Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his previous statement, as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for his statement and his initiative in introducing this with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and the leader of our caucus for his statement.

This is a very important issue, not just to those who represent large numbers of Federal employees but to the entire American people. We are talking about adequately compensating those who serve, who serve all of the interests of all of the American public.

At no time when we introduced this resolution or in the budget resolution have we ever suggested that the military should only get their pay increase if civilians get their pay increase. That is a total mischaracterization by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer). That is not the case. But we do want to make the case that there are a great many civilian employees serving their country in a dedicated, brave way as well.

Just a couple of weeks ago, two DOD civilian employees were killed in what the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad called ``a targeted act of terrorism.'' There were hundreds of Federal civilian employees killed in a targeted act of terrorism in Oklahoma. The FBI, the CIA, the whole Department of Homeland Security, we can raise up the stature of people who are willing to put their lives on the line; but we can also point to all those clerks and managers and accountants and all the people who make the government run.

It is so easy to take it for granted because we have always had the most professional civil service with the highest integrity of any civil service in the world, and we take it for granted. But we are not going to be able to if we do not act responsibly here.

Health insurance premiums have been going up by double digits for the last several years. If we restrict Federal civilian employees to 1\1/2\ percent, their take-home pay is likely to be even less than it was last year.

We heard from the assistant secretary for Army Acquisitions. This is not a function that clearly should be contracted out. Army Acquisitions. He told us about the fact that in the last 10 years, the number of civilian employees working for the Army has declined from 100,000 to 50,000; and they have doubled their workload. They have twice as much work to do. But he shared with us his very deep concern, his very deep concern, that over the next 2 years half of that workforce is eligible for retirement. What happens then? These are dedicated professional employees.

This is a very important issue for all the people of this country. We as the people that the executive branch works for, we make the laws. We tell them what their priorities are. And the American people, who depend upon them for all their Social Security checks, their Medicare benefits, all of the various programs that have an enormous, profound impact on their lives, these people have to know that they are appreciated, they are respected. And how do we do that? More than words. We have to do that by giving them the level of compensation they are entitled to. That is what this is about. It is not a matter of talking the talk. We walk the walk by showing them that we appreciate what they do day in and day out.

I appreciate the gentleman for introducing this resolution, and let us get it passed.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my colleague, friend, and leader on the Committee on the Budget for yielding me the time.

We are going to focus on homeland security; but before we do that, I have to expose an issue of hypocrisy that, as much as anything, is a compelling reason to vote for the Democratic budget rather than the Republican budget.

Let me explain what I mean. Most military retirees die before their spouses; and to deal with this situation, they pay extra money in for what is called spousal benefits. With the Federal civilian retiree system, retirees' spouses get 55 percent of their pay. For military retirees as long as they live, they are going to get their full annuity. But there is an anomaly, an injustice in the current system for military retirees' spouses, and that is as soon as they turn 62 years of age, their benefit drops from 55 percent to 35 percent of their breadwinner's benefits. And thus for all that money that a spouse paid into the system survivors get very little out of it because Social Security offsets it. This Democratic budget fixes that injustice.

Let me tell the Members why it is such a hypocrisy in this Republican budget. 272 Members of this House have signed this bill, cosponsored this bill, including 12 Republicans on the Committee on the Budget; and when they were given an opportunity to rectify this injustice, they voted ``no.'' They get the credit for cosponsoring the bill, and yet they vote not to provide any money. That is as compelling a reason as any to vote for this responsible budget, rather than the Republican alternative that is before us today.

Mr. Chairman, now let me move on to homeland security. We have heard a whole lot of rhetoric about homeland security. We are listening to it on television in both cloak rooms; the American public is thinking about what did we do before 9-11 that could have been done better. What preparations might we have made that we did not? And there is a whole lot of blaming, a whole lot of finger pointing as to who was responsible. People are pointing to people in the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. But one of the things that most of them agree upon is that there probably is going to be another terrorist attack leveled at Americans within our borders, and so there is probably going to be another commission looking back on what did the Congress and the executive branch do to protect American citizens.

We are not going to be able to ensure everyone's safety, but there are certain things we need to do. Port security is one of them. What do we do with our port security? We cut the money. And, in fact, this budget, the Republican budget, cuts it even below the President's budget, cuts out 63 percent of port security grants. We are going to hear from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) in a few minutes on port security because he represents the largest port on the east coast. But we know we are vulnerable.

When we were attacked in New York City, at the Pentagon, who responded? They were not homeland security Federal employees. They were what we call first responders. They were the local police, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, all of the people that our communities count upon every day; but in a terrorist attack, they are the first line of response. So what does this budget do? It cuts $2.3 billion from those first responders. And then we have the gall to say that this budget responds to our homeland security needs. It does not. The Democratic alternative does. It restores that essential funding.

We are going to hear from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), who is the ranking Democrat on the Select Committee on Homeland Security. We are going to hear from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) on port security. We are going to hear from the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) on first responders. We are going to tell the Members what this country needs to do to protect its citizens. We are going to start with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who represents the largest port on the east coast.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

(Mr. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, our point is that this is a deficient budget. We know this country is a target of terrorists. We do not know when we are going to be attacked, but most of the experts say we will be. They are telling us, protect your ports.

So what have we done? We cut 63 percent of the budget for port security. Port security are the things that provide fencing, surveillance technologies, efforts to prevent access to docks and other port facilities. That is where we need to be putting our money. And to save $79 million, take it out of port security for tax cuts, is that an American priority? I do not think so.

To cut firefighters assistance by one-third? You are going to tell the firefighters around this country, who know they are going to be the first responders if there is an attack, we are going to pull the rug out from under you, cut your funding by one-third? Unbelievable.

And then to eliminate the COPS program, take 100,000 police officers from our local public safety agencies? All over the country jurisdictions are going to suffer by eliminating the COPS program. And then we are going to virtually eliminate the Byrne Grants for local law enforcement?

