Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today to congratulate Clifford T. Jackson on his announced appointment to Chief Petty Officer in the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps, which is scheduled to occur on January 9, 2004. Cadet Jackson, of Westerly, Rhode Island, is an honor roll high school senior and has been a member of the Nautilus Division at the Sub Base in New London since

March 2001. Cadet Jackson has risen to the rank of Chief Petty Officer faster than any other cadet in the 26 years of the Nautilus Division. This accomplishment is only bestowed upon one half of one percent of approximately ten thousand Naval Sea Cadets in the program and reflects exceptional leadership skills and a masterful grasp of seamanship training.

I hope our colleagues will join me in congratulating Clifford Jackson for his achievement, and I wish him great success in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

I rise in strong opposition to the proposed rule to consider the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act of 2003. We are about to vote on legislation that will have an enormous impact on every single American. While we know very little about the details, since we were only given this bill late last night, what we do know is that it offers a completely inadequate drug benefit, does nothing to contain the rapidly increasing cost of prescription drugs, and takes steps toward privatizing Medicare. When our seniors find out about the truth of what this bill will do to their health plans, they will be outraged. This is shameful, because it does not have to be this way.

We are poised to make the most significant changes to Medicare in history, and we are proposing to vote on it while the ink is still drying, a 600-page bill that we have scarcely been able to read. This is no way to make good public policy.

Mr. Speaker, as President Woodrow Wilson once said, ``Whenever any business affecting the public is conducted, wherever any plans affecting the public are laid, over that place a voice must speak with the divine prerogative of the people's will the words `let there be light.' '' Mr. Speaker, there is no light in our work here today, and the Members of this House and the people that we represent deserve better.

I urge all of my colleagues, regardless of their position on this bill, to vote against this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today gravely disappointed by, and opposed to, the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act of 2003. The 108th Congress has squandered our best opportunity yet to provide a meaningful prescription drug benefit for our nation's seniors. I am outraged that the republican leadership has taken advantage of the public's cry for medication coverage. They have used the demand to exploit the elderly, funnel money to drug and insurance companies and privatize Medicare. Sadly, this debate is no longer simply about a prescription drug benefit. This debate is about the survival of the health care system that has been serving and protecting our seniors since 1965.

In a striking divergence from the universal nature of Medicare, the conference report we are voting on today establishes a system wherein seniors rely on private, drug-only companies to administer their drug coverage. Each of these companies will develop their own rules about premiums, deductibles and what medicines are covered. The standard this bill sets for the companies only offers 75 percent coverage of the costs up to $2,250--and no coverage at all until the expenses then reach $5,100. During that significant gap in coverage, seniors will still be responsible for paying a $35 monthly premium. Even more infuriating, that premium will not count toward their out of pocket expenses, making it take even longer for them to reach the catastrophic level. The Republican conferees claim to offer help for the poor, and indeed, premium subsidies are available to individuals earning less than $6,000 a year or couples earning less than $9,000. But these vulnerable, low-income seniors must first meet a strict assets test, where cars, burial plots and even wedding rights will be counted as assets. Additionally, I remain deeply concerned that the legislation fails to include a meaningful fallback plan seniors can rely on if private companies fail to emerge in their area, an all too likely scenario that it is our duty to protect against.

The prescription drug component of this bill contains a particularly troubling provision that strictly forbids the Secretary of Health & Human Services from using the bulk purchasing power of Medicare beneficiaries to negotiate for lower drug prices for senior citizens--a tactic that has proven effective in the state programs, as well as 25 other industrialized nations. America's seniors have made it clear that they want the government to assist them in obtaining their prescription drugs at a fair price. It infuriates me that that we have over 40 million people with a common and basic, need, yet instead of taking advantage of that power to secure lower prices for the most rapidly increasing component of health care, the Federal Government, under the proposal put forward, would outlaw that practice. This tremendous missed opportunity makes it clear to me that this bill was written with the interests of drug companies, not America's seniors, in mind.

The problems with this conference report go far beyond the inadequacy of the drug benefit. This bill not only fails to meet the needs of seniors and jeopardizes the retiree coverage used by 12 million Americans, it also lays a strong foundation for the demise of the Medicare program as we know it. Beginning in 2010, this agreement will expose millions of seniors to new cost and benefit uncertainties in as many as six large metropolitan areas, possibly including my home state of Rhode Island and neighboring Massachusetts.

