Security Administration. I join my fellow colleagues in honoring the 34 years of service that Anderson has given to the protection of our nation's passengers. I am honored to give my compliments to a woman who has tirelessly pursued improvements in the nation's transportation security. She has played a pivotal role in our nation's defense against terrorism.

For many years, Anderson was a lone voice in the wilderness of the Department of Transportation begging, pleading and cajoling the various modes of transportation to shore up efforts in improving security.

As the guiding light of the Secretary of Transportation's Office of Security, Anderson was in the forefront of the Department's response to innumerable incidents over the past decades including Pan American Flight 103, the first World Trade Center Bombing, and September 11th.

In the wake of 9/11, Anderson was one of the original hires in the Office of Maritime and Land of the newly created Transportation Security Administration. She served as the first Chief of the Rail Passenger Branch, Deputy Director of the Passenger Security Division and then as Deputy Director of Mass Transit Security Programs Office.

In that capacity, Anderson led efforts to improve passenger screening efforts in commuter rail systems. Through her work, the three-phase Transit Rail Inspection Pilot (TRIP) was undertaken to demonstrate the efficacy of various technologies for passenger security screening systems.

Throughout Anderson's tenure with the Federal Government, she has consistently shown grace and poise that has enabled her to talk to the highest levels of the government as well as those on the frontlines responding to transportation security incidents. Her calmness and level-headedness in crisis situations has been an enduring asset to both the Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security.

I encourage others to continue her dedication to the betterment of transportation security for our fellow citizens. I congratulate the family of Sherrie Anderson on this momentous occasion. I wish her a well-earned retirement, and the thanks of a grateful nation.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize and honor the career of Mr. Louis J. DiFilippo as he prepares to retire after 40 years of distinguished service in support of our Nation. Throughout his career, DiFilippo has lived the Navy's core values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment, and he has led the Navy and the Naval Facilities Engineering Command through a period of unprecedented challenges and change.

In November of 1965, DiFilippo began his service to the Navy at the Northern Division, Bureau of Yards and Docks in Boston, MA. He started as a GS-2 Clerk, and over the course of his career rose through the Civil Service ranks to become a GS-15 senior manager for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command. He leaves a record of service, professional development, and dedication to our Nation not commonly seen these days.

A native of Boston, and a dedicated member of Red Sox Nation, DiFilippo continued

with Northern Division, and then Chesapeake Division, to become a GS-7 Management Analyst. Moving to Washington DC in June 1970, he continued to progress at the Chesapeake Division, becoming a GS-11 Program Analyst. In April 1973, he was promoted to Headquarters, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, where he began as a GS-11 Employment Development Specialist. For the next 15 years, Mr. DiFilippo had a most profound impact on manpower matters in the entire Command. For 9 years as a GS-13, he led the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Professional Development Program, bringing numerous professionals onto the roles, and nurturing their careers through professional guidance and support. Many of those he hired and guided are now the key leaders in the organization.

Moving up again in the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, DiFilippo became a GS-14 Supervisory Management Analyst in the Office of Civilian Personnel Programs, and eventually became the GS-15 Director of the Office of Civilian Personnel Programs (the ``DCPP,'' as his position is known), with wide responsibilities for all aspects of personnel policy and management.

Someone of his breadth of talent is often called upon to help in other areas. In July 1988, DiFilippo was detailed to the Pentagon to support the Navy Model Installations Program. His extensive knowledge and skills helped numerous initiatives gain acceptance and improve the Naval shore establishment. He continued with the Model Installation Program at the Naval Facilities Engineering Command until April 1991, when he became the GS-15 Special Assistant to the Deputy Director of Programs and Comptroller at the Naval Facilities Engineering Command. In this position, he influenced major budgetary and program decisions, improving efficiency and effectiveness.

From 1993 until his retirement, Mr. DiFilippo served as the GS-15 Director of Corporate Management, acting as the Special Assistant to the Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, and to the Deputy Commander for Operations. His positive influence on Command decision- making during this period cannot be overstated. He has been the steady, keen mind helping to implement major Command initiatives, and advising not only senior managers, but the entire Command. Everyone in the Naval Facilities Engineering Command knows that if you need an answer, ``Just ask Lou.''