What kind of a budget is this? We are supposed to be listening to our constituents, putting in the money that addresses their priorities. These are their priorities. And you refuse to fund them so that you can pay for your tax cuts for the wealthiest, least needy Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I respond because the chairman of the committee suggested that this is about a political insurance policy. Political insurance policy? We are trying to find the money for an insurance policy to protect the lives of American citizens.

Let me remind the gentleman that in his budget, as to interoperable communication grants for local law enforcement, $85 million last year, zero this year. Metropolitan medical response

teams, $50 million last year, zero this year. Urban search and rescue grants, $60 million last year, zero this year. The COPS program was cut by $600 million.

Go down the list. We are talking about taking money away from insuring the lives of our citizens. Put this money back where it belongs.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution to acknowledge 125 years of reliable, timely, and objective science that illustrates and enhances our understanding of the Earth, and serves the important needs of individuals and communities across this great land.

The United States Geological Survey has an outstanding history of public service and scientific breakthroughs. It has been at the forefront of advances in our understanding of the Earth, its processes, and its resources. Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey pioneered hydrologic techniques for gauging the impact of floods and modeling the flow of complex ground-water systems. The astronauts who landed on the Moon in 1969 were trained in geology by the USGS.

Innovative ventures with the private sector have given the world access to digital images of neighborhoods and communities in one of the largest data sets ever made available online. Modern-day understanding of the formation and location of energy and mineral resource deposits is rooted in fundamental scientific breakthroughs by USGS scientists. Their biologists revolutionized thinking about managing wildlife resources, providing a sound scientific basis that lets waterfowl conservation and recreational hunting work in tandem as adaptive management, not as conflicting interests. Advances in seismology are making early warnings of earthquakes a reality that will give the needed alert time to save lives. The future of the global community presents infinite opportunities for the science of the USGS to continue to make substantive and life-enhancing contributions to the betterment of the nation and the world.

I congratulate the United States Geological Survey on its 125th anniversary. By commemorating this date, I hope we will come to recognize the crucial services that this institution continues to provide this nation.

The United States Geological Survey is a vital Federal science agency that is headquartered in my District in Northern Virginia; however, Members should know that this agency has an important presence in every state of the union.

How has 125 years of independent science benefited our nation? It has given us an extensive record of our land and resources, which allows us to realize and track the changes in our land, water, and wildfire. It has provided a wealth of long-term data and research, which continues to serve thousands of government agencies, companies, non-profit organizations, recreational groups, and individual Americans. And it has given us scientific expertise and understanding that we can count on to be accurate and up to date.

Since its inception, the United States Geological Survey has become the premier science organization for the nation, covering all of the natural science disciplines (biology, geography, geology, and hydrology) in every state. This expansive coverage provides us with the comprehensive information we need to tackle many complicated issues in many geographical areas.

As an unbiased science agency, the United States Geological Survey often serves the needs of the nation behind the scenes. Whether it's research on windborne dusts, mercury contamination, or West Nile Virus used to protect public health; or natural hazards assessments used to ensure public safety; or the energy and mineral resources, water and biological information, and geologic mapping and geospatial information used to serve our economy, for 125 years, the United States Geological Survey has provided the science that serves as the basis for our most important decisions.

It's time we congratulated those whose labor provides us with the information we need to manage our resources and safeguard society. I am delighted to have this opportunity to bring attention to the work of the United States Geological Survey and showcase its remarkable history. I urge you to support this resolution, thereby confirming our appreciation for their ongoing work that has served the health, safety, and prosperity of the United States for 125 years.

In addition to Congressman James P. Moran, the following

members are original sponsors of the House Resolution

Congratulating the United States Geological Survey on its

125th Anniversary: Barbara Cubin, Tom Davis, Norm Dicks, Anna

G. Eshoo, Ron Kind, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Zoe Lofgren, Ralph

Regula, Nick Smith, Bill Young, and Sherwood Boehlert.

Resolution

Whereas March 3, 2004 will mark the 125th Anniversary of

the establishment of the United States Geological Survey;

Whereas the United States Geological Survey has become the

Nation's premiere earth and biological science agency;

Whereas during its 125-year history, the United States

Geological Survey has been the birthplace of a number of

other Federal agencies, including the Reclamation Service

(later renamed the Bureau of Reclamation) in 1902, the Forest

Service in 1905, the United States Bureau of Mines in 1910,

the Grazing Service (later renamed the Bureau of Land

Management) in 1934, and the Minerals Management Service in

1982;

Whereas the United States Geological Survey has been a

widely respected source of relevant and objective science to

address the Nation's diverse natural resource issues;

Whereas the United States Geological Survey continues to

serve the Nation as an independent fact-finding agency that

collects, monitors, analyzes, and provides scientific

information and understanding about natural resource

conditions, issues, and problems;

Whereas a hallmark value of the United States Geological

Survey to the Nation is its ability to carry out studies on a

national scale and to sustain long-term monitoring and

assessment of natural hazards and natural resource

conditions;

Whereas the United States Geological Survey is an agency of

the Federal Government with no regulatory or land management

responsibilities and is thus a trusted entity to provide

impartial science that serves the needs of the Nation; and

Whereas the United States Geological Survey has a

scientific presence in every State and Territory of the

United States and serves the Nation's extensive and diverse

needs for objective scientific knowledge and understanding:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) congratulates the United States Geological Survey on

its 125th anniversary; and

(2) expresses strong support for the United States

Geological Survey as it serves the Nation by providing

timely, relevant, and objective scientific in formation which

helps to describe and understand the Earth, minimize the loss

of life and property from natural disasters, manage water,

biological, energy, and mineral resources, and enhance and

protect the quality of life of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution to acknowledge 125 years of reliable, timely, and objective science that illustrates and enhances our understanding of the Earth, and serves the important needs of individuals and communities across this great land.

The United States Geological Survey has an outstanding history of public service and scientific breakthroughs. It has been at the forefront of advances in our understanding of the Earth, its processes, and its resources. Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey pioneered hydrologic techniques for gauging the impact of floods and modeling the flow of complex ground-water systems. The astronauts who landed on the Moon in 1969 were trained in geology by the USGS.

