Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, for forty years, the federal government has kept a promise to our nation's seniors. That promise is called Medicare, and it means that every senior will receive affordable, reliable health care in their later years.

Four years ago, I came to this Congress having made a promise to the seniors in my Congressional district--that I would work to bring Medicare into the twenty-first century by including coverage for prescription drugs. Coverage that, like the original Medicare program, is comprehensive, voluntary, universal, and reliable--without hampering the innovation that has brought us so many miraculous drugs over the past few decades.

Today I am voting to keep that promise by opposing a bill that would undermine the Medicare program itself. H.R. 1 purports to offer seniors coverage for the prescription drugs they rely on every day. Unfortunately, it falls far short when held up to the spirit and practice of Medicare.

The most distressing aspect of this bill, to me, to my constituents, and to the AARP, is that it takes the entire Medicare program down a short road to privatization. By the year 2010, Medicare would be converted to a voucher program with competition between managed care plans and traditional fee-for-service--only the deck would be stacked against the traditional plans. Seniors would find themselves have forced to enroll in managed care programs like the Medicare+Choice programs that have failed so miserably in central New Jersey.

Rather than giving seniors what they want and deserve--a reliable, affordable drug benefit under Medicare, this provision, glibly called ``premium support,'' will destabilize the program and lead to substantially higher costs for seniors who want to stay in traditional Medicare.

Yet another element of confusion comes from the bizarre ``donut hole'' in coverage under this bill. Seniors would find themselves paying 20 percent of drug costs up to $2000 in drug costs--then having no coverage until they reach $4900 in drug costs, when a catastrophic cap finally kicks in. Not only is this extremely convoluted, it ends up leaving seniors with a very paltry benefit. A beneficiary with $5000 in annual drug costs would pay nearly $4000 out of their own pocket!

This may be alarming to seniors who currently have no drug coverage. There are millions out there, however, who may think this debate won't really affect them because they already have coverage under their company's retiree benefit packages. I want them to know that the Republicans have quite a surprise in store for them.

If this bill passes, nearly one-third of employers currently offering retiree drug benefits--covering 11 million seniors--would drop that coverage. Retiree benefits would not count towards the beneficiary's out-of-pocket limit, making it almost impossible for seniors with retiree coverage to ever reach the catastrophic cap. So the bill actually discriminates against seniors with existing coverage and will have the practical effect of employers ending their benefits. This provision makes no sense--why on earth do we want to have less private sector drug coverage?

While I am disappointed with the underlying bill, I am pleased to see that the Rules Committee made the Dingell-Rangel substitute bill in order. This legislation would go a long way to fulfilling the promise I mentioned--it would provide a reliable, stable benefit under Medicare. Beneficiaries know exactly what they would pay--20 percent of drug costs up to $2000 in out-of-pocket costs with a defined premium of $25 per month and a defined deductible of $100.

Tonight, in this body, by passing H.R. 1 we could be bringing about the end of a program that served seniors so well. Instead, we should pass the Dingell-Rangel substitute. That is what seniors need and deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, although I think this should be a totally open rule, as has been the tradition for dealing with this bill each year, I do think that the House should understand that the bill that is being brought to the House today is not controversial in the sense that it was agreed to unanimously within the committee. I would add to the remarks of my friend from Florida that this is, once again, a truly nonpartisan and bipartisan effort. It is appropriate that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence should operate that way, both as the committee that provides oversight for intelligence activities and a committee that is, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) points out, a consumer of intelligence product.

No doubt there will be a great deal of controversy to follow, a great deal of political discussion to follow in coming weeks and months about the intelligence that led up to the fighting and into the fighting in Iraq. In fact, I think this will be very good for the committee because it is an excellent case study of what intelligence should be, what intelligence should not be, how it can be used, and how it can be misused. I applaud the decision of the chairman and the ranking member to investigate the disturbing matter thoroughly, and I have no doubt that we will be able to investigate it thoroughly.

I applaud their decision to allow Members of the House to read the large volume of material that the Director of Central Intelligence has provided to the Congress. And our committee intends to issue a written report on its findings as promptly as possible.

We have only begun to examine in detail the testimony, the statements, the published intelligence relating to Iraq's weapons programs and terrorist associations. It is early in our investigation, too early in the military's search within Iraq itself to come to any definitive conclusions or explanations of our failure so far to substantiate the prewar claims and expectations of what we would find there. But I have no doubt that the House will be satisfied with the thorough and critical look that the committee will take in this issue.

There is no question that there is a lot of ambiguous information to search through. There is no doubt that there have been some exaggerated claims at least, and lives and deaths have hung on these things. We must take a thorough look at it. We will and I think the Members of the House will be satisfied with that look.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I support the gentlewoman's amendment also, and I am very pleased to acknowledge the atmosphere in this committee that allows us to function so well. It is what a committee should be. The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), ranking member, avoid, I think, destructive partisanship and allow us to air our differences in a very constructive way.

I would like to draw attention to section 336 of this bill that includes a provision that I have strongly advocated for to require the director of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center to establish two advisory councils to help the center carry out its critical and time- sensitive work, Mr. Chairman.

