Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career of Mayor Marvin Reed, who has served the Borough of Princeton as mayor for 13 years.

A resident of the borough for 45 years, he began his career of public service in 1985 as a member of the Borough Council. Since that time the people of Princeton have chosen him as their leader for three consecutive terms.

Under his direction the town has made a deliberate and concentrated effort to make affordable housing available to all within the community. He has secured five affordable housing developments and has laid the groundwork for at least 68 units of low-income senior housing.

He has worked with the local police department to establish a strong community presence and to work hand in hand with residents. Throughout his years as mayor the borough has seen an increasingly strong community grow, one that works together to support senior programs, youth activities and growth within the community.

Through his efforts the borough has seen the renovation of Borough Hall, the reconstruction of Monument Park and the Suzanne Paterson Senior Center. His commitments to creating open space and historic preservation have made Princeton Borough a stronger community.

As an inspiration to his community and the State of New Jersey, Mayor Reed has contributed significantly to the life of his community. He has earned our heartfelt appreciation for his efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career of Chief John G. McCormack, who has served the Manalapan Police Department and the people of Manalapan for 30 years and as chief for 7 years.

In his 30 years of service he has risen through the ranks of the Manalapan Police Department, starting as a police dispatcher in 1973.

Along with his commitment to the department he has spent numerous hours serving as the Emergency Management Coordinator for the Township of Manalapan for the last seven years. He also serves as the Municipal Disaster Control Director for the town and sits on the Monmouth County Community Crisis Response Planning Committee.

His dedication to his work earned him the honor of being named Chief of the Year by the Princeton Education Research Institute and the Law Enforcement Man of the Year by the Manalapan-Marlboro Post 972 Jewish War Veterans of the United States.

Prior to serving and protecting his community, Chief McCormack served his country. He served four years in the United States Air Force, including a tour in Vietnam.

As an inspiration to police officers in his department and the state of New Jersey, Chief McCormack has contributed significantly to the life of his community. He has earned our heartfelt appreciation for his efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career of Herbert Barrack, who has served the Federal Environmental Protection Agency for 32 years.

A resident of Manalapan, he has risen through the ranks of the EPA by demonstrating his commitment to the protection of public health and the environment.

Under Herb's direction as the Chief Financial Manager of the New York Regional Office of Policy and Management, the department has expanded its capacity in administrative areas such as information systems management, financial management, grants management and human resources management

Mr. Barrack was the first EPA Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy and Management, as well as the first Executive Director of the Administrator's Environmental Financial Advisory Board.

In 1994 Mr. Barrack became one of only two regional representatives on the Regulatory Policy Council, overseeing the EPA's implementation of new Executive Orders on Regulatory Development.

His dedication to his work earned him both the Silver and Gold Medal for Exceptional Service. Mr. Barrack has also received Presidential Rank Awards of SES Meritorious Executive three times in recognition of quality and efficiency in public service.

As an inspiration to his community and the state of New Jersey, Mr. Barrack has contributed significantly to the life of his community. He has earned our heartfelt appreciation for his efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career of Chief Harry J. Klienkauf, who has served the Cranbury Police Department and the people of Cranbury for 32 years and as chief for 12 years.

In his 32 years of service he has seen the department quadruple in size from four officers to 16. And under his leadership plans for a new police station have become a reality. The

16 officers will no longer have to work in a doublewide trailer, but will have a fully functional station to better serve the community.

Along with his commitment to the department, he has spent numerous hours in the schools teaching children the importance of safety. He established a first aid patrol for students, teaching them the fundamental skills that can save lives.

Aside from being a hardworking and dedicated police officer, Chief Klienkauf found time in his day to volunteer as a firefighter in his hometown. He also spent years serving on the local first aid squad. He remains an active member of the New Jersey State Association of Police Chiefs and the Middlesex County Association of Chiefs of Police.

As an inspiration to police officers in his department and the state of New Jersey, Chief Klienkauf has contributed significantly to the life of his community. He has earned our heartfelt appreciation for his efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Highlands Conservation Act.

