Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I joined a number of New Jersey officials and citizens in filing suit in Federal court in an effort to overturn the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission's decision to uphold the Pentagon's recommendation to close Fort Monmouth. This lawsuit is about protecting our men and women in the field. They are fighting for us every day, and I'm going to continue fighting for them. Closing Fort Monmouth would disrupt their current efforts and jeopardize their safety and effectiveness. Eleven generals and the BRAC Commission itself recognized the dangers involved.

In making its recommendation pertaining to Fort Monmouth, the BRAC Commission exceeded its authority and failed to comply with statutorily required procedures. Our lawsuit does not ask the court to revisit the data or arguments reviewed by the BRAC Commission. We are simply asking the court to review the process and determine whether the BRAC Commission failed to comply with the BRAC Acts of 2005 and 1990. If we win, the remedy is simple: take the fort off the list.

Even as we continue to fight for Fort Monmouth, we must also plan for a future that may not include it. The men and women who work at Fort Monmouth deserve nothing less, and I am working with Federal, State, and local leaders to develop a comprehensive plan for Monmouth County's future that will give us the best opportunity to preserve jobs, stimulate our economy, and enhance our quality of life.

Mr. Speaker, my thoughts and prayers today, and for the last few days, have been with the people of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama and their family members. The Gulf Coast region has experienced what will long be remembered as one of the worse natural disasters in our country's history. In the weeks, months and years to come a massive clean up will occur and then we will work to rebuild the homes, roads, businesses, and schools affected. But we will not be able to forget the death, the destruction or the emotional toll this terrible tragedy has inflicted on the people affected and across the Gulf Coast.

I am glad that we in Congress are providing the Federal Emergency Management Agency with the additional funds required to ensure that the needed rescue and recovery mission continues unimpeded. We have all seen on the television and read in the newspapers about the current situation in the Gulf Coast. The images and stories are heartbreaking and deeply troubling, but they are of people we know and they are our fellow citizens. Many of us know people who live in New Orleans, might have been vacationing there, or were supposed to return to college this fall. These are our family members, our friends, and our neighbors, and we cannot let them down. My own sister lives in the heart of New Orleans and as we meet now she still waits for evacuation--for the fifth day without running water or power.

The essential role of government is to provide for its citizens in their time of need. Today, we cannot say that we have done a good job in that critical task. Too many of our own people are suffering in horrific conditions and there exists a general state of lawlessness in a few areas and more concerning is that many feel they have been abandoned. If we cannot meet the needs of these clearly desperate citizens in the Gulf Coast, we need to seriously reconsider our budget priorities and what we value as a society. I am troubled that the pleas of regional officials and those from cities like New Orleans for an increased Federal commitment to guard against such storms have not been heeded over the past few years.

It is my deep hope that the Federal Government, with the money we are providing today, will ensure that order is restored to the affected region and that no one anywhere in the Gulf Coast is without food, water or shelter. But in the weeks and months ahead we need also to ensure that the proper resources are dedicated to guarantee that a tragedy like this and its indescribable scale is not repeated again. What that means is a commitment by the Federal Government to the people of America to meet their domestic needs. For too long this government has tried to do more with less, it has tried to provide for our people on the cheap. But this week has reminded us that there are too many critical tasks and services that only government can provide and that we ensure that the Federal Government provides the essential funding that these services require.

This terrible tragedy has also reminded us of the generous and compassionate nature of the American people. Already the Red Cross has received well over $100 million in donations to the relief effort. People all across America are emptying their coin jars and offering empty rooms to help in anyway they can.

I know that this compassion will continue and I encourage all Americans to do what ever they can to help our fellow citizens in their most desperate time of need. However, I am troubled to see instances of greed in this time of desperate need. I have heard already from a number of my constituents who saw the price of gas skyrocket. I, along with other Members of Congress, will be looking into any instances of price gouging. In such a time of despair for so many, price gouging can not be tolerated

Once again, I want to express my condolences to those who have lost loved ones in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and to share my prayers of hope for those who remain in despair. I know that much remains to be done and I am hopeful that the funding we are providing today will go a long way to meeting the desperate needs of those in the Gulf Coast. The full story of this disaster remains to be told, but I am confident that out of dark moments of this tragedy will come beacons of light for those affected and a serious discussion about our true national priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 40th anniversary of enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Voting Rights Act marked a watershed moment in American history, and I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating the many ways in which it has transformed our democracy.