This vast demonstration project, which will involve up to 7 million seniors, will subject Medicare to competition with private companies, coercing seniors into HMOs and private plans. These private companies will be given huge financial incentives to offer health coverage for seniors, funneling critical resources away from Medicare and those who rely on it. If a senior wishes to stay in the Medicare program, he or she will be required to pay the difference between the cost of the private plan and the cost of Medicare--which will, no doubt, skyrocket as private plans court the healthier seniors out of Medicare, leaving Medicare the more costly task of providing for a sicker, poorer risk pool. This plan breaks the fundamental promise of Medicare. It replaces a guarantee of quality health care with increased premiums, provides a voucher for health insurance, and leaves seniors and people with disabilities to fend for themselves in a market where they may not be able to find a health care plan that meets their needs. Medicare was created in 1965 because the private industry was unable to provide adequate health coverage for this population. The virtue of the system is that it creates a large risk pool. Injecting private competition, and subsidizing that competition with billions of taxpayer dollars, will leave the healthiest seniors with the ever-changing and unstable options of private plans, and will resign those who are not as fortunate, our most vulnerable population, to an even more uncertain fate.

Seniors in Rhode Island, and no doubt the rest of the country, will see through this scheme. My constituents remember the devastating effect of the abrupt departure of Harvard Pilgrim, an HMO that covered over 150,000 Rhode Islanders. The scramble to find a health insurance plan that would allow patients to keep their doctors, and the struggle to understand new sets of benefits that followed Harvard Pilgrim's exit from our state would be replicated on a regular basis in the regions affected by the so-called demonstration project contained in this bill.

I must also touch upon the issue of provider relief. I am a strong supporter of doctors and hospitals that serve Medicare beneficiaries, and voted three times this year in favor of striking the premium support provision from this bill and using that money to update provider payments instead of subsidizing private companies. The conferees failed to take this approach, instead providing some temporary relief to providers for the upcoming year, but no long term fix to the systemic problem that plagues doctors and hospitals year after year. Providers are already overburdened by Medicare-related paperwork and receive lower-than-average reimbursement rates for their services. Should the premium support provisions in this conference report become law, providers will be forced to negotiate new terms for payment annually with every private plan that emerges to serve Medicare beneficiaries in a region. This bill signs away the rights and responsibilities Congress currently has to these providers, leaving decisions about provider payments up to the CEOs of insurance companies. The high turnover rate of providers in participating Medicare + Choice plans signals the instability this will cause, for providers and patients alike.

In this year's debate over Medicare, once again, Congress has lost sight of what the public has asked for, and what American seniors need. Our seniors are choosing between paying their rent of buying food and obtaining the medication they need to stay alive. They need relief from prescription drug costs. They do not need the additional challenges, burdens and costs of navigating through a system of HMOs, subjected to a different plan, a different doctor and higher premiums each year. Our Medicare providers need a fair payment system over the long term. All Americans need their government to take action against the soaring cost of prescription drugs. Given the opportunity to make a difference in each of these areas, the Republican leadership chose to put their resources and their trust in the hands of insurance companies and drug companies. This Is a matter of priorities and principles. I urge my colleagues to make American seniors our priority, vote no on the conference report and immediately begin to take meaningful steps to solve these problems.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) in support of this motion to instruct conferees. He has been an outspoken advocate for improving our Nation's election systems and voting administration, and I thank him for his leadership. I also thank my good friends, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for their consistent support and unwaivering dedication to the issue of election reform.

Mr. Speaker, just over a year ago, I joined a group of my colleagues as the President signed into law the Help America Vote Act. The result of more than a year of hard work and bipartisan cooperation, the legislation was called the first civil rights legislation of the 21st century because it ensured that all Americans could participate fully in our democracy by being guaranteed the fundamental right to vote. I am particularly pleased that the legislation contained groundbreaking provisions to make our Nation's polling places and voting equipment accessible to people with disabilities. This change will enable millions of Americans to cast a ballot independently for the very first time in their lives.

At the signing ceremony, President Bush said that thanks to the reforms contained in HAVA, ``the Federal Government will help State and local officials to conduct elections that have the confidence of all Americans.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we have yet to reach that level of confidence because we have not provided sufficient resources to implement the law. States are eager to enact HAVA's reforms but they lack the funds promised to them. Congress provided only $1.5 billion of the $2.16 billion authorized in fiscal year 2003, and the House included only $500 million of the $1 billion authorized for fiscal year 2004. The Senate approved $1.5 billion in its version of the Transportation-Treasury bill, which will meet this year's shortfall. I joined the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) in organizing a letter to conferees to endorse the Senate funding levels, an effort that garnered the support of 60 Members, and I am

pleased to continue that more here today.

In the 1990s, as Secretary of State of Rhode Island, I led the effort to upgrade our State's voting equipment, and I know firsthand the benefits that modernized election systems can have on voter turnout and civic participation. I encourage my colleagues to support this motion to instruct so that we can realize the vision of the Help America Vote Act and restore confidence in our Nation's elections.