Innovative ventures with the private sector have given the world access to digital images of neighborhoods and communities in one of the largest data sets ever made available online. Modern-day understanding of the formation and location of energy and mineral resource deposits is rooted in fundamental scientific breakthroughs by USGS scientists. Their biologists revolutionized thinking about managing wildlife resources, providing a sound scientific basis that lets waterfowl conservation and recreational hunting work in tandem as adaptive management, not as conflicting interests. Advances in seismology are making early warnings of earthquakes a reality that will give the needed alert time to save lives. The future of the global community presents infinite opportunities for the science of the USGS to continue to make substantive and life-enhancing contributions to the betterment of the nation and the world.

I congratulate the United States Geological Survey on its 125th anniversary. By commemorating this date, I hope we will come to recognize the crucial services that this institution continues to provide this nation.

The United States Geological Survey is a vital Federal science agency that is headquartered in my District in Northern Virginia; however, Members should know that this agency has an important presence in every state of the union.

How has 125 years of independent science benefitted our nation? It has given us an extensive record of our land and resources, which allows us to realize and track the changes in our land, water, and wildlife. It has provided a wealth of long-term data and research, which continues to serve thousands of government agencies, companies, non-profit organizations, recreational groups, and individual Americans. And it has given us scientific expertise and understanding that we can count on to be accurate and up to date.

Since its inception, the United States Geological Survey has become the premier science organization for the nation, covering all of the natural science disciplines (biology, geography, geology, and hydrology) in every state. This expansive coverage provides us with the comprehensive information we need to tackle many complicated issues in many geographical areas.

As an unbiased science agency, the United States Geological Survey often serves the needs of the nation behind the scenes. Whether it's research on windborne dusts, mercury contamination, or West Nile Virus used to protect public health; or natural hazards assessments used to ensure public safety; or the energy and mineral resources, water and biological information, and geologic mapping and geospatial information used to serve our economy, for 125 years, the United States Geological Survey has provided the science that serves as the basis for our most important decisions.

It's time we congratulated those whose labor provides us with the information we need to manage our resources and safeguard society. I am delighted to have this opportunity to bring attention to the work of the United States Geological Survey and showcase its remarkable history. I urge you to support this resolution, thereby confirming our appreciation for their ongoing work that has served the health, safety, and prosperity of the United States for 125 years.

Resolution

Whereas March 3, 2004 will mark the 125th Anniversary of

the establishment of the United States Geological Survey;

Whereas the United States Geological Survey has become the

Nation's premiere earth and biological science agency;

Whereas during its 125-year history, the United States

Geological Survey has been the birthplace of a number of

other Federal agencies, including the Reclamation Service

(later renamed the Bureau of Reclamation) in 1902, the Forest

Service in 1905, the United States Bureau of Mines in 1910,

the Grazing Service (later renamed the Bureau of Land

Management) in 1934, and the Minerals Management Service

in 1982;

Whereas the United States Geological Survey has been a

widely respected source of relevant and objective science to

address the Nation's diverse natural resource issues;

Whereas the United States Geological Survey continues to

serve the Nation as an independent fact-finding agency that

collects, monitors, analyzes, and provides scientific

information and understanding about natural resource

conditions, issues, and problems;

Whereas a hallmark value of the United States Geological

Survey to the Nation is its ability to carry out studies on a

national scale and to sustain long-term monitoring and

assessment of natural hazards and natural resource

conditions;

Whereas the United States Geological Survey is an agency of

the Federal Government with no regulatory or land management

responsibilities and is thus a trusted entity to provide

impartial science that serves the needs of the Nation; and

Whereas the United States Geological Survey has a

scientific presence in every State and Territory of the

United States and serves the Nation's extensive and diverse

needs for objective scientific knowledge and understanding:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) congratulates the United States Geological Survey on

its 125th anniversary; and

(2) expresses strong support for the United States

Geological Survey as it serves the Nation by providing

timely, relevant, and objective scientific information which

helps to describe and understand the Earth, minimize the loss

of life and property from natural disasters, manage water,

biological, energy, and mineral resources, and enhance and

protect the quality of life of all Americans.

In addition to Congressman James P. Moran, the following members are original sponsors of the House Resolution Congratulating the United States Geological Survey on its 125th Anniversary: Barbara Cubin, Tom Davis, Norm Dicks, Anna G. Eshoo, Ron Kind, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Zoe Lofgren, Ralph Regula, Nick Smith, Bill Young, and Sherwood Boehlert.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act (H.R. 1561).

This legislation builds upon a strong foundation first established back on April 5, 1790, when the first patent statute was passed by the Congress of the 12 United States. That's right, we had our first patent law before Rhode Island became our 13th State.

At the time, the first law directed the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War and the Attorney General to determine if they, or any two of them thought ``the invention or discovery sufficiently useful and important'' to merit a patent.

A hefty fee between $4 and $5 was collected to process and approve each patent petition. Interestingly, the payment did not go to the newly created Federal Government but to a government employee, the Chief Clerk of the Department of State. The funds went to support the patent operations and later financed the construction of the first Patent Office, not to support the general funds of the U.S. Treasury.

Today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, an office that I am proud to say resides in my congressional district, is struggling with an increasingly complex and voluminous workload. Last year, the office received more than 330,000 patent applications and more than 260,000 trademark applications.

Patent applications have doubled since 1992. As a result, patent pendency (the amount of time a patent application is pending before a patent is issued) now averages over 2 years and is even longer in more complicated technologies.

Without more examiners, average pendency in areas such as computer- related technologies will double to 6 to 8 years in the next few years. This delay is a drag, holding back our economy's full potential, unfairly punishing American businesses and entrepreneurs at a time when intellectual-property-based industries are essential to economic growth.

As application processing times grow, the incentives for investment diminish, especially for individuals and small entities with limited resources whose inventions are in greater danger of being counterfeited or pirated.

