Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission said that a quantity of highly enriched uranium about the size of a grapefruit, if it were used to make a bomb that could be put in a van that could be driven into lower Manhattan, could level lower Manhattan by a nuclear weapon.

Where you would you find this enriched uranium?

There are 106 reactors in the former Soviet Union that use highly enriched uranium. Forty-two of them are being converted to the kind of uranium that can't be used to make a bomb. Sixty-four of them are still in operation today. Sixty-four of them are still a potential source of that bomb that could level lower Manhattan.

We had an amendment that said for every $1,000 we are going to spend on the ballistic missile defense program, let us take $3 out of every $1,000 and spend it on cleaning up and shutting down those 64 reactors in the former Soviet Union. Do you think we should or not?

This House won't get to make that decision because this amendment is not in order. If you ever need a reason to oppose this rule, there is your reason.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.

In fact, I rise to support the amendment. The asymmetric threats that are based by our country today require a complex set of skills to successfully address those threats. Certainly the men and women of our Special Forces possess many of those skills. They do a fabulous job.

And it is our job to try to assist them and facilitate them in their work. The gentleman from Indiana's amendment, I think, gives these American heroes one more tool, one more opportunity to excel.

Asymmetric warfare certainly involves the use of force and the use of strategy on the battlefield. But it also solves intimate knowledge of sociology, language, history, physics, and perhaps other disciplines that go well beyond that.

Our ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Skelton, has been a leading voice for military education throughout his time here. We think this amendment is consistent with Mr. Skelton's devotion to that principle.

We want our Special Forces men and women not simply to be physically prepared, technologically armed and equipped but to have the intellectual tools necessary to do their job and defend the country. We believe this amendment serves those values well. We are pleased to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed three votes on May 9th, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 1499 (the Heroes Earned Retirement Opportunities Act); ``yes'' on H.R. 5037 (the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act) and ``yes'' on H.R. 3829 (the Jack C. Montgomery Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center Designation Act).

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for his very gracious yielding of time.

I rise in support of a piece of legislation that I think deserves the support of each Member of this body. I thank Chairman Hunter and Mr. Skelton and the various subcommittee chairmen and members for their hard work on this bill.

My reasons for supporting this bill are both local and global. Locally, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Saxton, chairman of our subcommittee, for his excellent work, along with Mr. LoBiondo, for inserting language which will put a stop to what I believe is an unwise and poorly thought out plan to dispose of the residue of VX nerve agent in the Delaware River adjoining our districts. I thank them for their leadership on that.

More globally, the role of the Armed Forces of the United States is to act in conjunction with our diplomatic and other leaders to shape the world in which we live so it is safer for our people.

And I think by any measure, this bill measures up to that very high standard. Most importantly, I am proud to support this bill because it significantly exceeds the pay increase for the people in uniform that was originally proposed.

The original proposal under the President's budget was for a 2.2 percent increase in the base pay of those who serve our country. I commend both the majority and minority for finding the right ways to alter that request and increase it to 2.7 percent, far more in line with pay raises being received by people in the private sector in lines of work that are obviously less risky and stressful for the defense of our country.

I also believe that this bill wisely invests in the information technologies and the intelligence gathering technologies that will serve us well in dealing with the asymmetric threats that our country faces and will surely face in the years ahead. I think this is a very positive foundation for the enactment of this bill.

I will say that I hope that the Rules Committee finds it within its purview to permit the full House to debate some other measures about shaping the environment in which we live, with specific reference to the question of limiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. There is an amendment presently before the Rules Committee which speaks to that issue, which I would urge the Rules Committee to adopt so that we can have an argument about the best way to shape the future in which we find ourselves.

But I will say this. There is unanimity that the best way to shape that future is to recruit, retain, reward, equip and take care of the brave Americans who step forward to serve this country and their families. I am very pleased that this has not become a partisan issue, that Members on both sides of the aisle have worked very hard to try to a achieve that promise, the recognition of that promise for the people who serve.

So I am proud to support this bill because of what it does for the anonymous young Americans whose names we do not know usually, until something terrible happens to them. I hope that we never learn their names if that is the reason that we would hear them.

But what they will learn from us is that their compensation, the care for their families will improve as a result of this bill that we support today.