DiFilippo's steadfast leadership and superb performance have won him awards almost too numerous to mention. He has received the Superior Civilian Service Award three times (1982, 1984 and 1998), and the prestigious Distinguished Civilian Service Award in 2005. He leaves behind a legacy of mentorship and service that will be difficult to match, along with a cadre of leaders within the Command that have benefited from his professional guidance.

I am pleased to recognize and thank Louis DiFilippo for his long and dedicated service to this country, and I join his family, friends, and colleagues in wishing him ``Fair Winds and Following Seas'' as he begins his well earned retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of H. Res. 227 to honor all that Indian Americans have contributed to our country. Specifically, I would like to commend the graduates of the Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) for their economic innovations and technological expertise.

After India gained its independence and began its new life as a democratic nation, a committee was formed to create institutes of higher education that would focus on technology to fuel the post-war industrial development of India. After looking at the committee recommendations, the first Indian Institute of Technology was created in May 1950. The campus was placed at the site of the Hijli Detention camp, which used to house young Indian freedom fighters during the independence movement.

Since that time 6 more campuses have been formed throughout India. IIT offers undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in more than 25 engineering, science, technology and management disciplines. Students are admitted after taking a national entrance exam and the student body is a diverse mixture of socio-economic backgrounds, cultures, languages, and religions.

After graduating from IIT, alumni are able to take the knowledge they gained and excel in technology and engineering sectors. Graduates are currently serving in senior positions at Citigroup and Sun Microsystems, among other established and Fortune 500 companies. They are also serving as Deans and Professors at the best universities in the United States, including Harvard, MIT and Carnegie Mellon.

The United States economy has felt the impact of IIT graduates. Over 25 percent of graduates since 1990 have been entrepreneurs and have started numerous companies that have fueled job creation in their communities. IIT alumni are also performing cutting edge research that is needed by U.S. companies, and a great number have received patents for their innovations.

The effect of Indian Institute of Technology graduates is felt here in the United States and throughout the world. It is important that all Americans recognize the great impact Indian Americans and IIT graduates have had on our society and economy. Without their knowledge, skill, and drive to achieve, our economy would not have as many technological innovations which enrich our daily lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Nicholas P. Godici, a distinguished public servant who is retiring after more than 32 years of exemplary service with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In 2000, Commissioner Godici was appointed by the Secretary of Commerce as the first Commissioner for Patents under the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999. That Act rechartered the USPTO and made the most significant changes to the U.S. patent system since the Patent Act of 1952.

As Commissioner for Patents, Commissioner Godici effectively oversaw an organization that employs more than 3,700 patent examiners who review and process over 350,000, patent applications each year. He was instrumental in the drafting and implementation of the USPTO's 21st Century Strategic Plan which is a comprehensive, ongoing effort to increase productivity in patent processing time, enhance patent quality, and promote electronic filing and processing.

Commissioner Godici began his career on June 25, 1972, as a patent examiner and his steady leadership and commitment to the patent system have earned him international recognition and the respect of his colleagues and the entire intellectual property rights community.

He was appointed to the Senior Executive Service in 1990 as Group Director of a patent examination organization. In 1997, Nick was selected to serve as the Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Patents responsible for all

aspects of the patent granting process. Since his appointment to Commissioner, he has represented the United States in a number of international negotiations involving intellectual property rights, and testified before Congress on a variety of patent issues and USPTO operations. He was also the Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the USPTO from January to December 2001.

I am honored to have this opportunity to publicly commend a dedicated public servant on the occasion of his retirement. Nicholas Godici embodies the excellence of our public servants, and I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation and in support of the Markey/Johnson amendment to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act and am diametrically opposed to drilling in the refuge. I say this as an unabashed advocate for protecting the environment.

As Rep. Markey recently stated, ``We must draw the line against drilling in our few remaining pristine habitats set aside specifically for preserving wildlife for future generations. If we allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, there will be no place in America so special that it cannot be opened up for commercial exploitation.''

Unfortunately, the environmental ethic holds no value with this White House or a majority of my colleagues in this chamber.

They simply don't care.

