Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, we do not want to take money from the Millennium Challenge Account, but the reality is we are arguing that the money be spent in a higher priority.

We appreciate the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) making this amendment, bringing it to the floor. There is no higher priority right now for the United States.

Many of us would hope that the Nation with the greatest wealth and power in the world would become the Nation of the greatest generosity. We may not be the most generous; but certainly if we do not rise to this challenge, then we will be indicted by the rest of the world, and rightfully so. We do not have the time to wait for another year.

We know what is happening around the world. We know that every single day 15,000 more people are being infected with HIV, and it is growing. We know that 22 million people have lost their lives, over 36 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, and only 2 percent of them have access to life-prolonging therapies or basic treatment.

Most troubling is what is happening to the children of the world, particularly the children in Africa. I know that the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) was deeply moved in Ethiopia, for example, when we went to the school that is run by nuns and saw the number of children, and realized that all of those children, before they become adults, they are going to join their classmates in the graveyard up the mountain. The nuns would tell us each morning there would be children delivered by parents to the door of this school, some by parents, some by sanitation workers, and those delivered by sanitation workers would be children who had lost their limbs because they were thrown into a dumpster, it was known there was no hope for them, and the dogs had gotten to them. These are things we cannot even imagine in this country of such wealth and prosperity, with such a high standard of living. But do we not have some responsibility when we can afford to do something better?

We are very good at promising the rest of the world what we are going to do for them. The President has made many promises. He certainly did on his trip to Africa. Repeatedly he touted the fact he was going to spend $15 billion over the next 5 years on AIDS.

I did not hear $2 billion; I heard $15 billion. I know in the minds of the people who heard that, they heard $3 billion a year, $15 billion divided by five. Somehow they got some hope that we realize what is happening to them, that we realize that 60 million Africans are either living with HIV, have died of AIDS, or lost a parent to AIDS.

We are their source of hope. And while it is important to tell people what we are going to do for them, it is even more important to do what we say. And we know they expect us to deliver, because we have the capacity to deliver.

It is heartbreaking what AIDS has done to the continent of Africa, to Asia, throughout the world really. And if the only argument that succeeds today is one of security, AIDS is a global crisis that threatens the security of every government and every nation, including the United States. It has destroyed societies, destabilized governments, and certainly has the potential to topple democracies. Many militaries are infected throughout the world with AIDS, and they are infecting the population.

We are the ones who have to take the lead, the lead role. We take the lead role from a military standpoint, and we are very successful. The excellence of our military is unquestioned. But should we also not take the lead role in being the most moral country and using our resources to make a difference? And where else could we make such an enormous, profound difference than investing and saving the lives of people, in changing this fact, that 40 million more children will become orphans in this decade?

That will happen, if we do not stop it. We can stop it from happening by acting today. We have no more time; we have no excuses. The Kilpatrick amendment should be funded.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to bring the body's attention to an amendment that was added in the full committee over the objections of the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee. It was an amendment added by our colleague, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), that barely passed, but should not have. It was not the subject of hearings. It has no support from law enforcement. It has no support from Attorney General Ashcroft. And it has no support from the major association that represents licensed firearms dealers. It really serves to protect only the most corrupt gun dealers at the expense of all other legitimate gun dealers.

Specifically, this amendment provides protection to phantom dealers. These are people who sign up as dealers to be able to buy guns wholesale, but without the intention of reselling them, so they are really not businesses, as such, and should not be buying guns wholesale. Normally, they distribute them for illegal purposes. It permits recalcitrant dealers to ignore police requests for assistance. Nearly all licensed dealers perform this duty quickly and accurately to law enforcement, but there are about 8 percent of crime guns that cannot be traced because licensed dealers refuse to cooperate with police. This would legally allow them to refuse to cooperate with the police and allows licensed gun dealers not to cooperate in making gun traces. That clearly is counter to people's public safety.

It allows felons to retain Federal firearms licenses. It denies Congress and the public crime gun data that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms needs. It ends the oversight of used firearms sales, and it requires destruction of records that now the Federal Bureau of Investigation needs.

All of these things, I think, undermine the public's need to protect itself from felons, from people with a history of mental illness, from people who are involved in the illegal transfer of firearms. We had somebody that provided the firearm that was used by the snipers that killed many people in the Washington area. They went back to the dealer and found that there were over 100 firearms that they had no record of. Well, they do not keep records because they do not want people to know that they either sold to felons or to people who are minors, or they do not want to pay taxes, or whatever the reason. But clearly, they should be having records. This would enable them to refuse to cooperate with law enforcement.