One Advisory Council will focus on privacy and civil liberty concerns. We all know and understand that we are engaged in an ongoing fight against global terrorism and that our entire Intelligence Community is central to prosecuting and winning this struggle. But, at the same time, as we enhance our intelligence-gathering and analysis, it is equally important that the Director of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center and all employees there must respect the basic civil liberties that define our lives as Americans. Surely this Advisory Council will help us more nearly achieve the right delicate balance between security and liberty.

Now, equally important, this section of the bill also requires an Advisory Council to the Director of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center be established to concentrate on getting more and better information to State and local governments. The efforts to improve substantially our homeland security as a matter of urgency fall primarily upon our first responders and the local and State governments who employ them. In my meetings with State and local officials in New Jersey, and with first responders in my district, I have heard repeatedly that they receive only the most general and vague and almost useless information from Washington. They seldom, if ever, receive any more specific information about what they should guard against. Clearly, they deserve more timely and useful information if they are to function to protect the lives, the safety, and the security of Americans. This Advisory Council should help overcome this incomplete communication of practically useful intelligence information from the Federal to the community level.

Third, I would like to comment about the importance of incorporating information based on open sources. These sources of information are not classified secret. And traditionally, within the Intelligence Community and to this day, some individuals seem to think that if information is not classified secret, it is not valuable. In the 21st century this institutionalized mindset is unfortunate, since our sources of information and the amount of information readily available to the public domain and in the public domain have grown enormously. The Internet has enabled one to access information that was once extremely hard or impractical to obtain, and the dynamics of globalization, the accelerated integration of global industry, commerce, communication, and travel have created many new sources of information. The civil and commercial sectors, for instance, are looking into subjects and technologies that once were the exclusive preserve of governments and intelligence services. A prominent example is imagery from satellites that is publicly or commercially available. In HUMINT intelligence, open access to officials and experts is unparalleled today.

I believe that the Intelligence Community should be exploiting such open source information far more than it is today, and achieving this goal will require a culture change and the application of technology. I thank the chairman for agreeing to include in the report a call for the Director of Central Intelligence to study and report back to Congress within 6 months how to incorporate and use open source material in virtually every aspect of intelligence, from collection to analysis, and across all disciplines. There are many instances where open source information can be useful, perhaps even more useful than classified sources, and surely, in many cases, cheaper.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I spoke earlier about the decision by the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ranking Member Harman) to investigate thoroughly concerns about weapons of mass destruction and the intelligence that led into our fighting in Iraq. Our committee intends to issue a written report on its findings as promptly as possible, and I spoke about that earlier.

I would like to say a bit more, though. One concern that I have had is that the administration officials too often appear to have dropped the caveats and the uncertainties expressed in the intelligence reporting. Another concern is that at times the intelligence reporting or the officials presenting the intelligence appear to have been very certain about their conclusions that were based on uncertain evidence.

Mr. Chairman, it is critically important to determine whether the Intelligence Community's estimates on Iraq were badly off base, or whether the Iraqi regime managed to destroy or spirit away the suspect weapons or materials. Either way, it seems clear that performance of the Intelligence Community was less than we would expect. It is clear to all of the world that the coalition did not have the intelligence information specific enough to find, identify, and secure any massively destructive weapons. That realization certainly raises questions about whether we were ready to go to war if the Commander in Chief and the Pentagon were convinced that the weapons were real, but they did not know quite where they were or how we would secure them once we went to war. But that is a question for another day. We will be talking about that in weeks to come.

Now, I would say, with the amendments that we have in front of us today, I offer my full support to this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding. I join him in expressing support for this amendment and accolades to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), and the others who are working on this.

I wanted to reiterate my concern about the lack of racial, linguistic, cultural and gender diversity within the intelligence community. Our intelligence network should reflect much more of the diversity and multicultural composition of the American people and of the world that we seek to understand. But no one should be comforted by the words in this amendment. This is the umpteenth time that the problem has been identified and that intelligence agencies have been exhorted, even required, to do better. I hope this amendment produces real results.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise to underscore the right of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) to offer this amendment and say that he is getting at a very important point, but to say further it is a bad amendment and should be opposed. It is both too narrow and too broad. He is certainly intending to get at an important point, but it is too narrow in that it deals with the phone records of one public official, and it is too broad in the sense that it is a fishing expedition. It is the kind of fishing expedition which I think so sullied some previous Congresses.

The question of whether intelligence has been cooked or coerced is a critical question, and I thank the gentleman for raising it. But in fact in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence we have already raised that, and we will continue to raise that issue. I ask the assistance of every Member of this body on both sides of the aisle to help us formulate the questions that need to be asked and to hold us to task that those questions are asked to the satisfaction of all Members of this body and of the citizens of America. But I do not believe that this amendment will help us do that. I must oppose this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose it.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, perhaps the gentleman did not hear me earlier this evening when I said that what we are looking at are critical questions that have to do with lives and deaths that have occurred or might occur. It has a lot to do with the future direction of our country; but I do not believe that this amendment will help us carry out the investigation that we need to carry out and ask the questions that we need to ask and have for the future the kind of truth-telling intelligence agents and analysts who will help this country get where we want to go.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks, Congress enacted and the President signed into law the Patriot Act of 2001. As we all know, the country was in a state of shock over the events of September 11th, and the bill was an immediate reaction to that--being drafted, briefly debated, approved, and signed into law by October 26, 2001, a mere six weeks after the attacks.