So let me try another tract. It's one that I fear is too real a scenario and one this energy bill falls seriously short of addressing.

Today, this year, this decade, it really doesn't matter, but someday and someday soon we will cross the point where world demand for oil will outpace available supply. The disagreement isn't about if it will occur, it's when.

And, when it does occur it will be a time of reckoning. We will have to reorient our oil-dependent economy into something less consumptive of oil. If the shortfall in supply takes on crisis type dimensions, the transition will be much more disruptive economically and socially.

The one reserve we possess to ease this transition, buy us time and mitigate a crisis, is the untapped reserve thought to exist under the National Arctic Wildlife Refuge.

I would hate to see this reserve extracted under any circumstance, but if one day it must, let it be for better reasons than those presented today.

I doubt there will ever be sufficient safeguards to guarantee this Serengeti of the Arctic can be protected once drilling starts, but if there is credence to the argument that the technology and safeguards used today are better than yesterday's, then tomorrow's will still be more advanced than today's improvements.

Let's not drill now, squander our last reserve of oil and gain nothing in improved economic security.

Unless this bill places our Nation on a path toward lower levels of oil consumption, greater use of alternative fuels, greater levels of fuel efficiency and conservation, why should we advance the calendar on the day of reckoning?

Why should we consume next year's seed corn, when we haven't experimented with alternative diets or eating less?

Support the Markey/Johnson amendment; oppose drilling in the refuge.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert/Markey CAFE standard amendment.

When it comes to cheap energy and low gasoline prices, we have lived on borrowed time.

As a whole our energy policies promote profligate consumption. The more you buy and consume the cheaper the unit price.

The bill before us does little to wean our nation from its dependence on foreign and unstable sources of energy. According to DOE, this nation consumes 24 percent of the world's energy while comprising less than 7 percent of the world's population.

Today, the world is racing to develop and catching up with our consumptive habits and standard of living. It's a race that cannot succeed and is unsustainable over the long term.

I deeply regret that a majority in this Congress for years blocked the Department of Transportation from raising the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency Standard for automobiles and trucks

Then, when the White House changed hands in 2001, and perhaps confident that no real action to raise standards would occur, the restriction was no longer included as a rider in the appropriations bills.

This short sighted policy has placed us squarely in the situation we are in today.

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 OPEC 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 $50 barrels of oil and $2.35 per gallon of gasoline.

Mr. Chairman, for the sake of the future of our country and our long term economic prosperity we need to wean ourselves from our dependency on oil.

Nothing is likely to have a greater impact in accomplishing this goal than making our transportation sector more fuel efficient.

I urge my colleagues to support the Boehlert-Markey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in vehement opposition to this legislation.

Two years have passed since the last time we debated a comprehensive energy bill on the House floor, but the majority appears to have learned nothing since that time.

What we are considering today is practically the same, identical bill from last Congress. It even has the same bill number (H.R. 6) as last time, as if it were photocopied with complete indifference to the disturbing news and international developments that have come to pass in recent years.

Mr. Chairman, why is oil more than $50 a barrel and gasoline prices averaging $2.28 per gallon?

The simple answer, demand is up and supply is limited.

A more thorough investigation leaves one very troubled with the direction we are headed. While demand from the U.S. and other industrialized nations is growing on average 1.2 percent, the situation in developing nations has radically altered. Demand for oil in these countries is now growing at an average of 2.7 percent annually. On its face that may not sound like a lot but it is not sustainable and is largely the cause behind the higher prices we're encountering today.

In China, demand for oil is growing at almost an exponential rate. India isn't far behind either. Combined, these countries represent 35 percent of the world's population.

Another sign of concern is that Indonesia, a member of OPEC, became a net importer of oil in 2004.

These recent increases in worldwide oil demand are not a one-time phenomenon; there're here to stay and will continue to squeeze markets and push oil prices ever higher.

The Department of Energy, on its own Web site, even suggests that crude oil prices will continue to cost over $50 per barrel. (Though they are silent on any long-term forecast.)

Mr. Chairman, we are an oil-based economy. While coal, uranium and some renewable sources such as wind 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.

Unfortunately, H.R. 6 does very little to prepare us for the day when this insatiable demand for oil outpaces world supplies.