So I want to make the Members aware of the fact that this amendment is in this bill, and it is a bad amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak against the Sessions-Davis amendment. The provision contained in the Interior Appropriations bill that this amendment seeks to strike, is a well- crafted, bipartisan effort that has the support of both the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the subcommittee.

After careful review of the Office of Management and Budget's competitive outsourcing initiative, the subcommittee believed that the

massive scale on which the initiative is being carried out and the arbitrary targets involved is of great concern, especially considering the enormous costs associated with the initiative which are expected to be absorbed by the agency.

During last year's consideration of the FY03 Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill, I offered an amendment prohibiting OMB or any other federal agency from using numerical quotas, targets, or goals for outsourcing initiatives. The point was to give federal agencies the flexibility to contract out as much or as little government work as they feel is necessary to meet their mission requirements.

The House passed this amendment overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the provision was watered-down in conference and the administration is still moving full steam ahead with their quotas-driven agenda for the current fiscal year.

As has been reported in the news over the last several weeks, in an effort to meet OMB's quota for the end of this fiscal year, the Interior Department has targeted thousands of jobs to be outsourced including archaeologists, scientists, engineers, and firefighters. Specifically, Interior's quota is 5,000 jobs, with the biggest piece-- 1,708 jobs--coming from the Park Service.

To conduct these massive outsourcing studies, the department is diverting critical funds and staff from high-priority assignments and consumed funding that is directed towards fulfilling important mission- essential requirements.

Personel from the Interior Department agencies, including the National Park Service and Forest Service, have expressed concern over the declining morale due to OMB's rigid and arbitrary requirements.

With this country in the midst of a ``human capital crisis'' what kind of message does this send in recruiting and retaining our best and brightest to safeguarding America's natural treasures.

Time and again, OMB has refused to supply any research or analysis to justify the privatization quota, despite a report requirement in the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill.

What Section 335 in the Interior Appropriations bill does is limit competitive outsourcing studies that are underway for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 until the department and agencies submit a report detailing schedules, plans, and cost analysis.

Striking this section would only give OMB the green light to continue with their competitive outsourcing initiative without the oversight and accountability reasonably requested.

I understand the sponsors of this amendment have agreed to withdraw their amendment. I thank them for doing so and support the retention of Section 335 of the Interior Appropriations bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) to respond to the last speaker's comments for the record here.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, if that is the case, I reserve my right to close.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) for his leadership on this issue.

This is a poster paid for by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. This one happens to be distributed jointly with Arizona and New Mexico's Departments of Game and Fish. It says, ``Just Be Bear Aware,'' and the reason it says ``Don't feed bears'' is because most conflicts between humans and bears arise as a result of human-supplied food. It says, ``Remember, a fed bear is a dead bear.''

This is all about safety to the public. The reason why we do not want bears to be fed is that they become nuisances, they become a threat to property and particularly to people. That is Federal policy. All we are trying to do in this bill is to make sure that Federal policy is consistent, it is consistently in the public interest. There is no difference between bear baiting and bear feeding. That is what this amendment says.

The fact is that bait sites typically consist of pastries, junk food, the kinds of foods you typically find at camp sites and dumpsters. Once acclimated to those human foods, bears become aggressive in approaching campers, park visitors, and they migrate to those areas where those kinds of treats can be found. That is what leads to property damage, attacks on people, and the bears being shot as nuisance animals.

The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) said they cannot continue hunting without bear baiting, but I cannot believe that the bears in Minnesota are that different from the bears in Oregon and Washington and the 41 other States which banned this practice.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 354, I was delayed in traffic. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. This legislation, if passed and signed into law, will be a setback to one of the great American ideals of equal access to a quality public education.

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

This quote has never been more meaningful and poignant than today, as we are poised to do just that: create an underclass of people.

A year and a half ago, this Congress stood with President Bush and our House and Senate education leaders, to pass a bill which would redefine our education system and strive to ``leave no child behind.''

Just two months ago, the Majority passed a conference report for the fiscal year 2004 Budget Resolution that promised to provide a $3 billion increase over the previous year for the Department of Education and No Child Left Behind initiatives.

Unfortunately, this bill still underfunds No Child Left Behind by $8 billion dollars.