On Monday night, it was my great honor to join Representative Lewis; Wade Henderson, the Executive Director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; and hundreds of civil rights leaders at the commencement of the National Conference Commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 1965, one could not have imagined a room in Washington, DC, full of elected leaders from various racial, ethnic, religious and socio-economic backgrounds. Today there are 81 members of Congress that are of African-American, Latino, Asian, and Native American descent, as well as thousands of minorities in State and local elected offices across the Nation. Due in large part to the Voting Rights Act, America's leadership is a reflection of our diversity.

The struggle for enfranchisement has been fought by citizens themselves to obtain and protect their right to vote. Representative Lewis and the hundreds of civil rights activists who joined him on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in March 1965 showed courage and perseverance in the face of violent opposition. Unfortunately, they did not win the struggle for total voter enfranchisement on that fateful day in Alabama. The shocking and unconscionable murders of Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney--killed in June of 1964 for registering black voters in Mississippi--did not win that struggle. But the sacrifices of voting rights activists over the past century have paved the way for the enfranchisement that we all seek. The Voting Rights Act has made progress possible, but there is still more to be done.

When I speak with students, I often ask, ``What is the greatest invention in history?'' Knowing of my background in physics, they usually suggest some scientific invention. In fact, I believe the greatest invention is our system of Constitutional democracy. It has transformed not just America, but the world, demonstrating that peaceful and productive government with the consent of the governed is possible. That consent is given by the vote. Thomas Paine wrote that the right to vote is ``the primary right by which other rights are protected.'' For that reason, assuring the continued effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act is of monumental importance.

Application of the Voting Rights Act faces challenges in the 21st century. The 2000 and 2004 presidential elections demonstrated that disenfranchisement, though legally abolished, still exists in practice. In order to preserve influence of the Voting Rights Act, key protections of which are scheduled to expire in 2007, we must address voting irregularities that occurred in recent elections.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the work of the 89th Congress and honor the enactment of the Voting Rights Act. The work of voting activists has transformed America and helped advance the cause of universal suffrage. We must work to preserve and advance its legacy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the energy legislation that we are debating on 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 understand the complex and challenging nature of moving toward sustainable energy sources. Having served in this body for more than 6 years, I understand the difficulties in balancing competing interests to obtain a policy that benefits the Nation. Unfortunately, this bill does not strike a balance that provides a productive and clear vision that will lead this Nation towards energy independence.

The Energy Policy Act does not provide any solutions to reaching energy independence or reducing our destruction of the world the next generation will inherit. This legislation provides subsidies to industries that produce environmentally damaging and finite energy sources instead of investing in research that would allow our children to be the first generation to realize a nation that is powered largely by renewable energy sources. It is a bill that is designed to meet the needs of special interests instead of demanding higher standards for corporate America.

Instead of investing in cleaner, long term solutions, this bill brushes aside our Nation's future energy needs in order to provide billions of taxpayer dollars to the oil, gas and other traditional energy industries to promote short-term, polluting energy sources. These tax incentives should not be going to industries that are thriving, but should be used to invest in our future by increasing research funding for alternative energy sources such as wind energy, fuel cells and fusion.

The domination of special interests means much more than wealthy industries receiving tax breaks that will make them even richer. It means that more of our children will suffer from asthma because we did not demand stricter regulations on polluters. It means that children across this Nation will drink contaminated water because we chose to insulate an industry from being held accountable for their negligent actions. It means that our children will not have the opportunity to take their children to view the natural treasures that inspired them in their youth because we needed to open up these lands to allow oil and gas companies to expand their operations.

We will never drill our way to independence domestically, yet we have an energy bill that is stuck in the past that yet again seeks to drill a little deeper, in more places. This legislation includes a permanent authorization of an oil and gas leasing program in the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska without preserving any key wilderness and cultural areas in this 23 million acre region. Further, this bill authorizes an inventory of the oil and gas resources underneath the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS--a first step towards reversing the two decade moratorium that prohibits oil and gas drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.

This bill also fails to protect American consumers. I am frustrated that an amendment I offered with Representative Nancy Johnson to ensure that consumers receive accurate information regarding the fuel efficiency of automobiles was gutted because it was characterized as an attempt to change CAFE standards. This is a consumer protection issue and not an attack on the automobile industry that vigorously opposed our legislation. Americans do care how efficient their car is, and it is a failure of our government that we cannot provide consumers that walk into a showroom to pick out a new car with a sticker in the window that reflects accurate information on the car's city and highway gas mileage.

