Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the other gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

That is fine, if the gentlewoman would yield.

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that I also have 1 minute remaining on the underlying amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

When you go to the showroom to pick out a new car, the sticker in the window has a number for city mileage, highway mileage. You would like to think that that bore some relationship to reality. Now, on the television ads, they say your actual mileage may vary, when, in fact, your actual mileage probably bears no relationship whatsoever to those numbers in the window because EPA has specified that the auto manufacturers use an archaic testing method.

The amendment that the gentlewoman from Connecticut and I have offered would correct that testing method. That is the way to take care of this problem. It is not the right thing to do to use a multiplier factor, a scale factor, to grade on a curve or to use a fudge factor. That is what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) is proposing to do, rather than getting at the heart of the problem, which is that the tests are not done in a realistic way.

The tests do not reflect the way people actually drive. The tests suggest that highway speeds are 48 miles per hour with a top speed of 60. Has anybody been on the road recently? That is not the way people drive.

The tests suggest that congestion and stop-and-go traffic is a minor part of driving. By 2001, congestion took about 26 hours per year out of a person's driving time. That is not realistically reflected in the testing method.

The testing method assumes gentle acceleration and braking. That is not the way city driving is done.

The tests suggest or require that there be no air conditioning, and it overestimates trips.

In other words, the tests are wrong. The tests should be modified to reflect the way people actually drive. Using a fudge factor, a multiplier will hide the actual differences between cars, and it will obscure what this is about, which is giving consumers accurate information.

It is certainly the case that for a government-mandated test we should get it right. That is all we are suggesting, and this amendment that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) has may technically, under parliamentary terms, be called a perfecting amendment. In fact, it completely changes the nature of what we are trying to do, which is to give consumers accurate information.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, on the second order amendment, how much time does the gentlewoman from Connecticut have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes, and I thank my colleague for yielding her time to me.

Mr. Chairman, to begin to address the second order amendment, which, as I say, may be technically and in parliamentary terms called a perfecting amendment, but in fact it would gut the amendment, it does not get at the heart of the problem, which is that the tests are wrong. The tests are unrealistic. The tests give results that bear no relationship to reality.

Why should taxpayers pay for a test, a government-mandated test, or auto purchasers pay for a test that gives inaccurate information? We need to fix the EPA test. It can be fixed without giving the folks in the State of Michigan or other automobile manufacturing areas heartburn. It does not change the fleet average calculation. It only addresses the issue of consumer information, so that the purchaser will have accurate information.

If you use this scale factor, or fudge factor, it will paper over the underlying problem. It will distort the fuel efficiency difference between different types of vehicles. In fact, my colleague earlier talked about how some hybrid vehicles behave differently under different situations.

The tests themselves need to be changed, not an after-the-fact fudge factor, so that when you go into the showroom to purchase a car and you see the number in the window for city mileage and highway mileage, you will have a reasonable expectation that that car, when used on actual American streets and actual American highways, will give mileage comparable to what is posted there.

The ad says your actual mileage may vary. The way it is today, with the tests that we have, your actual mileage may bear no relationship whatsoever to what is printed in the window. That is what we are trying to correct with the Johnson-Holt amendment. The Rogers second order amendment completely changes the nature of what we are trying to do.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, nearly 2 years after a columnist disclosed the identity of a CIA employee, the White House and the Department of Justice have yet to find and hold accountable

the person or persons who leaked her name to the press.

We know that at least one, and possibly more, executive branch officials violated their oaths to protect classified information and, in doing so, they squandered an important intelligence asset and may have jeopardized the lives of people with whom she has been in contact. American security was harmed.

Some have offered weak excuses for the disclosure, saying the person's identity was already known or her work was not really important. Those are outrageous excuses. More troubling still is the fact that this was leaked in the context of a political vendetta. According to published reports, the leaker was trying to discredit former ambassador Joe Wilson, who was disputing the administration's assertions that Saddam was trying to unleash weapons of mass destruction on the United States. Of course, we now know Wilson was right.

As President George Herbert Walker Bush stated in a speech to CIA employees a few years ago, ``Those who leak the identity of intelligence operatives are the most insidious of traders.'' What does it say about the ethics and responsibilities of this body and the administration that attempts to find this person have been so anemic?

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to offer my remarks today regarding S. 256, the so-called ``Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act.'' The issue of bankruptcy reform is extremely important and it is critical that we pass a measure that will both ensure greater personal responsibility of debtors, as well as ensure that credit card companies and other creditors take responsibility for their reckless lending. Unfortunately, this bill does neither. In fact, the bill before us today overly penalizes working families. In fact, the bill before us today takes no action against reckless and predatory lending. This bill will do nothing to reduce the number of bankruptcy filings or address the problem of record-high consumer debt, which now stands at $2 trillion.

As to the substance of the legislation, it is no secret that the number of bankruptcies has risen dramatically over the past few years. In 2001, 1,398,864 people filed for bankruptcy in the United States. According to the Center for American Progress, in 2003 there were a record number of 5.5 personal bankruptcy filings for every 1,000 people living in the United States. In 2003, my own state of New Jersey ranked slightly below the national average at 4.8 filings per every 1,000 residents. This past year, the number of personal bankruptcies had risen to 1,584,170, an increase of over 13 percent. In my own state of New Jersey, citizens have seen a similar increase in bankruptcy filing over the past three years. With those facts in mind, I strongly support the principle of increased personal responsibility of debt.

