Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw our colleagues' attention to legislation I have introduced (H.R. 5328) to make it easier for talented, experienced employees of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) facing loss of their jobs later this year to find positions elsewhere in the Federal government.

The need for this legislation is both apparent and pressing. In September 2005, the CRS, a unit of the Library of Congress, announced to 59 support employees that their positions will be eliminated not later than September 30, 2006, by a reduction-in-force (RIF) if necessary. The CRS Director, Daniel Mulhollan, argues that the 59 positions have become unnecessary due to technological advances that have changed the way CRS fulfills its mission, which is to serve Congress.

Several of our colleagues and I share serious concerns about this decision and question the CRS management practices which led to it. Since the announcement, I have personally met with affected employees and others, many of whom suggested, among other things, that CRS has placed insufficient emphasis on training and professional development offering opportunities for advancement. Moreover, given the Library's history in matters involving racial discrimination, many people inside and outside the organization are troubled by the fact that a large majority of the affected employees are women, African-Americans and other minorities.

Without debating the merits or demerits of Director Mulhollan's decision, clearly Congress should do everything reasonably possible to help these dedicated CRS employees to continue their careers elsewhere in the Federal government. It is certainly the compassionate and equitable thing to do; most if not all of the employees have never received an unsatisfactory performance review, and many are sole

breadwinners who have devoted their entire careers to public service. It is also the smart thing to do, from the standpoint of the taxpayer, who has invested in these employees over the years, and who would lose the value of that investment if the employees were to take positions elsewhere. As a former personnel director, I certainly recognize that for any organization, including the Federal government, to maximize its effectiveness, it needs to attract the most talented people it can, invest in those people, and retain them. It makes sense to enable talented employees to transfer their skills to other agencies, if they wish to remain in Federal service and cannot find suitable positions in the Library or CRS.

The legislation which I have introduced would accomplish two things toward that end. First, it would give Library employees who have successfully completed a probationary period in a non-temporary position ``competitive status'' when seeking vacant positions in Executive departments and agencies for which the employees have the required qualifications. Currently, service in the Library, a Legislative-branch agency, does not confer competitive status, leaving Library employees at a disadvantage when competing for vacancies in Executive agencies requiring competitive status. The provision would become effective immediately, and is designed to assist current CRS employees who may wish to apply for positions throughout the government, as well as other CRS or Library employees seeking positions in the future.

Second, the legislation would render Library employees (including the Congressional Research Service) eligible for a program, administered by the Office of Personnel Management for displaced employees in the Executive branch, which provides ``special selection priority'' for employees facing a reduction-in-force. Thus, Library employees, including the CRS personnel facing loss of their jobs later this year, would qualify for priority selection to positions across the Executive branch.

Mr. Speaker, in 1990 Congress enacted similar legislation granting competitive status to employees of the Judicial branch. It made sense then for employees of the Federal courts, and it makes sense for the employees of the Library of Congress today.

Mr. Speaker, my legislation has the support of the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James Billington, and Director Mulhollan, who have assured me that they will do everything possible to identify suitable positions in the Library for the affected employees. I take them at their word and hope their efforts succeed for every employee who wants to continue contributing to the agency's success.

This Congress could not discharge its responsibilities without the support of the employees of the Congressional Research Service and the Library of Congress, who provide unbiased, non-partisan, timely, reliable information to its Members every day. As Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration, which oversees the Library and CRS, I am eager to see this precious asset preserved, and I trust that Library management will do everything within its power to avoid a RIF in 2006 or any other year. In the meantime, H.R. 5328 will make it easier for the CRS employees now facing loss of their jobs to transfer their skills and expertise to other Federal agencies and continue their careers in public service. I urge all Members to join in supporting this urgent legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Acting Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask support of my colleagues for this amendment that I am offering which calls for the Secretary of Defense to include as part of the 2006 update of the Mobility Capability study, a comprehensive analysis of future air lift and sea lift mobility requirements.

This study would examine both the strategic and intratheater mobility requirements with full consideration of all aspects of the national security strategy, and will analyze low, medium, and high risk alternatives.

The new analysis will be delivered to Congress by February 4, 2007.

One would ask why this study is important. There has not been a study that examines our Nation's air lift requirements since prior to 9/11.

Contrary to past mobility studies, the most recent study analyzed only the capabilities of the current programmed airlift fleet, but it did not analyze the Nation's airlift requirements. There is a big difference between studying capabilities and studying requirements when prescribing future airlift force level recommendations.

DOD's definition of a military requirement is an established need justifying the timely allocations of resources to achieve a capability to accomplish approved military objectives, missions or tasks, all called operational requirements. Now translated into layman's terms, this means one cannot effectively allocate resources to achieve a given capability, in this case airlift resources, without first knowing what the requirement is.