In other words, we are telling our schools that they must implement these reforms for greater accountability, but offering no additional resources to do so. In fact, we are doing the complete opposite of the intent of the No Child Left Behind law. We are leaving our children behind, our teachers behind and more importantly, letting the American people down by breaking yet another promise.

Unfortunately, there is not enough time in general debate for me to catalog every shortchange in this bill, such as National Institutes of Health funding, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act funding, bioterrorism preparedness funding, and failing to provide an increase for programs under the Nurse Reinvestment Act.

This bill is full of broken promises. We can attribute these broken promises to the fact that this Congress and our President gave to this country's wealthiest 1% massive tax cuts in a time of economic uncertainty.

While I am not pleased with the funding levels of several initiatives in this bill, I am pleased that my colleagues, Mr. Obey and Mr. George Miller are offering an amendment to correct a recent unfair Department of Labor proposal to eliminate overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This unfair proposal would affect thousands of workers in my congressional district who rely on overtime pay to help make ends meet.

This proposal will make it feasible for employers to reclassify workers as ``white collar'' employees, rendering them ineligible for overtime pay.

Some of these 8 million workers include police and firefighters, nurses and other First Responders, who would be the first line of defense in the event of a terrorist attack.

After these workers are reclassified and ineligible for overtime pay, they would still be required to work longer hours for less money, which is the real intent of this proposal.

The Obey-Miller amendment would prohibit the Department of Labor from using funds to enforce any regulation that would cut overtime pay.

Brick by brick we are building the road to create an underclass of people.

Let us not break yet another promise to the American people.

I urge all my colleagues to vote in support of the Miller-Obey amendment to protect overtime pay and to vote against final passage so that this body may consider a bill that more adequately funds initiatives at the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 339 and 340, I was unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to say as I did at the Committee on Rules that we do not really have a problem with this rule or this bill. It, in fact, is the first appropriations bill, at least that I am told, that is less than the previous year. That is because we are suspending some of the funding on the Capitol Visitors Center to make sure we have a full handle on all the additional expenditures, and we are not going forward quite as fast as the Capitol Police chief would like, but it does not imply necessarily any criticism in either respect. So this should have not been a problem. This should have been a rule that we could have probably voiced.

Not now. What we have is a serious affront to the institution. This was found by our appropriations staff person going through the bill. The majority staff was not even told about it. The Chair of the subcommittee was not even told about it. And it is just the kind of thing that makes the entire institution look bad.

We just had a bill yesterday that was not a bad bill. We wanted to make sure that current Federal employees were treated the same as Federal retirees, but it is a very sensitive issue given the fact that we just passed a prescription drug program under Medicare that many of us feel is very inadequate. So when it is compared to the benefits that Federal employees get and the members of the legislative branch get, it looks even worse. But the proposal we have here to provide dental and vision benefits just for the legislative branch, the executive branch does not have them, is the kind of feather-bedding, of taking care of ourselves, of self-serving legislation that comes back to haunt us on both sides of the aisle. And I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), that this is serious stuff, and that we have got to find out where it happened and make sure it does not happen again.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. As the gentleman said, I am the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Legislative branch appropriations, and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Legislative branch appropriations.

One of the most objectionable things about this, and I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) recognizes this at this point, is that we had a full set of hearings; Mr. Eagan testified, as did all of the officers of the House. At no point was it ever mentioned that this provision was going to be added. So neither the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) nor I were aware that this was part of the bill.

I grant my colleagues, it is not a whole lot of money, but it could have a whole lot of political impact if we get hit with a 30-second ad, and any of us on either side of the aisle are liable for this, that here we just passed a prescription drug benefit, and there are a lot of people complaining about limited coverage under Medicare, and then, within the same week, we take care of ourselves by expanding benefits for dental and vision. That is the problem.

Again, we have no question but that the gentleman's intentions were not only honorable, but we appreciate the fact that the gentleman was looking out for all of the Members of the House, the staff, and their families, et cetera.

But in the course of the discussion, the debate that occurred earlier today, we wanted to emphasize, we are not opposed to expanding and adding this coverage; it is just that we do not want to do it just for ourselves, particularly at this point in time. It just does not seem to be the principled way to go about it. And we would love to have that; at least on this side of the aisle we would love to have that coverage, but for everybody, not just for us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. There has been a pretty good level of bipartisan cooperation on this bill, and it is reflected in the vote that we are going to have. I doubt that there will be many, if any, voting against this bill, even though I am told by the Committee on Rules last night, this is the first time that an appropriations bill or an appropriations subcommittee has reported a bill that was funded at a lower level than the previous year. Is the gentleman aware of that?