Mr. Chairman, even though we are not in opposition, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it surprised me to know, a little over a year ago to find that rather significant quantities of chemical weapons and the residue of chemical weapons had been dumped off the Atlantic coast at 19 different sites.

Now, it is important to understand that this dumping took place before an international treaty prohibited such dumping, so the United States was not in violation of any of its international obligations. And it is important to understand that much of this dumping took place at a time when our own Federal and State laws were either lax or nonexistent with respect to the handling of such materials.

The purpose of my amendment is most definitely not to point out any wrongdoing by the Department of Defense or the services. However, it is the purpose of my amendment to do something about the problem and finding out about the scope of the problem. We are talking here about arsenic, mustard gas, other very serious and very lethal substances which have been disposed of off of our coast over a period which dates back as far as World War I and went into the early part of the 1970s.

Now, what to do about this question requires a calm, factual analysis. Frankly, there would be one reaction that would say, well, we should just go find where the stuff is and dig it up and do something with it. I am not an expert in this field, but I am enough of an expert to know that that kind of hasty reaction might do a lot more harm than good. So the bill already contains some extensive reporting requirements which requires the Department of Defense to tell us where such dump sites are, how long these various chemical weapons and residues have been there.

My amendment adds one more requirement. It calls for the Department of Defense to do an epidemiological study of the impact, if any, on human health that has resulted from the disposal of these weapons over the years. The amendment does not prescribe a particular method of the study. It does not limit or expand any of the areas of inquiry.

It says to the Department of Defense, use your best scientific judgment and produce for us epidemiological studies that will answer the question as to whether there has been any measurable adverse impact on human health as a result of these dumping practices that took place from the early part of the 20th century until the 1970s.

The purpose of this study would then be to give us the facts that we need to determine the best course of action to protect human health.

Now, that may be to simply leave the status quo as it is. It may be to enact some measures that would preclude people from going to these areas of the sea. It may necessitate some removal. I think it is very important though that we approach this problem based upon the best scientific evidence of the impact on human health and not based upon any reaction that is based upon fear or ignorance.

So I would ask that the Members of the House support this amendment so that we may get these facts in front of us and deal with disposing of any threat to humanity that may exist.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

If the gentleman would yield, I would actually prefer that he rephrase that so that the South Carolinians visit the New Jersey coast, which is obviously a superior vacation spot.

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

Madam Chairman, on behalf of my friend from California, I offer her amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield as much time as she should consume to the author of the amendment, my friend from California.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed three votes on May 4th, 2006 because I had minor surgery. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on the Sanchez amendment which prohibits the current Customs and Border Protection (CBP) practice of granting expedited clearance to Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) members that have not had their security plans physically reviewed by CBP; ``yes'' on the Motion to Recommit which would require that 100% of shipping containers be scanned and sealed using the best available technology before being loaded onto ships destined for the United States; and ``yes'' on H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act.

Mr. Speaker, as you may know, this morning, the democratically elected president of Taiwan, Mr. Chen Shui-bian finally received permission to stop in Anchorage--but not spend the night--on his way to South America. This is quite a change in plans for President Chen, who had hoped to meet with Members of Congress in New York on his way to Paraguay and Costa Rica, but whose trip was delayed for a day because the administration at first refused even this brief stopover. If you have been following this case, you would probably agree with me that this is no way to treat the democratically elected president of one of our staunchest allies in the Pacific.

There are no laws or regulations that prevent leaders from Taiwan visiting the United States, but simply a policy of the administration that forbids President Chen and other Taiwanese officials from officially visiting the United States. What is the source of this restriction? Concern that the Chinese government will be displeased by any welcome of a Taiwanese official on our soil. However, this most recent self-imposed restriction goes even further than the previous policy I have spoken against.

Last week, the Chinese urged us NOT to allow President Chen to land in the United States at all. I suppose that we can therefore view this Alaskan stop as a victory for U.S. sovereignty and relations with Taiwan. However, in the past President Chen has been allowed stops in Los Angeles, Houston, and New York. The final agreement allowed him to touch down and refuel in Alaska, but not even get off the plane--what an insult to a friend and partner of the U.S.A.

