Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as we commemorate the 60th anniversary of the victory over Japan and the end of World War II in the Pacific Theater, let us not forget the suffering and injustices experienced by prisoners of war (POWs) and innocent civilians who found themselves in the path of the Japanese military.

Thousands of American servicemen in the Pacific Theater were taken prisoner during World War II. Many were subjected to the Bataan Death March, in which the Japanese military forced them to march more than 60 miles

with little food or water. During this torturous trek, hundreds of U.S. soldiers died of dehydration, starvation, and violence. After being transported to Japan, many of these American POWs were handed over to private Japanese companies to toil as slave laborers.

Sadly, American POWs were not the only victims of Japanese military abuse. The list of atrocities committed by the Japanese military is extensive. Some of the more widely known acts of brutality include: death, beheadings, rape and other violent acts, forced labor and marches, and imprisonment during the occupation of Guam and many Asian countries; creation of a biochemical warfare detachment, known infamously as Unit 731 in Mukden, Manchuria, where horrendous experiments on living POWs were conducted; killing of more than 300,000 Chinese men, women, and children and the rape of 20,000 women during the event known as the `Rape of Nanking'; and forced sexual slavery of hundreds of thousands of women from Korea, the Philippines and other countries for Japanese troops.

I acknowledge that H. Res. 360 properly recognizes that, ``Japan is now a free and prosperous democracy, a valued and durable friend based on shared values and mutual interests, and a guarantor against despotism and oppression in that area of the world.'' However, we must not forget the past.

While the Government of Germany has formally apologized to the victims of the Holocaust and has taken great steps to provide financial compensation to the victims, the Government of Japan has refused to fully acknowledge the crimes it committed during World War II, and to provide reparations to its victims. The Government of Japan must reconcile its past in order to become a trusted world leader today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and report on last week's ``Aim for the B'' Congressional Briefing held on July 21st. Chronic Hepatitis B is a serious health concern that is finally receiving much needed attention. Almost 350 million people worldwide have been infected with the hepatitis B virus, with 75 percent of those infected living in Asia. In the United States, approximately 1.25 million people are chronically infected with this life-threatening disease. Asian Pacific Americans have the highest rate of chronic hepatitis B infection of all ethnic groups.

Chronic hepatitis B is extremely dangerous because it can lead to cirrhosis of the liver, liver failure and liver cancer. The hepatitis B virus is transmitted through blood and body fluids, unprotected sex, childbirth and unsterilized needles. Unfortunately, many of those who become infected with the disease do not recognize symptoms until after they have developed significant liver damage.

The ``Aim for the B'' campaign was launched during the week of May 9th of this year through the passage of House and Senate resolutions. I want to applaud my colleagues who supported this resolution for their understanding of the need to focus additional attention and increase awareness of this disease nationwide. Last week's Congressional briefing delved further into the issues of hepatitis B, including the efforts of the Federal Government to combat the spread of hepatitis B and treat those already affected with this disease.

The briefing featured many well-known researchers and advocates in the field. I was pleased to have the opportunity to sit on the panel with Dr. John Ward, the Division of Viral Hepatitis Director at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Dr. Jay

Hoofnagle, Director of the Liver Disease Research Branch at the National Institutes of Health. Their insight into the advances being made by the CDC and NIH painted a picture of a disease that is ``on the run,'' but not yet eradicated. Attendees were also able to hear a personal testimonial from a hepatitis B patient, as well as advocacy efforts being undertaken by the Hepatitis B Foundation, American Liver Foundation, and the Hepatitis Foundation International.

We know that there is hope. We know that there are vaccines and treatments available that were not available 25 years ago. We know that with treatment, patients have a better shot at beating this disease and preventing its progression to liver disease. We also know that there is much work that needs to be done. We need to increase public education about hepatitis B, help infected patients and their physicians identify and manage this disease, raise awareness of the consequences of untreated chronic hepatitis B, and help increase the length and quality of life for those diagnosed with this life-threatening disease. We need to improve state-by-state tracking of trends, incidences and prevalence of chronic hepatitis B. Finally, we need to prioritize this disease as a major health issue in the United States, and to provide national agencies such as the CDC and NIH with the funding they need to increase research and education for chronic hepatitis B.