In 2001, our airlift fleet requirements were at 54.5 million ton- miles per day. The question that this study asks and seeks to have answered is, what is the quantitative yardstick that describes the required airlift needs. Is 54.5 million ton-miles per day enough airlift? Do we need more? The mobility capability study alone does not give us this needed information.

As we are all aware, there have been significantly more requirements pressed upon our airlift fleet over the past 5 years. The world we live in has changed a great deal. For example, we know our Nation has been attacked by terrorists. We are engaged in an ongoing global war on terrorism. Hurricane Katrina had ravaged the gulf coast region, and we have repeatedly been summoned to help with global humanitarian efforts, particularly natural disasters such as the tsunami and earthquakes. All of these occurrences have called upon our Nation's airlift resources.

Furthermore, what concerns me the most is that there does not appear to be a comprehensive approach to addressing our Nation's future airlift demands.

Last February, the Pentagon released the Quadrennial Defense Review, QDR, the 20-year blueprint of our Defense Department needs and projections. Specifically, the QDR recommended the ability to swiftly defeat two adversaries in overlapping military campaigns with the option of overthrowing a hostile government in one.

However, in the 2001 strategy, the U.S. military was to be capable of conducting operations in four regions abroad, Europe, the Middle East, the Asian littoral and Northeast Asia. But the new plan states that the past 4 years demonstrated the need for U.S. forces to operate around the globe and not only in these four regions.

Whatever that scenario is, Mr. Chairman, clearly we need more air cargo planes, and we know this by experience too. Take the C-17, an air cargo plane, for example. This air cargo plane is being flown over 167 percent over the normal hours scheduled to deliver supplies to the war theaters where most planes cannot land, as well as the many humanitarian missions in which our country is engaged.

Since 9/11/01, the C-17 has flown 59 percent or about 358,000 additional miles more than was originally scheduled. The C-17 has been on the front line of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eighty percent of our airlift missions in these battlefronts are done by the C-17.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, after only 15 years in commission, the C-17 fleet just recently reached its 1 millionth flying hour. The C-17, though, is just one example, but it is an excellent one and an excellent example of how much our Nation is relying on our airlift fleet.

This study will provide a basis for determining the future of our Nation's airlift fleet. This is about providing our military with the tools to succeed, and it is about fiscal responsibility, and most importantly, it is about national security.

I ask my colleagues to support this important amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that this comprehensive analysis is critically needed for our military might, for our strength in doing those things that are asked of us with the airlift cargo; and it is not only fiscally responsible, but it is national security.

I ask support for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my dear friend and colleague, Congressman Mike Honda, who is just a great leader, not only for the great State of California, but for this great Nation. He is our chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and I thank him for convening us here tonight.

It is with great pride and pleasure that I rise as a proud member of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and on behalf of the over 80,000 Asian Pacific Americans who reside in my district in commemoration of the Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. I am so pleased to call him my friend, and all of my Asian friends, and I am here to celebrate with them this great heritage month because they have provided so much to this country.

Since the early 1800s, Asian Pacific Americans have played a significant role in the development of our Nation. They have joined hands with the many who came to our shores in search of opportunity, freedom of expression and adventure to make this country what it is today. Their work has made this country a proud country.

This year marks the centennial celebration of the first wave of Filipino migrants to the United States. In 1906, Filipino workers came to the United States, particularly to Hawaii, and later California, to work in the fields as laborers.

Many Chinese and Japanese laborers who arrived in the mid-19th century were instrumental in the completion of the transcontinental railroad on May 10 of 1869.

These workers and those who followed in their footsteps have thrived in various fields of endeavor through their work ethic and ingenuity. They are proud Americans. They have done extremely, extraordinarily well in showing us what work ethic is all about.

Today, the U.S. Census reports an estimated 14 million or more U.S. residents classify themselves as Asian Pacific Americans or having Asian Pacific origins, and many of whom have made extraordinary contributions to our Nation.

Additionally, the United States Census reports 1.1 million businesses are owned by Asian Pacific Americans; 312,700 military veterans have contributed in protecting our democracy and our democratic ideals around the world. Our Filipino veterans are still waiting for their due benefits, having served in World War II.

Furthermore, 46 percent of total Asian Americans and 23 percent of Pacific Islanders' population works in management, professional and related occupations. I am so pleased to know that they are in our legislatures. They are judges. Of course, they are business people. They are teachers. They have made profound progress and extraordinary contributions to this country.

The figures show that Asian Pacific Americans have attained high levels of education, employment and high median household incomes. However, Mr. Speaker, many Asian Pacific Americans have yet to achieve their American dream. Twenty-three percent of the Asian Pacific population lives in poverty.

Attention needs to be given to Asian Pacific Americans who, because of inadequate skills like my Cambodian constituents, find themselves working just to make ends meet. We must work to provide job training and other community-based programs that will allow all of our citizens to fulfill their potential.