I understand that President Chen will be allowed to pass through Honolulu, HI, next week on his way home from South America. I mean no disrespect to the fine States of Hawaii and Alaska, but the symbolism of keeping President Chen as far away from Washington, DC, as possible is unmistakable.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is no way to treat the elected president of one of our fellow democracies which happens to be one of our best friends in the region.

Last month we invited the unelected leader of China to the White House. We presented with a 21 gun salute, and laid out the red carpet for him. But the democratically elected President of Taiwan we do not even let set foot on U.S. soil.

What is wrong with this picture?

I believe that we should work towards lifting all restrictions on high level visits from Taiwan including the President. This would have several benefits for both the United States and our friend Taiwan. First, we would for once and for all eradicate the necessity of complex, lengthy and, truly, humiliating-for-Taiwan negotiations about where and when President Chen would be able to refuel or travel in the United States. Secondly, being able to hear first-hand from Taiwanese officials would promote a balanced understanding of both sides of the Taiwan Strait issue for Congress, the Administration and the American public. Thirdly, we would reduce the ability of Beijing to politicize our valid relations with Taiwan. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we would extend to the President of Taiwan--and thus to the people of Taiwan--the respect and dignity they deserve.

Next week, when President Chen travels home to Taiwan, I hope the administration will change its plans and allow President Chen to make a stopover in New York as he initially planned.

It is my sincere belief that the United States needs to do a better job in nurturing and protecting the fragile democracy in Taiwan. We can do that by communicating directly with President Chen about how he sees the role of his country in promoting democracy around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding, and I rise in support of his amendment.

I am one of the Members of the minority party that wanted to vote to move this bill forward, and I said when I did there were things we needed to fix. Well, this is one of them, and voting for Mr. Miller's amendment is a great way to tell the conferees to fix it.

ExxonMobil made the highest profit in the history of corporate America. What a lot of people don't know about it is that in 2005, ExxonMobil's pension plan was only 72 percent funded. For every $100 they needed for pensions, they only had $72. They did, however, find the money to pay a $98 million pension payment to their departing CEO.

Now, this just doesn't seem right. A pension plan that is badly underfunded should not be making a huge payout of that description. So the majority set out to do something about it, and they did. Here is what the majority did. They said that if a plan is less than 80 percent funded, then the workers might have to give something up. They might have to give up their cost-of-living adjustment, they might have to give up the right to a lump sum payment when they retire. Just sort of spread the pain around. But the House provision also says that as long as the plan is at least 60 percent funded, you can do what was done for the CEO of ExxonMobil and pay him the Moon and the sky.

Think about that for a minute. It was almost as if this proposal was written with this gentleman in mind, because the Exxon plan was 72 percent funded in 2005. That means that it was low enough that you could go to the rank-and-file and restrict and reduce their pension benefits but high enough that you could still make the $98 million jackpot payment to the departing CEO. This is indefensible.

The Senate did something very different. The Senate said that what is good for the captain is good for the crew and vice versa. They listened to the President's admonition, and they have a provision that has a more precise and fair measure of equality. It says that if you are in a position where employee benefits have to be in some way restrained, and, by the way, those restraints are much less severe than those in the House bill, then so must there be restrictions on the executive.

What would have happened if the provision that Mr. Miller supports and this House ought to support applied to ExxonMobil? Here is what would have happened: they would have said to the departing CEO: We are sorry. Because we haven't taken our record high profit and made our pension fund fully funded, you can't get your $98 million. So until the people who worked in the refineries and drove the trucks and put out the payroll and did all the things the rank-and-file does, until their pensions are taken care of, yours can't be either.

This is supposed to be a Congress that follows the principles of family values. In my family, pain is equally shared. As a matter of fact, it is not equally shared. Those who are strongest and most able bear more pain than those who are weakest and least able. This is a distorted version of those values.

So Mr. Miller is asking for simple equality. He is reflecting a provision that nearly a unanimous Senate supported. So should we. Vote ``yes'' for

Mr. Miller's proposal, and bring back some sanity and justice to this system.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, there are many different views in the House as to how we should prosecute the war effort in Iraq. There are many different views as to

what we should do next. But I believe there is only one view about the constitutional responsibility of this branch of government, and that is that we have the solemn and grave responsibility of oversight.