The status quo is a recipe for disaster, and H.R. 1561 represents a well-conceived and bipartisan way out of this dilemma. Without the bill, the backlog of unexamined patents will more than double--from 475,000 today to 1 million by 2008.

This legislation will allow the Patent and Trademark Office to implement its 21st Century Strategic Plan by improving productivity, patent quality, and e-government. It will give the agency the revenue it needs to hire 2,900 needed new patent examiners.

I support the compromise that was brokered between members of the Judiciary and Appropriations Committees that will give the appropriators the deference they need to set the funding levels, but will provide the authorizers and the patent community the assurances they need to make sure that any additional funds raised through the fees will be spent for their designated purpose. Any balance of funds are to be returned to the patent applicants, and not be spent elsewhere by the Federal Government.

Let me also make it clear that while I have some concerns about outsourcing and potential liability issues outsourcing might create, let's recognize that this is just a pilot program with ample opportunity for Congress to exercise appropriate oversight. Whatever civil service jobs might one day be lost by outsourcing will more than be made up by the thousands of jobs this legislation will help create.

The Patent and Trademark Office plans to increase its patent examining staff by about 1,000 annually in fiscal years 2005 and 2006, reaching and maintaining a stable level of about 4,500 examiners after that.

Mr. Chairman, our future is made more secure through a system that protects the rights of inventors.

At the centennial celebration of the U.S. Patent Office in 1890, Commissioner Charles Elliot Mitchell eloquently stated the important decision of our Founding Fathers to provide protections for intellectual property when drafting the Constitution:

For who is bold enough to say that the Constitution could

have overspread a continent if the growth of invention and

inventive achievement had not kept pace with territorial

expansion. It is invention which brought the Pacific Ocean to

the Alleghanies. It is invention which, fostered, by a single

sentence in their immortal work, has made it possible for the

flag of one republic to carry more than forty symbolic stars.

My colleagues for the sake of this great Nation, modernize the Patent and Trademark Office; support the U.S. Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2003.

Mr. Speaker, last week the President made a number of comments about the need to extend and enhance the USA PATRIOT Act during his State of the Union speech. It is with that address to the Nation in mind, that I rise today to insert into the Record a resolution passed by a local jurisdiction in my district. On November 11, 2003, the city of Alexandria, VA, passed a resolution which requests that Congress assess the impact of the USA PATRIOT Act and other Federal antiterrorism efforts. The resolution calls on Congress to repeal provisions of the act, other laws, regulations, policies, and practices that infringe on personal rights, liberties, and due process.

I support the community spirit and civic concern that led to the passage of this resolution. I agree with many of the points expressed in the resolution and have been troubled by the interpretation and implementation of a number of the PATRIOT Act's provisions. I look forward to these issues being revisited in the coming year. The American people deserve nothing short of a full and open debate on these issues so greatly affecting civil liberties and the role of government in peoples' personal lives.

Resolution No. 2088

Whereas, the Alexandria City Council is committed to

upholding the United States Constitution and its Bill of

Rights;

Whereas, the City of Alexandria has a long history of

working to obtain and preserve the civil rights and liberties

of its residents;

Whereas, the City has a diverse and multi-ethnic

population, and everyday embraces the richness of community

that includes immigrants, whose contributions to the City are

vital to its economy, culture and civic character;

Whereas, the City has among its residents many who were

affected directly and many more who were affected indirectly,

by the tragic events of September 11, 2001, both in New York

City and at the Pentagon, only a short distance from this

Chamber as well as in Somerset County, Pennsylvania;

Whereas, this nation's need to respond to those terrible

events, and to protect itself from future acts of terrorism,

does not diminish the commitment of the City or of its

residents, regardless of their personal circumstances, to the

Constitutional rights and liberties that are the precious

entitlement of all;

Whereas, the Alexandria City Council believes there is no

inherent conflict between national security and the

preservation of liberty--that Americans can be both safe and

free;

Whereas, the Alexandria City Council is proud of the

cooperative work among federal, state and local law

enforcement officials to protect the safety of Alexandrians;

Whereas, federal, state and local government actions

designed to protect the public from terrorist attacks, such

as those that occurred on September 11, 2001, must be taken

in a rational and deliberative fashion to ensure that any new

security measure intended to enhance public safety does not

impair constitutional rights or infringe on civil liberties;

Whereas, federal laws, regulations, policies, and practices

adopted since September 11, 2001, including provisions of

Public Law 107-56 (the Uniting and Strengthening America by

Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and

Obstruct Terrorism Act or ``USA PATRIOT'' Act), and related

Executive Orders, regulations and actions:

(a) authorize the indefinite incarceration of non-citizens

to solitary confinement, based upon mere suspicion, without

being charged with any crime, without counsel, and without a

right to be heard;

(b) authorize the indefinite incarceration of citizens

designated by the President based unspecified standards as

``enemy combatants'' to solitary confinement, without being

charged with a crime, without counsel, and without a right to

be heard;

(c) limit the traditional authority of the federal courts

to curb law enforcement abuses including electronic

surveillance;

(d) limit judicial oversight of federal ``sneak and peek''

searches and eliminate timely notice to the person who is the

subject of the search that his or her property has been

searched;

(e) grant broad governmental access to personal medical,

financial, library, and educational records without judicial

oversight;

(f) inhibit free speech and free association by defining

any person or group as a terrorist, or an act as terrorism,

without articulating the basis for the characterization or

giving the person or group so characterized a right to be

heard;

(g) encourage local and state law enforcement personnel to

enforce federal immigration laws, and to use those laws as a

pretext

for detention of, and denial of due process to, persons who

are not reasonably suspected of criminal behavior;

(h) permit government surveillance of public meetings,

including religious services, Internet chat rooms, holiday

gatherings, and political rallies without judicial oversight;