The Patriot Act is a wide-ranging statute designed, as its stated purpose, to ``unite and strengthen America by providing appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism.'' These tools include increased authority to intercept telephone and electronic communications, to conduct surveillance of private citizens, to seize electronic and voice mail messages, to execute and delay notice of the execution of warrants, and to access the business and private records of American citizens and others living in our country. It includes some provisions that most people would not question such as making wiretapping court orders apply to all of a suspect's phone lines.

The Patriot Act also expands the authority of U.S. government intelligence agencies to invoke the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was originally enacted to track and capture international spies as distinct from domestic citizens and residents. It is worth noting that FISA surveillance requests in 2002 outnumbered all of those under domestic law for the first time since FISA was enacted.

Although the recognition of terrorist cells (like the hijackers) within our country led Americans to demand stronger action to identify and bring to justice those responsible for the terrorist attacks on our country on September 11th and to prevent any other such tragedy, the balance between liberty and security is notoriously difficult to strike. I voted in favor of the Patriot Act recognizing that, in that period of national anxiety, we would probably get the balance wrong and so I insisted that it incorporate sunset provisions for its most onerous provisions. Accordingly, some of this law's most troubling provisions granting increased police powers to our Federal government will expire at the end of 2005.

Now, nearly 22 months after the September 11th attacks, we should question whether we are more united and strengthened as a Nation in fact? The answer is yes in some ways, but probably not by operation of the Patriot Act. Although 1,200 men were immediately detained following the September 11th attacks on America and more subsequently, only one suspect--Zacarias Moussaoui--is actually being tried for his alleged involvement in those terrorist attacks.

At the same time, substantial numbers of suspects are being held in detention without counsel, without charges having been filed and without trials taking place. Moreover, countless numbers of citizens and legal residents have had assets seized and business transactions interrupted and have suffered many other disruptions in their personal and professional lives. These actions have caused much more widespread public unease and dissention than any feelings of national unity or strength that might result should a suspect actually be tried, convicted and brought to justice through operation of the Patriot Act.

In fact, soon after the initial round-up of detainees, the principal focus of the Bush Administration and many resources were diverted away from using the Patriot Act to find and rout al-Qaeda terrorism cells operating in the United States and around the world to waging and winning the war to topple Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. This was done even though U.S. intelligence agencies and the Bush White House could not demonstrate any clear and convincing connection between the Iraqi regime and Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda or the events of September 11th or other terrorist connections to the U.S. that prompted the passage of the Patriot Act in the first place.

So what has the Patriot Act accomplished in terms of increasing the unity and strength of our Nation? 112 cities, counties, and towns across the country have passed resolutions urging federal authorities to show great respect for the rights of our citizens, when carrying out activities designed to fight terrorism and improve homeland security. Just last week, Alaska became the second state after Hawaii to approve a resolution in opposition to key elements of the Patriot Act. The Alaska State legislature is firmly controlled by Republicans, nevertheless they overwhelmingly supported a resolution that ``implores the United States Congress to correct provisions in the USA Patriot Act and other measures that infringe on civil liberties, and opposes any pending and future Federal legislation to the extent that it infringes on Americans' civil rights and liberties.'' In the words of one Alaskan state legislator: ``Guys are dying on the battlefield to protect our freedoms. It is up to us to protect those freedoms here at home.''

It is altogether fitting that you are gathered in the Princeton Public Library for this forum. I highly commend the sponsors and organizers of this two-part forum. Many organizations and individuals are expressing opposition to the provisions of the Patriot Act that prohibit library personnel from informing patrons if Federal agents have obtained records about their reading habits. In Washington, I was early co-sponsor of legislation sponsored by U.S. Congressman Bernie Sanders to exempt libraries and booksellers from orders requiring that they produce this sort of information about their patrons.

In a similar spirit, more Americans from all walks of life are joining with Muslim Americans and people of Middle Eastern descent to protest nationality-based registrations by the Immigration and Naturalization Bureau, which U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft began ordering last November for all men over 16 years of age in America from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Eritrea, Liberia, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Congressman James Sensenbrenner, Republican Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has called for extensive hearings into the uses and implementation of the Patriot Act, expressing serious concerns. I support him in that, although the Bush Administration appears to be stonewalling. I have also personally asked FBI Director Robert Mueller for his account of the need, usefulness, and future justification of the Patriot Act.

But it is having another effect unintended by the strongest supporters of the Patriot Act and who want to see it extended and expanded. It is reminding more Americans daily of the importance of our precious civil liberties and how much more strongly they must be preserved and protected in times of war.

I voted in favor of the Patriot Act with great reservation at the outset, and my reservations have only increased over time. Seeing little evidence that it has increased our security, I expect to oppose any effort to extend those provisions of the current Patriot Act that will expire next year and I will most certainly oppose any effort to strengthen and extend the reach of the Patriot Act with new provisions that facilitate incursions into and violations of the fundamental civil and constitutional rights of our citizens and other legal residents in America, including proposals to revoke citizenship of people who are thought to give material aid to terrorists. The police and prosecution powers of the government are important and necessary to preserving life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but they are also the most fearsome powers of government.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Julie T. Wu of Manalapan High School in Englishtown, New Jersey. Ms. Wu was in Washington, recently as one of 24 members of the U.S. Physics Olympiad Team vying for a chance to represent the United States at the International Physics Olympiad on July 12th in Taipei, Taiwan.