When that day comes, the prospect of $80 barrels of oil and $4.50 a gallon of gasoline are not unrealistic. Some pessimistic forecasts even predict $200 barrels and $10 a gallon of gasoline.

Many experts believe that most of the world's proven reserves have been found and that supplies will decline an average of 3 to 6 percent a year once the oil peak has been crossed.

The oil shock caused by the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74 cut supplies temporarily by 5 percent.

The social and economic disruptions caused by this temporary disruption in supply were felt for more than a decade. Gas prices shot up 400 percent, inflation ran rampant and was fought with double digit interest rates and unemployment climbed over 10 percent.

Are we prepared or are we preparing ourselves for some permanent downward decline in supply?

Does this bill prepare us for this eventuality?

I think the answer is that it clearly does not.

Why are we rushing to exploit pristine wilderness areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and bestowing more tax incentives on some of America's most profitable companies and individuals to tap our last domestic sources of domestic oil and gas when these sources won't even make a dent in our oil and gas needs?

Where are the incentives and subsidies to wean us from our dependency on foreign oil?

Where are the incentives and subsidies to retool industry to alternative fuels and greater efficiency?

One part of our solution to the looming energy crisis is to require automobiles to be more fuel efficient. Had we improved efficiency through higher CAFE standards 27 miles for light trucks and 33 for cars back in the early 1990s, we could have displaced all the oil we imported from OPEC today. This bill is shamefully silent on that issue.

We have been shortsighted in our energy policies, preferring to influence short-term prices, keeping them artificially low while ignoring the long-term consequences of programs and policies that promote greater consumption and profligate waste.

When oil supplies begin their decline and prices spiral higher, our profligate waste may be our one silver bullet to respond.

There are incredible opportunities to make industry, office buildings, homes and vehicles more fuel efficient.

We cannot sustain a situation where 6.7 percent of the world's population continues to consume 24 percent of the world's energy. (Energy Information Administration 2002 figures: 405 quadrillion Btus world--98 quadrillion Btus U.S.)

Mr. Chairman, this bill is deficient and heads our country in the wrong direction. It rushes us closer to the day shortages occur and sets us backward on our ability to address it.

I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise because today marks a very proud day for Virginia's Eighth Congressional district. I am deeply honored to commemorate the 20th Anniversary of Christian Relief Services Charities, an international charitable organization located in the heart of my district, founded by a great Virginian and a man I'm proud to call my good friend, Eugene L. Krizek.

Throughout its 20-year history, Christian Relief has held true to one overriding principle: to help those in need both in the United States and around the world.

From this humble objective, Christian Relief has worked to improve the lives of thousands worldwide. No example illustrates this more than the efforts of Christian Relief in Africa. In some of the most poverty stricken regions on the continent, Christian Relief has offered vital development programs that address the long-term sustainability of communities for water, farming, housing, and clinics and hospitals. One particular program has educated African women, their children, and countless orphans. Christian Relief's school construction, vocational and literacy programs, and micro-credit and micro-enterprise opportunities have made it possible that new generations will possess the skills necessary for long-term community survival.

As prosperous and fortunate as our great nation is, poverty and need still exist in American communities and neighborhoods. In our urban areas, the Appalachian region, American Indian reservations, and small towns throughout our country, Christian Relief has learned firsthand how to address the basic needs for food, medicine, and affordable housing of Americans.

This last point, affordable housing, is what Christian Relief has taken special interest in. Its multi-family housing programs confront many of the long-term needs of low-wage working families and individuals caught in the debilitating cycle of poverty. In over 2,800 living units spread across Arizona, Kansas, North Carolina and Virginia, Christian Relief is empowering residents to get actively involved in their own communities and also helping them develop local programs and services to meet specific needs. At the very doorstep of this nation's Capitol, Fairfax County, Christian Relief has coordinated transitional housing for the homeless, working poor, and the disabled. Its ``Safe Places Residential Program'' provides a hospitable alternative to homelessness for women and children fleeing domestic violence.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the challenges that Christian Relief has overcome on American Indian reservations. For decades, they have assisted reservation families with agricultural self-sufficiency programs, culture and language preservation, water, housing, utilities, and youth centers and programs.