Whereas, draft federal legislation, known as the Domestic

Security Enhancement Act (``DSEA'' or ``Patriot II''),

contains many new and sweeping provisions that further expand

government surveillance authority, increase government

secrecy, reduce governmental accountability, erode the

separation of powers essential for Constitutional checks and

balances, and diminish the right of all persons to the due

process of law guaranteed by the Constitution: Therefore, be

it

Resolved, That the Alexandria City Council:

1. Affirms its strong support for fundamental

constitutional rights and its opposition to federal measures

that infringe on civil liberties;

2. Affirms its strong support for the rights of immigrants

and opposes measures that single out individuals for legal

scrutiny or enforcement activity based solely on their

country of origin;

3. Directs the Police Department of the City of Alexandria

to ensure that it protects the constitutional rights of

Alexandria residents, that it maintains a relationship of

trust with those it is sworn to serve and protect, and that

it continues to abide by the Alexandria Police Department

directives that prohibit racial profiling or collecting

information not reasonably related to suspicion of criminal

behavior;

4. Directs public libraries in the City to promote

unfettered access to information, which is the collective

heritage of humanity and which is a fundamental human right,

and to protect freedom of inquiry, universally recognized as

a driving force for the progression of civilization itself,

by:

(a) posting this notice to library users ``WARNING: Under

Section 215 of the Federal ``USA PATRIOT'' Act (Public Law

107-56), records of the books and other materials you borrow

may be obtained by federal agents. That federal law prohibits

librarians from informing you if records about you have been

requested or obtained by federal agents. Questions about this

policy should be directed to: Attorney General John Ashcroft,

U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530,''

(b) ensuring there is regular destruction of records that

identify a book borrower after the book is returned, or that

identify the name of an Internet user after use;

5. Recommends that local businesses and institutions in the

City, and in particular booksellers, notify consumers that

purchase records are subject to disclosure to federal law

enforcement agencies;

6. Directs the City Manager to ensure that, to the extent

legally possible, no City resources--including law

enforcement funds and educational administrative resources--

may be used for unconstitutional activities, including but

not limited to monitoring the exercise by political and

religious groups of their First Amendment rights of

expression, association, assembly or petition, or obtaining

library, bookstore or website activity records without proper

authorization and without notice to the subjects of the

records;

7. Directs the Clerk of Council to:

(a) send a copy of this Resolution to Governor Warner with

a letter urging him to ensure that state anti-terrorism laws

and policies be implemented in a manner that does not

infringe on personal rights, liberties and due process; and

(b) send a copy of this Resolution to Senators Warner and

Allen, and Congressman Moran, accompanied by a letter asking

that the resolution be read into the record, on the floor,

and urging Congress to assess the impact of the ``USA

PATRIOT'' Act and federal anti-terrorism efforts; to work to

repeal provisions of the ``USA PATRIOT'' Act and other laws,

regulations, policies and practices that infringe on personal

rights, liberties and due process; and to ensure that no

provision of the ``USA PATRIOT'' Act originally intended to

expire remains in effect past its sunset date; and be it

further

Resolved, That the provisions of this Resolution shall be

severable, and that if any phrase, clause, sentence, or

provision of this Resolution is declared by a court of

competent jurisdiction to be contrary to the Constitutions of

the United States or of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the

validity of the remainder of this Resolution shall not be

affected thereby.

Mr. Speaker, the House Committee on the Budget had a hearing yesterday with the Congressional Budget Office. So it was about numbers, and normally numbers are boring and benign, but this laid out a nightmare scenario.

When President Bush took office, the Clinton administration, in concert with the Congressional Budget Office, estimated that there would be a surplus over the next 10 years of $5.6 trillion. We now have an estimate for the next 10 years not of a surplus but of a cumulative deficit of $4.8 trillion. What a fiscal reversal! Over $10 trillion.

I suppose we do not have to worry much about it because it is really going to be heaped on the backs of our children and grandchildren. We will retire on Medicare and Social Security before we will have to pay this number off.

For this fiscal year the Clinton administration had us in line to have a surplus of $400 billion. We now will have a deficit of $477 billion.

Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good thing to do. Tax cuts are always a popular thing to do. But somebody, someday is going to have to pay the piper. And I guess we've decided that somebody should be our kids after we retire. This is unfair. It is immoral, and it is irresponsible for this party to be such willing partners to this injustice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Fairfax County Branch of the NAACP for their effort to honor one of our nation's most treasured heroes, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Together with members from throughout our community, the Fairfax County NAACP has used the anniversary of Dr. King's birthday to commemorate the life and legacy of this great American.

The Fairfax County NAACP has used the teachings and life of Dr. King as inspiration to end the hatred of racism throughout the county and to celebrate the diversity that is common to this vibrant community. Through their efforts they have helped those who have faced discrimination find justice and have encouraged everyone to envision a world without intolerance.

It is important that we honor and celebrate the accomplishments of Dr. King and how he helped our nation deal with the hatred that had threatened to destroy us. By coming together to celebrate his birthday we are honoring a man who gave our nation a new hope that we can all live together. I am certain the celebration that the Fairfax County NAACP is hosting will do justice to the legacy of this great man.

However, we must celebrate what Dr. King taught us not just on his birthday, but every day. Every American should take the time to help their neighbor, enlighten a friend whose mind has been clouded with prejudice, and commit their lives to making the United States the true beacon of justice in the world. We must continue to live by the words of Martin Luther King and ``make justice a reality for all of God's children.''

We must all strive to achieve the dream that Dr. King imagined for his children, so that our children's children will live in a world free from racism, discrimination and hatred.

I applaud the Fairfax County NAACP for hosting this commemoration of Dr. King's life, a life cut short, but whose ideas, dreams and hopes continue to inspire our lives every day. I am pleased that they are using this opportunity to bring a beacon of light and hope to our community and share the legacy of Dr. King.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate International Human Rights Day which is to be observed on the 10th of December. Human Rights Day celebrates the day of December 10, 1948 when the United Nations General Assembly adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the standard for equal and inalienable rights for all mankind. This historic document has been the foundation for freedom, justice, and equality around the world.