It is our job on behalf of our constituents to ask questions about the direction, the efficacy, and the future of American policy in Iraq. In order to appropriately answer those questions, it is important that certain facts be adduced and be available to the Members on a regular basis. Because of the sensitive nature of those facts, it is important that the facts be available on a classified basis so that those who are prosecuting the war and the related intelligence activities are not compromised in any way.

The purpose of my amendment is to serve the twin goals of promoting fact-based oversight while maintaining the confidentiality and security of sources and methods of intelligence gathering.

My amendment says this: on a quarterly basis, the relevant intelligence authorities would be responsible for producing for the House a classified report that would set forth the best intelligence estimates as to the number of resistance fighters in Iraq. These categories would be broken down according to the various sources of the disruption and violence that we are seeing: former regime elements, insurgents from outside of the country, groups associated with terrorist organizations around the world, and so forth.

I am not suggesting that the only metric of the success of our policy would be the diminution of such forces, but I am suggesting that a critical metric of the success or failure would be the metric of that reduction. Similarly, if we are having trouble pinpointing the number in each category, that alone is a relevant fact that would help us understand the nature of the problem that we face and the nature of remedies to those problems.

So this report would produce an important metric for review by the Members as to the progress or lack thereof with respect to defeating the resistance in Iraq.

I want to reemphasize that this report is quarterly and it is classified. This would be handled much in the same way that the intelligence budget is handled, where Members who have properly executed the proper oath would have access to the information on a quarterly basis, would have the opportunity to review it, would be bound by the appropriate rules of confidentiality in discussing what they have seen, but would be able to form a more factual basis for an evaluation of the success or lack thereof of our policies in Iraq.

Again, I believe that this amendment serves the many different views we have with the prosecution of this policy in Iraq. For those who would call for an expeditious withdrawal, for those who would call for staying the course, for all those in between, this would be fact-based information that I think would enrich our debate and further advance our constitutional responsibility of oversight.

Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully urge adoption of the amendment, and I thank you for this opportunity to explain it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Michigan and my friend from California for their cooperation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons that the Spratt substitute is a superior alternative to the base bill, but I think among the most important reasons is the basic credibility and honesty of the Spratt alternative when it comes to the foreign entanglement issues our country finds itself faced with today.

The base bill essentially assumes that the conflict in Iraq will wind down very precipitously and require almost no resources in the coming fiscal years. I hope that is true, but I think it is wildly imprudent and recklessly irresponsible to build a budget on that assumption.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I also know that the Spratt alternative, by forgoing the reckless tax cuts of the majority's version, gives us the flexibility and resources to meet our true obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Reclaiming my time, the Spratt alternative, frankly, leaves room for the supplementals that would be necessary, because it does not opt for fiscally reckless tax cuts that have put the country in a position where it is borrowing $25 for every $100 that it spends.

It is true, as the chairman points out, that the Spratt alternative doesn't lay out the true costs of this adventure in Iraq. But it is also true that the supplementals that are inevitably coming, inevitably, that there are resources for those supplementals because of what Mr. Spratt has done, and there are not resources beyond simply expanding the deficit because of what the majority has done.

Whether one agrees with the policy in Iraq or disagrees with the policy in Iraq, the reality is we have to pay for it. To put on the floor a budget that doesn't pay for it and then takes up resources that could be used in a supplemental and soaks them up for the majority's worship at the altar of tax cuts for the wealthy, I think is irresponsibility beyond compare.

There are a lot of debates one can have about the question of Iraq, but the debate we cannot have is whether we have to pay for what we are doing. The majority has put us in a position where we will only pay for it by borrowing money. Mr. Spratt has put us in a position where we can follow a more rational path.

I urge adoption of the Spratt alternative.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps instead of the rhetoric that the gentleman from Iowa ought to check is the rhetoric that refuses to ever consider scaling back the size of the sacred cow tax cut to meet the honest obligations that this government has to those men and women that he invoked just a minute ago.

The reality is there will be at least one supplemental on this floor; the reality is it is not accounted for in the underlying resolution; and the reality is that, as far as I can see from their past behavior, the majority would not even consider scaling back the size or scope of the tax cut in order to finance that supplemental.

Now, I would be thrilled to hear the chairman correct any of those three assumptions, but I assume that they are accurate. Or, Mr. Chairman, I would yield to you. Are any of my three assumptions inaccurate?