The U.S. Physics Olympiad program has a long history of success. It is designed to encourage excellence in physics education and to reward outstanding physics students. It provides an opportunity for top students to take part in an outstanding scientific and cultural experience that would not normally be available through the tradition high school curriculum.

The U.S. Physics Team members were selected from a pool of more than 1400 students who where nominated by their high school physics teachers to take the Olympiad physics exams. These students represent the ``best and the brightest'' physics talent in our Nation. Julie is a perfect example of the type of talented and motivated students that take part in the program.

Julie's accomplishments as a young scholar are impressive. She has received the Siemens' Award for her performance on the Advanced Placement exams in math and science. Julie is also a National Merit Scholar, and has placed 1st in the New Jersey Science League for biology and physics, 2nd in Chemistry Nomenclature in the New Jersey Chemistry Olympics, 3rd for the US National Chemistry Olympiad qualifying exam, and 1st for biology and 3rd in chemistry in the National Science Olympiad.

In addition to her impressive list of academic achievements, Julie has excelled outside the classroom as well. She is co-captain of the varsity tennis team, treasurer of her school's chapter of Junior Statesmen of America, and a section editor of her school's yearbook.

We are honored to have Julie representing the 12th district of New Jersey at this prestigious competition.

Mr. Speaker, Americans, indeed the whole world, are asking, why have we not we found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the vast quantities of anthrax, small pox, serin, mustard gas and other agents, the nuclear weapons, or the near-nuclear weapons?

Congress has an obligation to the American people and to our men and women in uniform to conduct a full inquiry. I think the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is the right forum to do that.

Now, the administration says that Iraq has had 12 years of practice in hiding; the weapons were there, perhaps, but were destroyed; or maybe they were there, but they were moved; or maybe they were not there, but could be constituted on demand. In any case, either there is something wrong, or the intelligence was too vague and imprecise to track what has happened to them.

The President says we are going to find weapons of mass destruction. He may be right. But it seems to me that before the President sent our troops into battle and committed our Nation to this war, we should have had a very good idea of just where those weapons of mass destruction were so that we could secure them and track them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1954, a bill that honors all of the men and women who place themselves in harms way for the sake of this Nation. America is composed of individuals from across the globe--people who come from various nations all united by their strong belief in the ideals for which America stands. Some of those who have come to the United States are brave enough and committed enough to serve in the military defending our country. It is partly because of individuals like these that our democracy maintains its strength in a sometimes perilous world. Accordingly, our democracy should respect their sacrifice. A year's honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, especially in this time of heightened security, is surely ample proof that such a person deserves the full rights of United States Citizenship. Additionally, if such a person loses his or her life so serving, family members should not be forced to leave America--on the contrary, they should be embraced by this Nation quickly and expeditiously. Current laws are not adequate on either front: required service time is unnecessarily long, and surviving family members must undergo too much to gain immigration benefits.

I am proud to be the cosponsor of similar measures that have been introduced by my colleagues Mr. Frost and Ms. Solis. Those two bills, and the one before this Chamber today, uphold the spirit of honor and respect that must be accorded to any individual willing to commit themselves to the defense of our Nation. Such individuals come from New Jersey, Texas, and California, but they also come from Poland, India, and Mexico. Over 37,000 of the 1.4 million active duty members of the Armed Forces are noncitizens--they and their families deserve the right and honor of citizenship in the United States. I applaud their service, and I eagerly welcome these men and women as fellow citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the victory of the 37 member team from North Brunswick Township High School who built the robot, Evil Machine, and took second place in the national FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) Robotics Competition in Houston Texas. Building a champion robot is more than creating a machine with technical prowess. It represents hours of hard work, dedication, collaboration and communication among students, teachers, mentors and community members. FIRST is an example of technology at its finest. It involves identifying a problem, developing a hypothesis to solve it and implementing the solution.

To win second place in a national competition against 300 other high school robots is a good accomplishment. Each team that participated in FIRST was required to design and build a robot that solved the ``game problem'' using ``kit parts'' and a standard set of rules. Over a six- week period, the North Brunswick Township High School team designed ``Evil Machine''. His task for the competition was to collect and stack plastic storage containers on their side of the playing field, to knock down walls, and during the two-minute competition, to keep the opposing team's robots from doing the same activity.

FIRST is a critical program because it reinforces science education. Science is not just another subject. It is fundamental like reading and math. Science brings order, harmony, and balance to our lives. It teaches us that our world is intelligible and not capricious. A scientific framework provides us the skill for lifelong learning, for creating progress itself. These are very important skills for the very complex times in which we live.

I ask that all the members join me in congratulating these 34 North Brunswick Township High School Students for their excellence and their FIRST Robotics victory.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003.

After the Florida voting debacle of the 2000 election, we in Congress recognized that we had to act to restore the integrity and reliability of our electoral system by making dimpled chads and other voting irregularities a thing of the past. Last October, we enacted the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), groundbreaking election reform legislation that is currently helping states throughout the country replace antiquated and unreliable punch cards and butterfly ballots. Early this month, the newly-formed New Jersey HAVA Commission held it's first meeting. From those Commissioners and others I know, there is a great deal of enthusiasm about the increased Federal involvement in oversight, funding and guidance with respect to the conduct of elections for Federal office.