Before I conclude my remarks I would like to recognize that there are some good points in this bill. For example, the bill provides continuing support for the highly successful Energy Star program at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, which promotes energy efficiency in buildings and products. The bill also authorizes annual 10 percent increases in research on energy efficiency and renewable energy. Additionally, it includes a few creative ways to reduce the consumption of energy, such as Representative Markey's provision to extend daylight savings time by one month.

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 toward 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 rise in opposition to H.R. 5. This legislation will not reduce medical liability premiums, and it unfairly and arbitrarily discriminates against those most severely injured by medical errors.

I have consistently heard from physicians in Central New Jersey that the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance represents a growing crisis. The rising premiums have compelled many physicians to leave the state or leave medicine altogether. My wife is a general practice physician, so I fully appreciate the gravity of the situation facing many doctors. The rising cost of insurance poses obvious dangers for access to care, particularly for populations most in need.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has brought to the floor a bill that does not reduce premiums for physicians and imposes an arbitrary cap on damages for the most severely injured victims of malpractice or negligence.

Capping non-economic damages at $250,000 for patients who have won a medical malpractice tort will not result in lower insurance premiums for physicians. Just listen to what the insurance industry itself has said. ``We have not promised price reductions with tort reform,'' said Dennis Kelly, an American Insurance Association spokesman in the Chicago Tribune. In fact, over the past few years, payouts for medical malpractice cases have remained flat while premiums have continued to rise, in some cases doubling.

Because of insurance companies over-charging doctors for insurance, the fifteen largest insurers have accumulated a surplus that is double what they actually need to pay claims. We should be debating how to most effectively rebate this surplus to the doctors, rather than looking for ways to reward them for the squeeze that they are executing on our healthcare system. The insurance industry is gouging medical doctors and is trying to use patients as a scapegoat.

Imposing a cap on damages inherently affects the patients most severely injured by malpractice or negligence. Setting the cap at $250,000 is an insult to all those who have had their lives permanently changed by medical errors. The figure is lifted directly from the 1975 California MICRA law. Adjusted for inflation, this amount would be close to $1 million in 2005 dollars. $250,000 does not come close to compensating for loss of life or permanent disability or disfigurement.

I am disappointed that, for the third time in three years, the Rules Committee has eliminated any opportunity to amend the legislation. I am particularly disappointed that the Rules Committee disallowed substitute legislation by Ranking Members John Conyers and John Dingell. Their bill would weed out frivolous lawsuits, require insurance companies to pass savings on to health care providers, and provide targeted assistance to the physicians and communities who need it the most. That Congress is not permitted even to consider this legislation as an alternative demonstrates that the bill we have before us cannot survive on its own merits.

As liability insurance premiums continue to rise for physicians across the country, the Republican leadership continues to prescribe the same tired and ineffective legislation. For good reason, this bill has not survived the legislative process for the past three years, yet we are once again debating whether to enrich insurance companies at the expense of victims of medical malpractice and negligence.

We need a comprehensive, fair, and effective approach to lowering insurance premiums for physicians. The legislation we have before us is none of the above. I encourage my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment with the Interior Appropriations bill that we are considering today. Although I will reluctantly vote for this legislation, I am concerned with the reduction in funding for many important domestic programs.

While I am pleased that this conference bill does not completely eliminate the Land and Water Conservation Fun, (LWCF), as in the House- passed version, I am still disappointed that this program only received $30 million, which is one-third of what it received last year.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been instrumental in assisting local and State governments preserve vital open spaces. This program was established in 1965 to address rapid overdevelopment by increasing the number of high quality recreation areas and facilities and by increasing the local involvement in land preservation. To achieve this goal, the fund was separated into two components, one portion of the fund serves as an account from which the Federal government draws from to acquire land and the other portion is distributed to states in a matching grant program.

New Jersey has been active in seeking grants from this program and has received funds from the LWCF that were used to preserve treasures such as the Pinelands National Reserve and the Delaware National Scenic River. In addition, LWCF has provided more that $111 million in state and local grants to build softball fields, rehabilitate playgrounds and to expand state parks.

