Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, July 7, 2004.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time, and I am glad that we are focusing on this very important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, having served in that very distinguished group of bipartisan members concerned about intelligence for 8 years.

I wish to rise in strong support of this bill we are presenting to our colleagues and to the American people, the Intelligence Authorization Act. This is a well-thought-out bill, developed over many months of comprehensive deliberation, which provides much-needed guidance and support for the global, and let me emphasize that, the global war on terrorism and efforts to combat the very real threats to our national security.

We live in a dangerous world. Reminders of that harsh fact of 21st- century life face us on many fronts. Threats that were unimaginable just a few years ago have now become reality. Suicide bombers, anthrax, dirty bombs, these are but a few of the litany of weapons our enemies threaten us with.

To meet this new threat, our Nation requires a much more flexible and responsive intelligence community. H.R. 4548 helps provide that flexibility; and, importantly, it provides the increased funding to aggressively wage war on terrorism. Make no mistake, H.R. 4548 dramatically, let me emphasize that, dramatically increases counterterrorism funding.

As a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for the 8 years that I have been privileged to serve in that body, one of my greatest concerns has been the lack of sufficient numbers of intelligence analysts and officers fluent in the languages that our enemies speak. This capability deficiency has literally crippled our ability to independently gather and evaluate information. It means that we have increasingly relied on contract linguists and allied intelligence services to translate information and to follow up leads. It means, for example, that there are literally miles and miles of captured Saddam Hussein documents that are still waiting to be read, translated, and made available for our analysis.

We have made substantial investment in technology, and rightly so; but more investment is necessary in human capital, people who serve as our eyes and ears at far distant points on the globe, and just adding to the numbers in our cadre is not enough by itself. We need individuals who are language proficient and possess an understanding of the culture being penetrated, who know and are able to appreciate not only who was saying what but also are conversant with the nuances and able to discern the true meaning of what is being said.

Of course, particularly in view of my position as chairman of the Committee on Science, I can appreciate the value of investment in technology; but that alone is not enough. There is no substitute for people. A satellite hundreds of miles in the heavens might be able to detect the movement of people or machines, and that is important; but it does not compare in value to someone inside a cell in Iraq or Afghanistan monitoring the words or actions of the bad guys.

For this reason, I have been part of a concerted effort over the past several years to place greater emphasis on and secure needed funds for a significant upgrading of our language program for the intelligence community.

Our committee has put together a broad and comprehensive package of language provisions. We establish a civilian linguistic reserve corps. We fund and expand existing programs that have demonstrated success. We look for creative ways to develop and utilize the vast talent pool that already exists in our country. We support the National Virtual Translation Center; and perhaps most importantly, we try to establish a culture in the intelligence community where language skills become an integral and necessary part of the job. It is the most important legislative effort on foreign languages since the Boren Act of 1992.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4548 is a worthy bill. It takes many of the necessary steps to ensure that our Nation's intelligence capabilities remain relevant in the 21st century. The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) is bringing forward an excellent package in what is his final authorization as chairman. He has performed exceptionally well during particularly challenging times, and he has presented us with a bill that all Members can and should support.

I urge support of the rule and the base bill.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee, obviously I follow these things very closely, and I wish to point out to all my colleagues that the other body, their version of this bill closely mirrors ours, but is less generous, and that bill passed the other body by a unanimous vote, minority and majority. They are following our lead. I would suggest that we should evidence that same spirit of bipartisanship in this body.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified in the form at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I can assure the gentlewoman that that is the case.

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

Let me tell my colleagues a little bit about the genesis of this amendment. Early in February, as a senior member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I was asked to lead a delegation for a mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. That delegation included the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member of the committee, and there were four others. There were six of us. We planned a most ambitious schedule for 6 days: six countries, 6 days.

Our purpose was not to determine the progress on the Constitution, important though that was; not to check on the morale of the troops, important though that always is; not to check on how we were spending our money on the reconstruction, and that too is very important. Our purpose as members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was to meet with members of the intelligence community on-site in that war zone to hear from them in their own words their assessment of the situation. I want to compliment all of the members of that delegation for the outstanding contribution they made to that mission.