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

Mr. Speaker, as you may know, November is National Family Caregivers Month, and I rise today to celebrate and honor our nation's caregivers. Nationwide, more than 25 million caregivers annually provide over $200 billion in unpaid care to their loved ones with disabling and chronic conditions. More importantly, this voluntary care allows seniors and others to continue living at home, which improves their spirits and often speeds up recovery.

Family caregiving comes in many forms--from the mother raising a child with developmental disabilities and fighting for her child's right to an education, to the wife caring for her husband with Alzheimer's Disease and enduring that anguish. There are as many unique situations as there are family caregivers. But, what these caregivers all have in common is their compassion, their dedication and their selflessness. Family caregiving contributes to family stability, and it often spares families from more costly, out-of-home placements. These people are the quiet heroes of our nation. However, too often, they are also silent sufferers.

Most caregivers freely and willingly provide this care out of love and commitment, but often at great cost to themselves physically, emotionally, and financially. Studies show that many caregivers stretch themselves so thin that they jeopardize their own health and ability to provide continued care to their dependent loved ones.

In my home state of Rhode Island, Tracey Laranjo is the mother of ten-year-old Tyler. Tyler is bipolar and suffers from Severe Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and certain developmental disabilities. Tyler is also an important member of the Laranjo family--the gifts and the love he brings to his parents and older brother are not really different than any other ten year old. Tyler is a lucky child, with parents who have fought long and hard to get him the mental health services that he needs, while educating themselves about how to take care of their son. But not surprisingly, sometimes Tracey is exhausted. After a long wait, she was fortunate enough to recently access respite care services in Rhode Island and can now take an occasional break, knowing that her son is being properly cared for. She refers to these respite hours, 110 hours per year, as ``gold''--saving them for times she knows she needs them, and grateful for every minute. These hours give Tracey time to recoup without feeling guilty, and let her reflect on the special child she has been blessed with.

Just a few hours of respite can go a long way in keeping a family together, keeping a child at home, and turning a situation where a vulnerable person was at risk of abuse into one where that same person feels loved, respected and valued. No family should ever be denied this kind of assistance.

However, the vast majority of family caregivers does not have access to respite, cannot afford it, cannot find qualified, trained respite services or providers, or do not qualify for existing respite benefits because they are not Medicaid eligible or do not meet the limited eligibility requirements of other narrowly-targeted state or federal programs. As we celebrate National Family Caregivers Month, we must remember that for a person providing intense and exhausting care 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, an occasional short break can literally be a lifesaver.

In keeping with the Supreme Court's Olmstead decision requiring states to ensure that individuals with disabilities and chronic conditions are able to live and work in the least restrictive environment, respite provides the support caregivers need to avoid or delay institutional placements.

We can recognize and honor the nation's caregivers by passing the Lifespan Respite Care Act of 2003, which I introduced this spring. H.R. 1083 would authorize competitive grants to states and other eligible entities to make respite available and accessible to family caregivers, regardless of age or disability. This legislation would help states maximize use of existing resources and leverage new dollars by building on current services and systems that states already have in place. The bill would support planned and emergency respite, respite worker training and recruitment, caregiver training, and program evaluation.

The Senate has already passed the Lifespan Respite Care Act of 2003. I urge my colleagues to join the 85 bipartisan cosponsors of the House bill and ask that the House take immediate action to pass it in time to honor the nation's caregivers in celebration of National Family Caregivers Month.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am pleased to speak in support of the bill before us. I wish to thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for their leadership in completing action on this legislation, which provides our military--and the men and women who serve in it--the resources they need to keep America strong in the 21st century. The military pay increase and the enhanced benefits for active and reserve personnel recognize the valiant efforts of the men and women who have ably served our Nation, and the development and procurement of state-of-the-art weapons systems will provide them with the tools they need to continue their mission of excellence.

I am particularly pleased with provisions in the legislation that demonstrate Congress's commitment to the role of submarines as an essential part of a strong naval fleet. Passage of the conference report today will represent the final step in a historic agreement to permit multi-year procurement for the Virginia-class submarine. This agreement will encourage more rapid and cost-effective production of this important system--saving the U.S. taxpayer an estimated $115 million per submarine--while giving the United States Navy new capabilities to respond to future threats. Multi-year procurement will also provide greater stability in southeastern New England's defense industry, and I know that the people of Rhode Island are proud to have a role in this important aspect of military transformation. I wish to convey my deepest gratitude to Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton of the Armed Services Committee, as well as Chairman Jerry Lewis and Ranking Member Jack Murtha of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, for their work to help this effort reach fruition.