Urban and highly developed regions, such as the region that I represent, will suffer the most from the elimination of the LWCF state grant program. The LWCF matching-grant program has proven to be a successful way to overcome the high cost of living that makes land acquisition and renewal projects costly in these regions. The steep reduction in funding for this program will leave local leaders without the capital necessary to enhance the quality of life in their communities.

This bill also cuts other domestic programs that benefit all Americans and future generations. This legislation only provides $900 million for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund--a reduction of $200 million from last year. This is vitally important to keeping drinking water clean and safe by supporting wastewater treatment, nonpoint source pollution and watershed and estuary management. Additionally, this bill cuts Federal land acquisition funding by 25 percent and reduces funding for construction projects in our national parks, refuges and forests by 10 percent.

Despite my reservations with cuts to important Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the Department of Interior, DOI, programs, I am pleased that this bill does the right thing and finally provides the VA the funds it needs to continue the delivery of care to our veterans through the end of the current fiscal year. This month, our Nation marked the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Veterans' Administration, the forerunner of today's Department of Veterans Affairs. Even as we celebrate the VA's many achievements, particularly in the field of medical research, we should use this opportunity to ask if we, as a country, are truly putting our money where our mouth is regarding VA funding. Every day, VA doctors, nurses, technicians and other staff across our country work to try to deliver the best possible health care to our veterans. They face one critical and continuing obstacle--a VA medical system that is chronically, and needlessly, underfunded.

I hope that the Congress will learn from this experience and pass mandatory funding legislation for the VA health care system. It's long past time for Congress to cease its band-aid approach to funding for veteran's health care, and I urge my colleagues to honor the request of the leaders of our Nation's veterans organizations to deal once and for all with this shameful and avoidable situation.

Another positive provision in this bill is the modest increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Although the final funding levels fall slightly short of the amount approved by the House in May, the additional money will allow the NEA and NEH to build programs that use the strength of the arts and our Nation's cultural life to enhance communities in every State and every county around America.

It is clear that increasing funding for the arts and humanities are among the best investments that we as a society can make. They help our children learn. They give the elderly intellectual sustenance. They power economic development in regions that are down and out. They tie our diverse society and country together. I thank the conferees for recognizing the importance of this investment and giving the NEA and NEH the funds they need to advance our Nation's artistic and cultural life.

Even though I strongly oppose cuts to certain programs in this appropriations bill, I will vote in favor of this legislation. I hope in the future we can provide sufficient funding to these programs that enhance our communities, provide the Nation with clean water, and protect our precious natural wonders.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 22, The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act.

In 1775, Members of the Second Continental Congress established the Post Office Department, the predecessor of the Postal Service and the second oldest federal department or agency in the United States. For the past two centuries, the United States Postal Service has evolved and changed as the United States has grown. Today the Postal Service delivers hundreds of minions of messages each day to more than 141 million homes and businesses. Still, the Postal Service is experiencing economic loss because of the decrease in first class mail volume due to the high usage of e-mail and faxes and the increase in operating costs as the number of addresses to which the Postal Service must deliver are growing everyday.

For the past couple of decades, Members of the House Government Reform Committee have worked together to create legislation to reform the Postal Service. The bill that we have before us today is a compilation of hard work and bipartisan effort that includes a variety of interests such as large financial mailers, mail-dependent small businesses, magazine publishers, postal competitors, unions and consumer organizations. H.R. 22 provides for a comprehensive overhaul of the financial operations, rate structure, and civil service policies that currently govern the United States Postal Service. It is important to note that this bill today is not only a work of bipartisan congressional action, but it is the product of labor unions and management, postal employees and businesses, working together to make compromises to make postal reform a reality.

Protecting collective bargaining rights, ensuring six-day a week postal delivery and demanding that postal workers receive the best federal employee healthcare are all important provisions that were included in this bill to benefit postal workers. H.R. 22 is a tribute to the countless letter carriers and postal employees who have been committed for many years to reforming the USPS. I have spent hours walking mail routes with the letter carriers in my home state of New Jersey. I have seen first hand how dedicated postal employees are to ensuring the timely and safe delivery of mail to their local communities. These letter carriers should be applauded for their service to all Americans.

I am proud to have been a cosponsor of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act and am pleased that my colleagues have finally brought this to the House floor. The United States Postal Service is the knit between communities across America and I ask my colleagues to pass this meaningful postal reform legislation for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 384. This legislation condemns the vicious terrorist attacks in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt on July 23, 2005. Those tragic blasts left 88 innocent civilians dead and 119 other injured and were the result of a coordinated plan to build fear in the hearts of the Egyptian people and rob them of their liberty.