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Reclaiming my time, is that amount sufficient to meet the supplemental need, do you think? Apparently not.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and ranking member for yielding.

I appreciate the comment he just made, but the debate here really is not about whether the law should authorize hybrid plans or cash balance plans. The issue is how should the law authorize those plans and what kinds of protections should be included for pensioners and workers.

I think Mr. Miller's approach in this motion to instruct takes us down the right road, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and support it.

There are three issues that we have to resolve here. The first is what steps should be taken to prevent the wearing away of benefits for workers that have started in a pension plan and then find themselves in a different position because of a hybrid plan being adopted.

Mr. Miller's approach I think uses the most conservative assumptions and therefore the fairest assumptions for those workers to make sure that they will not lose benefits.

The second question that has to be addressed is what are the conditions under which a conversion will be treated as legal. In other words, if an employer has a traditional pension plan today and he or she wants to switch that plan to a hybrid plan, what are the ground rules for a fair conversion. I think Mr. Miller's approach is the fair and just one in that regard as well.

The third question which is raised in neither bill, but which I hope the conference could at least touch on, is what about conversions that have already taken place, and what should the ground rules be for those with respect to any lingering issues that may have happened with respect to them.

Chairman McKeon I think is right, there does need to be a recognition of the proper place of hybrid plans in the defined benefit world. I think the House and Senate agree that is the case.

The issue, though, as Mr. Miller raises, is what are the proper rules to ensure fairness in those hybrid plans. I think Mr. Miller takes the proper approach, and so I urge a ``yes'' vote on this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, and urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on this important piece of legislation. I commend Chairman Hyde and my fellow New Jerseyans, African Subcommittee Chairman Chris Smith and Ranking Member Donald Payne for bringing this bill to the floor and helping keep our focus on the terrible crisis in Darfur and humanitarian needs in Sudan.

Three years ago, the people of Sudan began a bloody civil war, with two rebel groups in the South rising up against the government in Khartoum. The response from the Sudanese government was swift and brutal, and its aerial bombardment and support of the criminal militia known as the Janjaweed continues today throughout the country. But what has been done in the Southern region of Darfur is beyond anything we have seen in many years.

Mr. Speaker, it was not lightly that Congress declared the situation in Darfur a genocide on July 22, 2004. The government and its Janjaweed allies have killed hundreds of thousands of its non-Arab citizens in the region, and this genocide continues unabated today. More than two million civilians have been displaced from their homes, over 100,000 fleeing to neighboring Chad, and these refugees live in the most difficult situations, still surrounded by Janjaweed abusers and fearful for their safety. Rape has been widespread, and as the Janjaweed move across the region they leave a path of destruction that makes living nearly impossible for the few survivors left behind.

The military of the African Union, now 7,000 strong in Sudan, is doing valiant work but has never received adequate support. The recent discussions with NATO and the United Nations to bring additional forces and military material to the peacekeeping and stabilization mission are promising, but are not enough. The bill under consideration today would authorize much needed assistance to the African Union Mission in Sudan, and direct the President to support the expansion of this force to strengthen their work to bring peace to the region.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, which lends significant support to ongoing efforts to end the crisis in Darfur. The bill supports the use of sanctions on the government of Sudan to pressure it to end its support for the Janjaweed and return to the negotiating table. Only through strong U.S. involvement will there be an end to the violence in Darfur, and this bill provides the backing the administration needs to take further action.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the American people are in firm support of the U.S. taking action on Darfur, and are strongly moved by this tragedy, which some have likened to the Holocaust. In my own district, a wide range of faith communities have joined together in the South Jersey Interfaith Coalition to Save Darfur. I am proud to be an honorary co-chair of this group which brings together people from southern New Jersey to take action on this issue. I am also proud of the students of Voorhees Middle School, who, with the help of their teacher Joyce Laurella, organized ``Project: Save Darfur,'' which has raised awareness of the crisis as well as money for UNICEF activities in Sudan. Individual action can make a difference, and the U.S. government should join its citizens in mobilizing on this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence in this matter, which grows more dire every day. We cannot stand idly by, as we did in the face of the genocide in Rwanda and in the early stages of the Nazi holocaust, and then report sadly from the gravesites of those who died. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, and support these steps to end the genocide.