Sadly, 55 years since its inception, human rights abuses are still endemic. I would like to draw attention to the widespread problem of human trafficking. The trafficking of persons is a modern-day form of slavery, involving victims who are typically forced, defrauded or coerced into sexual or labor exploitation.

It is the fastest growing criminal enterprise, occurring around the world and in individual countries. Annually, nearly one million people, mostly women and children, are trafficked worldwide, including 50,000 persons into the United States.

The fact of the matter is that the violent subjugation and exploitation of women and girls is on-going and not enough is being done by governments to adequately address it. Take for example Skopje, Macedonia. In a marketplace, women are forced to walk around a stage naked while brothel owners point their fingers to make a selection. Women are sold like cattle and they are treated like slaves.

In Krong Koh Kong, Cambodia, 14 year old girls stand outside of a row of shacks where they charge the equivalent of $2 or $3 dollars for sex, half of which goes to their pimps. These girls, many of whom have AIDS, are discarded when they become too sick to continue working.

Around the world, women and girls are sold as slaves and are forced to engage in unprotected sex because clients offer more money for such acts. These women have no control over their lives, their health, or their futures. Trafficking victims in the sex industry are exposed to HIV/AIDS, at much higher rates than the general population with no access to medical care. The fear of infection of AIDS among customers has driven traffickers to recruit younger girls, erroneously perceived to be too young to have been infected.

The State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons Report classifies countries that allow human trafficking into three tiers. Some have observed that the United States has been soft on certain Asian countries thought to be lax on trafficking, such as Indonesia, the Philippines, India, and Thailand. But because these countries are allies in the war on terror, they may have been given a pass.

Mr. Speaker, in commemoration of Human Rights Day, I call upon governments around the world and the government of the United States to renew their commitment to combating this form of modern-day slavery. Eliminating this transnational criminal activity is one of the greatest challenges of our time. We must dedicate our efforts to the prevention of human trafficking, protection of victims, and prosecution of traffickers. To deny a person their right to freedom is the greatest affront to the ideals established 55 years ago set forth by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We can and must do better.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United

Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following

pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon

all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration

and ``to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and

expounded principally in schools and other educational

institutions, without distinction based on the political

status of countries or territories.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the body's attention to another provision in this omnibus appropriations bill. I know there are several that are objectionable, and this one may not get any further discussion, but I think it merits it.

There is a provision in this bill that says that all of the records of firearm purchases have to be destroyed within 24 hours.

Now, we know that there have been more than 3,500 firearms purchased by people who should not have purchased them, and that the FBI has been able to retrieve those guns because the records are currently kept for 90 days. They retrieve them if the person that purchased it is a fugitive, is a felon, has a history of serious mental illness, is an illegal alien, any number of reasons that they should not be purchasing guns, lawfully, in the United States. So 3,500 guns have been retrieved because we have kept the records available for 90 days. Now, they have to be destroyed within 24 hours.

Now, the National Rifle Association thinks this is a good thing, but our law enforcement organizations do not. FBI agents will tell us this is very serious, what this bill would do. In fact, the al Qaeda training manual cites the fact that you can go in and buy a gun in the United States, and as long as you have not been a convicted felon in the past, you can buy that and the records will be destroyed. And, in fact, as the Washington Post said in an article last week, that is true, that if a person gets hold of a gun, their records have to be destroyed as a result of this bill. If they are denied, then the records can be pursued. But if they lawfully purchased it, the records are destroyed, which means that we are deliberately tying the hands of law enforcement agencies.

Now, is it not appropriate that we be able to consult the list of violent gang members and terrorists when they try to buy a gun? Absolutely, is the answer. Yet, this bill says, within 24 hours, even if it is a holiday, a weekend, even if it is in some rural area where they do not have the resources to check what they need to be able to check, it has to be destroyed within 24 hours.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to look back and find this provision as one of the most dangerous that this House has passed, and the most irresponsible and irrational. We should not be doing this. It was another one of these things snuck into the conference report. I strongly urge Members, unless we can take this out, this bill should not be supported in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``No Attainment--No Trade bill.''

This legislation amends the Clean Air Act to prohibit power plants and other major point sources of nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution that are in an ozone nonattainment area from participating in EPA's emission trading program.

In 1990 Congress passed amendments to the Clean Air Act to deal with the issue of acid rain deposition.

Harmful acid rain was destroying our buildings, personal property and turning freshwater lakes into dead zones.

The new law established an innovative emission trading program to reduce the precursors of acid rain, harmful nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxides emitted by coal-burning power plants and major industrial boilers.

Since its establishment, the trading program has worked extremely well, better than even proponents of the 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act ever expected.

While nitrogen and sulphur dioxides have been reduced, and reduced by millions of tons, an unanticipated new wrinkle has emerged as states and localities work to reduce urban smog and bring ozone non-attainment areas into compliance with other requirements in the Clean Air Act.

States and localities are bumping into the emission trading program for nitrogen oxides.

Not only are nitrogen oxides the precursors of acid rain, they also mix with hydrocarbons and form ground-level ozone.

Giving power plants in an ozone non-attainment area the authority to buy a credit from elsewhere and avoid nitrogen oxide reductions may help EPA meet its national acid rain reduction goals, but it can frustrate State and local efforts to lower ozone and urban smog.

I speak from experience.

Just across the Potomac River in Alexandria we have one power plant operated by Mirant that continues to violate its permit.

In fact, this past summer during the ozone season it violated its clean air emission limits by more than 1,000 tons of nitrogen oxide, double the tonnage allowed under its permit.

It my understanding that Mirant is trying to get off the hook by purchasing credits of emission reductions from sources elsewhere, outside this region, to meet its emission reduction goal.

``Not so,'' says the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The State's position, however, may be on less than firm legal ground.

I hope the Commonwealth holds its ground and stands strong, and I have encouraged them to do so.

The legislation I am introducing gives them the clear legal authority they need and discourages power plants from challenging State ozone implementation plans in court.