These acts and many others have been perpetrated by individuals who claim they are acting in the name of Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. It is an insult to Muslim Americans and Muslims worldwide to suggest that their chosen religion has anything to do with these terrorist attacks. Let me be clear, those who kill innocents and even themselves in the name of Islam are perverting their religion.

When I talk to Muslim leaders in my district they tell me that the only good thing to come out of these attacks is the raised awareness of their religion and their resulting ability to educate many for the first time on the true tenants of their faith. I am proud of the many Muslims in New Jersey for the work they do everyday to promote peace and religious tolerance. I look forward to a day when all Americans will know the true values of Islam, and understand the hateful and perverted ``faith'' of those who would commit these deadly attacks.

Terrorism sadly has become a tragic trend in our day and age. The targeting of innocent civilians in brutal attacks throughout the world, in London, New York, Washington, Madrid, the Middle East, and the latest attacks in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt all make us a little less secure as human beings. These attacks cannot be allowed to continue. They rob us all of our life and liberty. We cannot let terrorism become a commonplace aspect of our lives. Consequently, I support this resolution to affirm the solidarity of all Americans with the Egyptian people, and condemn these terrorists attacks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose approval of the US- Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA).

On the floor today we are considering a far reaching and important trade agreement with our Central American neighbors, and yet we will only spend two hours debating DR-CAFTA. I am disappointed that more time was not provided to debate this highly controversial legislation. We will have spent more time this week naming various post offices than seriously debating this trade agreement. This is simply wrong. When the House considered the North American Free Trade (NAFTA), a full eight hours of debate was allowed. This is how the House should consider such agreements, with meaningful and extended debate.

International trade is not just inevitable, it is a good thing. But lowering the cost of goods and increasing their availably is not the single goal of trade. Trade done right helps lift the global standard of living and works to protect the irreplaceable environment we inherited. Trade is about values. Trade agreements are not just about goods and commodities; they are also about what constitutes acceptable behavior in environmental matters, worker's rights, intellectual property, and so forth. We should make sure we export the goods we produce and not the workers who produce them. Unfortunately, the DR- CAFTA before us today fails these basic tests. The DR-CAFTA does not contain the values we would require in America and that we must help spread in Central America. Even the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has come out in opposition to DR-CAFTA because of its effect on the poor and most vulnerable in Central America.

Each new trade agreement entered into by the U.S. should be very closely scrutinized. Each ought to include the strongest enforceable worker rights, human rights, and environmental safeguards attainable, like those included in the U.S.-Jordan agreement of 2000. Each should also include enforceable rules to protect intellectual property rights and guarantee access for U.S.-based corporations to foreign markets. This can be achieved in trade agreements if we enter negotiations with clear principles.

I voted against the Chile and Singapore trade agreements, for example, because the inadequate labor and environmental provisions included in them, in my estimation, failed to meet the negotiating objectives that Congress carefully spelled out in the 2002 law extending fast-track negotiating authority to the President. They did not provide, for example, that trade dispute settlement mechanisms within those free trade agreements afford equivalent treatment to trade-related labor and environmental protection as intellectual property rights and capital subsidies, and the impending DR-CAFTA fails in this regard, too. The agreement between the US and Jordan, on the other hand, is a fine example that good agreements are achievable.

I am deeply troubled by the DR-CAFTA before us today. The DR-CAFTA does not contain strong, enforceable provisions to protect internationally-recognized worker rights. Nor does it have any provisions for environmental safeguards. Such provisions are critical because they both preserve existing labor laws and environmental standards in the affected countries, and because they ensure that American companies will be competing on a more level playing field with our Central American neighbors. Without such provisions, U.S. companies and employees are forced to compete with countries that have inadequate wage, working conditions, or environmental protections. The people of all countries lose in such a ``race to the bottom''.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote no on DR-CAFTA tonight, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 15th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, enacted on July 26, 1990.

The ADA occupies a unique place in our political and social history, providing sweeping protections against discrimination for a group that had suffered legal inequities and indignities from time immemorial. The accommodations that ADA afforded to persons with disabilities, in employment, public and private services, transportation and telecommunications, demonstrated that all Americans are entitled to legal protection from discrimination.