This legislation takes another step toward providing concurrent receipt to our Nation's disabled military retirees, though the language falls short of our obligations. As a cosponsor of H.R. 303, I believe we must fulfill our promises to our Nation's veterans by allowing them total access to both their retirement pay and disability benefits. Next Tuesday, our Nation honors those Americans that have protected our Nation, and we must honor their service by providing them with the benefits they have earned.

Unfortunately, today's agreement contains language that may undermine important civil service safeguards for civilians within the Department of Defense, as well as existing environmental protections. I urge Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton to schedule hearings on these topics in the coming months so that our committee may exercise appropriate oversight authority and ensure that the implementation of these new policies does not undermine decades of efforts by Congress to protect our environment and federal workforce.

Overall, this legislation represents an important investment in the defense of our Nation, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

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

I want to say that I rise in strong support of the Bell motion to instruct conferees on the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health to the highest level possible.

Mr. Speaker, I was proud to be a part of the Congress that worked together with Presidents Clinton and Bush to double the budget of the NIH between 1998 and 2003. I want to especially commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the ranking member for their leadership on this issue.

The growth during those years has already yielded amazing results, and we are just beginning to see the fruits of that landmark achievement. Everyone agrees this investment in the future of medicine was the right decision to make for America and, indeed, for the world.

The outcomes of these cutting-edge projects are opportunities for us to understand diseases, improve health, and open the doors to future progress through the application of scientific research. We are on the road to obtaining the knowledge we need to more fully understand and ultimately control or defeat cancer, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, paralysis, and many other diseases and conditions. These projects also play a key role in preparing the Nation for incidents of bioterrorism.

Given how far we have come in this remarkable bipartisan effort, I am extremely disappointed that the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill by the House this year contained a margin of increase that inconsistent with all that we have accomplished in recent years.

The House-passed increase of 2.5 percent would be the smallest percentage increase in 18 years, as aptly pointed out by my colleague, and would fail to sustain these projects that have only just begun. In fact, 2.5 percent falls far short of what is needed merely to keep up with inflation, again, pointed out by my colleague. Experts in the research field have made it clear to me that they need an estimated 8 to 10 percent increase in funding to renew the many ongoing multi-year research projects, while encouraging new research projects and exploring new ideas and avenues of inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, we must do all we can to encourage younger physicians and scientists interested in medical research careers to use their talents for the greater good. Millions of Americans now suffering with diseases and illnesses deserve our continued commitment to new research and ultimately to a cure. To that end, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the Bell motion to instruct. I commend my colleague for offering the motion.

Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by three of my colleagues in introducing the ``Foam Fire Safety Act'' to reduce the injuries, deaths, and property damage that result from polyurethane foam fires. This sensible legislation directs the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to implement a rule within one year that ensures that polyurethane foam products meet a new open flame standard. The new level of protection will decrease the destructiveness of fires in homes and buildings around the country and prevent unnecessary tragedies.

Polyurethane foam is found in mattresses, upholstered furniture, carpet padding, soundproofing insulation, and many other common objects. It is also one of the most flammable consumer products, and firefighters refer to polyurethane foam as ``solid gasoline.'' Between 1980 and 1998, mattress, bedding, and upholstered furniture fires killed almost 30,000 people in the United States. During the same period, these fires injured more than 95,000 people.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) first began looking into creating stricter flame retardancy standards for foam in 1993. Ten years later, the process continues without results, and Americans are left without common sense standards similar to those already in place in California and Great Britain. My legislation requires foam to meet a new ``open flame'' test, which is equivalent to having a candle right next to the foam. Currently mattresses and furniture must only be able to withstand the equivalent of a lit cigarette.

Polyurethane foam serves as kindling for fires, and a stricter standard would prevent deaths and property damage. In my district, polyurethane soundproofing foam contributed to the deaths of 100 people at the Station nightclub fire in West Warwick, Rhode Island, on February 20, 2003. Because of the abundance of foam, the building was engulfed in flames within 3 minutes, and firefighters who were located just down the street could not arrive in time to save everyone.

I urge my colleagues to join me and the other co-sponsors of this bill to reduce the risk of polyurethane foam fires. Please co-sponsor this responsible measure, and help make American homes and workplaces safer.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 94, which expresses the sense of the Congress that community inclusion and enhanced lives for the 8 million Americans who have mental retardation or other developmental disabilities is at serious risk due to a professional shortage of direct support professionals.

I was proud to join Mr. Sessions and Ms. Capps in introducing the Direct Support Professional Recognition Resolution earlier this year, because I know the impact that the work of direct support professionals has on the families of people with developmental disabilities. America has come a long way from the days when warehousing of people with mental retardation and other disabilities was painfully routine. Today, seasoned professionals and families alike are deeply grateful for the advances of self-determination that many Americans with developmental disabilities enjoy through living and working within their communities.