But HAVA could have an adverse, unintended consequence. It is fueling a headlong rush by states and localities to purchase computer voting systems that suffer from a serious flaw. It generates suspicion about the voting. You, the voter, have no way of knowing if your vote is recorded as you intended.

Imagine it's Election Day 2004. You enter your local polling place and cast your vote on a brand new ``touch screen'' voting machine. The screen is large and well lit, and your choices are clearly spelled out before you. In fact, it looks as easy to use as the ATM at your bank. You breathe a sigh of relief that you no longer have to figure out a complicated butterfly ballot or pull a lever. So you make a choice and touch the corresponding button to cast your vote. The screen says your vote has been counted. As you exit the voting booth, however, you begin to wonder: how do I know if the machine actually recorded my vote correctly. The fact is, you don't. No one knows.

That is why hundreds of nationally-renowned computer scientists, including David Dill of Stanford University, consider a voter-verified paper trail to be a critical safeguard for the accuracy, integrity and security of computer-assisted elections.

Without a physical record of votes cast, how will election officials in 2004 be able to launch an effective, honest recount in a closely contested election? How will they be able to ensure that a computer hacker has not tampered with votes?

Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, also a nationally renowned expert on this subject and a constituent of mine, asks on her website: ``Think the November 5, 2002 US General Election went smoothly? Use your favorite Web engine and search for the words `election' and `glitch'--a recent scan on Google News turned up hundreds of disturbing press reports.'' Not all of these reported troubles were in Florida. They were in Texas, Alabama, Nevada, Georgia, California, South Carolina, Nebraska, and New Jersey. Voter News Service (VNS), the agency that provides exit poll data that might have been used as a cross-check against computerized returns, was coincidentally knocked out of service by an unidentified `massive computer glitch' on Election Day as well. Many of the election problems (including those at VNS) occurred in spite of hundreds of millions of dollars (soon to be billions) spent on new equipment.

In the 2002 election, brand new computer voting systems used in Florida lost over 100,000 votes due to a software error. In New Jersey, several voting irregularities have been reported and, in one instance, a mainframe computer deployed to rapidly tally election results broke down entirely and had to be replaced in the last minute by bookkeepers using adding machines. In fact, in the 2000 election, it was also reported that in an election in South Brunswick in my congressional district, one new touch-screen machine simply did not record any votes at all for one Republican candidate and one Democratic candidate. The manufacturer was quoted in the Washington Post as saying ``no votes were lost--they were just never registered.'' The election officials in charge were quoted as saying ``it didn't matter whether the fault was the voters'' or the machine's, the expected votes were gone.''

In Georgia, the entire state voted on 22,000 brand new touch-screen machines purchased in 2001 at a cost of $54 million. The Washington Post reported that when used in the November 2002 general election, ``some people touched one candidate's name on the screen and saw another candidate's name appear as their choice. Voters who were paying attention had a chance to correct the error before finalizing their vote, but those who weren't did not.'' It is also disturbing to note that immediately prior to the election, a ``patch'' (a modification to the voting machines'' software program) was installed on the new machines. Although the patch reportedly ``was checked before it was installed,'' it also reportedly was not checked by election or certification officials. Nonetheless, the official who oversaw the statewide upgrade in Georgia declared that the voters were happy with how the system operated.

Maryland also installed new touch screen machines in five counties that were first used in the November 2002 general election. Again, the election official who oversaw the purchase of the new equipment was reported in the Washington Post as saying ``the system performed flawlessly in two statewide elections. The public has a lot of confidence in it, and they love it.'' But, as Professor David Dill observes, ``I'm not concerned with elections that are a mess. I'm concerned about elections that appear to go smoothly, and no one knows that it was all messed up inside the machine.'' A Maryland reporter wrote an article on exactly that danger, immediately after the November 2002 election, using the incident in which the computer betting system used in the Breeder's Cup Race was tampered with as a cautionary and analogous example.

Not all election officials want to rely on voting technology that produces no voterverified record. Warren Slocum, Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-County ClerkRecorder for San Mateo County, California actively and enthusiastically endorses the use of voting equipment that produces a voter-verified paper trail. He says, ``the most naive argument against a paper trail is that the machines are accurate and tested properly before the election. It is argued that we don't need to worry about hackers, Trojan Horses or programming mistakes.... Surprisingly, some elections professionals say that touchscreen voting systems can be trusted. But when voters are given the choice, most say `absolutely not.' And the computer scientists who have studied this issue say no way.''

Across the country, in growing numbers, people are studying and reading about electronic voting and saying--``wait a minute .... ``

With the 2004 election around the corner and states lining up to buy new computerized voting machines, Congress needs to act immediately before it's too late. We need to

make sure that voters receive a physical, paper verification of their votes. After all, voting should not be an act of faith. It should be an act of record.

That is why I am introducing this bill--- The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 --- to amend HAVA to require a voter-verified record for all votes cast in federal elections. Under my bill, funds expended under HAVA will be utilized in a manner that ensures that this minimum standard of voter protection will be built into computer voting systems before the next general election.