Just as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was essential to eliminating legal justifications for denying equal rights to African Americans and others, the Americans with Disabilities Act constituted a step forward by prohibiting discrimination against persons with disabilities; and just as passage of the Civil Rights Act was a necessary precursor to the elimination of racism in practice, we still have some distance to go in order to eliminate popular prejudice and stigmatization of persons with disabilities.

In Congress, I have worked with the disability community to ensure that all Americans are afforded the full protection of the law. I have introduced legislation to require that staff working with developmentally disabled persons call emergency services in the event of a life-threatening situation. Danielle's Law would extend the New Jersey law to the rest of the country.

I have introduced the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, legislation to amend the Help America Vote Act, to require a voter-verified paper audit trail and to ensure that any system of verification be fully accessible for all voters.

In the Committee on Education and Workforce, I successfully amended H.R. 4278, the Improving Access to Assistive Technology For Individuals With Disabilities Act of 2004, in order to allow protection and advocacy agencies to carry over program income, funds generated by program activities, that is, for 2 additional years. This change will enable these programs to reinvest the earned funds into additional services and assistance in the acquisition, utilization and maintenance of assistive technology.

I have opposed the Department of Education's efforts to gut the Rehabilitation Services Administration, a program that has literally changed people's lives, providing the tools for disabled persons to live and work independently and with dignity. I fought for a full 40 percent funding for Individuals With Disability Education Act, the IDEA, which the Federal Government neglects. We are underfunding it by at least a factor of two.

The Americans with Disabilities Act has allowed great gains in the past 15 years, but there is much yet to be done. We must continue to ensure that jobs are open to persons with disabilities and that these valuable employees have the necessary accommodations. We must continue to make accessible transportation and housing options and grant access to community-based supports and services that promote independence and integration. We must also commit to continued education and job training for all Americans.

Since the passage of the ADA, I have been concerned with the interpretation of the law by Federal courts with regard to protections offered and individuals protected. The Federal courts' narrow interpretation of ADA has prevented it from achieving all that it was designed to do. As the Senate considers the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice, I hope the Senate will fully inquire as to his views on the application of the ADA.

Again, I would like to recognize the 15th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I value the advances that our country has achieved because of legal protections it extends, and I look forward to continuing to work on behalf of Americans with disabilities.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3283. The so-called United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act would provide little to no remedy for those in my district who are deeply concerned about the ever growing trade deficit with the Peoples Republic of China due to its longstanding illegal policy of currency manipulation.

This is a major issue. Congress should be considering this measure for more than forty minutes and with the opportunity to offer amendments. However, this will not be the case today because of the procedures under which this bill was brought to the floor. We should be debating this issue in great depth, not the rather cursory discussion we are having today. We should be talking seriously about complex issues like ``Super 301,'' ``double counting,'' and what exactly we should do with our countervailing duties. We should be talking about why our trade deficit with China is now at $162 billion and continues to grow with no end in sight. We should be talking about the fact that China doubled its holding of U.S. debt between 2001 and 2004. And we should be talking about how jobs in our home states have been affected and what we can do to help American businesses who are struggling to export their goods to China.

But that debate unfortunately will not happen today.

Rather, today the House is considering H.R. 3283 because of an agreement reached, I presume to secure votes in favor of the seriously flawed Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement, (DR- CAFTA). The majority has chosen to play politics on the floor today rather than seriously address the issues resulting from China's currency manipulation and the resulting trade imbalance that has ballooned between the United States and China.

I have heard from a number of constituents in my district who are deeply concerned about these issues. And yet today, we are not addressing their concerns with action, we are requesting studies. Today we are not ordering countervailing duties to correct for unfair trade practices, we are creating additional loopholes for China to evade the even paltry countervailing duties that do exist.

Madam Speaker, today I stand with the people in my district who are affected by China's currency manipulation and our soaring trade deficit. That is why I have cosponsored a number of other bills, such as the bipartisan The Chinese Currency Act, H.R. 1498, that will actually address China's currency manipulation. However, I will vote against H.R. 3283, and it is my hope that the Congress will re-evaluate this serious issue in a detailed fashion to actually address these important issues that have bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, today Member after Member has been talking about the 45 million Americans who lack health insurance. At the origin of our problem, we are the only major country where your health care coverage depends on who you work for. But that is not to be debated today.