In closing, I would like to thank the organizers of last week's Congressional briefing for keeping this issue in the forefront of the medical discussion. And I especially want to thank the attendees of the briefing for showing the commitment to beating this disease through education and awareness. This is a call to action that I hope will produce the ultimate result of eradication.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference report on H.R. 6. President Bush and the Republican majority have pushed this legislation on the premise that we need it to solve our energy problems, that we need it to wean ourselves from our dependence on imported oil which poses a threat to our economic and national security.

Sadly, the bill we have before us today fails to do that. Today we import 58 percent of the oil we consume, and projections predict that we will have to import 68 percent to meet demand by 2025. Experts indicate that at best, this bill would only slightly slow that rate of growth of dependence, rather than actually decrease our dependence on imported oil.

We cannot continue to increase our consumption of fossil fuels. By definition, these fuels are finite in supply. They will run out some day, plain and simple. And as long as we continue to rely on them, we are going to be faced with an impending crisis.

The bill gives billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies to encourage oil and gas production, but these will not do much more than high gasoline and natural gas prices already do to stimulate domestic production of fossil fuels. The energy industry is already the most profitable industry in the nation, incentives should not be necessary.

This bill could have really done something to reduce our consumption of oil by increasing fuel economy standards for vehicles, but it fails to do so. Increasing standards is the single biggest step we could have taken to reduce our oil dependency.

This bill could have really done something to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by including a renewable portfolio standard, which would have required the use of sustainable energy sources, but it fails to do so. Instead its subsidies and tax breaks encourage more of the same old thing--finite fossil fuels and nuclear power plants whose waste we do not know what to do with.

Instead of encouraging energy conservation, renewable energy use, and curbs on emissions that damage our environment, the bill creates new exemptions in some of our nation's bedrock environmental laws, like the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

The bill also repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act, which was instituted to protect the interests of consumers. In the wake of Enron, this is the wrong direction to go. And the bill rejects the wishes of State officials by granting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission new authority to approve the location of terminals to handle the imports of liquefied natural gas.

To solve our energy problems in the future and reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy, we need a truly visionary energy policy that employs renewable energy sources and encourages energy efficiency and conservation. This bill does not provide that vision, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, for the fourth time in the 5 years I have been a member of the United States Congress, I will be opposing a flawed Republican bill which would limit damage awards to patients injured by medical malpractice. While Republicans claim their measure would reduce insurance costs for doctors by discouraging frivolous lawsuits--which they blame for driving up insurance premiums and reducing access to health care for patients--the Republicans legislation completely ignores the rate-setting process followed by the insurance industry. Furthermore, a 2002 study by the Congressional Budget Office found that the effect of even a very large reduction in malpractice costs would have a small effect on individual health care premiums.

This bill broadly defines ``medical malpractice action'' to protect HMOs, insurance companies, nursing homes and drug and device manufactures for a broad range of liabilities, including suits by physicians against those companies. Furthermore, the bill caps non- economic awards for pain and suffering of $250,000, and punitive damages at $250,000 or twice economic damages, whichever is greater.

All this measure really does is place legal obstacles on patients injured by wrongful conduct. Under this bill, individuals face time limits that would require an injured person to file health care lawsuits no later than three years after the date of the injury or one year after discovering the alleged malpractice, whichever occurs first. In addition, there are limits to attorney contingency fees, which would potentially force inured persons, faced with medical bills and lost wages, to finance lawsuits they otherwise cannot afford.

Support of tort reform say large million-dollar damage awards in medical liability suits are the reason that the cost of malpractice premium insurance are so high. I believe premium increases represent only one part of the problem facing many doctors throughout the nation and these increases are not necessary linked to damage awards. Even some insurance industry insiders say that recent increases in malpractice premiums have nothing to do with lawsuits or jury awards, and that tort reform will not reduce premiums. Rather, increases have been driven by the insurance underwriting cycle and insurance companies' bad investments.

Mr. Speaker, rather than truly deal with a crisis faced by medical doctors, this bill is simply crafted to benefit the insurance industry at the expense of victims of medical malpractice. Instead of fruitless passing this flawed bill for the 4th time in less than five years, we should be working hard to provide health care to the 45 million Americans who are uninsured today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Small Business Health Fairness Act, H.R. 525. This bill would not only fail to expand health coverage for the uninsured, but would actually reduce health care benefits and coverage for 8 million individuals who would be switched to lower benefit AHP health plans. Only 1 percent-- 600,000 people--of the 45 million uninsured Americans would be provided new coverage by AHPs.