To anyone in this Congress who questions the value of efforts to preserve open space, I invite them to come to New Jersey. My constituents, like most people around the state, have seen the ills of sprawl and the consequences of poor planning and meager preservation efforts.

Despite the fact that many see rampant commercial and industrial development in New Jersey, however, there are still some wonderful tracts of land left in some areas of our state. One in particular is part of this tract we are trying to save through today's legislation, the Highlands Region. These are important not just for aesthetically pleasing vistas, but especially for the health of our environment, our water, our air, and mostly our people.

The Highlands is an incredible 2 million acre swath across four states--New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. This tract is home to nearly one and a half million people and is still a quick drive away from New York City and other major metropolitan areas.

Even more importantly, the Highlands provides and protects the drinking water supplies for over 15 million people who live in the Philadelphia-New York-Hartford metropolitan area, which cuts right through my central New Jersey district.

That is why it is so important that the House today pass the Highlands Conservation Act. This bill authorizes federal Land and Water Conservation Fund money that will be matched at least one to one by local, state, and private funding. The governors of the four Highlands states will identify which lands are best eligible for conservation efforts, then apply to the federal government for funding. I know that the governor of New Jersey is ready and eager to get to work identifying these areas and preserving more green space in the state.

I also want to highlight provisions in the bill that provide technical assistance to communities and organizations involved in conservation efforts for the Highlands. So many people in the region have already done so much wonderful work to help preserve the area, and they will now get the added benefit of assistance and expertise from the federal government.

I want to recognize Mr. Frelinghuysen for his leadership on this issue and his hard work to get the legislation on the floor. I also want to salute the work of former Representative Ben Gilman, who led the effort on this legislation during the last Congress.

I also want to thank Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall, Subcommittee Chairman Radanovich, and Ranking Member Christensen for helping see this legislation through the Resources committee. This bill means a lot to New Jersey, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the anti-spam legislation before us, S. 877.

I am glad to see that Congress has finally taken definitive action on this issue. During my first term in Congress, I worked with my colleagues Gene Green and Heather Wilson, who have shown great leadership here, on anti-spam legislation that passed the House in 2000.

Today we have before us legislation to help address the mounting problem of unsolicited e-mail advertising, or spam, which has become perhaps the biggest nuisance of the Information Age and a drain on our economy.

I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes a provision intended to combat a related problem that has gotten out of hand in some countries and is growing ever worse in the United States--spam sent to wireless phones through text messaging.

As many of my colleagues know, I introduced legislation intended to draw attention to this issue--the Wireless Telephone Spam Protection Act. This bill was intended to launch what could be called a preemptive attack against wireless spam before it spins out of control in the United States. Congress too often acts once the fire is already lit. This time, we can put the fire out before it gets out of control.

The Japanese are already fighting off a tsunami of cell phone spam. On one recent day, the 38 million customers of the largest Japanese wireless company, NTT DoCoMo, received 150 million pieces of spam. Even today, after passage of anti-spam laws in Japan, DoCoMo's subscribers still receive up to 30 million wireless spam messages each day. This has caused millions of Japanese wireless phone users to simply stop using their cell phone service.

So far, U.S. cell phone users have been largely sparred this torrent of annoying, unwanted messages. I presume this is because a lot of telemarketers don't believe there are enough text-capable cell phones in the country. Most new phones are text capably, however, and the number of text messages sent in this country has been rising rapidly, quadrupling from 250 million messages sent in December 2001 to 1 billion messages sent in December 2002. Seventeen percent of cellular customers, about 23 million people, currently use text messaging-- including 45 percent of cell phone users in the lucrative 18-to-25- year-old category. Direct marketers are already beginning to salivate.

That is why I am glad to see that this legislation includes a provision instructing the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate an opt-in rule for wireless spam. I would like to thank Mr. Markey for his work on this issue, and I would like to salute all of those who put this legislation together. It is by no means cure-all, but it is certainly a good first step towards ending the onslaught of e-mail spam and the tsunami of wireless spam. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.