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

We do not expect that to happen with every bill.

We had a fairly tight allocation, discretionary caps were pretty tight; but I think that it serves the Nation well. We are $290 million below the President's request and $34 million below last year's funding level; but given the limitations of the allocation, I think that the chairman and the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle have been prudent and fair.

Sufficient funds have been provided to cover all mandatory expenditures, and the budget assumes the full 3.7 percent COLA increase for salaries. I support the chairman's decision to withhold making any new appropriation for the Capitol Visitors Center and slow down the pace of the Architect's other construction projects because a recent GAO review took issue with the Capitol Visitors Center projected cost estimates.

That GAO review found that the total cost of the project could potentially climb to as high as $395 million,

read $400 million, when it started out at about $300 million. I think that it behooves the Congress to take a very close look. We are going to have another hearing on it, and we do not intend to scrimp on the funding of it. Since it is going to be done, we want it done right, but we want to make sure we have a full handle on all of the cost increases.

So we are going to withhold any new funds and reevaluate how we should proceed. We need to gain better control over potential cost overruns and engage in those substantive discussions, particularly with the House and Senate leadership.

I also want to touch on another topic, as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) did, and clarify to the Members of the House that this bill supports and respects the men and women in law enforcement who serve on the Capitol Police force. They have toiled under stressful and difficult circumstances, particularly since September 11, 2001; but since that date, the Capitol Police have seen their manpower grow by 37 percent. So until a strategic plan, which the subcommittee directed the police to undertake last year, is completed and shared with the members of the subcommittee and open to review by outside experts, this bill postpones action on this portion of the police chief's request. That is the responsible way to deal with the request in my view, and I agree with the chairman again.

Should the Capitol Police's full workforce increase be merited, the funds will be there. In the meantime, full funding for overtime pay for the police, the COLA increase, the longevity differential, the special training, the specialty pay and all the other recruitment and retention incentives are all preserved and fully funded in this bill.

The employees in the agencies who work for us are indispensable, if we want this legislative body to continue to perform and to perform well.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is a sound bill. It is tight, but it is responsive to addressing the needs and the obligations of the entire legislative branch. That is why I support it and encourage my colleagues on this side of the aisle to vote for it as well. I trust that it will be unanimously approved, and with that, we only have I think three more speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, before I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), because up front I want to acknowledge the committee staff, since the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) has referenced them. We have some terrific staff people on this appropriation subcommittee: Liz Dawson, who does a wonderful job; Chuck Turner; Kelly Wade; Jack O'Neill on the personal staff of the gentleman from Georgia

(Mr. Kingston); and, of course, our appropriation staff, Dave Pomerantz, Tom Forhan, and my own staff person Tim Aiken.

I want to say right up front that they have done a great job on this bill. Even though it might not be the most exciting bill, it has as fine a staff as you would want to find on the Hill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished whip of the Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) for a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of my colleague from New Jersey and agree that the Congress could use more scientific expertise. I regret that this amendment was not made in order. I had urged the Committee on Rules to make it in order.

I do have some concerns about how the Architect would absorb a $7 million cut, but I think Congress would benefit from a restored capability to conduct more technology assessments. Unfortunately, I do not think that the support is there within this body to recreate the original Congressional Office of Technology Assessment.

As my colleague knows, I have worked with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) to establish a core competency within the General Accounting Office through a pilot program to conduct technology assessments. The pilot program's first report using biometrices for border security was both timely and helpful as Congress used some of the report's findings in crafting legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security.

Technology assessments can help us craft better policies and laws. There is report language accompanying this bill which directs the GAO to conduct three more technology assessment studies in fiscal year 2004. I would like to work with my colleague to explore ways that we can increase this capability for technology assessment in the Congress and establish a more stable foundation and a more certain future.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. I believe it would be beneficial for our subcommittee to get advice from a bipartisan group on exactly these scientific issues. It would be useful to receive recommendations on what would be the most efficient, timely, and useful way to make sure that the core capability that has now been created can be placed on a more stable foundation and have a more certain future for a support agency such as the OTA to provide scientific advice to Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who devoted his life in service to our nation. Mr. Allan R. Jones passed away on May 7th, and I am certain he will be missed by all who knew him.