But before we were going and still in the planning stages, I had a call from the State Department, Ambassador Burns, who directs the Near East desk. He said, Mr. Chairman, I would like you and the delegation to consider making an addition to your trip, another stop. I said, have you looked at our schedule? Six countries in 6 days. We do not have time to wind our watch. He said, let me talk to you about it. Then he came up to Capitol Hill; and in the secure sanctuary of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence rooms on the fourth floor of the Capitol, he said, We would like you to go to Libya. We would like your delegation to meet with Colonel Qadhafi. I said, Are you kidding? Are you serious? Libya is engaged in state-sponsored acts of terrorism against American citizens. It has endured U.N. sanctions; that has been going on for 20 years; disregarded world condemnation, and dismissed diplomatic settlements. What has changed? And he said, in the secure sanctuary of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence quarters on the fourth floor of the Capitol, There is movement; There is progress. We think it would be very valuable for your bipartisan delegation to go to Libya to meet Colonel Qadhafi, because we want to demonstrate in tangible form that if he begins to cooperate with us, we will cooperate with him.

After checking with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), she agreed. She thought it would be a good idea, and off we went. We spent 8 hours in the country, the final 2 hours in a tent in the middle of the Libyan desert outside of Surt, Colonel Qadhafi's hometown. We talked about weapons of mass destruction. We talked about the war on terrorism. We talked about the shooting down of Pan Am Flight 103, which has a searing impact on my soul forever more because there were 35 students from Syracuse University on that flight. We talked about all of the gut-wrenching issues that are so important to our security and the security of the Free World, and it was a meaningful discussion. And the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) can characterize it from her standpoint what she thought of it.

Then we completed the rest of our mission. We went to Jordan, we went to Iraq, we went to Afghanistan, we went to Turkey. This was a world- wind visit of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, very serious business, doing very important work. As a matter of fact, 3 of the 6 days, we did not even sleep in a hotel; we slept in the airplane. We got back home, and we reported everything to the committee and to the State Department.

Since then, there has been a great opening up with Libya. Colonel Qadhafi, I do not think he went to bed one night and suddenly woke up and said, Hey, those guys are right and I have been wrong. I am going to change my ways. I think he looked around at the world and he said, the war on terrorism could negatively impact him like it negatively impacted his neighbor to the north, who is now behind bars, Saddam Hussein. I think he said that he wants to be concerned about his legacy and in what shape he was going to leave that country. I think he decided that it would be best to cooperate.

What has happened since then? He has turned over the weapons of mass destruction, he has made his country open for inspection, and he is cooperating fully.

Does that mean we can clap our hands and say, boy, is this not a great victory? Although it is a great victory as far as it goes, and it does prove that leadership really results in something positive if we work together. But the fact of the matter is, we have to continue to be cautious, but we have to be very deliberate.

That country is moving in the right direction. Let us hope they continue that movement. We want signals to be sent to others. We want Iran and North Korea and other nations, others who are on the list of countries that sponsor state terrorism, to get the message; and we think that this amendment that I am offering, this sense of the Congress amendment, will do the right thing in the appropriate way.

Let me add that there are a number of Members on both sides of the aisle that have worked very cooperatively on this. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) had some suggestions for language. That is what my modifying amendment includes, the suggestions he made. That is the way we work best together, when we reach across the center aisle and find common ground.

So I would urge the adoption of my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

The only reason we left out Sicily, because the initial was 6 countries in 6 days; but as the gentlewoman will recall, when we added Libya, there were requirements on the pilots in that they could not fly a certain amount of time beyond their standard time, so we could not go any farther than Sicily. We had to exit Libya, but we could not go any farther than Sicily, so we stayed overnight and got up the next morning and off we went.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Let me stress we have to be cautious, but deliberate. But as a favorite son of the gentlewoman's State, the great President that we just lost, I am reminded of his admonition: trust, but verify.

Mr. Chairman, I will complete the balance of my time by just once again emphasizing that all is not over, all is not hunky- dory, as the phrase goes; but there has been significant movement in the right direction, thanks to good intelligence, thanks to firm and decisive leadership. But we have to go forward with the admonition that we trust, but verify.

So I would urge strong support of this amendment for all the reasons that have just been enumerated by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and this gentleman, and I would urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise my colleagues of the death of Paul A. Theis. He was one of our stalwarts, having served for many years as Director of Public Relations for the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. President Ford held him in such high regard that he tapped him to become his Executive Editor, heading up the highly important speechwriting operation in the White House. In addition, Paul served in the Agriculture Department as Deputy Undersecretary for Congressional and Public Affairs.