As my constituents in central New Jersey know, I have been working ever since I came to Congress to provide Medicare beneficiaries with coverage for the prescription drugs that improve their quality of life and often save or extend lives. Today we are considering a bill that purports to provide such coverage, but unfortunately fails on several counts.

I have pledged to the seniors in my district that I will not support any legislation that undermines Medicare, a program that has succeeded in providing adequate health care to tens of millions of seniors for nearly 40 years. That is why I cannot and will not support the proposal that is before us. We can do much better, and with something this important, we should not get it wrong.

First and foremost, this legislation would devastate the Medicare program. It forces several million seniors into private plans and lays the groundwork for privatizing the traditional fee-for-service program. In New Jersey alone, an estimated 186,000 seniors will be affected. We need to strengthen Medicare with a drug benefit, not use prescription drug coverage as a mechanism for dismantling the entire program. It is simply not good policy to spend $12 billion of taxpayers' money just to set up a for-profit competitor to Medicare.

Second, even after the government spends all this money, seniors will not even get a very good benefit. It is true that any level of assistance will be of some help to seniors, but the gap in coverage under this bill will leave most seniors still paying thousands of dollars out-of-pocket. In fact, seniors with high drug costs must pay over $4,000 to receive $5,100 worth of medications. For many seniors, after August or September or whenever their drug bills reach $2,250, they would get no benefit--even though they would continue to pay their monthly premiums.

Third, this bill clearly undermines the universal nature of the Medicare program. Everyone, no matter what his or her income level, pays Medicare payroll taxes, and everyone is entitled to an equal benefit. But under this legislation, many low-income seniors would be subject to an assets test to see if they qualify for low-income subsidies. I know seniors in my district will be up in arms when they hear they have to send in bank statements or declare the value of things they own, potentially even having to sell some to get the benefit.

This bill is also bad news for the 220,000 seniors who currently receive prescription drug coverage through New Jersey's highly successful Prescription Drug Assistance for the Aged and Disabled (PAAD) program. While the bill will allow the state to receive Medicare funds for its PAAD spending, it also means that seniors will not receive their prescription drugs in the same simple, reliable way they did under PAAD. Seniors may find themselves limited to a list of approved drugs and face other restrictions not imposed by PAAD.

The bill also fails our physicians and other health care providers. While it purports to solve the problem of insufficient reimbursements, it actually offers little more than a Band-Aid. Two years of a 1.5 percent increase will provide some small measure of relief, but Congress must still address the long-term problems inherent in the current physician payment system.

Health care providers should also be alarmed by the provision that triggers an automatic congressional procedure once general revenues make up an arbitrary proportion of Medicare spending. This means that a few years down the road, providers may find themselves facing drastically insufficient reimbursement levels, and seniors will find themselves with fewer benefits and fewer doctors willing to accept Medicare patients. One editorial writer noted that the spending trigger would sound an alarm if Medicare spending exceeds certain levels, but the bill itself does almost nothing to control spending.

This bill fails our seniors, and unfortunately, it will fail the test of history. We have a historic opportunity to craft a bill that genuinely helps seniors afford the medicine they need. Sadly, the Republican leadership has decided to write a bill that privatizes Medicare, moves

seniors into managed care plans, leaves gaping holes in coverage, and puts current retirees' benefits in jeopardy. I will not support such a plan.

I urge the Congress to address this again in January. I firmly believe we can pass a bipartisan prescription drug benefit that is universal, voluntary, dependable, and affordable, if we make the choices that put seniors first.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his good work not only on the Committee on Rules, but also on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

As he said, I would welcome the opportunity later to speak about the need to have better training in critical languages here in the United States, but at the moment, I would like to talk about something that is relevant to the rule and to the Committee on Rules.

Here in Congress we have a responsibility, not only to appropriate funds, to authorize those funds, but also to oversee their expenditure. It is a sacred responsibility to deal with other people's money. It is a difficult job.