Unfortunately, this progress is jeopardized by a real and immediate workforce shortage. As the demand for community supports and services has grown, so has the demand for Direct Support Professionals, people who devote their lives and careers to providing the day-to-day supports necessary for individuals with mental retardation or developmental disabilities to live and work in their communities. This support is crucial for people with disabilities to enjoy the daily freedoms and rights the rest of us take for granted. The current workforce shortage, reflected in high turnover and vacancies, will only worsen with an increased demand for long-term supports as family caregivers age, individuals with mental retardation or other developmental disabilities live longer, waiting lists grow, and services expand.

Mr. Speaker, we must make it a national priority to ensure a quality, stable direct support workforce that advances this Nation's commitment to community integration and personal security for people with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities, and their families. The recruitment and retention of quality, trained direct support workers is essential to providing quality supports and services to people with disabilities. I hear far too often from parents in Rhode Island who fear there will be no one available to take care of their sons and daughters with mental retardation or other developmental disabilities as they grow older--and I know their situations represent so many more across the country. While this resolution takes a small step in recognizing a professional shortage in the field, it is my sincere hope that it represents a commitment on the part of every Member of the House of Representatives to take bigger steps toward realizing the goal of community inclusion. We must do all we can to support the quiet heroes that choose this noble line of work.

Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from my first trip to Israel, as part of a Congressional delegation led by Minority Whip Steny Hoyer that traveled through this remarkable country in August. There are simply not enough superlatives to describe all of my experiences and emotions or to convey all that I learned.

Although a small and still relatively young nation, Israel stands at the fulcrum of three major religions and its land is holy to all. Resolutions of the various conflicts in that region would go a long way toward resolving many of the issues we all face today.

One of the most moving--and interesting--lessons of my trip was to further observe how our two nations, the United States and Israel, deal with the problem of terrorism. Both pause to express their sorrow and mourn those who have been killed or wounded, but then both of our great nations also seek ways to move on and work toward conflict resolutions.

Shortly after the Congressional delegation left Israel, a remarkable concert took place in Jerusalem on September 12, 2003. Amid tributes to the memories of those who died in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in New York and Washington, as well as those who have perished in attacks in Israel, the Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra played a special concert in the Rothberg Amphitheater on the Mount Scopus campus of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

The concert, Antonin Dvorak's Requiem, Opus 89, marked the debut of the Jerusalem Symphony's new music director, Dr. Leon Botstein. The concert, billed as ``A Concert of Remembrance and Hope,'' was performed under the auspices of the orchestra and the Hebrew University and included the Philharmonia Singers and vocal soloists. It was made possible through the generosity of the American Friends of the Jerusalem Symphony and Anne and Marty Peretz. Botstein, in addition to his new role with the Jerusalem Symphony, is also the music director of the American Symphony Orchestra in New York and is president of Bard College in New York.

In remarks preceding the concert, American Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer said, ``We will never forget the 3,000 citizens of the U.S. and 90 other countries who lost their lives on September 11. We, Israelis and Americans, also mourn the lives of the 36 American citizens who have lost their lives [in terrorist attacks] in Israel. [. . .] Tonight, the process of remembering and recovery continues.''

Hebrew University President Prof. Menachem Magidor said that the evening's concert was an expression of ``profound and deep identification with the people of the United States.'' The president noted that the ``dark forces'' which perpetrated the attacks of September 11, 2001, in the United States are the same which are attacking Israel. ``September 11 was a declaration of war not just on the United States, but on the entire free world,'' said Magidor. But, he said, that evil effort would not succeed.

Botstein, in his brief remarks, echoed the president's words, stating that the terrorist attacks were ``an effort to destroy civilization.'' He said too that the evening's concert was dedicated to the memory not only of those who lost their lives in the United States in those attacks but also to those who have perished in terrorist acts in Israel.

As a symbol of the special ties between Israel and the U.S. expressed by the event, the national anthems of Israel and the U.S. were played prior to the performance of Dvorak's work.

Mr. Speaker, along with my statement, I would like to enter into the Record the remarks of Hebrew University President Menachem Magidor and American Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer which were delivered prior to this concert:

President's Speech at the JSO Concert Marking Two Years Since the

Events of September 11, 2003

Good evening and welcome to the Mount Scopus Campus of the

Hebrew University.

The concert tonight is far from the usual opening concert

of the Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra.

First, as we all know, the fact that the Orchestra

continues to perform and is opening a new concert season was

a few months ago far from being a certainty. The Orchestra is

of vital importance to the cultural fabric of Jerusalem. The

opening today is a clear declaration that Jerusalem will not

allow such an important part of its cultural life to

disappear from the scene.