A graduate of the College of William and Mary, Mr. Jones is a decorated Korean War veteran. Due to his service with the 45th Division of the United States Army during the war, he received the Purple Heart and Silver Star Medal.

Mr. Jones was not only a veteran of the Army, but he was also a noted journalist for several newspapers. He began his career with the Daily Times News in Mount Pleasant, Michigan. While there he served as sports editor, reporter and photographer. He also worked at the Richmond Times-Dispatch as a reporter who covered Henrico and Chesterfield counties. As a reporter he covered several important stories involving state politics and school desegregation.

After working as a journalist, Mr. Jones started a new career on Capitol Hill as a researcher for the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceanography and Merchant Marine. After his time with the committee, he served as a legislative assistant with Senator William Spong. During his tenure with Senator Spong, Mr. Jones and a colleague earned a national award from the National Association of Independent Insurers for research they did on auto insurance in Virginia.

In 1973, he joined the American Trucking Association Legislative Affairs department. Through his efforts, he helped push legislation which created the commercial drivers' license, and helped craft the landmark Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991.

Retiring after twenty years with the ATA, Mr. Jones moved to Florida and became immediately involved with his community. He served as Vice President of the Flagella County, Florida Education Foundation, and served on the Flagella County Chamber of Commerce Legislative Action Committee.

In honor of his service to the United States during the Korean War, Mr. Jones was buried at Arlington National Cemetery on June 10''. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Allan Jones for all that he has achieved during his life, both for his country and for the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise in support of this bill. And I am sure it will pass with near-unanimous support, because under this bill no plan on the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan could be approved that has a prescription drug benefit for retirees that is lesser in actuarial value than the existing prescription drug benefit.

This legislation represents the commitment of the Federal Government not to reduce dues or eliminate prescription drug coverage to its retirees once prescription drug coverage is also available through Medicare. One of the core concerns with the Medicare prescription drug benefit has always been that, in the attempt to provide for those without coverage, we would take from those with coverage. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that one-third of retired employees with employer-sponsored drug coverage could lose it as a result of the Medicare prescription drug bill that passed 2 weeks ago. Currently, there is no different prescription drug benefit for retirees than is available for current employees. Our bill simply seeks to maintain that dynamic.

We do not want the total amount of coverage offered to Federal retirees reduced for the reason that they could simply opt for the Medicare plan alone. This is an issue with the Federal Government leading by example. If the Federal Government cuts its benefits for its retirees, how can we expect private employers to do anything but follow our lead? H.R. 2631 does not tie OPM's hands in the negotiating process by requiring that they provide a plan of a certain dollar value. OPM can still negotiate higher or lower levels of benefits, but they simply cannot target retirees alone for reduced benefits.

The Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan has always led the way in setting the example for employer-sponsored health care. It should have been the standard for the Medicare prescription drug plan, but Federal retirees should not lose benefits because it was not. That is the point that many people have been making. But they should certainly not vote against this bill as a result. There is nothing wrong with this bill. This bill clarifies what the policy is and should be, and for that reason we should all vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Paul Pogorzelski of Falls Church who is being honored by We United States Navy tomorrow for his 42 years of Federal service. But his abiding love of country and honor of service actually began at the young age of 12 when Paul joined the Civil Defense as a messenger with the 72nd Precinct in Brooklyn, New York.

In 1956, Paul enlisted in the Coast Guard. Upon promotion, he was assigned to the Marshall Island loran station, and was responsible for the operation, maintenance and communication of loran equipment. After his return to the United States, he was an instructor of electronics in Connecticut. In 1960, he was honorably discharged with a good conduct medal.

He first came to Washington in the early 1960s representing Raytheon and General Electric on the TARTAR radar missile program. Paul then received a political appointment from Undersecretary Vance to the Naval Ordnance Command, working on patrol gunboat missile systems, Antelope and Ready; the Hydrofoil program; R&D and introduction of the frigate program; guided projectile program between NAVSEA and the Army at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey; the readiness of all Navy ships improving their readiness through the CASREP program. He also traveled to Holland to purchase the forerunner of the MK-92 fire control system.

As an intelligence liaison officer at NAVSEA, Paul handled special projects including nuclear powered submarines. He provided survivability assessments for SEA-05, SEA-08, and the PEOs. As facilities manager he engineered and built sensitive, compartmented information facilities both in Crystal City and the Washington Navy Yard, and established interconnectivity with the intelligence community.