Now, in the areas of transportation and the Department of the Interior and other areas, we are assisted by millions of engaged citizens who keep an eye out for waste or misguided programs or programs that are less than well-thought-out. We do not, in classified programs, have that advantage, so it falls to us and our staff. We have an excellent staff that keeps tabs on the multifarious programs of the intelligence community. We are blessed with a chairman who has an agreeable personality and demeanor and wields his gavel with equanimity, and an excellent ranking member who keeps us on track. But we have a difficult job under the best of circumstances to oversee the intelligence programs.

It is made almost impossible when large fractions of the intelligence budget come through special appropriations, not through the normal course, not through the normal authorization and appropriation process, when in emergency allocations, money is put in without any previous oversight.

So as I speak in favor of the authorization bill that we are considering today and hope that we approve the rule so that we can get to the debate and approval of this authorization bill, I would ask the Committee on Rules to use its considerable influence in the future to see that we do not appropriate large sums of money for intelligence and other operations without going through the customary and necessary authorization process. We have done that over and over again in recent years, and it is a disservice to the intelligence community and a disservice to the American people. So again, I ask the Committee on Rules to use its considerable influence to see that we not fall into that problem.

Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues have already done, I would like to compliment the chairman on his commitment to bipartisanship within the committee, not only in the presentation of this bill but in so many of the committee's activities. The two sides may not see eye to eye on every issue, but the two sides do share a commitment to national security.

I especially want to thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), for her leadership and bipartisanship. She brings to her position a vigorous commitment to the Nation's intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2417. The bill enhances our Nation's intelligence capabilities in several important ways: In all source analysis, in foreign language capabilities, in human intelligence, in counter-terrorism watchlists and in particular programs. It is a step forward in what is I think a long-term transformation of the intelligence community.

The bill is based on a good measure of oversight, but as I spoke earlier today here, it is difficult to provide the kind of full oversight of such a multifaceted and secretive undertaking, but it is essential that we do so.

Intelligence, like law enforcement and policing, is essential to an orderly society; but like policing, it has great potential for misuse, challenging personal rights and civil liberties and abroad it can harm as well as advance our interests.

It is also essential that we, as a committee, support and stand behind the dedicated people and very talented people who sacrifice so much, sometimes even their lives, to keep alive American ideals.

We know that our intelligence is not perfect. We have a particularly good example of that in the intelligence that led up to and into the war with Iraq. I hope the committee will continue to scrutinize the way in which intelligence on Iraq's threat or perceived threat to the United States may have been deficient and to draw lessons for the future. The committee's oversight of this issue will be especially important if the long-term transformation of the intelligence community is to result in better intelligence.

I hope we will continue to move toward more use of understanding of unclassifieds and open sources. There is often, in fact, more useful knowledge in open sources than from the secret sources that the intelligence community sometimes so depends on.

I am disappointed that this bill does not include my proposal to authorize $10 million for two programs designed to increase language proficiency in America. Inadequate language capabilities actually threaten our national security. We must invest more in the creation of a workforce possessing requisite language skills; and to do this we must build greater proficiency throughout the country. We must increase the pool. There is bipartisan agreement on that, I believe, in the committee.

I appreciate the chairman's commitment to finding a comprehensive solution to intelligence community deficiencies, indeed, national deficiencies in our language capabilities. I look forward to doing that with the chairman in the next session on, as in so many things in this committee, a bipartisan basis.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for this motion, and I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) who certainly has the best of intentions, but there are times when a motion to instruct can help a well-meaning chairman get the most out of a conference.

As the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) pointed out, Pell grants have eroded in their purchasing power. They were intended to provide three-quarters of a typical college tuition. Now it is maybe a third.

Furthermore, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) pointed out, the dollar amount is in statute and so no student is going to lose the Pell grants this year; but as long as we continue to underfund them and borrow money from subsequent years so we can pay the tuition for this year's students, the program is not healthy and that needs to be adjusted. I join with my colleagues and echo the comments of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and others in this motion to instruct.