While there are many problems with S. 256, I'll name just a few of the more egregious provisions to which I strongly object. While the bill purports to elevate the priority of child support payments, in reality credit card companies would receive repayment of debt at the same rate as child support obligations. Children and families will now compete with credit card companies for payment. The bill's homestead- exemption cap does little to address the problem of wealthy debtors shielding their assets from creditors by purchasing million-dollar homes. Sophisticated, wealthy debtors can easily plan ahead and evade the cap. The provision in the bill dealing with ``asset protection trusts'' also does not adequately address the problem of wealthy individuals stashing millions away in trusts that are protected in bankruptcy proceedings. The bill puts the onus on creditors and the court to prove that the debtor was actively trying to avoid creditors by transferring money into the trust. The bill does nothing to protect people who have medical liabilities.

The bill also imposes artificial deadlines and cumbersome new paperwork requirements on small businesses trying to reorganize, and it unnecessarily limits the discretion of bankruptcy judges in crafting the best possible result for small-business debtors and creditors. The rigid and unrealistic requirements will force many viable small businesses to permanently close their doors.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that there have been, and likely continue to be, abuses of the bankruptcy law, which was designed to be a safety net. As I've said before, I strongly support increased personal responsibility for debt accrued. However, this should coincide with greater responsibility on the part of the creditors. It is the creditors who often shamelessly target college students and low-income individuals with their credit card applications. It is the creditors who subsequently grant these individuals higher levels of credit at high interest rates. It is the creditors who saddle these individuals with insurmountable levels of debt. In fact, it is estimated that the credit card industry mails out five billion unsolicited credit card offers a year.

I believe we would be better served if we could fully debate the merits of this legislation, as well as substantive amendments that were disallowed from consideration by the full House. Sadly, once again, we cannot, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I favor cutting unnecessary, ineffective or unfair taxes, but in balanced and fiscally responsible ways. I have been one of the few Democrats in Congress who has been willing to cross party lines to vote for tax cuts. I have voted to eliminate the estate tax in the past. I have been willing to vote for eliminating the marriage penalty, to vote for cutting taxes for small businesses, to

vote for cutting taxes to help people pay for education and retirement, and to vote for cutting taxes for senior citizens and to give business tax credit for research work.

With a war in Iraq and looming postwar costs, increased expenses for domestic security and a ballooning budget deficit, Congress must exercise restraint on both revenues and spending to prevent fiscal policy from spiraling out of control. The consensus in favor of balancing the budget over the long term must be re-established.

There are a wide range of pressing national challenges that need action, from rapidly increasing health care costs, to our increasing dependence on ever-more-expensive foreign oil, to a broken and increasingly corrupt political system, and yet today we are passing a bill that will only help a few of the already wealthy.

Today we are debating total elimination of the federal inheritance tax. Permanently repealing the estate tax would further balloon the Federal budget deficit by an estimated $290 billion through 2015; and by $745 billion through 2021. Add in the interest costs of borrowing the funds to pay for this measure, and the true 10-year cost is nearly $1.3 trillion.

I support the substitute offered by Representative Earl Pomeroy which will protect families and small business from the estate tax. The substitute increases the estate tax credit to $3 million, $6 million for married couples, beginning in 2006. Under the substitute, the credit would be increased to $3.5 million, $7 million for couples, in 2009. The Pomeroy substitute would eliminate tax reporting compliance burdens and carryover taxes for over 71,000 estates each year which effects small business and families. According to Representative Pomeroy's calculation, his package would exempt 99.68 percent of all estates from the estate tax, yet it would save the Treasury $217 billion compared to total repeal. It is worth noting that the saving of $217 billion is equal to 40 percent of the shortfall of Social Security of the next 75 years.

Mr. Speaker, today the national debt is the largest in history. Americans now collectively owe about $7.8 trillion. Here we have another tax cut that is not being paid for, even as the Bush administration and the leadership of this Congress spend more than the American government has ever spent on homeland security and on all the other expenses of running the Government--especially the huge costs of the war in, and occupation of, Iraq. Government borrowing of this scale places the burden of repaying our debts on our children.

Governing is about making choices. Our constituents all across America sent us to Congress to make the tough decisions. They did not send us here so we can pass those decisions on to our children, and they certainly did not send us here to pass the cost of our decisions on to our children.

I want the people of this country to realize that, right now, we owe collectively, about $4.5 trillion to foreign countries. Japan holds $702 billion of our debt; China, including Hong Kong, $246 billion; the U.K. $163 billion; Taiwan, $59 billion; Germany, $57 billion; OPEC countries, $65 billion; Switzerland, $50 billion; Korea, $68 billion; Mexico, $41 billion; Luxembourg, $29 billion; Canada, $43 billion--the list goes on and on.

More tax cuts of this size will not only jeopardize critical public services now, but they will also hurt Americans well into the future. Massive deficits now create large debt and will create high interest payments that will crowd out spending on public investments for future generations. Moreover, these deep deficits threaten to increase interest rates in the future--making it harder for Americans to buy homes and afford higher education and making it harder for businesses to raise capital.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting permanent reform of the estate tax, but not irresponsibly repealing it. Government should follow the principle of helping the present generation and helping future generation as well--not leaving future generations to pay our bill.