In particular, Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is the site of one of their most proud accomplishments. With a dire need for water and sustainable agriculture, Christian Relief provided Pine Ridge with over 300 drilled wells and installed water pumps that have provided a vital inventory of water for twenty years to families living on this remote reservation. The availability of water has allowed families to grow fresh food. Today, tribal members plant over 500 organic gardens each year.

In ending, Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my most sincere gratitude to Christian Relief's Founder and President, Eugene Krizek, its Board of Directors and dedicated professional staff. They have truly been at the service of humanity by providing hope in a sometimes unforgiving world. As I reflect on the past twenty years, I am reminded of a thought Albert Einstein offered about the nature of man. He believed that ``the value of man resides in what he gives and not in what he is capable of receiving.'' Using this as my guide, I realize how blessed we are to have Christian Relief, and I forever understand how immeasurable their value is to mankind.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding public servant, Peter F. Brown, as he completes more than 24 years of continuous service within the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense, DoD. He began his public service life as a naval architect at the Naval Sea Systems Command, NAVSEA, and is ending it as NAVSEA's Executive Director. Throughout his career, he worked tirelessly to serve America and our Navy and Marine Corps.

Mr. Brown joined NAVSEA in 1981 as Ship Project Manager and then Branch Head for Command and Amphibious ships. In 1987, he was appointed to the Senior Executive Service and assigned as Deputy Program Manager for Amphibious and Combat Support Ships where he directed maintenance and modernization for over 175 surface ships and over 40 intermediate maintenance activities.

Over the next decade, Mr. Brown provided exceptional service to the Navy in a succession of complex and demanding assignments as NAVSEA's corporate planner, civilian manpower manager, Deputy Commander for Fleet Logistics Support, Chief Information Officer, and Executive Director of the Logistics, Maintenance and Industrial Operations Directorate. He was instrumental in supporting the command's restructuring under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act and its headquarters move to the Washington Navy Yard.

In July 1998, Mr. Brown assumed his current position as the Executive Director of NAVSEA. In this role as the Command's senior civilian executive, he quickly implemented strategic changes in the Navy's largest systems command, comprised of 49,000 civilian and military personnel at 36 geographically dispersed activities with an annual budget of approximately $20 billion. A number of these changes are being widely adopted across the Department of the Navy and DoD.

Mr. Brown was the Program Team Chair and Product Integrator for a comprehensive DoD team that recommended the creation of a National Security Personnel System, NSPS, Program Executive Office to design and implement the new civilian human resources management system. Based on his team's design, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld agreed to establish the NSPS Program Executive Office, with Mr. Brown assuming the role of interim Program Executive Officer. He was the driving force behind the successful launch of the NSPS program structure. Mr. Brown was instrumental in advancing the One Shipyard concept, which revolutionized the nation's entire ship industrial base to better meet the Navy's Fleet Response Plan requirements in response to the challenge of the Global War on Terror and the dynamic world situation.

Mr. Brown's visionary leadership included the identification of proven private sector programs and processes and their rapid deployment. His active endorsement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Voluntary Protection Program, VPP, led to Portsmouth Naval Shipyard's recent designation as a STAR VPP site, the highest ranking available and the second DoD site to achieve this status and the first Navy site to do so. Mr. Brown is recognized throughout the shipbuilding industry as a leader who can be trusted and is the Navy's sole representative on the Executive Committee of the National Shipbuilding Research Program Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise.

Mr. Brown has been an exceptional innovator of strategies to solve the most difficult challenges in personnel downsizing, work force renewal, and to reduce costs in acquisition and support of ships, submarines and systems. He provided executive leadership for several initiatives aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Navy's five systems commands under the auspices of the Virtual System Command. He led the migration to common processes, streamlining responsibilities and systems and instituting the adoption of best practices in many key areas. Additionally, these efforts have created a single Fleet distance support solution that provides a conduit for virtually all of the technical and logistics support. These efforts collectively represent over $6 billion in savings across the Navy over the Future Years Defense Program.