I would like to take an opportunity to talk about another issue regarding Pell grants and their affordability. In May of this year, the Department of Education published updates to the allowance for State taxes and other taxes that are used by students and their families to calculate the expected family income, or what they know as the EFC. The EFC is the amount students and their families are expected to contribute toward college in a given year, and a family's EFC determines eligibility for Pell grants and other Federal aid, and many private institutions use EFC to determine eligibility for private financial aid.

Unfortunately, the Department's change in how the State and local taxes are figured into a family's ability to pay will increase the contribution expected from the family for nearly all American families. While the impact of increases in EFC will vary from student to student and family to family, it will reduce aid for many students. In fact, the Department of Education recently determined that the changes in the State and local tax allowances would cause about 84,000 students to lose their Pell grants entirely and would reduce Pell grants overall by maybe $300 million. Students will lose many other types of Federal, State, and private assistance as well under this new calculation.

At a time when tuition costs are rising and the economy is sputtering, it is troubling that the administration would make any changes, any changes that would reduce financial aid. Furthermore, these changes are grossly unfair. They reduce the credit that families get for paying State and local taxes at the very time when they are paying more State and local taxes.

According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, State taxes increased by more than $8 billion in fiscal year 2003 and will grow even more, maybe $17 billion, in 2004. When the Senate considered the Labor-HHS appropriations, Senator Corzine offered an amendment to block these new changes from the administration, and it passed on a large bipartisan vote.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) and I, along with 75 other Members, including the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), have written a letter to the appropriators urging Congress to retain the Corzine amendment so that in this conference or in any other bill that includes fiscal year 2004 funding for the Department of Education, the cuts would be restored.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to stand with America's college students in supporting the Corzine amendment in conference and in supporting the Kildee motion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the energy conference agreement that has been brought to the House floor today.

As an energy scientist who spent nearly a decade working at one of the nation's premiere alternative energy research labs, I have worked in Congress to help craft a strategy that will provide real energy security for central New Jersey residents and the United States. That's why Congress should focus on the development of better ways to produce and use energy, including fuel cells, wind power, and fusion. We can fulfill the energy needs of a growing economy without compromising our national security interests or devastating our environment.

Unfortunately, rather than leading us into a secure energy future with a lower dependence on foreign oil, this bill merely subsidizes oil and gas companies to do more drilling--a short-term, ineffective solution.

Before I go into greater detail about my reasons for opposing this bill, I want to mention that I am pleased to see that provisions opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to harmful oil and gas drilling have been removed. This misguided policy would have sacrificed one of our most precious public lands for a minimal amount of resources.

What most concerns me about this bill, however, are provisions that will cause unnecessary harm to our environment while doing little to move this country towards a sustainable energy future. This is not an energy blueprint; it is a clumsy collection of special interest goodies.

I am most concerned about provisions that will affect the Jersey Shore, where the environment means a great deal to the local economy. While I am pleased to see that the conferees rejected a provision what would undo the moratorium on outer continental shelf oil and gas exploration, it seems they are still try to do the same thing in a much more nefarious fashion. by mandating a ``study'' of ways to prevent natural gas shortages by estimating holdings in areas currently off- limits, this bill could in effect open OCS areas to damaging seismic exploration.

Other provisions affecting the Jersey shore include giving the Secretary of Interior Czar-like authority to permit energy projects in the OCS, weakening the Coastal Zone Management Act to undermine states' abilities to protect their own coastal environments, and exempting oil and gas construction from stormwater provisions of the Clean Water Act.

New Jersey also has the dubious distinction of having some of the worst air quality in the nation. but it's not completely our fault-- prevailing winds carry pollution from the Midwest to our state, causing more asthma, emphysema, and premature death. That's why I am alarmed to see that right after the Bush administration relaxed Clean Air rules, the conferees have given certain cities a free pass to continue to avoid meeting other clean air requirements enforced by the EPA. This hurts residents of the affected cities and of my central New Jersey district--and certainly doesn't help address our energy problems.

This conference agreement also sets a dangerous precedent--that the primary use of our public lands should be oil and gas drilling or coal mining. Mr. Speaker, my constituents own these public lands just as much as any other American, and I'm quite sure most of them believe that we need a much more balanced approach to the use of our public lands.