Asian Pacific Americans also face significant health disparities. They account for over half of the 1.4 million chronic hepatitis B cases in the United States, and they also suffer from high rates of diabetes, cervical and liver cancers.

Furthermore, the incidence of HIV/AIDS is on the rise in Asian Pacific women. The work that I do on my HIV/AIDS and my 5K AIDS Walk with various Asian Pacific organizations seeks to address this.

Some progress has been made in addressing Asian Pacific American health issues, the availability of Asian and Pacific Islander cancer education materials; Web tools that provide cancer information materials in Asian and Pacific Islander languages for those with limited English is a good start, but more needs to be done to address access to affordable health care.

For example, 50 percent of Asian Pacific Americans are medically underserved since the cost of health insurance is a major barrier to Asian Pacific Americans who are either self-employed or working for small businesses that do not provide employee-sponsored health coverage.

As we celebrate May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, we must celebrate the legacy, the culture, the rich traditions and achievements of our Asian Pacific Americans, as well as reflect on the challenges faced by their community. This is an excellent opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for all of us here in this House to celebrate these rich cultures, as well as to strive to address the health and education challenges that confront them in our great Nation.

My commendation to all Asian Pacific community groups, especially those in my district, that have worked tirelessly to promote, assist and improve the lives of all Asian Pacific Americans and all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my dear friend, Congressman Mike Honda, for putting together this special order tonight and his outstanding and extraordinary leadership representing Asian American Pacific Islanders across this country and the profound group of people whom I call my sisters and brothers. He is the chairman of our caucus, and I am pleased to be a part that caucus.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, at this time let me thank Chairman Lungren, the subcommittee Chair, as well as the full committee Chair, Chairman King, for accepting this amendment and its modification, along with the ranking member, Congressman Bennie Thompson, for his guidance and advice during the process of all of this.

I am happy that this bill has language that was in a port security bill that I had for the past 2 years that speaks to the multi-level funding for larger port security projects.

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment because I do represent the region that has the largest port complex in the country and the third largest in the world, and it is important that we enhance truck inspection facilities located on trade corridors that lead to port complexes that support a heavy volume of cargo containers.

In 2005, 11.4 million containers entered our country and traveled along our interstate highway system. On average, that is an increase of 500,000 containers annually entering our country. In the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, 80 percent of goods that come into this country from the Pacific rim come through these ports, and 45 percent of containerized goods come through these ports. So, Mr. Chairman, it is important that we recognize the vital components in our efforts to secure these ports, our trade corridors and our communities. It is another layer of security. It is about securing the entire supply chain.

In our ongoing efforts as a Nation to establish and maintain a security infrastructure, this amendment does make sense. Truck inspection facilities have the potential to integrate new technology that will make our supply lines safer as well as more secure and efficient. In short, truck inspection facilities have the potential to be high-tech weight stations. More importantly, this is another tool in the toolbox in ensuring that our ports and supply chains are secure.

Many of you have come out to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and seen the Alameda Corridor. When trucks go down that Alameda Corridor, we have to make sure they are secure and that the goods that are being moved from that point to the point of distribution are safe and secure. This is why this amendment is extremely important.

I will say that while I cannot go on as a cosponsor at this time, given that I would have wanted to, this particular bill is extraordinarily important for us and I support the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is great to have my friend who once served so admirably in the southern California area now being a part and parcel of this bill that is just so vital. He knows, as I know, that our California Highway Patrol commissioner is also amenable to this bill as well.

Mr. Chairman, truck inspection stations will be a consolidation and coordination of seaports, community and trade corridors, and both local and state representatives are all in favor of this. I am very pleased about this important amendment. I thank all of those, the chairmen and the ranking members, for accepting this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am not opposing this amendment because of what the amendment does, but because of what the amendment doesn't do. And what the gentleman's amendment doesn't do is apply the same rule to other types of political entities. That is, it doesn't prohibit the conversion of political funds to personal use after such a political entity has concluded its electoral business. It closes a small loophole, but what we should be talking about in closing all loopholes in this lobbying bill. And so the amendment doesn't go far enough.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican leadership's restrictive procedures for consideration of this bill has shut out all amendments affecting not only this lobbying bill, but the 527 bill as well. So the gentleman's amendment fixes a loophole, which the Republican leadership thinks needs to be plugged--and that is why they allowed the House to consider this amendment today--but

why haven't we applied this same principle to other political entities?

No one should be allowed to siphon off political contributions, and convert those contributions to personal use, irrespective of the type of political organization or entity.

So, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment, not for what it does, but for what it doesn't do in the same manner I oppose the underlying bill, because it doesn't go far enough.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 513, the so-called 527 Reform Act of 2005 and the restriction that they are placing on the first amendment rights of Americans. 527s are named after a section of the Internal Revenue Code that specifies certain political organizations as tax exempt for tax exempt purposes under the Federal law.