Paul Theis was many things, but above all a patriot and a gentleman as his legion of friends can attest. I count myself among them as we grieve the passing of this man of many parts. He was a novelist and completed ``Devil in the House,'' a story based on the House of Representatives, just a few months before he died. He also coauthored ``All About Politics,'' a non-fiction book published in 1972. Before that he served in the House as Administrative Assistant to the Hon. Oliver Bolton, Republican of Ohio. Earlier he had been a reporter for Newsweek magazine, covering the McCarthy hearings, and Army Times. During World War II he flew combat missions out of Italy as a B-17 bomber pilot earning the Air Medal and six battle stars. As a member of the Air Force Reserve after the war, he ultimately attained the rank of Major. For his military service, Paul was interred with full honors on April 20, 2003 at Arlington National Cemetery.

My condolences have been extended to his wife, Nancy, and his son, Mitchell, as they were by telephone by President Gerald R. Ford and President George W. Bush. He was a wonderful man and I was proud to have known him and to have been associated with him. I and countless others who knew him and loved him will sorely miss him. May he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I enclose herewith the text of the eulogy given by Paul's son, Mitchell, at his funeral mass, and the text of the obituaries from the Washington Times and the Washington Post.

Eulogy for Paul A. Theis

(By Mitchell A. Theis)

Reverend Fathers, thank you for celebrating this beautiful

Mass of Christian Burial for my father, Paul Theis. Thank you

for being such good priests and for being such an important

part of our family's life.

I thank all of you here who came to honor my dad by your

presence. My mother and I are deeply touched by your

outpouring of sympathy and words of love for my father.

A couple of nights ago, mom and I were in the kitchen

remembering some of our happiest times together with my

father and some of his wonderful mannerisms and beliefs. We

couldn't stop laughing as we recalled how he believed that

three scoops of ice cream was ``healthy'' if you sprinkled

wheat germ over it. Or how he always managed to wear one of

his tattered old trench coats from his journalism days even

though mom bought him a cashmere coat from Neiman Marcus and

I got him one from Saks Fifth Avenue.

We recalled, too, his old Rolodex that he started over 60

years ago. Here it is! It looks like an organizational system

used by a small business. It's so filled with cards that you

can barely turn it. Believe me, my dad has a card on you or

can locate a card that will help him find you within minutes.

He started writing cards on his friends that he grew up

with back in the farming community of Carey, Ohio. His mom

and dad ran a melon and wheat farm. And after the Depression

they bought a furniture store.

His next set of cards was of his friends, like George

Barsa, Frank Keenan and Bob Walsh; he had met them at Notre

Dame University. Dad always was a Notre Dame Man and has

stayed in touch with all of his college buddies. He just

attended his 55th alumni reunion.

The next group of names that Dad wrote out for the Rolodex

were those of his B-17 crew from World War II. The members of

the crew were all barely 20 and they called Jerry Moran, the

crew chief, ``Pops'' because he was 26 years old. If you

heard Forrest Tolson tell their war stories, he'd have you

believe that it was their crew alone that won the war.

Believe me, Paul Theis, the old combat bomber pilot will be

watching the WWII Monument dedication on the Mall this coming

Memorial Day from a great vantage point! I salute the crew!

After the War, dad finished his BA at Notre Dame and his BS

in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He

got a job as a journalist at the Army Times and then at

Newsweek covering the McCarthy hearings. These writing skills

helped him get a job on Capitol Hill working as an

Administrative Assistant for Congressman Oliver Bolton. Gene

Cowen was the AA for Ollie's mother, Francis Bolton. They

were the only mother-son Congressional team.

This was in the early 50's and many of you here recall the

simpler days of handshakes and civility. This was the time

that Sid Yudain started Roll Call and dad helped start the

Inner Circle, a group of Administrative Assistants that met

for background briefings with VIP's of the day.

Unfortunately/fortunately, dad's boss had a heart attack and

did not run for re-election, so he became the Public

Relations Director for the National Republican Congressional

Campaign Committee, writing speeches for congressmen and

women. This is where he added hundreds of cards to his

Rolodex. It was a perfect job for him and he stayed there for

16 years.