Finally, this bill is notable for a few glaring omissions. First, it contains no renewable portfolio standard, a provision that would actually move our country towards a sustainable energy future by increasing our reliance on renewable energy. It contains pitiful levels of incentives for creating new renewable energy sources. It also fails to close the SUV loophole, a shameful part of our tax code that gives the wealthy tremendous incentives to continue buying the largest and most inefficient vehicles on the road.

What's worse, the bill does virtually nothing to reduce our prodigious dependence on oil. At a time when it is clear that our dependence on foreign oil affects national security and it is apparent we will never drill our way to independence domestically, we have an energy bill that refuses to mandate greater efficiency. Not only are there no provisions to increase automobile efficiency, this bill could actually undermine current fuel economy standards.

The real failure of the authors of this bill--in their closed, partisan sessions--is that they have not produced an energy bill. We need an energy bill. The country needs an energy bill, one that lays out a rational, coherent energy plan. The world needs us to do this, so that we not foul our earth by the way we produce and use energy. Instead, we get a grab bag of special interest goodies.

Mr. Speaker, I am voting against this conference agreement today because it is the wrong policy for America's future. Rather than leading us into a secure energy future with a lower dependence on foreign oil, this bill merely subsidizes oil and gas companies to do more drilling--a short-term short-sighted solution.

We need a responsible and sustainable approach to addressing our nation's energy needs. On behalf of the residents of the 12th District, I pledge to continue to work towards the development of a balanced, comprehensive energy plan--one that finds environmentally friendly, sustainable ways to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and slow the degradation of our planet.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California, for yielding me this time; and I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees to insist on section 344 of the House- passed bill requesting an intelligence lessons learned report.

The data we have received so far, and that is thousands of pages of raw reports, finished intelligence products, statements by administration officials, hearings with key officials, trips by staff and members to Iraq, leads me to judge that there have been serious deficiencies in collection, in analysis, in reporting, and in use of intelligence.

The chairman mentioned that we are always learning lessons, but the case of Iraq presents a particularly good case study that tells us and will tell us how our intelligence operation is functioning. I am struck so far that the leadership of the intelligence community and senior administration officials have seemed unwilling to learn these lessons. They have refused to acknowledge any deficiencies in pre-war intelligence, and I fear that this stubbornness in spite of the facts is harming our intelligence efforts, even today, as our troops fight an insurgency in Iraq.

So in the face of this denial by the administration, I feel that Congress must insist in law on a thorough and substantive lessons learned report.

But that is not the end of it. We have a responsibility in our committee as well to exert oversight, and I hope we will do that. As the committee goes to conference, I also hope that we can make certain that we have foreign language programs that will increase the pool of linguists in critical languages. Our search for the still-missing Osama bin Laden is hampered by language deficiencies of those looking. Dr. Kay's search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is hampered by our shortage of people who understand the technical terms of chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons and a flexibility in local language. So there are a number of things that we should be doing in conference, but certainly one of them is insisting on a lessons learned record.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the first inaugural John W. Kluge Prize for Lifetime Achievement in the Human Sciences was awarded in a ceremony at the Library of Congress. The Kluge Prize is given for lifetime achievement in the humanities and social sciences, areas of scholarship for which there are no Nobel Prizes.

Mr. Kluge and the Librarian of Congress James H. Billington deserve our congratulations for conceiving, developing and funding this prize. It will provide recognition for the influence the humanities have on human welfare. The first recipient of the million-dollar Kluge Prize is Leszek Kolakowski, whose achievements as a philosopher, historian and essayist have influenced and affected the course of European history within his lifetime. Librarian of Congress James H. Billington recognized Kolakowski for not only his accomplishments but ``the trajectory of a scholarly lifetime,'' evidencing growth in both intellectual range and maturity over more than half a century. The selection process included consideration of the wide range of nominations by a worldwide Scholars Council established for the purpose. Professor Kilakowski, sometimes described as the philosopher of the Solidarity Movement, is a worthy choice for the first Kluge Prize because it truly shows the constructive power of thought.