We also welcome tonight the new musical director of the

orchestra, Leon Botstein, and we all hope that under his

direction the orchestra will grow and flourish.

The start of this cooperative venture with the Hebrew

University is also a new and important beginning. I have no

doubt that this will enrich both institutions as well as the

cultural life of Jerusalem.

This concert is taking place in a uniquely special setting.

Every time I find myself in this amphitheater, I am filled

with awe at the power of this place. No less deeply moving

are Mount Scopus's historical and cultural connections--a

place overflowing with symbolism and significance. On April

1, 1925, on this exact spot where I am standing now,

Weizmann, Balfour, Bialik and Rabbi Kook attended the opening

ceremony of our University.

But most important of all is the subject to which this

evening is dedicated. This is an evening of solidarity, of

remembrance, of soul-searching, on the second anniversary of

the events of September 11. And it is impossible, as citizens

of Israel and of this city, not to connect with the same

memories, with the same pain, the same soul-searching of the

victims of terror attacks that we have been exposed to during

the past three years. The past few days have not made things

any easier.

The criminal attack of September 11 was a declaration of

war. But it was not a declaration of war on the United States

of America alone, it was a declaration of war on the most

basic principles of the free world: on the unique value of

the individual, on the right of a person to try to attain

happiness in their own way, on freedom of speech, on

tolerance, on the fact that a humane society can be composed

of people of various affinities and different beliefs, and

still be a responsible society with a sense of direction. And

the victims of September 11 fell not because they were

American, but more because they were a random segment of a

society for whom these principles are paramount.

I don't accept the claim that this is a war between the

Islamic culture and the West. This is a war between

enlightenment and darkness, between openness, tolerance,

rationality--and ignorance and blind religious extremism; and

the battle lines cut right across cultures, and not

between them.

We, too, are on the front lines of this war. Clearly there

are also concrete political issues in this war taking place

here at home, but it is impossible to ignore that, beyond the

desire to obtain political goals of one kind or another,

blind terror and hatred of free and tolerant discourse is

nourished by blind extremism. And I have no doubt that the

sinister flame which lit the September 11 attack also lights

the terror attacks here at home. We cannot forget the attack

here on our Campus a year ago, which took place just a few

hundred meters from here. We were targeted not just because

we are an Israeli or Jewish institution, but also because we

are openminded, tolerant, and follow the paths of peace.

This war between an open society and its enemies is not a

simple one. It is not simple because its enemies are hidden.

And it is not simple because there is a serious danger to the

open society. The danger is that, not by force but through

its own volition, the enemies of freedom will compel this

open society to give up its principles.

The enemies of freedom will have won if we cease to believe

in tolerance and human rights; and they will have won if we

fail to see where are the limits to the use of force, even

when there is reason to use it; and they will have won if we

cease to believe, here in Israel, that at the end of this

bloodletting, there is the possibility of a life at peace

with our neighbors.

This memorial concert which is taking place on the Mount

Scopus Campus of the Hebrew University is a declaration that

we,

the citizens of Jerusalem and of Israel, wish to show

solidarity with our friends in the United States of America.

We remember the victims of the war waged by the sons of

darkness against the sons of light, whether they fell on

September 11 in America, or during the three years in Israel

and in Jerusalem. We, the citizens of Jerusalem and of

Israel, are determined to continue to create a free society,

thirsty for knowledge and culture, tolerant and enlightened,

rooted in our own heritage but open to the cultures of the

world, aspiring to peace, committed to its values even though

it may seem to some that to give them up would help in the

war.

I truly believe that these principles must prevail.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and the opportunity to address this critical issue on the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, as we are poised to invest billions of dollars in the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe that it is imperative that we address the infrastructure needs of people with disabilities in the rebuilding process. Conflicts in other countries result in higher- than-average rates of disabilities for people, and the need for their consideration in the planning and design stages of new construction simply cannot be understated. Furthermore, given the history of discrimination and abuse of people with disabilities in Iraq, targeted programs through multi-inclusion of Iraqis with disabilities in public life and education will be necessary and, in fact, imperative. Including these matters, I believe, as a forethought will result in little up-front cost and save significant time and expense down the road. It is always more difficult and more costly to retrofit than it is to plan it in the earlier stages when construction is just being planned.