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Pomeroy

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Greek people and their successful struggle for independence from Ottoman occupation that began nearly 184 years ago.

The Greek intellectual exploration into the meaning of civics and citizenship sparked questions about government that are still being asked throughout the world. Greek curiosity nurtured great thinkers such as Plato and Socrates who spent their lives examining the role between the individual and the state. They posed questions like ``what is the meaning of justice?'' and ``what is the ideal republic?'' These timeless questions are still being asked in nations that are searching for a more just government and are being tested in democracies around the world.

When establishing our democratic nation, our founding fathers drew a great deal from the ancient Greeks. Our Democratic system, that is founded on the principals of popular representation, was introduced by the ancient Athenians who were the first to create a civilization based on the rule of the people. Our founding fathers continued the Greek tradition of debating how best to govern and pursued a government that would provide liberty and justice for all. Our dual experiments in democratic government will forever link the United States and Greece.

While our founding fathers relied heavily on the teachings of ancient Greeks, the Greeks based their independence movement beginning in 1821 on our fight for freedom from the British. The Greeks used our struggle for independence as inspiration during their fight from Ottoman rule. Through perseverance and determination the Greeks were able to break from tyranny and bring democracy back to its origins.

Not only can we trace our democratic government to Greece, but also the foundation of science. As some of the first philosophers, the Greeks explored the fields of mathematics, logic, astronomy, physics and biology. The Greeks focused on thinking and understanding, rather than the practical use of their findings in science. Through Aristotle's concept of a posteriori we base the foundations for the modern scientific method. The Greeks taught us that only through experimentation can one truly understand the surrounding world. Our basic understanding of the Earth came from the studies of Ancient Greeks as they questioned the sun, the moons and the stars.

Without the early studies of the Greeks, our current world would be much different. On this 184th anniversary of Greek independence and as a member of the Hellenic Caucus, I rise to honor the Greeks on their everlasting input in our society.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep sadness at the passing of Pope John Paul II and to strongly support H. Res. 190. The world has lost a great moral leader his Holiness. Pope John Paul II was a man who held profound convictions, displayed enormous compassion, and continuously reminded us of our common humanity and obligations to each other. My thoughts and prayers are with all those who mourn the passing of this remarkable spiritual voice.

As a young seminarian in 1945, Karol Wojtyla came across a small girl who had just been liberated from the Nazi labor camp in Czearochowa, Poland. She had boarded a passing coal train and rode it until she could no longer stand the cold. That is how she ended up in the train station in the small town of Jedrzejows. It was here, sitting alone in the corner of the train station in her striped prison uniform, that Karol Wojtyla discovered her. She told him that she was trying to get to Krakow to find her parents and other family members. He provided her with food and shelter, and helped her get back to Krakow. Even as a young man, the future John Paul II had the humanity, compassion, and courage to help this young girl when others passed her by.

When he became Pope in 1978, his Holiness took his convictions and moral strength around the world. In more than 200 visits to 126 countries over the course of his papacy, Pope John Paul II exhibited charisma and a set of core beliefs that focused people worldwide on the plight of the less fortunate and the forgotten. He inspired faith not only in God, but in ourselves. He articulated a message that every person matters, and every child of God has a purpose on Earth.

This philosophy was writ large when it came to world affairs. Just eight months after his inauguration, Pope John Paul II returned to his native Poland, still under communist rule, and reminded the massive crowds--and the authoritarian leaders who oppressed them--of their fundamental, God-given human rights. By supporting the Solidarity movement within Poland, he helped to break the back of the authoritarian communists in Poland and then the rest of Western Europe. Pope John Paul II was a catalyst for change at a key moment in history, and millions of people live more freely today due to his efforts. He always believed in, and never stopped fighting for, a world in which people were free from tyranny, poverty, and war.

On that first visit to Poland in 1979, Pope John Paul II offered a prayer: ``Spirit,'' he said ``come and renew the face of the earth.'' Let us renew that prayer today. There is still too much suffering in this world, too much oppression, poverty and abuses of human rights. His Holiness Pope John Paul II would want us to continue doing our best, individually, and collectively, to address these challenges. There are many lessons he taught to me, so much to draw from his remarkable life. Above all, let us remember this: one person can change the world. He showed us that as Pope, yes. But he also showed it in 1945, when he changed the world for Edith Zierer. With faith we can renew the face of the earth. With his faith Karol Wojtyla changed lives. We have a lot of work ahead of us, but we need to remember to start today by extending the hand of human kindness to our fellow humans, just as that young seminarian did at the end of the Second World War a half century ago for Edith Zierer.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Mark M. Lowenthal, Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Analysis and Production, who will soon retire from government service for a second time. His first career with the government saw service in both the congressional and executive branches. He began his career with the Congressional Research Service (CRS) after earning a Ph.D. in history from Harvard University. His intelligence, quick wit and ability to work easily with Members of Congress, their staffs, and colleagues in the Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division at CRS led to his steady advancement in that organization.

As a result of his work as a foreign affairs specialist during this period, Mark was asked to accept a position in the executive branch, at the Department of State. There, he served in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, as both an office director and a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. He became one of former Secretary of State George Shultz's close advisors during a time of great change in US-Soviet relations, during the era of Glasnost.