Instead of providing broader access to comprehensive health insurance for the millions of uninsured Americans, H.R. 525 will undermine access to quality, affordable health insurance and may actually increase the ranks of the uninsured. Under current law, the majority of health insurance plans are regulated at the State level. States have enacted a number of protections to ensure the fairness of health insurance coverage for patients. Most States now require insurers to allow direct access to emergency services, independent external appeal of health care claims denials, and access to an adequate range of health professionals. AHPs would be exempt from these requirements, leaving those with AHP coverage with inadequate protection.

Insurers naturally have incentives to select the healthiest individuals or groups that are seeking coverage. State regulations counter this incentive by mandating that certain benefits be covered, and by limiting and defining how policies are to be priced. By exempting AHPs from these State regulations, AHPs would offer less- generous policies that would be attractive to healthier individuals and groups. By permitting AHPs to offer coverage to specific types of employers, the bill allows them to hand pick populations that are better risks and therefore less costly to insure. Under H.R. 525, AHPs would offer different premiums to each member employer, charging lower rates for lower risk persons and charging much higher rates for higher risk persons.

The only restriction on premiums is that differences could not be based on health status. This provision is essentially meaningless because it permits AHPs to accomplish the same goal by varying premiums based on age, sex, race, national origin, or any other factor in the employers' workforce, including claims experience. As a Nation, we have recognized and are committed to eliminating health disparities based on race, ethnicity, and national origin. Why then would we create laws that perpetuate and encourage further health disparities?

Small businesses comprise nearly one-third of the private sector workforce, and are much less likely than large firms to provide health coverage for their employees. Although this is a serious concern, AHPs are not the answer. The Kind/Andrews substitute offers provisions that would address the real health insurance needs of small employers. It would provide small employers the same access to health benefits as Federal employees by establishing a Small Employer Health Benefits Plan, SEHB, similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. It offers coverage to all small employers and their employees to apply for coverage under SEHB. Those working less than full-time would be eligible for pro rata coverage. It would also minimize adverse selection, use State-licenses insurers without preempting State laws, provide a minimum benefit package similar to Federal employees, and provide premium assistance to make employee and employer premiums affordable.

I urge my colleagues to support the Kind/Andrews substitute and oppose the Republican leadership's flawed approach to AHPs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 59 introduced by my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Shelley Berkley, and I commend her for introducing this bill.

The battle for suffrage began in earnest in 1848, when Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton organized a convention in Seneca Falls, NY, to advance women's rights. Their struggle continued for 72 years, until August 18, 1920, when ratification of the 19th amendment to the United States Constitution finally gave women the right to vote.

Like other civil rights campaigns, the fight for suffrage required strong and principled individuals who risked health, wealth, and societal denigration. Susan B. Anthony and her fellow activists were fearless in their efforts to win the right to vote in the 19th century. Their courage inspired a new generation of suffragists, including Carrie Chapment Catt, Maud Wood Park, Lucy Burns, and Alice Paul, and Harriott E. Blatch, who would not allow themselves to be silenced despite harassment and arrest. Their efforts resonated nationwide, and in 1920 they achieved their goal: political equality for women.

We must not forget their struggle or undervalue their achievement. The 19th amendment makes for a more equitable society and for a more truly representative government. In fact, the number of women serving in national, State and local elected office has steadily increased. The 109th Congress has 83 female Members, including House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. Leader Pelosi is a role model for all those aspiring to public service, and I am hopeful and confident that in my lifetime there will be full parity between men and women in this legislative institution.

Commemorating these brave suffragists reminds us of the hard fight for gender equality and the ongoing struggle today. Women continue to face discrimination in the workplace, where women make less money and are promoted less frequently. In government, women, despite great gains, are underrepresented in every branch and at every level.

By passing this resolution, the House not only honors the women who won passage of the 19th amendment, but it also sends a clear message that we are committed to eliminating the inequalities that women face today. I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 59.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to share my thanks to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and the ranking members, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), and their staff for all of the work they have done in producing a bill that we all can support.

I think Members sometimes wish they could say that they sit on a committee that is working well and being productive, and I am one such Member that can say that. Our chairman, the chairman of the subcommittee, and our ranking members have put together a very, very good bill that all of us can be very proud of. It focuses not only on NASA, but also on the productivity of this country.