It was during this time where he met the woman who would

sweet him off his feet. It was the end of him. His bachelor

days were over.

It was following that blessed event that President Nixon

resigned and President Ford asked him to be his Executive

Editor--handling: Speechwriting, Messages, Correspondence and

Research. There dad worked closely with Bob Hartman, Bob

Orben, Milt Friedman, Jack Calkins and all the members of

President Ford's team. On Monday, former President Ford

called mom and me. We told him that we were certain a number

of his old friends and supporters would be here at the

funeral. He wanted everyone to know that he was here in

spirit. Dad was always honored to work for such a fine man.

From the White House dad was appointed the Director of

Congressional Relations for the Secretary of Agriculture,

Jack Knebel. Dad and mom were to travel with Jack and his

wife, Zee, to a number of foreign countries for the USDA.

Dad then moved on to the House Agriculture Committee where

he and Tom Adams wrote the Ag Bad Newsletter.

In 1981, dad started Headliner Editorial Services and

worked for clients from his home office. Mom left school

teaching and was working at the White House so I grew up

coming home from school and being greeted by my father.

He was always a master listener--calm, cool, collected and

funny. One of my favorite examples of his type of humor

occurred on the day that we had to put our dog, Badger, to

sleep. On the way back home from the vets, dad turned to mom

and me and said, ``What are we going to tell the cat?''

Over the years, Mom and Dad, AKA ``The Cheerleader'' and

``The Sage,'' created an extended family that supports and

sustains our world. Together, we affirm what is sacred, laugh

at life's absurdities and discuss and debate the hot topics

of our times. We are blessed beyond belief by such dear, dear

family friends.

If you are a member of the Golden Owls, the select group in

the National Press Club

who have been members for over 50 years, dad has a card on

you in his Rolodex.

If you are a member of the old Capitol Hill Club or are ``a

regular'' there then dad has an address card on you.

If you're a writer or staffer on the Bulletin for the

Cosmos Club, dad knows how to get in touch with you. The

Cosmos Club was a great joy to dad in these past few years.

He certainly enjoyed working with the club's members and

management.

If you were a member of the Knights of Columbus from St.

Thomas Apostle, Dad knew where to find you. By the way, I

want to thank the brother Knights for coming today to be part

of Dad's funeral.

If you belong to the Hill Investment Club, thanks for

making Dad think that he was a Big Investor.

Dad was an active and involved member of the District of

Columbia Republican Committee for 25 years plus. He was

always eager to see the two party system work here in our

hometown.

Dad knew all of his neighbors and was the first to help out

on any local project.

To our parish, he was a stead presence.

Simply put--Dad had your number! And I would guess that you

had his.

He was a caring and loving husband, a real father in every

sense of the word, a quiet, fun-loving friends and neighbor,

a dedicated, loyal employee, a constant worker--he even

finished his novel, despite the fact that it took him years,

a devoted member of his Church and a true renaissance man!

Mom and I will continue to use this clunky Rolodex, to call

you and to cherish your friendship.

Today, there is a new card written in God's Heavenly

Rolodex. It can be found under the letter T. The name on it

is Paul A. Theis.

The peace of Christ be with you Dad.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the ultimate Trojan horse. It is an attack on fundamental environmental policy dressed up to look like an effort to promote alternative energy.

Alernative energy is not being held back by environmental law. There are many steps we could take to promote alternative energy--through tax incentives, through research and development spending, through renewable portfolio standards, through energy efficiency standards. But we're not taking many of those steps. Instead, we're offered this false choice between environmental policy and alternative energy.

This bill would undermine the fundamental protection offered by the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. Under this bill, alternative proposals would not have to be examined. What that does is disempower individuals and communities, who will no longer be able to fully debate where and whether alternative energy projects would be built. Reforming NEPA is one thing and I am receptive to working constructively toward that end, but abandoning it is something else indeed and should not be allowed.

And keep in mind that alternative energy in this bill is very broadly defined. Garbage incinerators would qualify; new dams would qualify. This bill would short-circuit review of such projects.

I am one of the strongest supporters of alternative energy in this Congress. I get frustrated when folks fight against wind farms on aesthetic grounds, for example. But I don't think that we need to avoid proper environmental review on alternative energy projects.

