Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Madam Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Armed Services, I rise today to register my strong support to maintain the Senate's hate crimes provisions in the defense authorization conference report.

The brutal murders of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd graphically demonstrated to the Nation the horrors of violence motivated by hate and bigotry. In 2002 alone, law enforcement agencies reported 7,462 bias-motivated criminal incidents. Nearly half of those crimes were targeted at the victim's race with biases against religion, sexual orientation and ethnicity, also common reasons for violence. Fifty people were even harmed because of a physical or mental disability.

Unfortunately, four States have no laws against hate crimes, and the statutes in another 17 States fall far short of full protection. Even in a State such as Rhode Island, where we have strong laws against hate crimes, law enforcement officials recorded 38 cases of bias-motivated offenses in 2002. Because current Federal hate crimes laws cover only crimes motivated by racial, religious or ethnic prejudice, Congress simply must expand the definition to include violence based on gender, sexual orientation and disability, and promote the aggressive prosecution of all hate crimes.

Madam Speaker, no American should be targeted for violence based on prejudice; and we must, therefore, pass the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act which would provide Federal assistance to State and local authorities in prosecuting hate crimes. Additionally, the legislation would expand the Federal definition of hate crimes.

As a person with a disability, one of the categories that would be covered under the expanded definition, I know how important it is that our Nation protect all those that could be singled out for violence based on personal characteristics.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. Speaker, from September 9th to September 15th, I was unavoidably detained in my district due to the death of my father. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote numbers 440, 441, 442, 443, 446, 447, 448, 449, 452, 453, 454, and 456. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote numbers 438, 439, 444, 445, 450, 451, and 455.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, I am pleased to support the resolution before us today and to add my voice to those speaking out against the brutality the world is witnessing in Sudan. This Congress has repeatedly condemned both the atrocities committed by the Janjaweed militia and the Sudanese government's insufficient response to such horrendous acts. Since violence began in the Darfur region in February 2003, tens of thousands of people have been killed and more than a million have been displaced from their homes. Sadly, despite repeated calls from the international community, the Sudanese government has not reined in the militia groups, and the killing continues. The World Health Organization now estimates that between 6,000 and 10,000 are dying every month from violence and disease.

It is unfortunate that we must again come to the floor to express our collective outrage about the situation in Sudan. I was pleased that the U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution last week that establishes an inquiry into the violence in the Darfur region to determine whether it constitutes genocide. The resolution also threatens sanctions against Sudan, a tool we must seriously consider if we do not witness rapid improvements. However, the strong sentiments expressed in the U.N. Security Council Resolution are undermined by the fact that Sudan still holds a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Commission--even while its government betrays the very principles on which the Commission was founded. The resolution before us today is a clear condemnation of this glaring inconsistency and will place greater pressure on the Sudanese government to act responsibly and protect its citizens from harm. I urge my colleagues to support S. Con. Res 137.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 5006, the Fiscal Year 2005 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act. While this bill contains many flaws, it is an unfortunate reality that we must attempt to fund important government functions within the budgetary constraints that the Administration's policies have created.

Among the many cuts, there are a few welcome funding increases in this bill. First, this bill contains an increase of $125 million in LIHEAP funds, which is desperately needed to help my constituents keep their homes warm during the upcoming winter. As energy costs rise and the economy remains weak, more and more households need assistance to survive the harsh Northern winter. I hope more funds for this successful program are included in conference.

In addition, this legislation contains an increase of $219 million for Community Health Centers, which provide primary and preventive health care services in medically-underserved areas throughout the country, including the Providence Community Health Centers in my district. Without these facilities, numerous Americans would not have access to vital health care.

H.R. 5006 increases the national Institutes of Health budget by $727 million to search for cures for spinal cord injuries, cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and numerous other ailments. These funds bring us closer to treating deadly and painful diseases affecting nearly every American family. I support an additional $500 million, as proposed in the Obey amendment, to keep pace with inflation and fund this important research.

Unfortunately, the restrictive rule did not allow an opportunity for the House to vote on the Obey amendment. This alternative would correct many of the funding shortfalls for national priorities by fully funding No Child Left Behind, Pell Grants, Perkins Loans, the Community Access Program, and numerous other health, education, and job training programs facing cuts under this bill. The Obey amendment would have been fully offset by slightly reducing the tax break for those who earn more than $1 million per year, a small sacrifice to improve the lives of so many Americans.