Added to the Tax Code in 1975, 527 organizations have been legally recognized as operating entities for over 30 years. The Federal Election Commission has recently implemented additional regulations of these groups, which are subject to rigorous Federal reporting and disclosure requirements. Anyone with a computer can go online and see that millionaire Bob Perry gave $4.5 million to bankroll the Swift Boat Veterans.

How do I know this? 527 organizations regularly submit detailed financial information to the IRS. They have to disclose where they get their money and how they get it. In fact, just last week, a Federal court remanded part of a case back to the FEC to present a more reasoned explanation for its decision that 527 organizations are more effectively regulated through case-by-case adjudication rather than general law.

I believe that FEC should be given a chance to review this matter before further legislation is introduced in this House. The Senate is providing leadership in this area. They set out to do what they wanted to do and that was lobby reform, unlike this House, which is just bringing up this type of legislation to circumvent their lobbying reform bill that they do not have, and downplaying groups that had more voters than ever before in history outside demonstrating their democracy and getting the vote out. This is what the BCRA bill was all about.

I voted for BCRA because it would sever the connection between Members of Congress in raising non-Federal funds, so-called soft money, and to ensure that there were limits on what we did in terms of money. BCRA was necessary to cut the perceived corruption link between Members of Congress, the formation and adoption of Federal policy and soft money.

However, BCRA was not passed to impede legitimate voter registration and Get Out the Vote by those 527 community groups which did just that, but this bill impedes that democratic process. It impedes the 527 organizations.

This bill is not needed, Mr. Speaker. It is very interesting listening to the majority speak in favor of campaign finance reform after they did everything possible to stonewall the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Also interesting is watching the Republicans avoid any discussion about the activities of 501(c)6s and those organizations that have no disclosure requirements, and yet are running television ads designed to directly reelect a Senator from Pennsylvania. Unfair and impartial regulating 527s is a step in the wrong direction for political speech.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put in the Record a statement by the National Review magazine, which is a conservative magazine, and the National Review states, One of the biggest myths about this bill is that it would level the playing field ending the ability of the wealthy to fund propaganda. This is completely false. Wealthy individuals will still be free to say whatever they want and whenever they want. This proposal would end only the ability of individuals of lesser means to pool their money to independently speak out on issues and speak and criticize Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I will include this statement in the Record as follows:

Advocates of this bill have yet to identify the problem

they hope to correct with this misguided proposal. 527s wield

no corruptive influence over parties or candidates, which is

the only constitutional justification for restricting free

expression.

One of the biggest myths about this bill is that it would

``level the playing field,'' ending the ability of the

wealthy to fund ``propaganda.'' This is completely false.

Wealthy individuals would still be free to say whatever they

want whenever they want. The proposal would end only the

ability of individuals of lesser means to pool their money to

independently speak out on issues.

America needs the First Amendment and the ability of

individual citizens to form groups precisely for speech that

is controversial. To suppress views of those we dislike will

inevitably risk suppression of our own.

We who oppose such a proposal want to continue to freely

debate our ideas in the public arena. We want Americans to

hear all sides--and to decide for themselves who's right.

When you were sworn into office, you took an oath to

``support this Constitution.'' We ask you to faithfully

uphold that oath by rejecting H.R. 513, S. 1053, and any

other bill that restricts political free speech.

Sincerely,

Pat Toomey, President, Club for Growth; John Berthoud,

President, National Taxpayers Union; Thomas A. Schatz,

President, Council for Citizens Against Government

Waste; David Keene, Chairman, American Conservative

Union; Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax

Reform; Paul M. Weyrich, National Chairman, Coalitions

for America; Matt Kibbe, CEO and President, Freedom

Works; James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel, James Madison

Center for Free Speech; Bradley A. Smith, Professor of

Law, Capital University Law School, and former

Chairman, Federal Election Commission; Fred Smith,

President, Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Mr. Speaker, unfairly regulating 527s is a step in the wrong direction for political speech. I believe this legislation will have a negative impact on the voter participation bill silencing segments of the population that we need to hear from. Of particular concern is that the fundamental rights and the needs of all Americans including the voices of women, the elderly, and the poor not be left out of the political dialogue just because of the perceived notion that a few millionaires are funding all 527s.

In fact, thousands of Americans gave to 527s through small donations of $25, $50 and the like because they believe, Mr. Speaker, in the message of 527 organizations.

Through the first amendment, Americans are playing an ever increasing role in holding public officials accountable for their actions, through the debate of public policy, and the shaping of this American democracy. Their voices should not be silenced.