I urge my colleagues not to fall for this charade. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I joined my colleagues in voting for a resolution expressing the profound regret and sorrow of the House of Representatives on the death of Ronald W. Reagan, former President of the United States of America. I did not cast that vote as one Member of this, the people's House, nor as a Congressperson for 654,000 New Yorkers who it is my privilege to represent here in our Nation's capital. Rather, that vote reflected the profound regret and sorrow felt far beyond the borders of one district, one State, one Nation.

It is illustrative of the sincere sentiment of a world community in collective mourning. President Reagan was so much more than a head of state. He was an inspiration to all whose lives he touched, not just by his words, which reached across the great divides that separate people, but by his deeds which always sought to bring people together in common cause.

The President's noble achievements, and there were so many, have been and will continue to be chronicled by historians for time immemorial.

So many of my colleagues who preceded and those who will follow have been and will be eloquent in their tributes to the lasting legacy of this great man, and deservedly so. For my part, I simply want to add a listing of the words which come immediately to mind when recalling President Reagan: words like integrity, conviction, honor, faith, grace, dignity, friendship, humor, values, honest, humble. The list of positives in the life of this man of principle and character is endless.

To President Reagan and his beloved partner, Nancy, who was always at his side and in his heart, I am but one of so many who say a heart felt thank you for leading by example and serving so many so well for so long. You will always be an inspiration and you will always be in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate one of my constituents from Cortland County, New York, John Ryan Sr., for 51 exceptional years of service to the Homer Fire Department. Mr. Ryan Joined the Homer Fire Department in 1953, upon his return from service in the Korean War. His commitment to public service for his country and his community is unmatched.

His father was a volunteer firefighter and served as fire chief in the 1940's. Mr. Ryan also served as fire chief for four years beginning in 1970. He has presided over the Cortland County Fire Chiefs Association and the County Fire Advisory Board. The love of firefighting has been passed down to his children and grandchildren, as his son, John Ryan Jr., serves as the current fire chief and his other sons, Steve and Mike, also serve as firefighters. His granddaughter was the fourth generation Ryan to belong to the fire department before she moved from the area.

It is this kind of dedication and commitment to community that makes John Ryan Sr. such a legacy in Homer, NY. Not only has he answered the call to community service, but he has also instilled that same spirit in his children and grandchildren. I thank Mr. Ryan for his years of service, and I know the town of Homer thanks him as well.

Mr. Speaker, the examples of inequities and simply unfair and lacking-in-commonsense provisions of our existing Tax Code are just too numerous to mention. I wish I could wave a magic wand and eliminate them all overnight.

This President and this Congress are doing their best to bring about much-needed and long-overdue tax reform to the American people, but I am a realist. I know that a journey of 1,000 miles requires many steps forward. Today, we have an opportunity to take a joint step forward.

I stand before my colleagues as a proud cosponsor and strong advocate for eliminating permanently the marriage tax penalty. And what is the marriage tax penalty? I wish it were easy to explain to the American people, but think of it in these terms. When the only thing that changes in the lives of a man and a woman, not their job, not their income, nothing else, when the only thing that changes is that they fall in love and get married, only to discover that their tax obligation is dramatically increased, not double what they were paying as two single people but double plus, that just does not make sense.

The 2001 tax relief act, enacted by President Bush and proudly passed by this Congress, brought fairness to the Tax Code by phasing out this penalty; however, this relief will be reduced next year and will expire entirely by 2010 unless we take the action called for in this good legislation.

We want to provide tax relief for the American people. We want them to keep more of their own money so that they can make the wise decisions on how to spend that money. We want to provide relief for the American business community to incentivize them to buy new equipment, to build new buildings, to expand and create more jobs. The President and this Congress are seeking to do just that.

It is mind-boggling to me to think that anyone would oppose it, but we get people who stand up on this floor and say I am for it, but I am for it but. There is always but, but, but. Let us do it, provide tax relief to the American families, tax relief that will get our economy moving again; and this is one very important step forward in that very important and long journey.

Mr. Speaker, to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, I say this: if my colleagues provide tax relief to the American families, they are not going to hide the money under the mattress. They are going to use it to buy goods and services, manufactured right here in the United States, by his neighbors and mine.

My favorite four letter word, and we can use it in polite company, is ``jobs.''

And if you provide tax relief for the families, they will use their money wisely to create new jobs. If you incentivize business to buy new equipment, build new buildings, create new jobs, that is the best way to get more money flowing into the Treasury to reduce that deficit.