I am delighted, however, that the Obey-Miller Overtime Amendment was passed by the House. This amendment would overturn the Administration's misguided overtime regulations that took effect on August 23rd, ending guaranteed overtime pay for up to 6 million workers. This regulation is an unprecedented assault on American workers and discourages businesses to hire new workers. The Obey-

Miller Amendment would guarantee that supervisory and administrative employees, including registered nurses, working foremen, salespersons, law enforcement officers, and nursery school teachers, keep the overtime pay they depend on. I hope that the conference agreement on this appropriations bill will retain this important provision to prevent the further erosion of workers' rights.

Despite the bill's shortcomings, I will be voting in favor of H.R. 5006. I commend the Ranking Member and Chairman, and the rest of the Appropriations Committee, for their work within difficult constraints. The funding level in this bill is a direct result of the fiscally irresponsible policies of the Administration, which will result in a projected record $422 billion deficit for fiscal year 2004. I expect next year's deficit will be even higher. Deficits will continue to increase until this Administration and this Congress realize that cutting taxes for the wealthy during a time of extraordinary security demands only exacerbates the budgetary crisis. Without discipline, future generations will be saddled with the debt we are creating today. Although the bill is not perfect, I urge my colleagues to join me in a call for fiscal responsibility and support H.R. 5006, the Fiscal Year 2005 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, as we discuss the fine work that our doctors and scientists are performing with the help of Federal assistance, I want to make sure that my colleagues are aware of the limitations on critical research that are currently in place. These restrictions, the current regulations that guide the National Institutes of Health, are stifling progress into curing chronic conditions and diseases that affect up to 100 million Americans, a number that dramatically increases when you consider their families and loved ones. Unfortunately, rather than overturning these limitations, the committee report to today's Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill instead reaffirms them.

For 3 years, the tremendously promising field of human embryonic stem cell research has been restricted to work on stem cell lines developed before August 9, 2001. Despite the limitations of this policy, our Nation's scientists have made tremendous progress. They have already shown that they can direct the development of human embryonic stem cells into insulin-producing cells that might help cure juvenile diabetes. This type of research holds promise of new therapies, even cures, for countless conditions and diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, ALS, heart disease, spinal cord injury and cancer.

Mr. Chairman, our scientists are maximizing the resources made available to them under the current policy, but we can do better. We must make it possible for researchers to engage in the responsible pursuit of human pluripotent stem cell research.

Earlier this summer, I was proud to join the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) in introducing legislation that would achieve this goal by directing NIH to fund stem cell research only if those cells had been derived from excess human embryos created through the in vitro fertilization process for fertility treatment, embryos which otherwise would have been discarded. All tissue donations would be voluntary, accompanied by informed consent and without compensation.

Under these principles, research could flourish. The Federal Government would maintain reasonable and ethical oversight and the promise of cures, and in some cases the promise of life itself would be extended and restored to millions of Americans.

Unfortunately, our current policies place limits on the hopes and dreams of these millions of Americans. Scientists are reporting that it is increasingly difficult to attract new scientists to this area of research because of concerns that funding restrictions will keep this research from being successful. Foreign countries, most notably Great Britain, have been far more supportive of stem cell research.

Mr. Chairman, we face the real danger that without Federal funding, the Nation's top academic researchers at universities, medical schools and teaching hospitals cannot join in the search for cures, which means much slower progress.

Mr. Chairman, we owe it to our constituents to ensure that this research takes place ethically and with the full support of the Federal Government and as soon as possible. For far too many Americans, there is no time to waste.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a health care proposal that I am proud to introduce.

For years now, elected officials at all levels of government have struggled to address the nation's health-care crisis, and meet the ever-increasing demand for affordable health care. A significant part of the population lacks access to the most basic health coverage. In 2002, 43.6 million Americans were uninsured--80 percent of whom were members of working families. Closing this gap is one of the greatest domestic challenges our nation faces.