After Secretary Shultz returned to private life, Mark returned to the legislative branch. He became one of a select group at the Library of Congress and attained the position of Senior Specialist in U.S. Foreign Policy. This helped prepare him for his next assignment when he was asked to accept the appointment as staff director of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the 104th Congress (1995- 1997). It was during this time that he directed the staff of the committee in their study of the future of the Intelligence Community, IC21: The Intelligence Community in the 21st Century.

Soon after the study was completed, Mark retired from government. Over the next five years he spent time in the private sector as a consultant to government and industry on intelligence issues. Once again, as a result of his work and deep knowledge of intelligence issues, Mark was asked to accept another position in the executive branch, this time on the staff of the Director of Central Intelligence. He initially served as Counselor to the Director and then in June 2002 began his service as the Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Analysis and Production as well as Vice Chairman for Evaluation on the National Intelligence Council.

In truth, three years is simply not enough time to make fundamental changes in government. However, Dr. Lowenthal has made a good start, initiating a variety of projects that have the potential to improve the practice of analysis by the Intelligence Community. In collaboration with the principal members of the National Security Council, Mark provided the leadership required to have the Intelligence Community adopt the National Intelligence Priorities Framework. The framework provides guidance on the priorities of the most senior national policymakers for collection requirements, analysis and production and the allocation of resources to include acquisition decisions affecting all members of the Intelligence Community. He then instituted a comprehensive evaluation to assess the Community's performance. Along the way, Mark found time to write a novel, to win a championship on the game show Jeopardy!, and to teach university courses.

The American public is fortunate to have individuals with experience, energy and intelligence willing to serve our country in these critical times. I thank Mark for his service to our country and wish him, his lovely wife Cynthia, and their children, Sarah and Adam, all the best as he embarks upon this second retirement.

Mr. Speaker, we are turning a sad family tragedy into a grotesque legislative travesty. It is a tragedy. But what we are talking about tonight is nothing other than inserting our judgment for the courts. Today every day in every county in America, families, doctors, hospital chaplains are making life-and-death decisions, tough decisions and tender decisions. Each one has its own circumstance,

and Congress cannot reasonably understand each and should not be involved. For 215 years it has been a solid principle of this country that Congress is not involved in issues like this.

Today in church at Palm Sunday services, I read the bulletin, and as is the usual practice there was a list of the sick and hospitalized, the homebound. I read each name. There are some family tragedies in that list and some tragedies yet to come. But those families would not want Congress to send them to one court or another for a review. This evening I had dinner with a family, my own relatives who yesterday and today had visited the hospital where the family decided to remove the feeding tube from a loved one. They came out of the hospital to find, to their dismay, that Congress is second guessing their decision. Imagine how they feel. Why should they believe that Congress will stay out of their personal affairs?

By the way, why are we debating this case? I do not want to be too cynical, but could it be that the TV cameras are rolling?

Doctors sometimes make the wrong decisions, Mr. Speaker. Families sometimes make the wrong decisions. But the wisdom of the founders of this government in not putting these decisions in the Congress is that they understood that most of the time we would make the wrong decisions. We do not know the facts of this case or thousands of others that are out there today despite assertions to the contrary tonight.

That is why we should not, we should not, substitute our judgment for the courts. Congress should not play doctor, certainly not by long- distance video or hearsay diagnosis, nor should we be the judiciary. If Congress wants to avoid tragedies like this, we should deal with policy questions, such as adequate home care for the 8 million Americans who need it and see that Medicare and Medicaid provide adequate long-term care. Yes, we should spend our time that way, and every Member of this body should spend the time tonight talking with their family members about advanced medical directives and living wills. That is something we can do to help prevent tragedies like this.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to passage of this bill.

There are large amounts of funding in this bill that I support for pressing commitments and to meet urgent national and international needs. For example, I absolutely support getting our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere all that they need and deserve in order to protect themselves and carry out their very difficult and dangerous missions. I was among the first to speak out and support legislation in 2003, when it became apparent that Secretary Rumsfeld and his advisors had seriously underestimated the types of body armor, up-armored Humvees and other equipment that would be needed by our forces in Iraq. I have voted for the additional funding in prior measures to correct for these miscalculations, as a matter of the utmost urgency, and I will continue to do so.

Similarly, I support the additional funding in this bill for enhancing nuclear nonproliferation efforts to help prevent weapons of mass destruction from getting into the wrong hands. I also support the additional funds for tsunami relief. There is also another down payment in this bill toward improving homeland security efforts in the Coast Guard, FBI, and other front-line agencies, but we need to be doing much more in this regard.

However, on balance I must oppose this legislation.

I've talked to many executive branch officials, civilian and military, and the simple reality is that they cannot plan in a coherent fashion when they are forced to deal with the uncertainty over how much money they will get and when they will get it. This bill denies them the ability to plan and the result is that our servicemen and women in the filed are put in greater jeopardy. This is not a bill to support our troops.

By way of illustration, I serve on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. A substantial portion of the annual intelligence budget is now funded through supplemental and/or so-called ``emergency'' appropriations. Both civilian and military intelligence officials have told me and my colleagues on the committee that this process wreaks havoc with their ability to plan and execute their assigned responsibilities. There is simply no excuse for this state of affairs.