I, like you, want to do that; but we are moving in the right direction. We have got the right ticket to drive this economy forward if we provide much-needed tax relief for the families and for the businesses of America so that our economy, which is moving in the right direction, will do so at an accelerated pace.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time; and to quote someone a lot more famous than me, ``There you go again.'' It is, we believe in this, but, but, but. Let us do it.

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Earth Day, it is important to reflect upon our environmental accomplishments and plan for the environmental challenges ahead. For over three decades investments in clean water infrastructure, wastewater treatment facilities, have been the linchpin of water quality improvements in lakes, rivers and bays. Today, over 30 million Americans enjoy fishing in waters that have been improved through wastewater treatment investments.

Unfortunately, the future of clean water has become increasingly murky. According to analysis conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency and confirmed in studies by the Water Infrastructure Network and the Government Accounting Office, America is facing a water and wastewater infrastructure funding gap that will exceed $500 billion over the next 20 years. This infrastructure funding crisis, if not addressed, will have devastating economic and environmental consequences for our Nation.

Historically, Congress has developed legislation providing long-term, dedicated sources of funding for massive infrastructure investment priorities. Our Nation's highway and aviation infrastructure needs are funded primarily through dedicated trust funds. I believe it is time to begin a constructive dialogue between State, local and Federal officials on how our Nation is going to ensure that needed investments in clean water infrastructure are going to be made in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the week of April 19th as National Primary Immune Deficiency Diseases Awareness Week. Primary immune deficiency diseases (PIDD) are genetic disorders in which part of the body's immune system is missing or does not function properly. The World Health Organization recognizes more than 150 primary immune diseases, which affect as many as 50,000 people in the United States.

I am familiar with primary immune deficiencies because of a family in my district, the Driscolls. Kerstin and Dean Driscoll are from Greene, NY and have two sons who were born with an extremely rare PIDD called X-Linked Agammaglobulinemia, or XLA. Zack, 11, and Alex, 9, are confronting XLA head on. XLA is a genetic disorder that prevents production of B-cell antibodies that fight infection. When Zack was 3 years old and Alex only 9 months, they suffered chronic ear and sinus infections. Their recurring illnesses remained a mystery to their parents and doctors, until tests were done to confirm that the boys had primary immune deficiency diseases.

Soon after their diagnosis, Zack and Alex were treated with an immune globulin infusion (IGIV), which is prepared from the plasma of many blood donors, to support their immune systems. Zack and Alex receive their IGIV infusions once every 3 weeks and the infusion takes approximately 4 hours.

Zack and Alex are lucky because their primary immune deficiency disease was diagnosed early. However, despite the recent progress in PIDD research, the average length of time between the onset of symptoms in a patient and a definitive diagnosis of PIDD is 9.2 years. In the interim, those afflicted may suffer irreversible damage to internal organs. That is why it is critical that we raise awareness about these illnesses.

Mr. Speaker, the Driscolls face their sons' PIDD head on, by becoming active with the Immune Deficiency Foundation. Therefore, I commend the Immune Deficiency Foundation for its leadership in this area and I am proud to join them in recognizing the week of April 19th as National Primary Immune Deficiency Diseases Awareness Week. I encourage my colleagues to work with us to help improve the quality of life for PIDD patients and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3970. And I want to congratulate our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), for having introduced it. In a short time he has become one of the most active and effective members of the Committee on Science. I thank him for his many, many contributions.

There is really only one unfortunate thing about this green chemistry bill, and that is that none of us thought of it before. Green chemistry is such an obvious area in which to focus that it should be clear to anyone and everyone that more needs to be done in this field.

Green chemistry benefits companies and workers, the economy, and the environment. It is really just the application of an old adage: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If we reduce to ounces the quantity of toxic chemicals we use and produce, then we will not have to clean up pounds of toxics downstream.

And this bill takes a sensible, targeted approach to putting some Federal dollars behind those prevention efforts. It builds on existing programs at a number of Federal agencies to transform those small and scattered efforts into a focused, a coordinated, and an enhanced national program. The result of that program should be the generation and dissemination of new ideas and new people, leading to the adoption of more green chemistry practices and the creation of more green chemistry products by industry.