I was concerned, however, along with many other members of the committee, that a singular focus on manned space exploration was going to drain resources from other parts of NASA's mission. Outstanding scientific work, such as that being done at NASA's Ames Research Center, in fields such as astrobiology, the life sciences, and nanotechnology, was losing out in a battle for resources with short- term acquisitions for exploration systems. In addition, air traffic management and other important aviation and aeronautic programs were being given the short shrift.

I am pleased that the bill enables us to move forward in exploration, science and aviation which are critical not only to manned space exploration but also to other NASA priorities. I hope that this balance will ensure that existing scientific and technical collaborations such as the University Affiliated Research Center collaboration between Ames and the University of California at Santa Cruz and Carnegie Mellon University's West Coast campus at Ames will continue as envisioned.

The bill also brings some rationality to the agency's workforce strategy. The process had appeared to be driven by a desire to shed civil servants solely to reduce the number of employees without much thought about the competencies that would be lost. The workforce strategy required by the bill will ensure the workforce has the appropriate skills to get the job done, and the bill allows the NASA Federal employees unions to participate in the process.

I am grateful that the chairman accepted into the manager's amendment my amendment which extended the bill's moratorium on reduction in force or involuntary separations to make it consistent with Acting Administrator Gregory's testimony to our committee.

I will end by noting that I am pleased that the bill seeks to honor our existing international partnerships on the International Space Station. I am particularly supportive of continuing our partnership in biological research on the International Space Station. I am glad the bill contains language supporting life science work on the space station.

To accomplish this work, the space station will need the centrifuge module, and I am glad the manager's amendment notes that nothing in this bill prevents the centrifuge from flying.

I thank the chairmen, the ranking members and all of the staff.

Mr. Chairman. I rise today to address H.R. 2601, legislation to authorize appropriation for the Department of State for FY '06 and '07. While I firmly support the underlying measure and the essential funding it provides, I opposed final passage to underscore my disappointment over several amendments that were made part of the legislation.

I opposed the Hyde amendment, which will withhold U.S. dues unless the international body adopts a specified list of reforms. Based on the United Nations Reform Act, the Hyde Amendment also requires the U.S. to veto new or expanded peacekeeping missions if the reforms are not implemented. Reforms are necessary, but the Hyde Amendment requires unreasonable timetables for reform and requires punitive action that is counterproductive.

The Rohrabacher amendment also concerned me because it gives the appearance that we support the operations at Guantanamo Bay. I believe that our actions at Guantanamo are causing more harm than good for American interests as it has become one of the most potent propaganda and recruiting tools for terrorists.

Finally, I opposed the Ros-Lehtinen amendment which would have us to stay in Iraq indefinitely. I strongly believe that the American people have been misled into war with Iraq and much of what we have been told about this war has been wrong. It has created even more terrorists in the region. It has not made us more secure. It has made us less secure. It has diminished our standing in the world. It has even compromised our credibility as a defender of human rights.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005. While Congress should be revising the flawed aspects of the PATRIOT Act, we are instead poised to make permanent the provisions that were supposed to sunset at the end of this year.

My fear is that the actions of our government pursuant to the PATRIOT Act amount to nothing short of a taking, not a taking of property, rather of our rights and our liberties. For example, the House Judiciary Committee Democrats have uncovered the following regarding the Act:

It has been used more than 150 times to secretly search an individual's home, with nearly 90 percent of those cases having had nothing to do with terrorism.

It was used against Brandon Mayfield, an innocent Muslim American, to tap his phones, seize his property, copy his computer files, spy on his children, and take his DNA, all without his knowledge.

It has been used to deny, on account of his political beliefs, the admission to the United States of a Swiss citizen and prominent Muslim Scholar to teach at Notre Dame University.

It has been used to unconstitutionally coerce an Internet Service Provider to divulge information about e-mail activity and web surfing on its system, and then to gag that Provider from even disclosing the abuse to the public.

It has been used to charge, detain and prosecute a Muslim student in Idaho for posting Internet website links to objectionable materials, even though the same links were available on the U.S. Government's web site.