We have soldiers in the field, and we know that we'll be continuing military operations against al Qaeda and its surrogates for the foreseeable future. We know that as long as we're in Iraq at our current force level, we'll be spending about $7 billion a month for the effort. That's not unforeseen. We should not be funding these operations through emergency supplemental appropriations. It certainly appears that the only reason the Bush Administration continues to try to fund current operations through supplementals is to avoid any kind of substantive review of its budgetary and procurement policies. The entire Haliburton episode is a prime example of how dysfunctional this process has become, and it's also why we must force the administration to provide us with honest budgets and honest estimates on what current and future operations are likely to cost. In fact, the leadership here turned down a bipartisan amendment that would simply have formed a commission to look at the awarding and carrying out of Government contracts to conduct military and reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It has become painfully apparent that the path toward a free, democratic and fully reconstructed Iraq will be long and treacherous. If and when this bill is enacted, the cost for the war in Iraq and the ongoing military occupation of that country will exceed $220 billion. In fact, the true costs of this effort are underestimated and masked, as evidenced by the fact that they are not accounted for in the new Fiscal Year 2006 budget that President Bush submitted to Congress last month. Some projections suggest that the cost will top $300 billion before the end of this year. And as far as taking care of the wounds of war--physical and psychological--of our latest generation of veterans, neither this supplemental nor the administration's FY06 VA budget request come remotely close to meeting the expected need . . . undoubtedly one of the many reasons that most of the military services are falling short of their recruiting targets this year.

Rather than continue the status quo on an open-ended, costly basis and to vote ever-increasing amounts in ``emergency spending,'' Congress must demand much greater transparency in the management and spending for ongoing U.S. military operations in Iraq. Even more important, we need a thorough policy review that will help bring internal stability and security throughout Iraq and create the conditions under which the long-suffering people of Iraq can regain full control of their own affairs and make rapid progress in rebuilding their war-torn nation in a new era of peace, security, and democratic self-government. This supplemental request does not achieve that, and I urge my colleagues to work with me to craft one that does.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was pleased to vote in support of the resolution (H. Res. 135) sponsored by U.S. Representative David Dreier from California. Adoption of this measure will establish the House Democracy Assistance Commission.

This new internal commission of House members will work closely with our legislative counterparts in other fledgling democracies to encourage the development of democratic processes and institutions. In addition, it will expand information exchanges and the sharing of first-hand knowledge of the inner workings of functioning democracies. Finally, this new commission will provide recommendations to the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development on what types of material assistance, such as modem automation, information technology, and library systems will most help our counterpart parliamentarians to more effectively perform their vital tasks of representation and democratic participation.

The work that this commission will perform has already been validated in prior similar efforts. Between 1990 and 1996, the informal ``Frost- Solomon Task Force'' provided invaluable technical assistance and equipment to Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Russia. The creation of this new commission will build upon that solid precedent in enhancing democratic institution-building where democratic engagement and republican government are new to what had previously been undemocratic societies.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, for yielding me time; and I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentlemen from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), (Mr. Menendez), and (Mr. LoBiondo). The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and before him my other colleagues from Massachusetts have stated, I think clearly, what is at stake here.

New Jerseyans were surprised to learn that the Federal Highway Administration recently withheld $260 million in highway funds because New Jersey had taken the very important step, I think the landmark step, to protect the integrity of contracts. Pay-to-play had become something that clearly had to be stopped, and the effort to bring integrity in public contracts by limiting political contributions is something that New Jersey is not only within its rights to do, but is something that should serve as a model for the Nation.

New Jerseyans were surprised to find that the highway administration ruled that New Jersey could not do that or else they would take the highway funds away.

This amendment would clarify the propriety of New Jersey's action. It would preserve the ability of States to protect the integrity of public contracts, and it is not just New Jersey. As the gentlewoman has heard, it would be, I think, to the benefit of West Virginia and a number of other States.

There are plenty of precedents, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) has pointed out, to support the adoption of this amendment. The SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, currently has what we call a pay-to-play ban in place prohibiting contribution by bond traders, and that has been upheld in the courts.

So this amendment makes sense. It is entirely proper. It would benefit many States, and it would make clear that it is not the role of the Federal Highway Administration to decide what is and what is not ethical political procedure.

Furthermore, as my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), has pointed out, this would probably save money. There is too much money allocated in contracts for reasons that are not based entirely on cost and efficiency.

So I strongly urge the support of the Pascrell-Menendez-LoBiondo amendment.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Connecticut for arranging this discussion.

Madam Speaker, America is all abuzz about this discussion on Social Security, and that is because it is recognized from coast to coast, from every little village to every city, as very important. It is recognized, I would say, as one of the great accomplishments of America in the past century.

One of my constituents wrote me saying, ``Representative Holt, please remind the Members of the House of Representatives how important Social Security has become for American families.''

And she tells an important story that brings up a part of Social Security that

we sometimes forget. The discussion often concerns retirement. But she tells the story of how her mother was widowed, and she and her two brothers were left without their father when he died in 1931. This was before Social Security was passed. ``We had to return,'' she said, ``to my mother's family home where we were reminded constantly how fortunate we were that we were from a family willing to take us in.'' She grew up feeling like a charity case.