As health-insurance premiums rise each year, businesses face difficult decisions. To maintain the same level of coverage, they must either cover these extra costs or pass them along to employees. Many business owners confront an even starker choice: Decrease benefits or drop coverage altogether.

Those of us in Congress have a responsibility to ensure that no family is forced to go without health coverage. My proposal for meaningful health care reform requires a commitment from the government to act in the best interest of its citizens.

A national template for this type of coverage--one that every Member of Congress is intimately familiar with--already exists: the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Through the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the federal government manages health insurance for more than 8 million federal employees, retirees and dependents. This program, composed of private insurance carriers, is administered by the federal government, which assumes responsibility for approving or disapproving carriers, negotiating benefit and rate changes, and auditing carriers' operations under the law. With incredibly low administrative costs and a below-average annual premium increase, the federal government has been able offer a wide variety of choices and protections to its employees and Members of Congress.

My legislation offers a framework for a system wherein all Americans are offered the opportunity to participate in an FEHBP-style program-- called the American Health Benefits Program (AHBP). Under this design, all Americans not eligible for existing federal programs--such as TRICARE, Veterans Health Programs, Indian Health Services, Medicare and Medicaid will be required to participate. The government will provide a defined contribution toward every enrollee's premium and actively manage and regulate the process of informed consumer choice, motivating private insurance companies to produce a favorable combination of efficiency and equity. Plans will compete for enrollees on the basis of benefits as well as efficiency, service and price.

Employers will be relieved of the annual burden of having to negotiate new health care packages for their employees. They will continue to play a critical role in the health care system through a flat tax on payroll--which promises to be more stable and consistent than premiums offered to them by insurance companies.

It is time we started offering every American the kind of coverage and oversight that we, as Members of Congress, have come to rely upon. Health care is much more than an issue that polls well with voters. As elected officials, we must take the incremental steps needed to develop a universal health-care system that is affordable, high-quality and well managed.

I firmly believe that health care is a basic inalienable right of every American. If we work together to address this critical issue, I know we can realize this goal.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise today to congratulate a longtime champion of public schools, Mr. Edward J. McElroy, on his recent election to the position of President of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) second-largest teachers' union in the country. His longstanding commitment and leadership on education and the issues faced by working families will be of great value to AFT's 1.3 million members.

A former social studies and English teacher in my hometown of Warwick, R.I., Mr. McElroy earned his bachelor of arts degree from Providence College in Rhode Island. He has also done graduate work at the University of Rhode Island and Rhode Island College. His service in Rhode Island includes time spent as president of the Warwick Teachers Union, the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and the Rhode Island AFL-CIO. The heart of Mr. McElroy's service has always been fighting for a stronger education system for our children. He has recognized that the best way to give children a chance for a better future and to provide a strong workforce is to provide every child with a strong education.

As president of the Rhode Island Federation of teachers, Mr. McElroy worked with the Rhode Island state legislature on the Michelson Act, which created collective bargaining for teachers in the state. On a national front, he has led efforts to strengthen and uphold financial and accountability requirements at every level of the union. He has been at the forefront of the AFT's initiatives to harness technology to support, inform and mobilize union members. For decades, Ed McElroy has displayed unwavering leadership and commitment to the teachers, paraprofessionals and school-related personnel, local, state and federal employees, higher education faculty and staff, nurses and healthcare professionals, and public schoolchildren of our Nation.

Personally, I have known Mr. McElroy for more than 20 years and have had the pleasure of working with him in his leadership positions, both in Rhode Island and more recently as the Secretary-Treasurer of the AFT. I am confident that he will bring tremendous dedication, professionalism and expertise to the position of President of the American Federation of Teachers.

Mr. Speaker, as a proud member of the Hellenic Caucus, I rise today to recognize the 30th anniversary of Turkey's invasion of Cyprus. On this occasion, we mourn those who lost their lives and remember the barrier created in 1974. Sadly, that barrier still exists today, and despite attempts by the United Nations for a reunification settlement, the island remains divided between the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots. I thank Mrs. Maloney and Mr. Bilirakis for their ongoing leadership in the Hellenic Caucus and for bringing much-needed attention to issues of importance to the Hellenic community.