Finally, I believe that it is time to align our foreign policies with our national priorities, and currently foreign assistance funding is not required to be used in a manner that ensures access to people with disabilities. And this is inconsistent with our own civil rights laws, most notably the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Chairman, I was hoping and wanted to ask as this bill moves forward and goes to conference that the gentleman would be willing to work with me to perhaps ensure that those things are considered.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and look forward to working with him.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sherman

Mr. Chairman, today Congress again considers the important issue of providing additional funding for military and reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a member of the House Armed Service Committee, I appreciate the valiant service of our men and women in uniform, and we must not hesitate to provide them with the appropriate resources to continue their success in the global war on terrorism. However, I have serious concerns with this measure--not because I believe the U.S. should not contribute to rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq, but because so much of the burden is falling upon American taxpayers. I am frustrated that we are paying for this request through increased deficit spending--thereby shifting the cost to future generations--without considering the options of international loans through the World Bank, as Congressman Obey has recommended, or other revenue sources that would spread the burden to those who can most afford it. Nonetheless, I believe that the United States ultimately has a responsibility to follow through on our international commitments.

While much discussion about the supplemental will focus on the reconstruction request, we must not forget that the majority of its funding goes toward ensuring the safety and success of our troops. For example, the bill will increase the number of protective body suits, flak jackets and armored vehicles available to our military's men and women serving in hostile areas. Just last week, I visited Walter Reed Army Medical Center and spoke with soldiers whose injuries might have been prevented if they had been driving the armored vehicles included in this bill. Additionally, the measure recognizes that the difficult terrain and often inhospitable climate of Iraq have necessitated frequent maintenance of military equipment, and therefore provides funding for parts replacement and much-needed upgrades.

A far more controversial aspect of the bill is the $18.6 billion for reconstruction activities in Iraq and $1.2 billion for Afghanistan. I was concerned with some of the items in the President's original request--including the establishment of postal codes and the purchase of a fleet of pricey garbage trucks--and am pleased that the Appropriations Committee deemed them unworthy of emergency funding. The remaining items, such as utility infrastructure projects, health care improvement and security upgrades, are important building blocks that will help improve the safety of the Iraqi people while allowing them to develop self-sufficiency and independence. While some regions in Iraq are still hostile to U.S. presence, we must build on the progress that we have made in other areas of the nation. Insufficient investment now in Iraq could lead to the spread of religious extremism, an increase in illegal arms trading, and an explosion in anti-American sentiment. To fall short in our reconstruction efforts could have a devastating effect on the stability of the region, causing it to descend into chaos and become a breeding ground for terrorists.

However, I am disappointed that the reconstruction portion of the request was not considered separately from the military component so that Congress could have provided immediate assistance to our troops while having greater opportunity for deliberation and consideration of the longer-term reconstruction proposals and the larger issues of U.S. involvement in Iraq.

Unfortunately, the military improvement and reconstruction efforts come at a high cost, and no one in this chamber should have any question about the impact of this measure on our nation's financial situation. To an already historic deficit projected at $480 billion in fiscal year 2004, we are adding $87 billion. This combination translates into larger interest payments on the national debt and less funding for important domestic priorities such as health care, education, and homeland security. My constituents are fully aware of the impact on our budget; I recently met with a man who has been unemployed for two years who questioned why we are not focusing our spending efforts on job training and other programs to address the nation's unemployment problem. I believe that the costs of this package fall unfairly on American taxpayers, and we must rectify this problem. Consequently, I sent a letter to President Bush asking that he aggressively pursue international cooperation to help defray the costs of reconstruction. Absent a major influx of foreign aid, I requested that he

consider options that would require small sacrifices from those Americans who can most afford them. One possibility would be to reduce a portion of the recent tax cut for the top income tax bracket to generate enough revenue to cover the $87 billion request. This reduction would slightly impact fewer than one million taxpayers, while maintaining the tax cuts for the middle class. Our men and women in uniform have served heroically to safeguard our nation's security, and we must now endure other sacrifices to keep from endangering the economic security of future generations.

What frustrates me most about the current situation is that it was not unforeseen. Many of my colleagues and I cautioned the Bush Administration about the consequences of pursuing military intervention in Iraq without a broad coalition of support. Almost exactly a year ago, I cam to the floor to speak on the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. At that time, I said that I could not vote for it because it lacked a clear mandate that the President seek U.N. Security Council support for military operations in Iraq. I specifically noted that an international coalition would broaden regional support for military intervention and would be essential in promoting a new government in Iraq and undertaking reconstruction efforts. Unfortunately, those words were not heeded, and the onus of reconstruction now falls heavily on our Nation.

The bill before us is a flawed bill, not because of the provisions it contains or the programs that it funds, but because the circumstances that brought us to its consideration could have been different. However, we must not judge this bill based on its history, but on what it can do to shape the future. As Shakespeare wrote, ``What's past is prologue,'' and we cannot allow finger-pointing to obscure the task at hand. Our Nation successfully toppled two oppressive regimes and freed the Afghan and Iraqi people from cruelty, abuse and torture. We bear responsibility in assisting their nations as they transform themselves into successful democratic entities. In so doing, we can also prevent the dire conditions of poverty and political and religious extremism that have led to terrorism and tyrannical regimes throughout the region and the world.