Within NAVSEA, Mr. Brown established a formal control structure for over 166 technical authority areas that are key to the engineering performance and safety of ships, systems, and the sailors who operate them. Nationally recognized individuals known for their professional expertise were assigned as the technical authorities in each area. Not only do these individuals represent the ultimate technical authority for their field of expertise, they are responsible to oversee the technical health of the Government, academia, and private sector network that supports that expertise. This approach has been recognized across the Navy for its clarity, effectiveness, and efficiency and has been adopted by other Navy systems commands.

Mr. Brown's visionary approach to challenges allows for the transformation from a ``business as usual'' mentality into actions that permit innovative improvements in the way the Government and its private industry partners achieve best value products and services. It is, therefore, a pleasure to recognize Mr. Peter F. Brown for his many contributions in a life devoted to our nation's security as he leaves the Department of the Navy. I know my colleagues join me in wishing he and his wife Terri much happiness and fair winds and following seas as they begin a new chapter in their lives.

Mr. Speaker, the ``Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Act'' is long overdue and with House passage later today, it stands a very real prospect of becoming law. It's been an extremely long road to reform.

I originally supported bankruptcy reform in 1998 with former Representative George Gekas. Ironically, the legislation was drawn from the recommendations of the bipartisan National Bankruptcy Review Commission that was established through legislation passed in 1994 by a Democratic-controlled Congress. It enjoyed the same level of bipartisan support as when it passed the Senate last month.

The main component of the commission's recommendations and the legislation we have here today is to establish a means-based test to determine who should work with creditors on a plan to repay their debts and those who cannot afford to do so. Sometimes a market-based capitalist economy can be unforgiving, but Americans are fair and decent people. We want a system that allows a fresh start to those in financial trouble, but also one that promotes personal responsibility and is not susceptible to fraud and abuse.

The means test in this bill carves out a series of exemptions to steer those who can afford to repay at least part of their debt toward a Chapter 13 repayment plan. This test takes into account exemptions for living expenses, health and disability insurance, expenses to care for an elderly or disabled family member, secured debts, and home energy costs among others. It also recognizes situations where individuals face overwhelming medical costs or other debilitating situations. Under the bill, if an individual can demonstrate ``special circumstances'' that create an overwhelming financial burden, those individuals would not be required to file for Chapter 13. As a final safeguard, those people earning less than their state's median income would automatically be ineligible for Chapter 13.

It is estimated that only a small minority of those already filing for bankruptcy would be affected, perhaps as little as 7 percent. Contrary to some reports, families and individuals facing difficult economic circumstances, people who may have lost their job or family breadwinner or have been devastated by a severe medical condition, will be given a chance to clear their debts and receive a fresh start under this bankruptcy reform legislation.

Back in 1998, I encouraged supporters of the bill to improve its consumer protection provisions. They responded by making child support a priority in a repayment plan, requiring credit counseling prior to filing for bankruptcy, and limiting abuses caused by a few unscrupulous individuals who hide their wealth behind a state's homestead provisions.

At the onset of the 107th Session, I sought and won the House's approval of my pro-consumer amendments that remain a part of today' s bill. These provisions:

Require credit card companies to include a disclosure statement highlighting the number of months necessary to repay a balance if the card holder were to pay only the minimum amount due;

Require credit card companies to inform cardholders on when their low introductory rates expire and new higher rates take effect; and

Prevent deceptive and fraudulent advertising practices by debt relief agencies by making certain that creditors are informed of their rights as debtors.

Could these provisions be perfected? I suspect so. There were several other consumer protections we were unsuccessful in getting included. But perfection should not be an enemy of the good.

Increasingly, bankruptcy has become a tool of first impulse rather than a last option after all other avenues have been exhausted. Last year, 1.6 million consumers filed for bankruptcy, a figure just short of the number of filings in 2003, which represented the most in our nation's history. How is it that during periods of sustained economic growth and prosperity, such as during the Clinton presidency, when all incomes rose, bankruptcies also continued to climb?

S. 256 has been criticized for advancing the interests of the credit card industry on the backs of the poor and the middle class, many of whom are in debt because of circumstances beyond their control. I am sympathetic to this argument, but the flaw is not with this legislation. Those deserving of a fresh start will still be able to do so under this legislation.