Key provisions of my bill include:

1) A requirement that all voting systems produce a voter-verified paper record for use in manual audits. A system using optical scanning of cards marked by the voters is one acceptable version. For those using the increasingly popular direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines (such as `touch-screen' machines), this requirement means those machines would print a receipt that each voter would verify as accurate and deposit into a lockbox at the polling station for later use in a recount. States would have until November 2003 to request additional funds to meet this requirement.

(2) A ban on the use of undisclosed software and wireless communications devices in voting systems.

(3) A requirement that all voting systems meet these increased standards of protection in time for the general election in November 2004. Jurisdictions anticipating that their new computer systems may not be able to meet this deadline will be able to use a paper system, as an interim measure and at federal expense, in the November 2004 election.

(4) A requirement that electronic voting systems be provided for persons with disabilities by January 1, 2006--one year earlier than currently required by HAVA. Like the voting systems used by persons without disabilities, those used by disabled voters must also provide a mechanism for voter-verification, though not necessarily a paper trail. Jurisdictions unable to meet this requirement by the deadline must give disabled voters the option to use the interim paper system with the assistance of an aide of their choosing.

(5) A requirement of mandatory surprise recounts in 0.5 percent of domestic jurisdictions and 0.5 percent of overseas jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more crucial to democracy than guaranteeing the integrity, fairness, and accuracy of elections. The election of 2000 was a fiasco, but unless this legislation is promptly enacted the election of 2004 could be a disaster.

Mr. Chairman, Democrats and Republicans in recent years have recognized the rapidly-changing security challenges that confront our Nation and come together to address them. That is why much of this bill is non-controversial. In particular, we are united since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in supporting the increased investments needed to strengthen our common defense and to effectively prosecute the war against terrorism.

Let me begin by stating that there is no higher test for this bill, in my estimation, than how it treats the brave men and women who risk their lives every day to defend our freedom. By that standard, I am pleased by the provisions that continue our shared commitment to boost the income for all of our military personnel with a 4.1 percent average increase in base pay. It also extends several special pay provisions and bonuses for active duty personnel through December 31, 2004, including the enlistment and re-enlistment bonus. Furthermore, it calls for reducing the average amount of housing expenses paid by service members from 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent in FY 2004 and eliminates the out-of-pocket expense completely by FY 2005.

But on balance, I am opposing this bill on final passage because I fundamentally disagree with key aspects of its policy presumptions and prescriptions. It will make America less safe.

First and most importantly, the growing reliance upon nuclear weapons that this bill encourages makes our Nation and the world less safe, not more so. Accordingly, I strongly disagree with the funding in this bill to continue work on high-yield, burrowing nuclear ``bunker-busters'' that target underground military facilities or arsenals. I am equally opposed to the language in this bill that lifts the ban on research leading to low yield ``mini-nuclear weapons'' of 5 kilotons or less.

Last month, I sent a letter to President Bush that was co-signed by 34 of my colleagues to convey our grave concern that he is weakening long-standing U.S. policy governing the use of nuclear as opposed to conventional weapons. That action coupled with the examples I've cited and other provisions in this bill further undermine the U.S. non- proliferation efforts of Republican and Democratic Presidents alike and heighten growing international fear that Bush Administration's policies are fueling a new nuclear arms race.

Second, I am opposed to the blanket exemptions from our Nation's environmental protection laws for the Pentagon in this bill. There is no convincing evidence that environmental laws like the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act hinder our military's capacity to defend our Nation.

But you don't have to take my word for it. The out-going EPA Administrator, Christine Whitman, has testified to the Congress that she does not ``believe that there is a training mission anywhere in the country that is being held up or not taking place because of environmental protection.'' Furthermore, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) has reported to the Congress that the Pentagon has failed to produce any evidence that environmental laws have significantly affected our military readiness.

I do not think the Pentagon or any other federal agency should be above the law. Moreover, current law already allows case-by-case environmental exemptions for the Pentagon, when they are determined to be in the national interest.

Finally, this bill also contains provisions that will be very harmful to hundreds of thousands of dedicated civilian men and women who make our Defense Department work.

Last year saw the largest government reorganization in more than three decades with the creation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, affecting 170,000 federal employees. Following extensive congressional debate, Secretary Ridge was granted authority to establish a more flexible agency that attempted to protect basic worker rights.

But this bill will give Defense Secretary Rumsfeld broad authority to rollback worker protections for hundreds of thousands of Pentagon employees. There will be nothing to prevent agency managers from abusing their power for political advancement or engaging in discriminatory practices. Allowing managers the ability to waive such protections under the guise of national security and the need for greater flexibility is wrong. It will not make us safer.

At the same time that the Pentagon seeks to do away with its current personnel system in this bill, Secretary Rumsfeld has not offered a serious alternative to replace it. Instead, he has simply requested a blank check to undo, in whole or in part, many of the civil service laws and protections that have been in place for nearly a century to safeguard against the return of an unfair patronage system.

I want to be very clear. I support a strong national defense. I support modernizing our military. I support giving our troops the resources and training they need to keep our nation secure. But I cannot support a bill that contains provisions that will take our military backwards, rather than forwards. I cannot support a bill that will re-ignite a global nuclear arms race, even as we go to war to stop the spread of nuclear weapons abroad! I cannot support a bill that takes away the rights of hundreds of thousands of hard-working Pentagon employees. Finally, I cannot support a bill that disingenuously claims that stripping away important environmental protections will somehow bolster our national security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1925, the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act. For a program that is only funded at 90 million dollars it has had a large impact.