On the occasion of this anniversary, in addition to mourning and remembering, let us also look forward. The events of this past spring represent great triumphs for the Cyprus state and reaffirm Cyprus's willingness and determination to become an integral part of both the European community as well as the greater global community. Just this past May, Cyprus joined the European Union and will enjoy all of the privileges and opportunities of full membership. Inherent in that membership is a commitment to the human rights and fundamental freedoms that underscore that partnership. Despite this step forward, the nation remains divided. As the Greek Cypriots steer their nation toward greater prosperity and legitimacy, the Turkish Cypriots continue to pursue division and isolation.

The government of Cyprus remains committed to reunification, as a bizonal, bicommunal federation with democratic and human rights for all Cypriots. In April, the people of Cyprus held a democratic vote on a reunification plan put forward by the UN. An astonishing 90 percent of the Greek Cypriot community turned out for this important vote. Yet, with 76 percent of Greek Cypriot voters opposing the plan, many in the international community were disappointed with the final outcome. What we must recognize is that any disappointment and criticism should be directed at the inadequacies of the reunification plan, rather than the free, democratic choice of the Greek Cypriots not to accept such a plan. Not only was the rejection of that plan an exercise of the democratic rights of the Greek Cypriots, but it further demonstrates their commitment to finding a viable and workable settlement.

In reflecting on this historic vote, we should heed the words of the Greek Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulus: ``We are determined to try, until the end, in a peaceful manner and through negotiations, to end the invasion and occupation. The people should be brave, patient, and work hard.'' Patience in particular is tantamount to this endeavor. A lasting solution is not one that will be attained with the implementation of a rushed plan.

Both the recent accession to the EU as well as this recent democratic vote should give us renewed determination to seek a full and peaceful reunification. Along with my colleagues, I will continue to put pressure on the Bush Administration and the international community to help Cyprus work toward a peaceful solution. Now more than ever, the U.S. must continue its role in supporting negotiations. It has been a long, hard road, but with support from the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations, a reunification of Cyprus is still within reach. Such a reunification would benefit us all. It would bring long-awaited peace and stability to the people of Cyprus, to the region, and to the larger international community.

Again, I thank my colleagues on the Hellenic Caucus for their recognition of this important event.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the impressive career of Ms. Sandra Feldman, as she retires from her presidency of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). For many years, Ms. Feldman has tirelessly served our nation's teachers, paraprofessionals and school-related personnel, local, state and federal employees, higher education faculty and staff, nurses and healthcare professionals, and public schoolchildren. A New York City native, Ms. Feldman taught in New York City public elementary schools, served in the United Federation of Teachers as secretary from 1983 to 1986 and its president from 1986 to 1997. In 1997, Ms. Feldman was elected as the 15th president of the AFT and the union's first female president since 1930.

Ms. Feldman's unwavering support for teachers and her allegiance to America's children have contributed to many successes in our public schools. She engaged AFT in the fight to attract and retain a first- class workforce, to secure funds for critical services in the public schools and to provide access to professional development programs for teachers and faculty. In 2001, her leadership helped secure a number of positive measures in the No Child Life Behind Act. Since the passage of the law, she has continued to be a voice for children and teachers, striving to implement new guidelines in a way that will truly reach all children.

Ms. Feldman chose not to seek reelection as president of the AFT this year, as she focuses on her health. I sincerely thank Ms. Feldman for her decades of work on behalf of disadvantaged children, her outstanding contributions and leadership in improving the quality of teaching and learning. I wish her every success in her fight against cancer.

Ms. Feldman will be succeeded by a Rhode Island native--Mr. Edward J. McElroy, who I have had the pleasure of working with over the years. I am confident that Mr. McElroy will continue to champion the causes of the teachers, public schools, and most importantly our children.

Again, I thank Ms. Feldman for her dedication to our children and urge all my colleagues to support H. Res. 714.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to highlight the increasing complexity in the tax code that bogs down small businesses in my district.

Shortly after President Bush took office in 2001, he declared, ``Americans want our tax code to be reasonable and simple and fair. These are goals that unite our country, and these are goals that have shaped my plan.'' I could not agree more with the President's words, but unfortunately his actions have not matched his rhetoric.