We are talking about the small businesses in New Jersey and elsewhere around the country that face the high cost of health insurance. We all hear about it from our small businesses and their employees. Unfortunately, what has been brought to the floor here is a bill that creates more problems than it solves.

The concept of companies working together to control costs has worked in

some States, and it is certainly something I support. However, I cannot support allowing association health plans to achieve cost savings by offering inferior coverage. Allowing AHPs to circumvent existing State laws, for example, with regard to mental health coverage or contraceptive equity or mammograms or prostate screening or countless other necessary benefits is not an acceptable means to cut premiums.

Supporters of this legislation claim that millions of small businesses and their employees will be eligible for this new insurance option. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 600,000 of those eligible are currently uninsured, a small fraction of this huge population.

And H.R. 525 would allow AHPs to offer artificially lower costs by offering cheaper premiums to lower-risk populations, a policy that will lead to older and sicker people paying higher premiums. The CBO found that more than 20 million workers and their dependents would see their premiums increase due to AHPs cherry-picking.

States require that qualified health plans cover certain basic items. States say that anything that is worthy of the name health plan must cover certain things. Well, under this bill I could create a health plan that covers nothing but ingrown toenail surgery. It would be the cheapest plan out there, but it would not help employees very much.

I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 525 and to support the Andrews-Kind substitute. Their legislation would address the real needs of small employers. It would establish a small employer health benefits plan that would grant small business employees the same benefits as Federal employees receive. It provides prorated premium assistance for companies of varying sizes and employees of varying income. It would be much preferable to H.R. 525.

Mr. Chairman, earlier today I was detained at a hearing and I missed rollcall vote No. 415. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the PATRIOT Act. Even if all of the amendments before us today are passed, it will not bring this bill into the shape that it should be.

We worked on this in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I am sorry to say that most of our reasonable amendments were voted down on a party-line basis. But to make matters worse, even those improvements made in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence did not find their way through the Committee on Rules to the floor. So I remain deeply concerned about what this bill does to the American people.

The police and prosecution powers of government are among the most important powers for preserving life and liberty, but they are also among the most fearsome. Section 213, the so-called sneak-and-peek searches, it would allow investigators to come into your home, my home, take pictures, seize personal items, and when they discover they have made a mistake, there is no time in which they have to notify you that they have been there. One does not have to be a paranoid to be concerned that somebody has been in your house.

Members might say it only applies to terrorists; it does not apply to law-abiding citizens like you and me. Well, tell that to Brandon Mayfield, tell that to the Portland attorney who was detained by investigators under the PATRIOT Act. Now, the FBI in that case apologized, but this is something that hits home, and we have a responsibility to preserve the freedoms of people at home.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. As you know, the PATRIOT Act was passed in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001. The Act was an immediate reaction to the state of shock the country was in--being drafted, briefly debated, approved, and signed into law by October 26, 2001, just weeks after the attacks. At the time I, and many other Members of Congress, voted for the Act under the condition that a number of the provisions contained within it would sunset and thus would need to be reviewed and reauthorized.

The police and prosecution powers of the government are important and necessary to preserving life and liberty, but they are also the most fearsome powers of government and, if abused, can rob us of life and liberty. For generations, thousands upon thousands of people have come to America's shores to be free of the oppressive hand of authorities in other countries, to be free of the fear of the knock on the door in the middle of the night, to be free of the humiliation and costs and stigma of inappropriate investigations.

As the only Member of Congress from New Jersey, a state which suffered great loss on September 11th, on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I looked forward to working within the committee during our mark up of the PATRIOT Act to address a number of valid concerns that have arisen over the last few years about the sun- setting provisions. However, most of the important amendments that were offered were defeated on party lines. And what we did accomplish--the improvements we made--did not make it through the Rules Committee for consideration on the floor.

I remain deeply concerned about many of the provisions in the PATRIOT Act as reported to the House, but I would like to specifically discuss two of them. I am deeply troubled by Section 213, which will be permanently reauthorized by this legislation. The so called ``sneak and peek'' searches allow federal agents to literally go in to your home, my home, anyone's home and conduct a secret search. Investigators can take pictures and even seize personal items or records and unbelievably they do not need to tell you about it for an indefinite period of time. When they discover they made a mistake or they discover you are not engaged in terrorist actions, they are under no obligation to ever let you know promptly.