But the story goes on. A couple of decades later, when her brother died young at age 38, his five children received Social Security survivor benefits until they were able to care for themselves. They stayed in their own home, went to the same school and never had to feel like charity cases.

Social Security survivor benefits, just as Social Security retirement benefits, bring with them not just money but dignity. This story, I think, highlights one of the important aspects of Social Security.

Another constituent wrote to me and said, ``The President claims that placing Social Security savings into mutual funds will yield a positive result. Mutual funds still have risk. They go up and down. I have lost capital in several mutual funds. The average person is not an investment sophisticate.''

Another resident of Central New Jersey writes to his representative, ``It is bad enough that corporate America is trying to take away employee retirement and benefits. Now the President is talking about taking away Social Security.''

Madam Speaker, they see this as taking it away something that they have earned, something they are entitled to.

Anyway, he says, ``I don't want to save Social Security just for my generation, but for all generations. I believe it is the best and most needed program the government ever came up with. I believe Senator Dole said it best when he headed a committee a couple of decades ago dealing with Social Security. When large corporations or even the State of California wanted to drop out, the Senator said, Social Security is not a tax; it is a Federal retirement plan that everyone has to be in for it to work.''

I am sure my colleague from Wisconsin has had a similar situation, has had similar experiences. When I go before a group of Social Security recipients, I ask: Is there anyone here ashamed to take Social Security? And they all chuckle and say, of course not, because we have earned it, because Social Security is for everyone. And everyone knows that it is for everyone. It is not for the ones who are clever in the market. It is not for the ones who are welfare cases. It is an earned benefit that brings with it dignity in the non-wage-earning years, those years of retirement or years after the family breadwinner has died or those years when disability makes it impossible to earn wages. It brings income and dignity in all of those cases. And like my colleague, I have heard it now from thousands, and I am not exaggerating, of my constituents.

I thank the gentlewoman for arranging this discussion.

Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin raises this approach of fear tactics, and of course, it leads to the question, well, why? Why does the President, why do some of our colleagues, why are people trying to change this program that our constituents tell us over and over again has meant the difference between dignity and destitution for them? Why do they want to change a program that works so well?

The spokesman from the White House and the President himself have said that privatization is not likely to help the finances of Social Security, but then they have gone on to say, well, even if it does not, it is the right thing to do. Then we have these youngsters at some of the President's road shows around the country chanting, ``Hey, hey, ho, ho, Social Security has got to go.''

We begin to understand what this is about. It is to overturn a program that they find ideologically unacceptable.

Leslie from Milltown, New Jersey, says, I think we have evidence that the motivation of these politicians for proposing individualized private accounts is driven by ideology, not by a real concern for strengthening and preserving Social Security.

That ideology I think is best summed up with the phrase, you are on your own. You are on your own and you will do well in the market. You are smarter than the market and you will be fine.

Let me tell my colleagues, my constituents say over and over again, we have tried private accounts. Before 1935 you were entitled to invest as much as you wanted in private accounts to prepare for your retirement, and you know what, a majority of the elderly lived below the poverty line. That is why we have Social Security. It is a program that is, I think, one of the most successful we have had in America.

Let me just finish by saying we have had testimonials from so many of our constituents. Let me give a personal one.

My father died when I was six, without insurance, without a pension. My sister and mother and I received Social Security survivor benefits. She was teaching at a junior college on a small teacher's salary. That made an enormous difference.

When I talk about Pat from Lincroft who said Social Security for her brother's children brought dignity, whereas when her father had died before Social Security came into place, they had to live as charity cases, I know what she is talking about.

Social Security binds this country together in a way that no other program that has come out of this body has, and we should not throw it out just because of some ideological whim which is what is happening right now. That is why the country is so upset, why we are getting so much mail.

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

Mr. Speaker, I join the distinguished gentleman from Ohio in supporting House Resolution 133, providing interim funding for standing and select committees of the House through April 30, 2005.

As most chairmen and ranking members know, funding for House committees would expire March 31 without this resolution.

I would like to thank the chairman for ensuring the committees will have the resources to continue operating while the Committee on House Administration processes their funding requests for the 109th Congress.

President Woodrow Wilson from my home State of New Jersey said it well when he said here on the floor, ``Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, whilst Congress in its committee rooms is Congress at work.''

Yes, we have to keep the committees going, and I support the chairman in this effort. The Committee on House Administration's ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), who is returning from her district, has asked me to stand in for her and asked me to specifically relay that she is looking forward to working with the chairman on hearings this week and next week. She is especially keen to ensure that in this Congress committee minorities will receive at least one-third of all committee resources.

Now, I, speaking as a member of the Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards, which is commonly known as the Franking Commission, am concerned about problems with the increased abuse of the frank by one or more committee chairs for blatantly, I would have to say, blatantly political purposes. And I am hopeful that the Committee on House Administration will address this issue through the upcoming Committee Funding Resolution and take appropriate action to stop any such abuses.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say many Americans wonder why the resources for the committees are not divided one-half/one-half. Well, they should understand that it is traditional, now that the majority party would have most of the committee staff, most of the committee resources, and so two-thirds/one-third division has become traditional and that is what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) is hoping to achieve. I thank the chairman for his consideration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak at some length about this because it is really so important to our country. I would like to thank the leadership for allowing us to bring up this resolution which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the study of languages and supporting the designation of a Year of Languages. I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) for co- sponsoring the resolution.