In fact, I would like to put in the Record again the statement by Assistant U.S. Attorney General Alice S. Fisher when she stated upon the plea

agreement of Mr. Rudy of his crimes involving illegal favors and lobbying activities which lasted from 1997 to 2004, and she says, ``The American public loses when officials and lobbyists conspire to buy and sell influence in such a corrupt and brazen manner. By his admission in open court today, Mr. Rudy paints a picture of Washington which the American public and law enforcement will simply not tolerate.''

The American public, Mr. Speaker, will not tolerate what is about to happen here with this elimination of 527 organizations, transferring them into 501(c)s, not allowing them to work independently of Members of Congress and having to deal with any congressional campaign committees.

In fact, this bill sharply curtails the ability of individuals and groups to associate in the pursuit of political and policy goals, and I will say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the unjust shade of Federal policy holders, which are us, the Members of Congress, this bill will allow the public to not criticize or even ask for accountability because they want to outlaw those groups who engage in the type of public speech, the public speech that might criticize us or ask for accountability.

This is what they are trying to muffle. They are trying to muffle the voices of the American people who spoke through 527s. They are independent groups. The majority should not be in the business of legislating for partisan gain at the expense of the American people.

I will vote in opposition of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the last speaker, he has a bill that wants to repeal all hard money limits, and this is what this bill is all about, the flow of unregulated amounts of money. This is what the American people do not want, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois for a response.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to respond to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

I would say to the gentleman who just spoke, this is not what we voted for. We did not vote to transfer 527s to 501(c)s. That is dishonesty. I oppose those who say this is an obscene bill, 527s are not obscene.

What they are trying to do now here with this bill would provide each national and State party committee to be free from any limits in spending on behalf of its candidates and the spending would take place at any time for the primary or general elections.

This is the flow of money that the American people are saying take out of campaigns.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that the 527s have been and must always file with the Internal Revenue Service. They have to do quarterly reports. Unlike what has been said, that they do not have disclosure and they do not have reporting, that is not true, and I include for the Record the IRS filing dates so that can be placed in the Record.

Internal Revenue Service--United States Department of the Treasury

Form 8872 Filing Dates (for 2006)

During an election year, a political organization has the

option of filing on either a quarterly or a monthly schedule.

The organization must continue on the same filing schedule

for the entire calendar year.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I come tonight because I am concerned over this Republican Congress that is now speaking about having further campaign reform legislation put before us tomorrow, and I rise tonight to clarify the myths and to speak the truth about the reforms that we have done, the reforms that are not needed, and the reforms that this Republican House is about to undertake.

You would think, Mr. Speaker, that the scandals that are permeating the Congress would be a wake-up call for the majority not to continue their business as usual in terms of running the people's House. Yet, they have introduced H.R. 4975 as a feeble answer to their ethics problems.

Unfortunately, the bill that is going to come before us, called a reform campaign bill, will not only be a bogus bill, but it includes language that restricts the first amendment rights of Americans.

Instead, the majority reveals their ongoing and reckless infatuation by thwarting the constitutional freedom of speech and association rights of concerned citizen groups. Now, we know these groups were under the BCRA law that are called 527s, and these groups, Mr. Speaker, were groups that had never really had a voice in the political process.

In this last election, they came out and they were a very strong force in providing an increasing voter participation, giving voice to the voiceless and becoming more involved in this democracy of ours.

When I hear the Republicans talk about gaping loopholes that they must close, how do you close gaping loopholes when we have a chart that speaks about total U.S. voter turnout? This is not gaping loopholes, for heaven's sake. This is democracy.

In 1990, we had a 105.1 million voter turnout. In the 2000 election year, we had a 110.8 million turnout. In 2004, we had a record-breaking 125.7 million people become involved in this political process. So why are we now trying to pass legislation that merely muffles the mouths and the voices of those who want to take part in this democracy?

When the majority of Democrats and a handful of Republicans voted for this Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, we sought to sever the connections between Federal office holders and the raising of non- Federal money, which is so-called soft money. BCRA, which is the campaign bill, was necessary, Mr. Speaker, to cut the perceived corrupting link between office holders, the formation and adoption of Federal policies, and soft money; and yet the majority is bringing us a bill that is so broad in its application that it stands to severely hamper voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities for civic- minded, nonpartisan organizations. It casts such a wide net that it will ensnare groups whose activities Congress should be promoting, not impeding. This is America. We should be promoting democracy, not impeding it.

By failing to distinguish between groups whose activities are designed to influence the election of clearly identified Federal candidates and those whose sole purpose it is to enhance participation, this legislation imposes too high of a price on election activities.

Now we have heard that the 527s do not have to report. So wrong, Mr. Speaker.

The Internal Revenue Service suggests that during an election year the political organizations have the option of filing on either a quarterly or a monthly schedule, and these organizations must continue on this same filing schedule for the entire calendar year. So it is absurd for them to say that these organizations do not have disclosure and do not file. In the last 6 years, Congress has increased the regulations of independent political committees organized under the section of 527s of the Internal Revenue Code.