Over the past three and a half years, the federal income tax code has grown by more than 10,000 pages due to 227 changes, not including the 109 proposed tax changes in the manufacturing tax bill that recently passed the House. Instead of helping small businesses create jobs in America, this legislation actually encourages companies to move workers abroad.

According to the IRS, small businesses and self-employed taxpayers now spend an average of nearly 60 hours on tax preparation. That means a business owner or employee uses more than a full work week compiling information and filling out tax forms rather than working to grow the business.

A recent GAO study concluded that small businesses overpay their taxes by billions of dollars per year because of tax return errors. Even tax preparation professionals make errors because the code is too complicated to know about every single available deduction.

Republicans have been so preoccupied with cutting taxes that they have not taken into account the burden this new complexity causes for taxpayers. We need a simpler tax code that allows companies to spend less time filling out forms and more time on business.

While Republicans continuously speak about making tax simplification a reality, they have done nothing but add to the misunderstanding and complexity. I urge the adoption of legislation to reduce the paperwork burden on our small businesses so that they can concentrate on their work, not deciphering the tax code.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Project Bioshield Act of 2004. Bioterrorism is a major threat to our national security, and I believe it is our job as members of Congress to instill confidence in the American people that a coordinated, concerted effort is being made to combat this threat. While Project Bioshield is not the only answer, it is certainly an important step towards that goal, and I hope Congress will continue to provide the funding and oversight the project needs to be effective.

This bill, much like H.R. 2212 passed by the House a year ago, authorizes the Project Bioshield initiative and will set in motion crucial efforts to develop new countermeasures to treat diseases and conditions caused by bioterror attacks and chemical, radiological and nuclear agents. Under this program, the Federal government will be able to enhance the Strategic National Stockpile, promote research and development of countermeasures, and, in an emergency, move forward with public distribution of certain drugs and treatments that may not yet have FDA approval. It is never pleasant to imagine a scenario where this kind of preparation and flexibility will be necessary, but the threat is indeed there. Project Bioshield will help lay the groundwork to respond to that threat quickly and effectively.

However, I must also mention my ongoing concern that until the Department of Homeland Security's Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate is fully staffed and meeting expectations, the rest of DHS is at a tremendous disadvantage in determining how to allocate resources and focus energies. The proper implementation of Project Bioshield requires a reliable and comprehensive threat assessment from the Information Analysis team, a team that should include bioterror experts working closely with their peers at agencies like CDC and NIH to identify the most pressing dangers and develop a plan to combat them.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and hope that DHS will do its part to make Project Bioshield as effective as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Missouri for organizing this special order and for yielding. I appreciate his leadership on the Committee on

Armed Services, and I am certainly proud to serve with him on that distinguished committee.

Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues to express our support and appreciation for our men and women in uniform who are doing an amazing job in Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout the world. The House Committee on Armed Services and this Congress have stood squarely behind them in their efforts and have endeavored to provide them with the resources and equipment they need to continue to be successful in the global war on terrorism.

As we travel through our districts, we encounter countless stories of appreciation of our men and women in uniform. However, their service often entails sacrifice. We hear from the families who spend extended periods of time away from their loved ones and often experience financial difficulties. We hear from employers who agree to rehire employees upon their return, but who struggle to fill the gaps until then.

We hear from representatives of our cities and towns who note that many of their first responders have been called up as part of the National Guard and Reserve. Our troops and all those in their lives are willing to make sacrifices for the defense of our Nation, but we must do our share to ease the burden wherever we can.

Last week, the Committee on Armed Services held a hearing on the next force rotation plans for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. I am concerned that in an effort to meet needed troop levels, we will be employing strategies that will have adverse effects on our military in the long term. For example, despite widespread agreement that our National Guard and Reserve are shouldering a significant portion of the effort, we will actually be increasing their participation rates in the third rotation of Operation Iraqi Freedom to 43 percent of total forces, as compared to 25 percent in the initial deployments. Additionally, we are also calling up 5,600 members of the Individual Ready Reserve whose areas of expertise are sorely needed in Iraq.

I am concerned that such efforts, while allowing us to meet the needs of the coming year, will ultimately harm our military through lower recruiting and retention rates, particularly among the Guard and Reserve. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has led the charge for an increase in end-strength of our Armed Forces, and I look forward to working with him and the administration toward this vital goal.