Paul has received numerous awards and citations for his efforts in providing the Command with accurate and timely intelligence information regarding the survivability and vulnerability of our ships that were hit by foreign weapons, such as the USS Stark, USS Samuel B. Roberts, USS Bridgetown, USS Princeton, and USS Cole.

Our Nation is privileged to have had such a dedicated civil servant for these many years. I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring him today for his lifetime commitment of outstanding service to this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Mr. Ralph Nurnberger who was honored by Georgetown University with their Excellence in Teaching Faculty Award. His dedication to the students and the Liberal Studies Program at Georgetown makes him most deserving of this honor.

Ralph has extensive experience on Capitol Hill. In former Senator James Person's office as the foreign policy legislative assistant and as professional staff on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, he became an international affairs expert.

After his time on the Hill, Ralph became a Senior Fellow and director of congressional relations at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and later worked for eight years as a lobbyist with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Following the historic signing of the Oslo Accords, he was appointed as the Executive Director of ``Builders of Peace,'' an organization set up under the guidance of Vice President Al Gore to aid in the Arab-Israeli peace process. Through his work, Ralph can lead us down a roadmap to a sustainable peace.

Currently, Ralph is with Preston Gates Ellis and Rouvelas Meeds law firm and also heads the government relations firm, Nurnberger and Associates. He has also published extensively and written several books, sharing his insight and knowledge on the Middle-East and the foreign policy of the United States.

While his work with all of these organizations is impressive and worthy of praise, it is through his teaching that he has touched the most lives. Ralph's students have always showered him with the highest praise and always leave his classes with insights that only Professor Nurnberger can give. He engages his students and helps them to understand the most complicated situations through his real life experiences.

Most importantly, Ralph has taught his students how to have a debate over a contentious issue with civility. He encourages his students to hold conversations based on facts, rather than with the emotional intensity that some subjects conjure. Through his classes, Ralph has taught students to be thoughtful and considerate when engaged in civil discourse, something that is too rare in this world.

Ralph Nurnberger is very deserving of this award from Georgetown University. He has helped shape the minds of his students and colleagues with insights on the major issues facing the United States. I congratulate Ralph on all his accomplishments, and I look forward to seeing him one day in a deserved position of national leadership on international relations. Our Nation would be very well served.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a leader and a friend in my district who has shown what one person can achieve through selfless dedication to her community. Judy Lowe, of Alexandria, Virginia, is an inspiration to all of us who wish to better the lives of the people around us.

This year, Judy was recognized by the Alexandria Commission on Women by honoring her with the Marguerite Payez Award. This lifetime achievement award is given to a woman who has devoted her life to benefit the City of Alexandria. I can not think of a person more deserving of this than Judy.

Judy Lowe has served as the ``Mayor'' of Del Ray, a working class and diverse section of the City of Alexandria where I have spent most of my adult life. She has worked tirelessly to improve the Del Ray area through her volunteer work. Her service on the civic association executive board for 10 years helped shape Del Ray into the vibrant neighborhood that we know today. Judy authored the community newsletter during her time bringing the news to her friends and neighbors in a way that pulled the community together.

``Art on the Avenue'' is one of the most impressive and valuable events that the City of Alexandria hosts, and it would never have been possible without the assistance and dedication of Judy. This annual event helps showcase the diversity of the city through multicultural art and music. Judy has ensured that this event improves each year and she should be commended for her commitment to showcasing the arts of our area.

Judy's involvement in a range of civic activities in Alexandria has endeared her to countless individuals and organizations throughout the area. Her passion for her community has never faded and she has always been one of the first people to step up and volunteer for an activity or an event.

Most importantly, Judy Lowe is a true leader whose magnanimous spirit is infectious. The words most often used to describe Judy are cheerful, dedicated, and role model. She is known not only for her dedication to Alexandria, but also her devotion to the Washington Redskins. She is the only person I know to wear black after every game the Redskins

lose or to drive a maroon vehicle made to look like a Redskins helmet. She is passionate about everything in her life and we should all be fortunate to have a tenth of the energy she exerts.

Judy Lowe is the kind of person that makes our civil society function in a truly ``all-American way''. She spent her professional career in service to her country with the Department of Defense. She will continue to serve our society in every positive way for the rest of what I trust will be a very long life.