Under the guidance and guardianship of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 2005 will be celebrated as the Year of Languages in the United States. These celebrations will take place in a variety of settings including elementary and secondary schools and post-secondary institutions as well as at events at local and State and national levels across America. It is an opportunity to focus on America's need to focus our attention on the social and economic benefits of studying other languages and cultures around the world and on the importance of these studies to our national security.

This initiative will seek to influence the full range of language programs in the United States schools and communities, and I think the campaign plan will capture the attention and, I hope, the interest of all Americans with the involvement and assistance of teachers, administrators and local officials. If the United States is going to continue to play an important role in the global economy and in the business world and to be the leader politically, and I would say militarily, we must be able to understand and communicate with other cultures around the world.

According to a 2002 survey from Healthy Companies International, the average number of languages spoken by American business executives is less than one and a half, compared with say 3.9 languages spoken on average by business executives in the Netherlands.

The goals of the Year of Languages are four: To expand the public's understanding of the role of language in all aspects of people's lives, in society and in the future of human and international relations; to promote the importance of language learning and language proficiency, urging every American to commit to learning other languages; to build awareness of the diversity of languages that now play an integral part of everyday life in our country; and to promote the formation of a national task force to study and strengthen national policy on language learning and teaching and to make recommendations to strengthen U.S. policy.

Some members of the public and the media might question why, with our unparalleled military and economic power, Americans need to learn languages of the world. Does not everyone speak English anyway? So they say.

Well, the reasons to launch a government-wide effort to build a pipeline of professionals with advanced foreign language capabilities, I think, should be self-evident to Americans. Let me quote a statement. ``The United States today carries new responsibilities in many quarters of the globe, and we are at a serious disadvantage because of the difficulty of finding persons who can deal with the foreign language problems.''

Those are not my words. Those are the words of former U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, spoken in 1953. What was true in the post- World War II world of 1953 is even more true in the post-9/11 world of 2004 and 2005.

Our national deficiency in the languages and cultures of critical areas around the world is compromising American security interests. And in addition to diminishing our opportunities economically and culturally, the deficiency is making our troops overseas more vulnerable and, I would argue, the American people less safer.

A few years after John Foster Dulles spoke these words, Russia launched a small beeping sphere above the Earth known as Sputnik. Americans were shocked, even fearful, and Congress, saying America would never be caught flat-footed again, passed the National Defense Education Act in 1958 that did much to overhaul the teaching of science and math and also provided some assistance for the study of languages.

September 11, 2001, was also a wake-up call for us. If we fail to address one of the most serious problems facing our Nation, we will not have risen to the challenge of September 11, 2001. The 9/11 joint inquiry reported a year and a half ago that our intelligence community is at 30 percent readiness in languages critical to national security. A State Department commissioned report from a year ago found that our government has only 54, or at that time, only 54 genuine Arabic speakers working in the entire Foreign Service.

A year or so ago, I asked David Kay, the former head of the Iraq Survey Group, how many on his 1,400 member team spoke Arabic and understood the

technology of weapons of mass destruction. Well, he said he could count on the fingers of one hand.

I posed similar questions to some members of the special forces who had been combing the mountains of Afghanistan looking for Osama bin Laden. I asked how many of them spoke Pushtu. Well, they responded, they had picked some up during the year they had been there. Although our special forces represent some of the best trained forces in the world, we are clearly not giving them the skills they need. If Osama bin Laden is truly American public enemy number one, how do we expect to track him down if we cannot speak the languages of the people who are hiding him?

As Dr. David Chu, the U.S. Undersecretary of Defense, said in his opening remarks at the National Language Conference last June, we need ``a permanent change in our approach to the peoples and cultures of the rest of the world.''

Our need to understand the world is a prime national security concern.

He went on, ``National security concerns have taken us from the streets of Manhattan to the mountains of Afghanistan and to the resort cities of Bali. Our economy has brought workers here to America and sent jobs to 100 countries around the world. Our health is affected by conditions and events in China, Britain, Africa and South America. Criminal cartels and corrupt officials hundreds of miles beyond our borders have an immediate impact on our streets, in our schools and our homes. Within one generation, we have become integrated into the world as never before.'' Those are the words of the Undersecretary of Defense Dr. Chu.

While the Defense Department, the State Department and our intelligence agencies have recently turned their attention to the language problem, their approach remains focused on immediate needs. They are stepping up recruitment efforts, and they are expanding the language education programs in Monterey, here in Washington and elsewhere, and these are promising and necessary changes, but they only scratch the surface.

They do not deal with the problem of the pool. From what pool will they be recruiting the linguists for the Defense Department, the State Department, our intelligence agencies?

The root of the problem, I think, is in our schools. If we are to address adequately the language shortage in the Federal Government, we have to look past the issues of immediate recruitment and foreign language training. Federal language schools are building on a poor language foundation. We must design and implement a Federal language strategy that begins at the earliest years of education and continues through college.

Mr. Speaker, consider the following facts: Al Qaeda and similar terrorist elements operate in over 75 countries where hundreds of languages and dialects are spoken. However, 99 percent of American high school, college and university programs concentrate on a few, mostly European, languages. According to figures from a couple of years ago, 2002, more college students study Ancient Greek than Arabic, Korean, Persian, Pashto and a number of other languages put together. Nothing against Ancient Greek, but certainly it is an important area of study, but the shortage of training in Arabic, Korean, Persian, Pashto and a long list of others should be cause for concern.