The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA) programs provide funds to community-based, faith-based and public organizations to develop and expand comprehensive, cost-efficient, and effective management, shelter, housing and supports for youth in high-risk situations and their families. I am pleased this bill was completed in a bipartisan manner and will not prevent shelters from distributing contraception.

There continues to be a need for stable, residential environments that provide life skills supports for youth who are unable to live safely with their families, due to situations of child abuse, neglect, and parental substance abuse.

The current competitive grant mechanism for distributing RHYA funds to community-based, faith-based and public organizations is fundamentally sound and entirely appropriate given the relatively small size of the federal RHYA budget. Most state and local governments do not have the capacity at this time, given their budgetary problems, to absorb the burden of administering RHYA programs.

Congress established RHYA programs as low-cost, prevention and early intervention oriented program alternatives to State custodial child welfare, law enforcement, juvenile justice and mental health systems. The complimentary relationship between runaway and homeless youth serving programs and these various systems would be severely damaged if RHYA programs would be consolidated into any one of them.

The child welfare system in New Jersey is in crisis. Many youths slip through the cracks of the child welfare, juvenile justice and mental health systems. RHYA programs help provide supportive services, i.e., crisis intervention, counseling, housing, safety from the streets and other basic needs such as food, shelter and clothing.

RHYA funds help programs leverage state, local and private funding. Somerset Home, which serves some of my constituents, has a Transitional Living Program, a Basic Center Program and a Street Outreach Program. Federal funds represent $450,000 of their $2.5 million budget. The rest of the funding comes from state and local government with private funding from individuals, corporations, corporations and civic-minded groups comprising nearly $400,000 of the operating budget.

Somerset Home's Outreach Program ensures rapid engagement with young people on the street in an effort to prevent physical and sexual assault, commercial sexual exploitation, disease, long term homelessness, and death.

The Basic Center Program provides funds for emergency shelters for young people unable to live safely with their families and services while conducting efforts to reunite youth with their families or arrange for their placement in alternative supervised settings.

The Transitional Living Program provides transitional housing and life skill supports to older homeless youth.

Somerset Home facilitates health promotion, pregnancy prevention, academic achievement, employment, reduction in sexual exploitation, and other positive factors for youth in high-risk situations.

These services provide a vital safety net that protects youth from further victimization and exploitation. These youth run to the street and find their way to RHYA funded programs due to circumstances in the one such as sexual abuse, physical abuse, substance abuse and other forms of domestic violence. These youths are victims of the unthinkable actions of parents or guardians, entrusted with their care that has violated this trust. Together we can help these youth through the difficult transition from a difficult adolescence to a productive and maybe even happy adulthood.

Mr. Speaker, the nation's runaway and homeless need this program and I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to recognize the contributions of Tony Hall, his contributions to his district, his contributions to this House, his contributions to this country, and his contributions to the world. It is fitting that a public building, for people to see day after day, should be named for Tony Hall.

The gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) used the word ``genuine'' in speaking about Tony Hall. It is, indeed, a fitting word.

There is no one, I think, who has served in this body, certainly in recent times, whose works have done more to illuminate his faith than Tony Hall. Extraordinarily popular in his district, he did many things over a couple of decades for his district, for Wright-Patterson, for others, but it was really a transforming experience that he had on overseas congressional travel when he saw hunger face to face, when he saw people dying before his eyes, that he devoted himself primarily to eradicating hunger from the globe, and I would say in his district. I know in my own district in New Jersey he has inspired workers to redouble their efforts to fight hunger, just as he did back home, not just overseas, but through food banks and various programs, to eradicate hunger at his doorstep, as well as across the oceans.

When the House, unfortunately, abolished the Select Committee on Hunger some years ago, he took to fasting, as has been noted, and all over America people saw his football player frame emaciated. He did not succeed in restoring that select committee, but he did draw attention to the problem.

His faith, his deep religious faith, carried him to work even harder on the issue of hunger, and when he saw recently that he could do even more as America's representative in Rome to the international food and hunger organizations, he took that opportunity. It is a loss to the House of Representatives, but it certainly is a gain, a life-saving gain, to millions of people around the world.

It certainly is fitting that we pay tribute to this man of faith, this genuine public servant, Tony Hall.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important work of the Central New Jersey Elks Lodges who are observing National Youth Week. This week is intended to honor the Junior Citizens of Central New Jersey with whom the Elks have worked throughout the past twelve months. The Elks Lodges work in conjunction with the schools, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Cub Scouts and other local youth organizations to promote the principles of the Order of the Elks and those of the collaborating organizations.

The ideals celebrated by the Order of the Elks, as a part of National Youth Week, include academic achievement, volunteerism, and community service. Young people are recognized at dinners organized by the Elks Lodges to their accomplishments in these areas. Examples of events include, working with the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts to sponsor the Blue and Gold Dinner at which merit badges are distributed. The Tournament of Champions in conjunction with the schools celebrates the academic achievement of local students.