These are just a few of the incidents we know of, yet they are enough to raise plenty of concerns in my mind. Because of gag restrictions, we will never know how many times it has been used to obtain reading records from libraries and bookstores, but we do know that libraries have been solicited by the Department of Justice--voluntarily or under threat of the PATRIOT Act--for reader information on more than 200 occasions since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Rather than making the provisions in question permanent, we should be reviewing and amending the most intrusive of these provisions that are subject to the sunset clause such as:

Sec. 215: Secret searches of personal records, including library records. The bill does not provide a standard of individual suspicion so that the court that examines these extraordinary requests can ensure personal privacy is respected, and also falls short by failing to correct the automatic, permanent secrecy order.

Sec. 206: ``Roving'' wiretaps in national security cases without naming a suspect or telephone. The bill does nothing to correct this overbroad provision of the Patriot Act that allows the government to get ``John Doe'' roving wiretaps--wiretaps that fail to specify the target or the device. The bill also does not include any requirement that the government check to make sure its ``roving'' wiretaps are intercepting only the target's conversations.

The Patriot Act originally had sunsets on some provisions so we could reexamine the extraordinary powers that were given to the executive branch, in a calmer atmosphere. Instead we are here today ignoring the more troubling provisions such as: the ``delayed notice'' of a search warrant, the intrusive ``national security letters'' power of the FBI, and the overbroad definition of domestic terrorism.

There is no more difficult task I have as a legislator than balancing the nation's security with our civil liberties, but this task is not a zero sum game. By passing a bill that largely ignores the most serious abuses of the PATRIOT Act, that ignores the abuse of power by the Bush Administration, and which fails to give adequate resources and money to those on the ``front line'' in the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2601, legislation to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. This bill appropriately recognizes the need for the U.S. investment in international democracy and rule of law programs, and it devotes needed resources to raising the standard of living in the developing world.

As chair of the Congressional Ethiopia Caucus, I recently traveled to Ethiopia to learn first-hand the economic, social and political challenges that this developing nation faces. My visit to Ethiopia and my analysis of the country's recent democratic elections reinforce my belief that the State Department has an important and powerful role to play in fostering democratic reforms and respect for human rights. I, therefore, am pleased that H.R. 2601 increases funding for the State Department's Human Rights and Democracy Fund and the National Endowment for Democracy. These two proven programs deserve our support, and if funded at authorized levels, they will contribute to world peace. This foreign relations bill also authorizes funds for U.S. dues to international organizations and UN peacekeeping, including $1.3 billion to bolster peacekeeping over the next two fiscal years.

While I support H.R. 2601, I want to make clear my belief that it does not go as far as it should. H. Con. Res. 172, a resolution authored by my colleague Congresswoman McCollum, provides a blueprint for U.S. foreign assistance to developing nations. This resolution calls on the President, the Secretary of State, and other executive branch officials to provide the necessary resources to reduce poverty by advancing the promotion of democracy. As the world's remaining super power, we can afford to allocate 1 percent of the Federal budget to developing nations, and we must do so. More funding must be appropriated to help alleviate the suffering of 1.3 billion people mired in extreme poverty and disease.

I am also disappointed by passage of the Hyde amendment, which will withhold U.S. dues unless the international body adopts a specified list of reforms. Based on the United Nations Reform Act, the Hyde Amendment also requires the U.S. to veto new or expanded peacekeeping missions if the reforms are not implemented. I do believe reforms are necessary, and base text of H.R. 2601 provides for the necessary reforms. The Hyde Amendment, however, requires unreasonable reforms and sets punitive action that is counterproductive. I join the Ranking Member Lantos in opposing this amendment, and I will work in conference to eliminate its provisions from the conference report.

Mr. Chairman, the funding authorized under this bill is only one, small step in the global effort to end the hunger and malnutrition faced by over 800 million children around the world on a daily basis. As the world's wealthiest nation, we have a moral obligation to be the leading advocate for and contributor to developing nations. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose efforts to pass legislation that will harm the American worker. Republicans are again bringing forward bills that would rollback worker safety regulations under the jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). All four of the bills being voted on today passed the House in the 108th Congress, but the Senate very reasonably did not even hold mark-ups on these bills.

The four bills are coming up notwithstanding the fact that we are at a point in time when workplace safety remains a critical national problem. Almost 6,000 workers a year die due to workplace accidents and another estimated 50,000 to 60,000 die every year due to occupational illnesses. Sadly, the bills on floor today will endanger the lives of even more workers by: making it easier for employers to challenge OSHA citations, unnecessarily expanding the OSHA Review Commission, undermining the enforcement authority of the Secretary of Labor, and punishing OSHA for substantially justified enforcement actions if the agency does not completely prevail.