The real flaw is with an agenda that the majority continues to advance.

Most families in dire financial straits and filing for bankruptcy will be able to discharge their debts under this legislation. But why are they facing bankruptcy?

One reason is that 41 million Americans are uninsured because the majority party refuses to address this growing crisis.

Another is because 7.3 million Americans live on the minimum wage, more than one-third of whom rely on the $5.15 cents per hour to support their family. They last saw a minimum wage increase in 1997.

It is because during the height of the last recession, the majority party refused to allow any extension of unemployment benefits, because they were too busy falling all over themselves to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans.

We just passed this week a permanent elimination of the estate tax, helping the wealthiest among us avoid paying any tax on their untaxed earnings, and passed a budget resolution that will cut health care to the indigent.

Mr. Speaker, bankruptcy reform has merit and should become law. It is the majority's overall agenda that is bankrupt and in need of reform.

Madam Speaker, the House majority today is about to increase our deficit by $290 billion. We are going to offer an alternative; but they will reject that alternative so that they can take care of three-tenths of 1 percent of the very wealthiest people in this country. For the difference in cost, you could restore food stamps to 300,000 families; you could restore medical care to the 7 million poor elderly people in the nursing homes that you just cut from the Medicaid program; you could restore 300,000 day care slots for poor children.

These are people who suffer from the accident of birth and, in many cases, only because of the accident of birth; in order to reward a handful of families who are advantaged by the accident of birth, who have the very best education, the very best contacts, the very best prospects for economic success, and yet we will take billions, tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars out of Federal revenue to reward that three-tenths of 1 percent. That is unfair, and it is un- American. This was envisioned as a Nation of equal opportunity, not one of inherited aristocracy.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from California (Mr. Honda) for yielding me this time in order to give some much-deserved recognition to Justin Williams.

As our colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has explained, Chairman Davis has to be in a hearing, but I know the chairman is very much disappointed he is not able to speak on this bill that he introduced.

We want to name the Federal building on Jamieson Avenue in Alexandria, Virginia, just by the Federal courthouse, after Justin Williams because he was such an outstanding Federal prosecutor.

He passed away August 31, 2003, while he was running along the Potomac River in Old Town. He had a heart attack. We lost a tremendous asset to the country and to the Department of Justice. Mr. Williams was also a wonderful friend to all who knew and worked with him.

Justin Williams began his career as a lawyer after attending Columbia University. He then went to law school at the University of Virginia, where he graduated in 1967.

He then moved to the Washington, DC, area and worked at the Department of Justice Criminal Division. In 1968, he served as the Commonwealth's attorney for Arlington County before going back to the Federal Government in 1970.

He then became a Federal prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Alexandria, was named Chief of the Criminal Division and an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

As a Federal prosecutor, as has been said, he was responsible for the prosecution of several terribly important high-profile cases, including Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, and many cases involving terrorists after September 11. After the Robert Hanssen case, Mr. Williams was honored by Attorney General Ashcroft for his role in that prosecution.

He has received so many awards for his accomplishments as a Federal prosecutor that we can't list them all here. He was named Acting U.S. Attorney on two separate occasions. But he will be most remembered not just for the accolades that he received but for the kindness that he showed toward those he served throughout his tenure.

As a supervisor for more than a hundred other prosecutors, he was a mentor and a role model to the attorneys that were just beginning their careers. He had an incredible ability to remember cases, to put cases in context. He was always willing to share that extensive knowledge with his colleagues.

He had a superb reputation with the judges he worked with and was known for having a very sound legal mind. Everybody remembers him for his sense of humor, his humility and his good judgment.

We want to pass along our condolences to Mr. Williams' wife, Suzanne, his children, Andrew and Caitlin, and the other members of his extended family, his friends and his colleagues who feel his loss so deeply. His memory will not soon fade.

His service not only to our Nation but also to the people of Virginia certainly justifies naming this building by the Federal courthouse in Alexandria the Justin W. Williams United States Attorney's Building. His lasting legacy will be felt by all who work in this Federal building and especially by those who carry the responsibility of working as a Federal prosecutor in the future. May they be inspired by Mr. Williams' commitment to excellence and service to our country.