Mr. Speaker, we must not allow this legislation to pass this floor. We must continue to allow the American people to have a voice in this democracy. We must continue to have American voices heard.

When the majority of Democrats and a handful of Republicans voted for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, they sought to sever the connection between Federal officeholders and the raising of non-federal money, so called ``soft money.'' BCRA was necessary to cut the perceived corrupting link between officer holders, the formation and adoption of federal policies, and soft money.

The majority's legislation is so broad in its application that it stands to severely hamper voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities of civic minded non-partisan organizations. It casts such a wide net that it will ensnare groups whose activities Congress should be promoting, not impeding. By failing to distinguish between groups whose activities are designed to influence the election of clearly identified Federal candidates and those whose sole purpose is to enhance participation, this legislation imposes too high a price on election activity.

My particular concern is that the fundamental rights and needs of all Americans, including the voices of women, the elderly, and the poor, not be left out of the political dialog merely because of the perceived notion that a few millionaires are funding all 527's. Americans are playing an ever-increasing role in holding public officials accountable for their actions through 1st Amendment protections, public policy debate, and the shaping of American democracy.

The proponents of this bill like to argue that by passing this bill, it will be impossible for wealthy individuals to ``unfairly'' impact elections. Wrong again. Ending 527's will not end the ability of wealthy donors and wealthy corporations to impact elections. They still have a multitude of ways to do so by donating to trade associations like 501(c)(6)'s, many of which have less stringent, not more stringent, reporting requirements than 527's. The majority seems incredibly troubled by the independent voices of concerned citizens, but there is nothing in the law that could stop any individual from financing TV ads on her own. Nevertheless, the real truth is that many 527's are predominantly financed by small donor contributions from individuals who are concerned about holding their elected leaders accountable for failing to address the very issues important to them.

The majority's priorities are misplaced. Without our assistance, few victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will be able to vote in the upcoming elections, wounded war veterans still struggle to obtain adequate health care, and gas prices continue to soar skyward.

The majority should not be in the business of legislating for partisan gain at the expense of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Democrats rolled out a plan for emergency and energy independence by 2020.

Mr. Speaker, as the spring arrives, gas prices are once again on the rise. America's dependence on foreign oil is up to 60 percent. Dependence on foreign sources of energy compromises our national security and makes families and businesses less secure because of high energy costs.

To free America from dependence on foreign oil, Democrats pledge to achieve energy independence for America by 2020 by eliminating reliance on oil from the Middle East and other unstable regions of the world. We will increase production of alternative fuels from America's heartland, including bio-fuels, clean oil, geothermal and fuel cells. We will also promote hybrid technology and enhance efficiency and conservation incentives.

During consideration of an energy bill last year, the Republican majority rejected many of these proposals when they were offered by Democrats. Under a Democratic majority, energy independence would finally become a reality. That is what people want.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 80, my intent was to vote ``yes'' on this, as opposed to ``nay'' on it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I rise today to ask my colleagues to support the amendment that I have offered to H.R. 4939, which is the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror and Hurricane Recovery.

Mr. Chairman, I have a bill that is going through the normal process that will ask for $50 million through EAC. But this is an emergency bill and it is an emergency with those who are down in those gulf coast States who are looking for some relief in their elections that are upcoming.

My amendment is a simple one. It merely gives an additional $50 million to FEMA so that they can repair and replace the election infrastructure in the States affected by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.

On August 29, 2005, the Nation and the world watched in horror as the Gulf States were hit by one of the worst hurricanes in this Nation's history. Hurricane Katrina destroyed life in the Gulf States as we know it. And to our dismay, a few weeks later, Hurricane Rita cut a path of devastation along the Texas-Louisiana coast.

The residents of the Gulf States have witnessed entire towns and cities destroyed in the face of Hurricane Katrina and Rita. In some locations these hurricanes wiped out the entire infrastructure necessary for citizens to educate their children, shop for necessities, and to exercise their right to vote. This is what this emergency bill is all about, allowing the election infrastructure to be placed there to give people the right to vote, because it may be years, Mr. Chairman, before the Gulf States start to resemble the vibrant region of the country which they were known to have before these storms.

And it takes time, Mr. Chairman, to build schools and shopping centers; but when it comes to voting, time is of the essence. The most affected State, Louisiana, will be holding elections in just weeks, along with Mississippi and Alabama, which have scheduled primaries in June.

Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from the Secretaries of State of those States urging us to pass this emergency $50 million and to ask FEMA to provide this. FEMA has denied them before to get this election infrastructure put in place. This bill will do just that.

My bill will add an additional $50 million to FEMA under the Stafford Act. It is my intent that FEMA directs these funds to the States affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to rebuild the necessary infrastructure to conduct Federal elections. As the ranking member on the Committee on House Administration, I have that oversight, and I am urging this amendment to be passed.