Now, I know some would like this bill to go further, and there is no doubt that there are additional barriers to green chemistry that government action could help attack, but those government actions are complex and controversial and should be taken up in other bills.

For now let us take care of first things first. Let us make sure that the government is doing everything possible to ensure that green chemistry research and development is getting the attention it deserves to ensure that education programs are designed to teach more students and practicing chemists and chemical engineers about green chemistry, and to ensure that new ideas are broadly disseminated.

If we do not have the ideas and the people, then no amount of government incentives or regulations are going to accelerate the adoption of green chemistry. This is a good and thoughtful and effective bill that takes a step we should have taken long ago to make sure that government R&D and education programs promote the kind of chemistry that is in the national interest.

I urge everyone to support the excellent bill of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey). It is a most appropriate way to recognize Earth Day which occurs tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, some Members have argued that we should include portions of regional or national significance under minimum guarantee. These projects by definition are vital to the Nation as a whole and should not impact formula distribution to the States.

Let me give you a classic example. Whether you are on the west coast in Oregon or the east coast in the Port of New York-New Jersey, we have a problem. It is called the congestion in the hub in Chicago. You have got to do something. I want to put a lot of money in Chicago to solve that problem. Does that mean because we are dealing with a problem of national significance we should penalize Illinois and have it taken from its allocation? Of course not. This is a Nation. We are dealing as a Nation. We are not just dealing in little individual States.

When I look at this Isakson amendment, it is almost like a roll call of a who's-who of States. State after State

would lose under this. Alabama, Alaska, California, Connecticut, it goes on and on and on.

Mr. Chairman, this does not make sense. We are a national legislative body, not a State legislative body. Let me tell the gentleman from Florida about fairness. I have the highest regard for him, but New Yorkers are not treated fair in so many different categories. I could make a persuasive argument. The gentleman treats us fair, I know it; but we send more than $20 billion to Washington than we get back. Do we complain? Of course we try to jimmy and work some things out to get a better distribution of funds, but the fact of the matter is we recognize we are part of a Federal system and we look at the Federal approach. This is one of the few programs that treats us well.

Let me praise the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for the outstanding manner in which they have handled this. But when all is said and done, this amendment, while well-intended, does damage to the national system; and I urge its opposition.

Mr. Chairman, once again I want to voice the strong opinions of the fair coalition in my home State of New York that we preserve the highway equity established in TEA 21. Transportation is one of the only programs where my State gets back from

the Federal Government more than it contributes in taxes. Every year New York sends $20 billion more to Washington than it receives back in various Federal assistance programs. That is a fact. In this bill we have to strive to be fair. What is fair is that we preserve a needs- based highway and transit program and create a stronger integrated national transportation system.

New York's highways and transit infrastructure serve the entire Nation through its roads and its ports and its rail facilities and its airports. However, our infrastructure is aging, and much of it needs to be repaired or replaced. With 33 percent of the Nation's transit riders, New York receives only 14 percent of the total transit funding. We simply cannot afford any changes to a formula that would give us even less. We have Federal support capped at 10 percent for our bridges; yet we have 20 percent of the identified national need.

As a result, the most critical feature of the bill is that we make no immediate changes to the current minimum guarantee of 90.5 percent. If the overall level of funding does not remain at its current level, it would be unfair to New York and many other States.

Next I want to thank the T&I staff for working so hard with my staff to include language in the manager's amendment to support efforts to reduce wildlife vehicle collisions. In America last year, accidents involving wildlife took over 200 lives. It cost more than $2 billion in property damage and killed over a million game animals. In many parts of the country, cars are killing more game than hunters. So I look forward to continuing to work on conservation and wildlife measures with my colleagues.

Finally, I want to voice my support of the House language governing charter service. The language helps clarify charter service rules. Without this, all across America providers of transportation services including school bus contractors will be irrevocably harmed.

Last but not least, while this is a massive infrastructure bill to take care of identified needs across this Nation, it is also a bill that concentrates on my favorite four-letter word, and do not get nervous. People can use it in polite company. This is a jobs bill. This will get more Americans back to work, good pay, good benefits, doing things that all America needs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Science have until Wednesday, April 14, 2004, at 5 p.m. to file legislative reports on the following measures:

H.R. 3970, Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004; and

H.R. 4030, Congressional Medal for Outstanding Contributions in Math and Science Education Act of 2004.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3752.