At this time I would like to pay a special tribute to all of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Rhode Island has mourned the loss of seven troops in Operation Iraqi Freedom, most recently Lance Corporal John J. Van Gyzen, IV, a brave Marine who served with dignity and honor. I join his family and the people of Rhode Island in mourning this great loss.

On Monday, July 5, Lance Corporal Van Gyzen was killed by enemy fire during combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. Raised in Foster and West Warwick, Rhode Island, he later moved to Massachusetts and graduated from Dighton-Rehoboth High School in 2001, where he was a member of the track and field team. He followed in the footsteps of his grandfather, who served in the Navy in World War II, and enlisted in the Marines in October 2001. After completing boot camp at Parris Island, he joined K Company, Third Battalion, seventh Marine Regiment, as a rifleman. Those who knew him well recalled his sense of humor, his love of the outdoors, and his dedication to his family. I extend my deepest condolences to his parents, John and Dorothy; his stepmother, Jane; and his sisters, Bethany, Jessica, and Angel.

His loss causes us all to reflect on the bravery demonstrated by our men and women in uniform as they carry out their obligations in the face of great danger. When their Nation called them to duty to preserve freedom, liberty, and the security of their neighbors, they answered without hesitation. We remember those who have fallen, not only as soldiers but also as patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. May we keep them and their loved ones in our thoughts and prayers as they struggle to endure this difficult period and mourn the heroes America has lost.

Finally, let us all continue to hope for the safe return of all of our troops serving throughout the world and remember how truly fortunate and grateful we are for their service.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey-Shays-Conyers-Turner amendment. Most importantly, I rise in support of increased security for air travelers across this country.

Screening air cargo and passenger planes is a critical element in protecting the public, and there is absolutely no excuse for allowing this glaring loophole to persist. With the summer travel season upon us and air travel nearing pre-9/11 levels, this issue gains urgency every single day.

Every day and at every airport, unscreened cargo is loaded onto passenger planes, placing the traveling public and airline employees and airport workers at great risk.

We have spent billions of dollars and asked the American people to endure long waits and countless inconveniences in order to ensure safe air travel. The failure to inspect cargo and passenger planes flies in the very face of these security investments and threatens to make all of our efforts for naught. But it does not have to be this way.

The technology exists to close this security gap, but apparently the will does not, and I cannot for the life of me understand why. It is long past time to address this issue and stop placing millions of travelers at risk.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to give the Markey-Shays-Conyers- Turner amendment the resounding victory that it deserves and give the American people the security that we have promised.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the foresight and the vision and the leadership of Mr. Markey, Mr. Shays, and others on this issue. It is long overdue and we need to heed the call. I am proud to be a partner with them in this effort, and let us get it done.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey/Shays/ Conyers/Turner amendment. More importantly, I rise in support of increased security for air travelers across the country. Screening air cargo on passenger planes is a critical element in protecting the public, and there is no excuse for allowing this glaring loophole to persist.

With the summer travel season upon us and air travel nearing pre-9/11 levels, this issue gains urgency by the day. Every day, and at every airport, unscreened cargo is loaded on to a passenger planes, placing the traveling public, airline employees and airport workers at risk.

We have spent billions of dollars and asked Americans to endure long waits and countless inconveniences in order to ensure safe air travel. The failure to inspect cargo on passenger planes flies in the face of these security investments and threatens to make all our efforts for naught.

But it doesn't have to be this way. The technology exists to close this security gap, but the will apparently does not . . . and I can't for the life of me understand why. It is long past time to address this issue and stop placing millions of travelers at risk.

I urge my colleagues to give the Markey/Shays/Conyers/Turner amendment the resounding victory it deserves, and give the American people the security we have promised.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Manzullo amendment to apply the Berry amendment to homeland security procurement. This is a common-sense and proven step to create American jobs and reward American companies.

For 30 years, the Berry amendment has protected critical defense- related industries in this country. It has helped to preserve manufacturing, textile and other American jobs, allowed domestic companies to flourish, and provided our Armed Forces with high-quality products that keep our military prepared and equipped to be the best in the world.