More specifically, H.R. 739 rolls back OSHA's ability to enforce the law. One of the principle purposes of the Occupational Safety and Health Act is ``to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the nation, safe and healthful working conditions.'' This bill would have the effect of delaying the timely abatement of unsafe working conditions, by encouraging employers to litigate citations rather than correct health and safety hazards.

H.R. 740 is an attempt to stack the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission with Republican nominees by expanding it from three to five members (with the newest members to be appointed by the Bush Administration). The Commission has functioned with three members since its establishment in 1970 and there has never been a demonstrated need for additional commissioners.

H.R. 741 reduces the authority of the Secretary of Labor to issue citations. This bill overturns a unanimous 1991 Supreme Court decision in Martin v. OSHRC, which held that the Labor Department should be given deference in interpreting worker safety laws.

Finally, H.R. 742 would require OSHA to pay attorneys' fees and costs for certain employers in any case in which OSHA did not prevail, regardless of the reason why the agency did not prevail. OSHA would be required to pay even if the agency was substantially justified in bringing the complaint which will have the effect of dissuading OSHA from pursuing many legitimate claims.

Mr. Speaker, since taking office in January 2001, the Bush Administration has turned its back on workers and workplace safety. The Administration started its assault on worker safety soon after taking office by repealing OSHA's ergonomics standard. I view this week's attempt to rollback worker safety regulations as another example of the Administration's misguided priorities.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the subcommittee, on the issue of flight attendant fatigue.

Mr. Chairman, 144 of our colleagues and I recently requested funding in the fiscal year 2006 Transportation-Treasury-HUD appropriations bill to continue studying the growing problem of flight attendant fatigue caused by work schedules that in some cases may provide as little as 5 hours for actual sleep. Sleep experts consistently warn that working long hours with little rest can impair a crew member's decision-making abilities and performance of critical safety duties.

As the chairman knows, the FAA's Civil Aeromedical Institute, or CAMI, is currently completing a study on flight attendant fatigue. While the Congress looks forward to the results of CAMI's study, 145 Members of Congress believe that CAMI may not have either the resources nor the time to complete a truly comprehensive study and that additional funding is necessary to study this life-threatening issue.

Accordingly, I ask the chairman's assistance in expediting the overdue CAMI study and ask him to consider the findings of that report.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his willingness to work with me on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the McGovern-McCollum-Moore amendment to H.R. 3057, the Foreign Operations bill for FY 2006. This amendment recognizes the critical problems that need to be addressed in Colombia.

Six years ago, Plan Colombia was implemented with the goal of reducing the flow of cocaine into the United States and to improve respect for human rights and the rule of law in Colombia. Based on the administration's own target indicators and data, the drug eradication effort in Colombia has been an across-the-board failure.

Plan Colombia has not significantly deterred coca cultivation, curbed cocaine availability, forced price increases or reduced cocaine use.

After 6 years and an investment of more than $4 billion in taxpayer dollars, net coca cultivation in Colombia is only 7 percent below the 1990 level. The total area under coca cultivation is estimated to be 36 percent higher than in 2000. Furthermore, reports indicate that cocaine remains readily available on the U.S. streets. The cocaine and heroine problems in the United States are more acute today than they were 6 years ago with lower prices, higher drug purity, and increased usage.

Tragically, what we have seen in the past 6 years is an increase of human rights abuses, including violations by the army, unchecked government collusion with abusive paramilitary forces and violence against trade union members. We cannot be seen as condoning the ongoing human rights abuses in Colombia. We must be seen the world over as defending human rights. By supporting the McGovern amendment, we would be sending a strong signal to the international community that, yes, the United States does indeed value human rights.

For genuine, lasting and positive changes in Colombia, the Colombian government and Colombian people must take an active role in initiating and sustaining those changes.

Plan Colombia is not working and given the inexcusable ongoing human rights violations and military abuses in Colombia, reducing the allocation for Plan Colombia by $100 million is not only the responsible thing to do with taxpayer dollars, it underscores our Nation's standing as an advocate of human rights. Vote yes on the McGovern amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the courage, spirit and resiliency of refugees around the world and the compassion, generosity and valor of those who have helped them rebuild their lives. The amazing stories of these people are an inspiration to us all.