Voter registration lists need to be reestablished, sometimes even recreated from scratch; and destroyed polling stations must be reconstructed and made fully accessible to those with disabilities. With this additional money, FEMA will not have to take money away from rebuilding schools and bridges and hospitals and other important reconstruction projects in order to get the election process back up and running in the gulf coast States in time for Federal elections in the coming weeks. And this is not a blank check, Mr. Chairman. The States would have to submit proposals with detailed plans before receiving funds.

Mr. Chairman, I am urging that we do this in light of the fact that FEMA has not, and denied these Secretaries of State the due process of getting these election infrastructures put in place. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita nearly destroyed those Gulf States. Months later, the rippling effect is still being felt by the Nation.

This Nation must provide disaster relief funds to supplement State and local efforts with their efforts to restore and replace supplies, material and equipment so that election officials can conduct credible elections.

We talk about democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need our democracy right here for those who wish to vote and want to vote in the upcoming elections to do that. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

National Association

of Secretaries of State,

Washington, DC, February 6, 2006.

Hon. Susan M. Collins, Chair

Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,

Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security and

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Peter King, Chair

Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,

Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Trent Lott, Chair

Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,

Ranking Member, Committee on Rules and Administration, U.S.

Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Vernon Ehlers, Chair

Mr. Chairman, as much as I hate to disagree with the gentleman from Kentucky, this is not an earmark, nor has FEMA submitted the requisite amount of money that is required for the election infrastructure. They have approved $1 million, but they have given no money; and, in fact, the Secretaries of State have indicated that FEMA has refused and denied them any money at all. So what I am simply asking is that given that this is an emergency to take care of the hurricanes, that we provide the funding for that infrastructure to be placed.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Ms. Millender-McDonald

Amendment No. 38: Page 59, line 1, insert ``(increased by

$50,000,000)'' after the dollar figure.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses one of the most critical needs facing our men and women returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is accessible and reliable prosthetic and orthotic care for our veterans.

Like no war before, the war in Iraq has seen unprecedented numbers of injuries due to surprise bomb attacks.

And like no other war before, troops are often surviving those attacks, though many of them lose limbs. This bill creates new demands and challenges for our health care system that we must provide for our returning men and women. In addition, 20 percent of our practitioners will be retiring over the next 10 to 20 years, a further need for training.

My amendment today provides $20 million to expand the U.S. training capacity for prosthetics and orthotics to the U.S. schools accredited by the National Commission on Orthotic and Prosthetic Education.

This expansion will dramatically improve services for the Nation's military amputees and orthopedically disabled returning from the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The need to provide more orthotic and prosthetic practitioners is compelling. The demand for orthotic and prosthetic provider services is expected to increase by 25 percent for orthotic care and 47 percent for prosthetic care by 2020. At present, only 200 to 225 new practitioners are trained each year in the United States.

On a broader scale, my amendment is an excellent investment in a health field that will continue to grow. For example, over 1.2 million individuals live with limb loss/absence in the United States.

Annually, physicians perform over 185,000 amputations in the United States at about 507 a day. The number of amputations is expected to rise due to devastating complications of diabetes. The growing need for rehabilitation practitioners well trained in the various disciplines of rehabilitation will continue to be a growing trend.

Finally, this funding will be an investment in our veterans hospitals across the country.

I ask, Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues support this important amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 350, authorizing the use of the Capitol rotunda for the days of remembrance ceremony on April 27 of this year. As in the past, Congress has always passed this concurrent resolution for the use of the Capitol rotunda as it is the sacred location of America's historic ceremonies.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) for introducing this legislation, as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), my chairman, and California's Mr. Lantos, my friend, for cosponsoring this bill with me.

This event will mark our country's annual commemoration of the victims of the Holocaust. As we have done nearly every year since 1979, Congress will use this historic rotunda location to reflect on the Holocaust, one of the most painful moments in our world's history.

In 1980, Congress created the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, which oversees the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and organizes the annual days of remembrance. These efforts were established by Congress to permanently honor the victims of the Holocaust. During the week of April 23, similar observances of such Holocaust remembrance days will take place around our Nation. The days of remembrance provides Americans of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds the opportunity to reflect on the Holocaust, remind our Nation of the victims who perished, and strengthen our commitment to human rights and democracy.

Each year, the days of remembrance observes a specific theme, which highlights different events of the Holocaust. This year's theme will be commemorated in the title of ``Legacies of Justice'' in honor of the courage of those who testified during the trials of Nazi war criminals.

This year marks the 60th anniversary of these Nuremberg trials, which brought to justice the unfathomable crimes committed during the Holocaust.