Mr. Speaker, after 12 years of difficult negotiation, Saudi Arabia joined the World Trade Organization last November. This was good news--the Saudi government has the potential to further join the world community as a responsible actor on the world stage, and the Saudi economy is a large one that will benefit from international trade, as will the U.S. in turn from increased commerce with the Arab nation. However, the Saudis are yet again missing a unique opportunity to reform, blinded by an irrational hatred of their neighbor, Israel.

This is part of a larger fabric of unacceptable behavior on the part of Saudi Arabia, which seeks greater ties with the West while maintaining its autocratic and anti-democratic policies. State- sponsored Saudi TV regularly broadcasts not just anti-Israeli diatribes, but

anti-American propaganda as well, further encouraging the attitudes that lead to terrorism. The fact that Saudi nationals continue to significantly fund international terrorism, as reported this week by the U.S. Treasury Department, means that Saudis have a long way to go to match their anti-terror rhetoric with their actions. As I have in the past, I once again call on Saudi leader Prince Faisal to take responsibility for his government's actions which promote hatred and the repercussions it has on Saudi Arabia's relations with other countries.

As President Carter said in 1977, the Israeli boycott ``goes to the heart of free trade among nations,'' and is clearly unacceptable from a member of the World Trade Organization. This boycott, in place since the founding of Israel in 1945, has no place in the modern, globalized world. Recognizing this, several Gulf States are withdrawing from the boycott, and gaining both political and economic benefits. In the face of these events, Saudi Arabia's recalcitrance is all the more puzzling.

Mr. Speaker, Saudi Arabia has reportedly agreed to end the secondary and tertiary aspects of the anti-Israeli boycott, but is stopping short of allowing direct trade with its neighbor. Such half-measures are clearly not acceptable. All World Trade Organization members must treat all other members equally. According to diplomats, Saudi Arabia affirmed this principle with respect to Israel before being admitted to the WTO. Today's resolution expresses the sense of Congress that Saudi Arabia must live up to its commitments as a member of the World Trade Organization and end its boycott against Israel. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am obviously in favor of the amendment.

I want to thank the chairman from California; my colleagues from Nevada and Arizona; our ranking member, Mr. George Miller; and our subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Kildee, for their cooperation.

This is really an unsung heroes amendment. It is for people who administer inoculation shots to children in health clinics. It is for people that work in senior centers serving meals to senior citizens. It is for lawyers who go to court and represent people who are too poor to otherwise afford a lawyer on their own when they are facing an eviction or a bankruptcy or domestic violence crisis. It is a modest way to encourage people to enter and stay in those fields.

If a person makes a long-term commitment, a minimum of 5 years, for public service fields, this amendment makes it possible that there will be a $5,000 amount of forgiveness on the student loans that they owe.

Now, I wish, frankly, we could include more people. I wish that we could have a greater level of forgiveness. Some of the issues that Mr. Miller was talking about earlier today really go to that point as to why there are not more resources available in this bill.

Having said that, this is a modest improvement. The average debt for a person graduating from a 4-year program is about $18,000 a year now. So a $5,000

loan forgiveness is quite relevant to a person in one of those fields and could be quite helpful. Frankly, although the help is welcome, it falls short for those who have gone beyond the baccalaureate degree to a graduate or professional school because their debt usually tends towards six figures, and although any little bit helps, this is most decidedly only a very little bit. Nevertheless, it is an improvement over the existing situation. It does help those unsung heroes.

I again thank the leadership of the committee on both sides for making this a possibility. And I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me the time. I thank him, Mr. Kildee, Chairman McKeon, and Chairman Boehner before him, for their help in bringing this legislation to the floor. It is a pleasure to work with my friend from Louisiana on this issue.

I think this issue addresses a poorly thought-up health care policy we have in this country, which is to say that we want to discourage people from going into certain aspects of health care professions because we have a mismatch between the amount of debt they need to earn their education in that area and the amount of money they are going to make to pursue that area. A lot of critical specialties in the health care field, in the physician field especially, are underserved because the students cannot make that mismatch work in their lives.

The choice between incurring six-figure debt, which is typical of medical students, and then spending 5 years or more in a residency program that thoroughly underpays you and thoroughly overworks you is a policy which is driving people out of some very important, needed specializations.