I commend the Order of the Elks for promoting these important ideals in our communities. They are reinforcing and rewarding our Junior Citizens for displaying important community values. It is only through the development of a combination of scholastic excellence and a meaningful sense of community participation that we can build strong communities for tomorrow. Clearly the Order of the Elks in

celebrating National Youth Week is doing just that.

I ask that all the members join me in congratulating the Order of the Elks for their important work with youth in Central New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I favor cutting taxes, but in balanced and fiscally responsible ways. That's why I have been one of the few Democrats in Congress who has been willing to cross party lines to vote for eliminating the estate tax, 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.

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.

The fiscal outlook is much worse than official administration projections indicate. These projections assume that the tax cuts enacted in 2001 will expire at the end of 2010. They also assume that discretionary spending, the part of the budget that pays for national defense, domestic security, education and transportation, will shrink continuously as a share of the economy. Neither of these assumptions is realistic.

We need a tax bill that recognizes the ballooning budget deficit and address the economic realities of the world we are facing.

No one denies that our economy needs an immediate stimulus. Unfortunately, this measure fails to provide such a stimulus, but instead gives away billions to the wealthy while creating precious few jobs.

This tax bill is completely out of touch with the economic realities facing the federal government, the states, and millions of American taxpayers and workers. It fails to provide real solutions to the problems of stagnant economic growth, unemployment and the fiscal crises in the states. For the past two and a half years, this Congress has given the President everything he wanted on economic policy, and it has led to a total economic disaster. We've lost more jobs than any time since the Second World War. Why would we want to vote for more of the same?

In addition to being ineffective, today's bill is also unfair. Benefits targeted to low- and middle-income families, such as the expansion of the 10 percent tax bracket and the increase in the child tax credit, are temporary, while the centerpiece of the measure--a massive cut in the dividend and capital gains tax rates costing nearly $280 billion--is essentially permanent, sun setting at the end of the budget period.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Tax Policy Center, taxpayers with incomes of more than $1 million will receive an average tax cut of $105,600 in 2003, with $42,800 of that coming from cuts in the capital gains and dividends tax rate, while middle income taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of just $218. The top 5 percent of households would receive 75 percent of the benefits from the dividend and capital gains rate cut, while only one- fifth of households with income between $40,000 and $50,000 a year receive any benefit at all.

In return for cutting taxes for the wealthy, the government will be saddled with staggering long-term deficits that will burden future generations. As a result, it will reduce our ability to support vital programs such as Social Security and Medicare, as well as make needed investments in schools, health care, infrastructure, and basic research.

Long-term deficits also weaken economic growth. Just last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned against costly new tax cuts when the government is already facing record-high deficits. Wall Street analysts estimate that annual deficits over the next 10 years could total $4 trillion, with a possible budget deficit this year alone of nearly $500 billion--the highest annual deficit in the history of the republic. Just two years ago, the projected surplus was $5.6 trillion. As the deficits increases, interest rates go up--which makes it harder on families to pay for mortgages, education loans, credit card bills, and car payments.

Further, the bill does nothing to address the budget crises affecting the states, which are facing their worst budget gaps since World War II. Unlike the federal government, states must balance their budgets every year and have been forced to cut programs and lay off thousands of workers.

Mr. Speaker the unemployment rate is now at 6 percent and the number of workers who have been unemployed for more than six months account for 20 percent of all unemployed workers, the largest proportion in a decade. There are almost 9 million officially unemployed Americans and another 9 million who are either working part-time because they can't find full-time work or who are so completely discouraged that they have stopped looking for work. The economy has lost over 2 million jobs in the last two years, but this bill does nothing to help the unemployed.

In his State of the Union address earlier this year, the president said that ``we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, other presidents, and other generations.'' But this bill does exactly that. This is the third ``economic stimulus'' package of the Bush administration. The first two did little to stimulate the economy and no one, including the Congressional Budget Office, expects this bill will do much better. Why on earth would we want to saddle today's children with debt to give bonuses to wealthy people, knowing full well that

economic benefits will not trickle down to middle income people? We need real stimulus that will create jobs, fuel the economy, and help our states through their current fiscal crises.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time.

I rise with some real concerns about this bill. The Workforce Investment Act and the one-stop delivery system that it created represent the Nation's primary investment in workforce development.

It has been successful. The one-stop centers in my district do tremendous work, but they desperately need more money to keep serving the rising, I am sorry to say, rapidly rising number of unemployed. I offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules to reverse the $650 million in cuts to the WIA programs applied over the past 2 years, over the time that the needs of unemployed people were increasing; and these cuts have been enormously harmful. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules would not allow my amendment to come to the floor so we could debate what is an appropriate authorization here.

The bill has been rushed to the floor in a partisan fashion and, worse, fails to adequately respond to the needs of our workers. It sets the stage for reducing job training programs by taking money away from participating partners in the Workforce Investment Act such as the Veterans Employment programs, Perkins Vocational Education program, and the Vocational Rehabilitation program. And in addition, it consolidates adult employment and training programs into one block grant. And that removes many of the Federal performance and accountability measurements and standards that help make WIA a high-quality workforce program. And if that is not bad enough, the bill, as you have heard, eliminates current civil rights protections for employees of job training organizations.

For all of these reasons, I cannot support the bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill so we can return it to the committee where I sit with the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) so that we can bring it back to the House in a bipartisan fashion as a bill that will help job seekers find jobs.