Another provision of the PATRIOT Act, Section 215, allows investigators broad access to any record without probable cause of a crime. This means that investigators can review your deeply personal medical records and also library records without telling you about it and without any probable reason to do it. Investigators under Section 215 would be able to access all the medical records at a local hospital with only the indication that there may be potentially valuable records contained therein. In other words, most of the records searched are of innocent people, but because there is a terrorist investigation underway or a terrorists records might be somewhere in the batch, they get swept up in the search.

These provisions and many others have a deep impact on the freedoms and civil liberties all Americans. Some will say we need these provisions to track down terrorist and build cases against them. But what goes unsaid is that these provisions will also be used against people who have committed no crime and who are completely innocent. It is because of this that the PATRIOT Act must be understood as affecting all of us. A small number of unnecessary intrusions can have a broadly chilling effect. Proponents of the Patriot bill before us will say that it is directed at terrorists, not law abiding citizens, but they should try to tell that to Mr. Brandon Mayfield of Portland, Oregon.

Brandon Mayfield, a Portland attorney, was detained by investigators last year as a material witness under authority granted by the PATRIOT Act. They alleged that his finger prints were found on a bag linked to the terrorist bombings in Madrid, Spain last year. More so called evidence was collected when his residence was searched, without his knowledge, under Section 213 of the Act. However, the investigators were wrong. The FBI has issued an apology for his wrongful detention. But this is no conciliation for a lawyer and Muslim American whose reputation was tarnished by this investigation, made possible by the overly-broad powers granted under the PATRIOT Act. How can we allow this to happen in America? Of course, some mistakes will occur, but this bill strikes the wrong balance and makes those errors more likely.

In 2001, I voted in favor of the PATRIOT Act with reservations, and my reservations have only increased over time. At the time, I said that in the anxious aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, we were likely to get wrong the balance between freedom and security. I insisted on a sunset clause so that the law would expire after several years and Congress would adjust the balance. Because those sunsets were adopted we have an opportunity to revisit this important legislation today. Unfortunately, the Majority has prevented many amendments which have bipartisan support from being offered. These amendments would have helped restore the proper balance between freedom and security that the bill gets wrong. And they would have provided the important sunsets that would force review of the bill in four years.

James Madison, speaking in 1788 before the Virginia Convention (not all that far from where we are today) explained what I believe is the unanswered problem with the PATRIOT Act. He said, ``I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.'' As Madison said over 200 years ago, the liberty and freedoms we as Americans cherish are being eroded today not at the barricade, but in the library, and at our local doctor's office. It is for this reason that I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the PATRIOT Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome India's distinguished Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh. I was recently pleased to join 70 of my colleagues in encouraging Speaker Hastert to invite Prime Minister Singh to address a joint session of Congress during his visit to the United States. I am honored that Dr. Singh has chosen to accept Congress's invitation.

During a visit to New Delhi in early 2001, I had the opportunity to meet with several government officials, including Dr. Singh, who then served as economic advisor to the Congress Party leader Sonia Gandhi. Already distinguished as the author of India's most successful economic plan, Dr. Singh's wisdom and common sense were evident. I was pleasantly surprised when, in May 2004, Manmohan Singh was sworn in as India's fourteenth Prime Minister. Dr. Singh's position as leader of the world's largest democracy, his keen intellect, and his successful economic plan for India lend him the admiration of governments around the world.

An accomplished economist, Dr. Singh began service in the Indian government in the 1970s. Ever since, his shrewd intellect and thoughtful consideration of complex matters have distinguished him among his colleagues. His elevation to the position of Prime Minister speaks volumes about his country's respect for intelligence and integrity in public leaders.

India is beginning to realize its enormous potential, and I am continually impressed by its citizens. When I came to Congress in the beginning of 1999, the first Member organization that I joined was the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, which seeks to inform Members of Congress about issues of particular importance to the sub-continent. Since then, my interest in India and my respect for its people have only grown.

As the world's largest democracy and second most populous country, India has faced and overcome challenges that few can fully appreciate. Through aggressive investment in its education system and infrastructure, India has experienced impressive growth as an economy and as a nation. After years of growth and advancement, India's position in the global community has never been stronger.

I was pleased to join my colleagues yesterday in supporting House Resolution 364, which commends the continuing improvement in U.S.-India relations. The close relationship that our governments share advances the interests of our Nation and our people.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome Dr. Manmohan Singh to this joint session of Congress. I look forward to hearing Dr. Singh speak, and I look forward to continuing to build the important and special relationship between our two countries.