While I will support this measure because our nation must complete what we have started, my vote is by no means an endorsement of the Administration's policies in Iraq, which are severely deficient in accountability, clarity and vision. I know that many of my colleagues share my reservations, and I look forward to the upcoming amendment process as an opportunity to address some of these concerns. I urge the Administration to pay close attention to our debate and recognize that a serious shift in strategy and attitude is needed immediately if we are to avoid having this same discussion again in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Citizens Financial Group on being recognized with both the ``Seven Seals'' and ``Pro Patria'' awards.

In response to the U.S. military actions in Iraq, this Rhode Island business implemented an enhanced military leave policy in February of 2003 that included matched pay, continuance of insurance coverage, job guarantee upon return, and support to employees affected by a family member's call to duty. Due to this comprehensive policy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense awarded Citizens the New Hampshire Committee for the Employee Support of the Guard and Reserve ``Seven Seals'' award, and the Rhode Island Guard and Reserve gave the company its ``Pro Patria'' award. The ``Pro Patria'' award honors the most outstanding employer of reservists.

Citizens Financial Group should be commended for the work they have done to help ensure an employee will not undergo financial or emotional hardships after he or she is called upon to protect our country. It is my hope that other businesses will follow in these noble steps to show much-deserved gratitude for members of the National Guard and Reserves.

I hope our colleagues will join me in congratulating Citizens Financial Group on its achievements.

Mr. Chairman, today we consider providing additional funding for military and reconstruction activities. I am frustrated that we are paying for this request through increased deficit spending, without even considering the options of international loans or other revenue sources that would spread the burden to those who can most afford it. Nonetheless, I believe that the United States, ultimately, has responsibility to follow through on our international commitments.

We must not forget the majority of this bill's funding goes toward ensuring the safety and success of our troops, and they should have all the resources they need to get the job done. Last week, I visited Walter Reed Medical Center and spoke with soldiers whose injuries might have been prevented if they had been driving the armored vehicles funded in this bill.

With regard to the reconstruction component, I am pleased that some of the more controversial requests have been deemed unworthy of emergency funding. The remaining items will improve the safety and self-sufficiency of the Iraqi people.

Unfortunately, in meeting our commitments, we will add $87 billion to an already historic deficit, which translates into larger interest payments on the national debt and less funding for important domestic priorities.

Mr. Chairman, my constituents are fully aware of the impact on our budget. The costs of this package fall unfairly on the American taxpayers, and we must rectify this problem. I know that some of my colleagues share my reservations, and I look forward to the upcoming amendment process as an opportunity to address some of these concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in condemning the gross injustice being perpetrated upon the greatest of American heroes, our disabled veterans.

Due to an antiquated law, more than 700,000 disabled veterans had been unable to receive both their compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and their military retirement pay. We ended this disgraceful treatment for some of our disabled veterans with the passage of last year's Defense Authorization Act. Now, veterans with disability ratings of 60 percent and higher are eligible to receive a special compensation that offsets the egregious tax on disabled veterans. But thousands more are still waiting for relief.

Veterans are the only group of federal retirees who face such a punishing offset, levied against them simply for being disabled. This penalty is simply wrong. The retirees that it affects have already sacrificed too much in service to our country to have to forfeit their VA compensation.

H.R. 303, of which I am a proud cosponsor, is just the first step. This bipartisan legislation would allow retired members of the Armed Services with service-connected disabilities to collect the full veterans' disability compensation to which they are entitled. It guarantees that disabled retirees receive a fair benefit package, and its overwhelming support, has helped bring the issue of concurrent receipt to the forefront of our legislative agenda. Yet even with 370 cosponsors, the Republican leadership refuses to bring the bill to the Floor. We have launched a discharge petition to force H.R. 303 to be considered, and still they block us. There are 203 signatures on the petition, but the Republican leadership has warned its members not to sign on, so it is going to be a fight for the last 15 signatures. I say to you that this is a fight we must win.

Now, there is even talk of redefining what ``disabled veteran'' means. How dare anyone attempt to cheat veterans out of the benefits we promised and they rightly earned? It is unconscionable that Members of our own body are sabotaging attempts to correct an inequity. We must resist any move to restrict veterans' access to healthcare and compensation.

It is reprehensible that a Civil War era law is still robbing our veterans of fair compensation that is rightly theirs, and I call upon my colleagues to fight this embarrassing mistake and restore to our heroes just a small amount of what we owe them.