I also hope this legislation will give other States the authority they need to block power plants in a non-attainment area from engaging in NOx emission trading and avoiding their responsibility to reduce ozone and urban smog.

It is my understanding that Mirant, the same company operating the plant in Alexandria, has violated its NOx permits at its three coal-fired plants in Maryland.

During this summer's ozone season, Chalk Point, Morgantown and Dickerson power plants collectively exceeded their summer NOx permits by more than 3,500 tons.

Unlike Virginia, State officials in Maryland appear inclined to let them buy credits through the emission trading program.

That's an additional 4,600 tons of nitrogen oxide that entered our air this past summer beyond what Virginia and Maryland agreed Mirant should emit.

It makes no sense, to force this region, or the jurisdictions of any ozone nonattainment area, to rachet down nitrogen oxides from other sources, beyond what may be necessary, simply because a few large sources are able to buy their way out of compliance.

It isn't fair, and it is not in anyone's best interest to do so.

My legislation puts an end to it.

It deserves consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Medicare prescription drug benefit conference report that the House is scheduled to consider today.

I want to make it clear that I strongly support a Medicare prescription drug benefit for our nation's seniors and am supportive of a universal, affordable, voluntary and guaranteed Medicare prescription benefit for all.

Unarguably, the enactment of the Medicare program in 1965 was one of the wisest things Congress has ever done. At that time, there were very few prescription drugs with wide applicability, and that is why Medicare did not cover prescription drugs.

In large part, because of Medicare and Social Security, we have raised the life expectancy of our citizens, lifted millions of Americans out of poverty, and vastly increased the quality of life for our nation's senior citizens.

Unfortunately, this conference report does not reflect the vision and ideals of Medicare set forth by President Johnson and Congress, and will, if passed and signed into law, harm the 57,000 seniors that reside in my congressional district and millions of other seniors in America.

It had been my hope that any expansion of the Medicare program to include a prescription drug benefit would be above partisan politics. We have all heard first-hand from seniors how the high prices of their prescription drugs negatively impact their already limited incomes.

This issue which cuts across political lines should be about what's in the collective interest of our nation's seniors.

Unfortunately, this debate on one of the most important domestic issues, which not only affects today's seniors, but future generations as well, did not rise above partisan politics or enhance our democratic process.

In a decade, 10,000 people a day will turn 65 years old and with the retirement of the Baby Boom generation, America's senior population will almost double.

This conference report provides a weak prescription drug benefit for all seniors--regardless of income, and will change the Medicare program as we currently know it, by overpaying private insurance companies to administer this drug benefit, while giving them great latitude in setting premiums, deductibles, and pharmacy choice with little oversight through a premium support system.

One of the reasons why I voted against the House version of the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003 (H.R. 1) was that Medicare beneficiaries would pay 20% of their drug costs up to $2,000 and 100% of drug costs from $2,000 to $3,500, while still subjecting them to monthly premiums that would result in a gap of prescription drug coverage for most beneficiaries.

The coverage gap that exists in this conference report is even worse. Seniors will pay 100% of costs between $2,250 and $5,100--a gap of $2,800 which will be increased to over $5,000 by the year 2013.

I also cannot support a conference report that does nothing to alleviate the high costs of drugs imposed on seniors. This conference report actually prohibits the Secretary of the Health and Human Services from negotiating lower drug prices with the bargaining clout of the 40 million Medicare beneficiaries as well as the importation of drugs from countries where drug prices are lower, except Canada and only if they are certified by the Food and Drug Administration.

While I am pleased that this Congress has finally addressed the issue of reimbursement rates for doctors, hospitals, and other important health providers, I am discouraged that this conference report is still a bad deal for our seniors, and the endorsement of this legislation by the AARP, comes into question. The AARP is not recognizing its membership's need and desire for a true Medicare prescription drug benefit without the heavy reliance on the private health insurance industry.

It is with great sadness that I will have to vote no on this conference report. My constituents want a legitimate Medicare prescription drug benefit, lower drug prices and better Medicare services.

This conference report undermines the Medicare system, and I am afraid, will do

more harm in the long run than good in the short term for our seniors.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 634 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month marked the anniversary of the death of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin. A true man of peace, his life was tragically cut short during a rally for peace in Tel Aviv.

Yitzak Rabin was a hero dedicated to the security, the stability, and the success of the State of Israel who gained trust among Israelis and among Arabs. His strength, courage, and commitment to peace in the Middle East has inspired thousands. Although his dream for peace has not been realized, his vision has not faded from our hearts.

I rise today to commemorate the life and achievements of this extraordinary statesman. May his vision inspire and endure for generations to come, and may we pay tribute to his legacy by continuing his quest for peace in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert in the Record at this point Yitzak Rabin's last speech which he delivered the night of his assassination.

The Last Speech--Peace Rally, Kings of Israel Square, Tel Aviv,

November 4, 1995

Allow me to say, I am also moved. I want to thank each and

every one of you who stood up here against violence and for

peace. This government, which I have the privilege to lead,

together with my friend Shimon Peres, decided to give peace a

chance. A peace that will solve most of the problems of the

State of Israel. I was a military man for twenty-seven years.

I fought as long as there were no prospects for peace. Today

I believe that there are prospects for peace, great

prospects. We must take advantage of it for the sake of those

standing here, and for the sake of those who do not stand

here. And they are many among our people.

I have always believed that the majority of the people want

peace, are prepared to take risks for peace. And you here, by

showing up at this rally, prove it, along with the many who

did not make it here, that the people truly want peace and

oppose violence. Violence is undermining the very foundations

of Israeli democracy. It must be condemned, denounced, and

isolated. This is not the way of the State of Israel.

Controversies may arise in a democracy, but the decision must

be reached through democratic elections, just as it happened

in 1992, when we were given the mandate to do what we are

doing, and to continue to do it.