Professor Kolakowski, who currently lives in Oxford, England, was born in Radom, Poland, in 1927. He was educated at Lodz University (1945-50) and Warsaw University, where he received his doctorate in 1953, staying on to become Chairman of the Section of History of Philosophy at Warsaw. He concurrently worked in the Institute of Philosophy of the Polish Academy of Sciences and as editor-in-chief of the main philosophical journal in Poland. Having been expelled for political reasons from his university post by the Polish government in March 1968, he held a series of professorships of Philosophy abroad: McGill University, Montreal (1968-69), the University of California, Berkeley (1969-70), and Yale University (1974). From 1981 to 1994 he was Professor on the Committee of Social Thought at the University of Chicago. He was also a Senior Research Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, from 1970 until his retirement in 1995. During the years, he has been widely honored and received the German Booksellers Peace Prize (1977), the Erasmus Prize (1980), the Veillon Foundation European Prize for the Essay (1980), the Jefferson Award (1986), the MacArthur Award (1982), the University of Chicago Laing Award (1990), and Tocqueville Prize (1994).

He has written more than 30 books and 400 other writings on a wide range of subjects in four languages, primarily focused on the history of philosophy and the philosophy of religion. His best known and most influential work is the three-volume Main Currents of Marxism: Its Rise, Growth and Dissolution (1976-78). Written in exile from Poland, it was, and remains, the most lucid and comprehensive history of the origins, structure and posthumous development of the system of thought that had the greatest impact on the 20th century. Prof. Kolakowski's ideas informed the anti-totalitarian youth movement inside Poland, and he became an adviser and active supporter-in-exile of the Solidarity movement that challenged and began unraveling, in a non-violent way, the Soviet system in Eastern Europe. As one of the leaders of Solidarity put it:

This skeptical student of enlightenment thought, this

scholar of the highest intellectual rigor, this opponent of

all illusions, played the most romantic and Promethean of

roles. He was the awakener of human hopes.

In other words, this man demonstrated that philosophical thought and the study of history can lead to world-changing action, as Dr. Kolakowski's work helped to change the world though the Solidarity Movement. The word academic sometimes is used to mean ``without practical or useful significance.'', For Leszek Kolakowski academic research is not academic.

Dr. Billington began soliciting nominations for the first Kluge Prize over two years ago, but he first developed the idea in the late 1970's while serving as Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Dr. Billington obtained congressional authorization for a Nobel-type prize in the field of social and political thought, to honor the late Senator Hubert Humphrey, founding chairman of the Wilson Center Board. The prize was never funded, but Dr. Billington brought the idea with him when he came to the Library of Congress in 1987. Endowed by Library benefactor John W. Kluge, this prize will reward lifetime achievement in the wide range of disciplines not covered by the Nobel prizes. Such disciplines include history, philosophy, politics, anthropology, sociology, religion, criticism in the arts and humanities, and linguistics. The award is at the financial level of the Nobel awards. The prize is international; the recipient may be of any nationality, writing in any language.

Dr. Billington believes it is important and appropriate to award the prize at the Library of Congress, in the nation's capital, in recognition of America's long tradition of devoting energy and resources into the serious and ranging study of the human sciences-- more than any other nation over the last century. The international nature of the prize reflects America's role as a world civilization whose thinkers and ideas trace their origins to all corners of the world. Please join me in congratulating Leszek Kolakowski on this important award and thank him for his contribution to the world we live in.

Mr. Speaker, this week, W. Jason Morgan was awarded the National Medal of Science Award at the White House for discoveries underlying modern studies of earthquakes and volcanoes.

A geophysicist, W. Jason Morgan has been selected to receive the National Medal of Science--the nation's highest scientific honor--for theories that describe how land masses move, volcanoes arise and many other features of the land and sea take shape.

W. Jason Morgan, the Knox Taylor Professor of Geography at Princeton University, is among eight scientists and engineers selected to receive the award.