My friend and I bring this to the floor as a hypothesis. What we want the GAO to do is to test that hypothesis and to look at the reasons why people are underenrolling in long-term residency programs. Mr. Chairman, I would be very surprised if the finding was anything other than the fact that the amount of debt that students are incurring is a major factor in their decision to avoid these longer-term residencies.

This is particularly important at a time when pediatric health and geriatric health are such huge issues in this country. Many of these specialties overlap with the care of our very young, prenatal and pediatric patients, and our elderly who are dealing with increasing issues of Alzheimer's, dementia and other problems.

So at a time when we most need people in these areas of specialization and when their residency, by definition, must be extended so we can truly learn the field, we are driving young physicians out of these fields because of this mismatch between student debt and the relatively meager income.

I thank my friend from Louisiana for working with us on this measure. I look forward to the GAO finishing its work; and hopefully, Mr. Chairman, we can have a bipartisan effort down the road to make loan programs more robust and more reasonable from the point of view of students, so that we can proceed with that.

I thank my friend from California for the time.

Thank you, Mr. Miller. I appreciate your help, I appreciate your yielding the time, and I thank Mr. Kildee, Chairman McKeon, Chairman Boehner before him, and I thank my friend from Louisiana for offering this amendment.

This amendment recognizes that there is a public service value to the work of residents who go into a complex and long-term residency in the health care field. There is a recognition that these are individuals who are contributing to the public good in two very important ways: the first is the specialization with which they come out of school, which is incredibly important for the health of our population. The second is that in order to achieve those skills they are deferring their higher earning years for a very, very considerable period of time, in excess of 5 years.

These are people with families and household obligations who are working very long hours, working at a very intense occupation and specialization, and giving up a significant amount of wealth and economic opportunity to do so. This is a public service, and it is important to recognize the public benefit that comes from this.

So I think that Mr. Boustany's idea, in which I heartily join, of requiring more than 5 years in the residency program in medical specialties that have shortages recognizes the public service that these men and women are providing and falls into the other categories of occupations that are already recognized in the existing section 421 of the law.

I believe that this amendment will result in more talented young men and women stepping forward and serving in critical and underserved areas of health care in the country. This will result in an increase in the quality of our health care in our system and a more moderate degree of fairness in terms of loan forgiveness for the young men and women who do so. These are folks who work very, very long hours and incur a huge amount of debt and are foregoing and giving up benefits that other families are receiving, and I think it is a worthy consideration for us to extend this modest loan forgiveness under the right circumstances to these men and women.

So I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the importance of Greek Independence Day, which was celebrated this past Saturday. In doing so, I reaffirm the historic and strategic ties between the United States of America and Greece, and acknowledge the heritage that all of Western civilization draws from both ancient and modern sources in Greece.

On March 25, 1821, the people of Greece declared independence from their Ottoman occupiers and reclaimed the mantle of democracy that they originated in ancient Athens. Since then, they have been a true and steady friend of the United States, working together to promote our common ideals, common goals, and in recognition of our mutual admiration. We are partners in seeking peace and prosperity in the Balkans and southeastern Mediterranean, as well as throughout the world. In celebrating Greek Independence Day this year, we recognize the contributions of ancient Greece to the establishment of democracy and culture, and the continuing importance of modern Greece in national affairs.

Additionally, we affirm the innumerable contributions that Greek Americans have made to

the United States. Their independence and creativity have been an essential component of the American success story, adding immeasurably to our economic strength. Greek American cultural values have enriched our communities and added to the diversity we cherish as Americans. I hope that you will join me in saluting Greece and Greek Americans in this 185th anniversary of Greek Independence Day.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed five votes on March 15, 2006. I stayed in New Jersey to be with a family member who was undergoing surgery. Had I been present, I would have voted no on Ordering the Previous Question (with regard to H.R. 4939, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes); no on H. Res. 725 (the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4939); yes on H. Con. Res. 190 (Expressing the sense of Congress that the Russian Federation should fully protect the freedoms of all religious communities without distinction, whether registered and unregistered, as stipulated by the Russian Constitution and international standards); no on the Gilchrest Amendment (which strikes language in the

H.R. 4939 that would block the Dubai Port World deal); and yes on H.R. 4944 (To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to modify temporarily certain rates of duty, to make other technical amendments to the trade laws, and for other purposes).