Having served America so well for defense procurement, it makes perfect sense that the Berry amendment should now be extended to homeland security. U.S. companies have been instrumental in ongoing efforts to protect airports, equip first responders, deploy cutting- edge technology to hospitals, and so much more. Rewarding their patriotism and hard work with procurement protections is the right thing to do.

I also want to note that the Manzullo amendment would allow waivers of the Berry amendment when needed items cannot be procured domestically and would not place any of our current or future homeland security operations at risk. What it would do is say to American companies and American workers

that we appreciate their efforts and welcome their partnership as we work to protect our citizens.

The Berry amendment is a tested means of supporting domestic businesses while they support us. I hope my colleagues will support Congressman Manzullo's amendment and extend this important provision to homeland security procurement as well.

Madam Speaker, I rise to commend my colleagues on the passage of H.R. 4278. This bill reauthorizes and makes permanent the Assistive Technology Act, which plays an instrumental role in promoting awareness of and access to services and devices that allow individuals with disabilities to lead independent lives, to work, to participate fully in community and school, and to make informed choices in all aspects of their lives.

This legislation, which passed unanimously under suspension yesterday, is a result of a bipartisan commitment to improving the lives of people with disabilities. Members of Congress from both parties recognized the valuable role that the Tech Act plays in providing support to programs in all 50 states and worked together to ensure the continuation and vitality of the state grant programs. Most importantly, this bill will get technology into the hands of people who need it.

My own background and experience gives me a unique perspective on the value of assistive technology. Indeed, access to technology has made it possible for me to serve as a Member of the United States Congress. Through my own experience and opportunities to interact with others in the disability community, I am keenly aware that access can make the difference between a life on public assistance and a productive, fulfilling career. With the unemployment rate within the disability community at a staggering 70 percent, we must support and promote the programs that are making a difference. State assistive technology programs have proven to be instrumental in getting people back into their communities.

When it was first enacted, in 1988, the Tech Act contained sunset provisions which would

have allowed funding for state programs to expire. Since that time, it has become obvious that the world of technology is continuously changing. Policy makers have learned over the last decade that responsible technology-related legislation must be more enduring. I am so proud to have been a part of this House-passed legislation, which ends sunsets and provides a permanent funding stream for these state programs.

I look forward to our continued work together to develop new ways to break down barriers to technology for all people with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this measure and commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), for his outstanding leadership on this critical issue.

This important legislation would amend the Constitution to allow temporary appointments to fill vacancies in the House only in the event of a catastrophic attack. If we do not pass this legislation, Mr. Speaker, we risk disenfranchising large portions of the country in a time of national crisis or, worse, in the case of mass incapacitation of Members preventing the House from even convening to conduct the people's business.

Some Members will argue today that a constitutional amendment is not necessary to address the problem of congressional continuity. While I understand some of their concerns, I question whether Congress has investigated the matter enough to even come to that conclusion.

The AEI Brookings Continuity of Government Commission after studying the issue thoroughly endorsed a constitutional amendment even though some members began the process undecided or opposed to that course of action.

Mr. Speaker, others will note that the House already addressed this matter by passing legislation in April to require expedited special elections within 45 days.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that in the 6 weeks after the attacks of September 11, the Congress passed numerous pieces of legislation authorizing, among other things, the use of military force, an airline assistance measure, an economic stimulus bill, the Defense Authorization Act, numerous appropriations bills, the farm bill, and legislation pertaining to bioterrorism, victims assistance and terrorism financing.

Well, Mr. Speaker, without a constitutional amendment to allow temporary appointment after a disaster, the most important decision that our body can make, the decision to declare war, could have been made with a greatly diminished or unrepresentative House.

I am disappointed that we are being given only 90 minutes to debate one of the most important topics that this Congress can address. I know that other Members have proposed their own constitutional amendment to address the issue of congressional continuity, and we deserve hearings and discussion on those recommendations as well.

Mr. Speaker, it is our duty to prepare the legislative branch for any kind of disaster; and this constitutional amendment is necessary to ensure that the House will be able to continue its work even in the worst circumstances. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I congratulate the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) for his leadership and passion on this issue.