The International Military Tribunal held at Nuremberg, Germany, attempted to seek justice for the millions of murders, wrongful imprisonments, tortures, rapes, theft and destruction that took place during the Holocaust. The tribunal was created to bring judgment for the war crimes committed in the course of the most massive conflict the world has ever known. Six decades after IMT, the body of international law that addresses crimes against humanity has grown dramatically and relies significantly on the framework and legal standards established at Nuremberg.

In addition to honoring this watershed moment in international justice, this year's theme pays tribute to the numerous advocates who tirelessly worked for the cause of justice today. Every human being deserves to be treated with dignity, Mr. Speaker. We commend these individuals who continue to vigorously pursue justice for current victims of hatred and inhumanity. We must be reminded that such tragedies should never be permitted to occur again.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of this concurrent resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution that commemorates those victims of the Holocaust.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, according to recent reports, 46 percent of all U.S. undergraduates are enrolled in a community college. Community college is an important alternative for our students, especially minority students. Over 47 percent of African

American undergraduates, 56 percent of Hispanic undergraduates, 48 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander undergraduates, and 57 percent of Native American undergraduates are enrolled in community colleges.

Why do community colleges serve an increasingly vital role to the students in our districts?

For many students, tuition to a 4-year college or university is prohibitively expensive. Community college tuition is at least one- tenth that of 4-year colleges and often maintain transfer relationships with nearby colleges and universities.

For others, financial constraints require students to work long hours at one or more full-time jobs while attending school. Community colleges provide more lenient enrollment requirements that allow students to attend school around their work schedules and attain a degree, albeit in longer than the traditional 4-year time frame.

For still others, community college offers students the ability to obtain technical and vocational training while enrolled in academic courses for credit toward an associate degree.

In short, community colleges offer the flexibility and accessibility that are essential to ensuring that all of our students, not just the ones who are able to attend 4-year colleges and universities, obtain postsecondary educations.

Public community colleges receive 40 percent of their revenue from State funds and 5 percent from Federal funds. Over 37 percent of community college students receive financial aid of some kind.

These funding sources are dependent on the school maintaining its accreditation. It would then make sense that any attempts to revoke accreditation would be highly regulated and easily appealed.

This is not the case in my district. Compton Community College is in grave danger of losing its accreditation. One would think that school officials would have received fair and adequate notice of the deficiencies that may lead to its loss of accreditation. One would think that a thorough due process standard would apply to any attempts to appeal a decision to revoke accreditation. One would think that the community at large would be able to attend a public hearing where the fate of their community treasure would be decided. One would think all of these things, but the fact is that none of these standards apply.

That is why I have introduced a bill that will strengthen the due process available to community colleges nationwide that face threats of accreditation revocation.

Community colleges are community treasures. Accreditation boards should be doing all they can to keep community colleges alive, rather than taking steps to summarily cement their failure. In the event that a determination is made to revoke accreditation, every school in this Nation should have access to a full and fair review of their cases and every member of the community should have the ability to witness and participate in the process. This bill will strengthen those rights.

Electing to close down a community college, which is what loss of accreditation effectively means, is a serious decision and it must be accompanied by serious oversight. That is what this bill will put in place.

Mr. Speaker, heart disease and stroke, the largest threats to women's lives are largely preventable.

Prevention is easy: eating a healthy diet, exercising frequently, refraining from smoking, and maintaining weight, cholesterol and blood pressure are all ways that women can protect themselves against heart disease and stroke which kill 1 in 2.4 women annually.

But most women in the United States do not know that they are at a higher risk for deadly heart attacks, hypertension, and strokes than they are for any other disease.

According to an American Heart Association survey, only 57 percent of American women know that heart disease is the leading killer of women. The women who have yet to learn of these deadly diseases are the women who are at the greatest risk.

Only 38 percent of African-American women and 42 percent of Latina women know about the dangers posed by heart disease and stroke.

All women need this knowledge. They need to know that they are at risk and they need to know there is a causal connection between the lifestyle choices they make and their personal risk for death by heart disease and stroke.

That is why I am here to announce my firm commitment to National Heart Month and that is why I co-sponsor forward thinking legislation like the HEART for Women Act that will contribute to heightened awareness.

Efforts like National Heart Month, the American Heart Association's ``Go Red for Women'' initiative, and the National Institutes of Health's ``The Heart Truth'' awareness campaign all contribute to a greater awareness among women about the dangers posed by heart disease and stroke.

The more women know about how their everyday choices affect their long-term health, the better those choices will be. This information is a part of a national movement that will save women's lives.

We must do our part to ensure that every woman in our communities, especially the ones who are at the greatest risk, is touched by these campaigns. We encourage all women to visit their doctors and talk about the many positive steps they can take towards heart disease prevention.

Knowledge is power and we need to ensure that outreach efforts are made to African-American and Latina communities so that they can share in this power.

National Heart Month is timely, it is necessary, and the information it seeks to impart is a matter of life and death.