I want to thank from here the President of Egypt, the King

of Jordan, and the King of Morocco, whose representatives are

present here, conveying their partnership with us on the

march toward peace. But above all--the people of Israel, who

have proven, in the three years this government has been in

office, that peace is attainable, a peace that will provide

an opportunity for a progressive society and economy. Peace

exists first and foremost in our prayers, but not only in

prayers. Peace is what the Jewish People aspire to, a true

aspiration.

Peace entails difficulties, even pain. Israel knows no path

devoid of pain. But the path of peace is preferable to the

path of war. I say this to you as one who was a military man

and minister of defense, and who saw the pain of the families

of IDF soldiers. It is for their sake, and for the sake of

our children and grandchildren, that I want this government

to exert every effort, exhaust every opportunity, to promote

and to reach a comprehensive peace.

This rally must send a message to the Israeli public, to

the Jewish community throughout the world, to many, many in

the Arab world and in the entire world, that the people of

Israel want peace, support peace, and for that, I thank you

very much.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and leader for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in opposition to this bill. Many have spoken against the provisions that privatize part of our Nation's air traffic control system. Others have objected to the failure to direct the certification and training of flight attendants. Others have condemned the process that seems to have shut out Democrats, particularly our leader, from participating in the drafting of this agreement. As much as we respect the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), we know that he could have added a great deal so we would not have had this contentious argument.

I have one more reason to oppose it. In 1986, the Congress made an agreement with the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to cede operational control and financing of our airports to our regional authority. The Metropolitan Washington Region has maintained our part of the bargain. This conference report breaks that agreement by adding 20 more flights and going beyond the 1,250 mile perimeter rule. That is not right. It increases the safety concerns at National Airport.

For this and many other reasons, I oppose this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference agreement.

Many here have already spoken against provisions in this bill that would allow privatilization of our nation's air traffic control system, others have objected to this agreement's failure to direct the certification and

training of flight attendants and still others have condemned a process that has shut out Democrats from participating in the drafting of this agreement.

Let me add one more reason to vote against this bill.

I object to this bill because it continues to intrude in the operations of this region's local airports.

While I appreciate the good efforts of the chairman to restore general aviation at National, to compensate businesses injured by the current shutdown, and assist hometown carrier, U.S. Airways, operate quieter, more efficient regional jets, I cannot support the heavy hand of this Congress in violating two long-standing agreements and mandating that National accommodate more flights and flights outside the current perimeter rule restrictions.

The agreement before us today continues to violate a promise this institution made to this region back in 1986.

In 1986, Senator Elizabeth Dole, President Reagan's Secretary of Transportation, helped broker an agreement between the federal government, the Congress, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia to cede control of National and Dulles Airports to a regional authority that would have, in the words of current law, ``full power and dominion over, and complete discretion in, operation and development of the airports.''

In return, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Maryland agreed to accept operational control of the airports and raise the money necessary to modernize National and Dulles airports.

The Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia have upheld their part of the bargain. Congress, however, has not honored its part of the deal.

At least once every three years since this transfer took effect, Congress has tried to intervene and micro manage the operations of the two airports.

There may be a federal interest, and I recognize that both commercial airports are still owned by the federal government, but should Congress really be trying to determine what are clearly economic and business decisions on what carriers fly where?

With the bill before us today, Congress is once again telling the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to waive its existing rules and allow certain carriers more flights.

Mr. Speaker, these additional flights take us further down a controversial road whose final destination will make few carriers happy and cause real economic harm.

Three years ago, I spoke on the House floor opposing an FAA authorization bill that added more flights at National.

At that time I warned that breaking the 1986 deal would bring us down a dangerous path in which every FAA authorization bill would become a vehicle for further tinkering and interference by Congress.

Obviously not enough Members were sufficiently satisfied with the flights added in the last FAA reauthorization bill or we would not be back here again today with more changes.

Who is happy with the proposed changes? Not U.S. Airways, Delta or United, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority nor the residents of this region.

In fact, there is no solution that will satisfy everyone.

But, continue down this path of forcing more flights and there will be some real economic consequences that will ultimately undermine both the quality and quantity of air service this region is fortunate to now receive.

The point is being reached in which operational and safety constraints imposed by the type of runway and the number of gates, not slots, will limit the number of flights the airport is capable of handling.

Once this threshold is crossed, both the quality and quantity of flights will be compromised.

we risk:

(1) Losing direct air service to many smaller cities, those that can least afford a disruption from an economic development standpoint,

(2) We risk a reduction in international air service that may result in this region being bypassed in favor of other east coast airports with better transcontinental connections. (Hundreds of millions of dollars that have been invested to make Dulles an international gateway will have been imprudently invested), and

(3) We risk more delays and congestion as operational limitations and space cause delays throughout the system, something LaGuardia encountered when its slot rule was repealed.

(4) And, adding one more slot, one more flight, is one more than Washington area residents bargained for.

I know the support isn't there to rollback the 20 new slots, 8 inside the perimeter and 12 outside, in this bill.

But why pile it on with an additional provision that gives Congress yet another opportunity to tinker again with the operation of these two airports?

Why create the added burden and economic uncertainty that this bill invites by denying these two commercial airports the ability to receive any new Airport Improvement Program grants or new Passenger Facility Charges beginning in 2008?

Why single out and suspend federal assistance to just these two airports?

I thought an understanding had been worked out when Delegate Norton offered her amendment earlier this year on the House floor that this obnoxious provision would be removed in conference.

Congress doesn't need this provision.

There is already sufficient oversight over the airports to ensure that any federal interest is protected.

We've got the FAA reauthorization bill.

In addition, there's the authority's own board of directors that must include 3 presidential appointments approved by the Senate.

In the past former Members of Congress have served on this board, and the GAO has unique statutory authority to audit the activities and transactions of the board.

Mr. Speaker, Congress, visitors to the nation's capital, businesses and local residents have all benefited from the capital improvements that have occurred at the airport since the regional authority took over control.

Let's not place $100 of millions in future development at risk.

Let the two airports continue to be treated like all other commercial airports for purposes of receiving improvement grants and new passenger facility charges.

Reject this agreement.