The award recognizes Morgan for his work in pioneering two fundamental ideas--plate tectonics and mantle plumes. The first describes how the Earth's surface consists of a dozen plates that move with respect to each other. This work provided a unified framework for understanding earthquakes and volcanoes

as well as the formation of continents, mountains, ocean basins and other surface features. It also underlies nearly all current research into deposits of petroleum and other natural resources and the evolution of the Earth's climate and life.

The theory of plate tectonics he published in 1968 is one of the major milestones of U.S. science in the 20th century, said Anthony Dahlen, chair of the Princeton Department of Geosciences.

Essentially all of the research in solid-earth geophysical sciences in the past 30 to 35 years has been firmly grounded upon Jason Morgan's plate tectonic theory, Dahlen said. The scientific careers of a generation of geologists and geophysicists have been founded upon his landmark 1968 paper.

The second area of Morgan's work cited in the award explains how heat within the Earth forces columns of solid, but ductile material through the Earth's mantle creating ``hot spots'' at the surface. This rising material, known as a mantle plume, causes ridges and volcanoes to form when oceanic plates pass above it. Morgan first reported his findings regarding mantle plumes in 1971 and has published extensively on the subject over the last three decades.

I am thrilled to see Jason Morgan honored so appropriately, said Princeton University President Shirley M. Tilghman. He is not only a remarkable scientist, but a skilled and enthusiastic teacher. He has mentored generations of students, often taking them into the field to experience first-hand the power of science to explain the most basic workings of our planet.

After receiving a bachelor's degree from the Georgia Institute of Technology, Morgan came to Princeton as a graduate student in physics and studied under Robert Dicke, a renowned mentor of many important 20th-century physicists. Morgan received his Ph.D. in 1964 and joined the geosciences department the same year. In 1988, he was named to Princeton's Taylor professorship. He has received numerous awards, including the Japan Prize, the Maurice Ewing Medal, the Leon Lutaud Prize, the Alfred Wegener Medal and the Walter Bucher Award. He was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1982. Morgan has announced he will retire in February 2004.

I congratulate Mr. Morgan on his award, and I thank him for the contributions he has made to better our society.

Mr. Speaker, today at the White House, Evelyn M. Witkin was awarded the National Medal of Science Award, the nation's highest science and engineering honor.

``The ideas and breakthroughs in fundamental science and engineering by these extraordinary pioneers have influenced thousands of other researchers,'' said Rita Colwell, director of the National Science Foundation (NSF). ``We now see the daily evidence of the tremendous advancements in technological capabilities, human health and vast new knowledge within our physical world due to these heroes of science we celebrate today,'' Colwell said.

The National Medal of Science, established by the 86th Congress in 1959 and administered by the NSF, honors the impact of individuals on the present state of knowledge in the physical, biological, mathematical, engineering, social and behavioral sciences. Not including the 2002 recipients, the medal has been awarded to 409 distinguished scientists and engineers, including three previous Rutgers winners.

Witkin was largely responsible for creating the field of DNA mutagenesis and DNA repair, which focuses on how mutations, most of which are unhealthy, occur in DNA and how they may be corrected. Her work, which furthered our understanding of the genetic response to harmful environmental factors such as radiation, has played an important role in the biochemical sciences and in clinical radiation therapy for cancer.

``I had no idea that anything like this was possible. I am very gratified by the award,'' said Witkin. ``That I was nominated by colleagues means a lot to me, having been in the field of genetics since the mid-1940's.''

Witkin's investigations into DNA repair led to her discovery of genes that can heighten bacterial resistance to DNA-damaging agents. In 1973, while on the faculty of Rutgers' Douglass College, she defined the E. coli ``SOS Response,'' a system that is triggered by DNA damage. This system activates at least 40 genes that promote DNA repair and enhances individual and population survival. We now know that humans and many other organisms use the same kinds of DNA repair mechanisms.

Witkin came to Douglass College in 1971 and taught in the department of biology for 12 years. She then spent eight years on the faculty of the Waksman Institute of Microbiology until her retirement in 1991.

I congratulate Evelyn Witkin on her award, and I thank her for the contribution she has made to improve our society.