Out of 1.3 million graduates at America's colleges and universities, 17, two years ago, earned a bachelor's or advanced degree in Arabic, according to the Department of Education, 17. In Chinese, the language spoken by billions of people, 217 degrees were granted, according to the Department of Education. That is compared with almost 3,000 in French, more than 8,000 in Spanish. We need to improve not just the number of degrees but the quality of education throughout the educational years.

In addition to the resolution before us today, I have introduced the National Security Language Act, legislation that would expand the Federal investment in education in foreign languages of critical need. It would provide Federal incentives for high school students to study languages in college. It would give universities resources to expand language programs overseas, and it would identify Americans with preexisting language abilities for recruitment.

The bill would create an international flagship language initiative that would provide Federal grants to specific universities and colleges to establish high-quality, intensive, in-country language study programs in countries around the world. It would establish a science and technology advanced language grant program for institutions of higher education to establish programs that encourage students to develop foreign language proficiency as they study science, engineering and other technologies.

The bill would provide loan forgiveness of up to $10,000 for undergraduate students in foreign languages. It would encourage early northern language studies by establishing grants for foreign language partnerships between local districts and foreign language departments at institutes of higher education.

It would create a commission of national study of foreign language heritage and a Federal marketing campaign to identify heritage communities with native speakers of critical foreign languages and market to them the need to pursue the study of languages.

I believe the next step then would be to increase the supply line of students who have strong language skills, and this can only be done through the K-through-12 system. The Council for Basic Education recently released a study. Foreign language instruction experienced decreases in instruction time as reported by principals, particularly in high minority schools. Whereas in low minority schools, 9 percent of the principals reported a decrease in time spent studying languages; 11 percent reported an increase. But in minority schools, schools with a high proportion of minority students, there was a 23 percent decline in instructional time, with only 9 percent of the principals reporting an increase. In other words, this is also a matter of our educational divide in this country.

In addition to developing a lifelong ability to communicate with people from other countries and backgrounds, other benefits include improved overall school performance and improved problem solving skills. Students of foreign languages tend to score higher on standardized tests. And results from the Scholastic Aptitude Test show that students who had studied a foreign language for 4 or more years outscored other students on the verbal and math portions of the test. This is according to the college board SAT as reported in 2003.

Knowledge of a second language also seems to coincide with high academic achievement. It is not just whether a school has a rigorous program, although certainly that helps, but time spent in studying foreign languages means that students earn better grades in college and are less likely to drop out.

There are all sorts of reasons to study foreign languages, and studying the language, learning a language at any age is beneficial. Some studies have shown that the brain is more open to linguistic development in the early years. I have certainly seen that in my own grandchildren and children. When children have an early start to a long sequence of language instruction that continues through high school and college, they will be, studies have shown, able to achieve levels of fluency in that and to pick up other languages. Nevertheless, older children and adults can still be successful at learning a second or third or fourth language. Although the level of attainment is a little more predictable for us older learners, it is still worth doing.

In 1958, as I said, Congress responded to Sputnik by passing the National Defense Education Act. It focused on science and engineering and, to some extent, on languages. Immediately after September 11, Americans found themselves once again facing a Sputnik moment. Americans realized that we were caught flatfooted and unprepared to deal with not just hatred around the world but hatred that was turned into vicious attacks.

We need a national commitment to languages on a scale of the NDEA, the National Defense Education Act, and Mr. Speaker, I think today's resolution that will, among other things, recognize 2005 as the year of languages is a

start toward making that commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the time remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), my colleague.

(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I am delighted to hear that my colleague has studied Japanese.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues pass this resolution and work with me on other language projects to see that we address this Sputnik moment that this country faces and that we work hard to address our poor, I would use that word, language proficiency here in the United States, for reasons of culture, for reasons of economics and for reasons of national security.

I urge the passage of H. Res. 122.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 45, legislation recognizing the benefits and importance of school-based music education. I was pleased to join my colleagues in passing this bipartisan proposal yesterday in the House of Representatives.

The advantages of studying music are not confined within the artistic sphere. Music education not only allows children a chance to create and appreciate all types of music, but it has been proven once and again that an awareness of the structure of music can actually help children do better in school. There is a growing amount of evidence indicating that young children who are exposed to the fundamentals of music develop stronger abstract reasoning skills, which are crucial for a broad understanding of mathematics and the sciences.

However, many of the advantages of music education cannot be quantified or studied with tests. The creative thinking and self-esteem that emerge from music education are essential for a full and meaningful life. Participation in music education can motivate students to become active members of the education process. Thirty-six percent of minority students reported their music teacher as their role model; a much higher percentage than any other discipline. As a teacher, I recognize this bond between teacher and student as one of the most important aspects of education itself.

In addition, music celebrates two of the most important values of our Nation; diversity and unity. By studying different cultures through the harmony of music, students are able to recognize the values that we all share. No other discipline embodies this spirit more than music education.

Mr. Speaker, music education enhances intellectual development and enriches the academic environment for children of all ages, and as a result enriches our communities as well. I am proud to join with my colleagues in passing this bipartisan resolution in recognition of these facts.