The lives of refugees are driven by fear of persecution based on race, religion or nationality; or even by membership in a particular social group or political opinion. The United States government plays a unique role in protecting the human rights of current refugees, resolving the conflicts and problems that produce refugees and preventing further refugee crises. Our government must remain a world leader in protecting the human rights of all refugees.

According to statistics from the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, as of December 31, 2004 there are approximately 11.5 million refugees and asylum seekers worldwide. The United States has the capacity and the potential to receive many more refugees: in fiscal year 2004, the refugee ceiling was set at 70,000, while admissions into the United States totaled only 52,875.

I challenge the United States government to ensure a fair process for determining refugee status and to provide physical protection for those seeking asylum. Moreover, the United States should not unnecessarily detain refugee seekers in an attempt to deter them or others from seeking asylum in the United States; such a process is fundamentally contrary to the hope of freedom and democracy that our country represents.

I applaud the United States government for granting refugees basic human rights such as access to work, the means to earn a livelihood and the freedom of movement.

As a representative from California, a State with one of the highest number of refugee arrivals each year, I know there is much yet to be done to protect the rights of refugees.

Mr. Speaker, honoring the courage of refugees requires more than mere praise; we need concrete actions and durable solutions. In their battle against despair, let us be an ally to refugees; let us provide a glimmer of hope; let us be the beacon that America has always symbolized.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of parents and students within my own Silicon district, and from parents and students across this country.

The privacy of high school students across this Nation is compromised by a provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as No Child Left Behind, which requires school districts to provide the personal, private information of students to military recruiters at the risk of losing scarce Federal dollars.

Parents in my district complain to me that their children were being persistently contacted at home by military recruiters. These parents wanted

to know how the military recruiters got their children's personal, confidential information, including home phone numbers and addresses.

My amendment would prohibit the Department of Education from withholding education dollars from school districts that decline to provide private student information to military recruiters. The decision to join the military is a solemn one. Ideally this decision should be made in consultation with people who love and care for the child, not with a government official, however well intentioned, whose very job is to recruit for the military.

As a policymaker and former high school teacher and principal, I am concerned with the increasing pressure faced by schools and school districts due to cuts in the Federal dollars of education. I support the military's right to recruit on every high school campus, but I do not believe the current provision advances our national security or reflects our Nation's respect for individual privacy rights.

Indeed, other Federal privacy statutes explicitly recognize individual privacy rights, particularly those of minors. The Children's On-Line Privacy Act prohibits commercial Web sites or on-line services from releasing personally identifiable information of minors.

Federal agencies are prohibited from divulging personal information without written consent. Blockbuster is prohibited from releasing lists of videos that their customers rent, yet for some reason it is acceptable to force schools to provide military recruiters with personal information of their students.

This violates the trust between schools and students and their parents. Schools should not be in a position to choose between students and Federal funding. More importantly, there is no reason for the Federal Government to interfere with the values and choices made by local school districts and boards.

This amendment closely mirrors legislation I have introduced, bipartisan legislation, cosponsored by 46 of my esteemed colleagues.

This legislation is supported by the National Parents and Teachers Association, the PTA. This legislation has also received 24,537 citizen cosponsors who have signed a petition to indicate their support of my legislation. This includes 13,000 parents and 5,000 teachers from all 50 States who have lined up behind our efforts to secure privacy for our Nation's students.

Opponents of this amendment will tell you that this amendment will hurt military recruiting at a time of dwindling enlistees. What they will not tell you is that in the past 2 years before the passage of this provision, the military exceeded recruiting goals. Clearly, the drop has no relationship with information provided by schools.

Our Nation has the best trained and most powerful Armed Forces in the world, and maintaining our military superiority depends upon effective recruiting. This country also has a proud history of personal rights and privacy protection. I believe we can sustain one while preserving the other.

We must protect the children and the students who represent the future of our country. This includes protecting their privacy.

Just today, The Washington Post ran a story detailing Department of Defense intentions to create a student data base which would include personal information including Social Security numbers, ethnicity, and grade point averages. This is but another egregious attack on the privacy rights of our students. Students have neither the ability to confirm nor correct information in its data base.

Finally, this information is gathered from commercial data brokers and State registries by a third party. I urge my colleagues to send a strong message to the country that the Congress supports privacy rights of our Nation's students and vote for the Honda-Stark amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask to reclaim the balance of my time.

May I reserve the remainder?

All of it?

All 5 minutes have expired?