Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2631) to provide that the actuarial value of the prescription drug benefits offered to Medicare eligible enrollees by a plan under the Federal employees health benefits program shall be at least equal to the actuarial value of the prescription drug benefits offered by such plan to its enrollees generally.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, last week the House passed H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act. Part of this bill recognizes and seeks to address one of the core concerns regarding adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare; that is, with the implementation of such a benefit, lead employers who currently offer prescription drug coverage to their employees to stop doing so. Obviously, we do not want to put a government entitlement plan into operation and drive the private plans out of existence, or the costs over the long term to the taxpayers will go off the charts.

The bill addressed these concerns by providing subsidies to private employers and unions to encourage them to maintain prescription drug benefits for their retirees. With the help of the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas), we were able to clarify that the Office of Personnel Management would also be eligible for these subsidies, something that I believe will lead to lower FEHBP premiums for all enrollees. However, I think it is necessary for us to go one step further.

Coming from northern Virginia, I represent over 50,000 Federal employees and retirees. As chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, I am responsible for issues pertaining to Federal workers and retirees, along with the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service. Thus, not only am I acutely aware of the challenges the Federal Government faces as an employer to recruit and retain quality employees, I am also very aware that Federal retirees are sometimes treated differently than current employees in ways that are not always equitable.

For example, current Federal employees are allowed to deduct their health insurance premiums from pretax dollars, but Federal retirees are not. I look at this issue from an employer's perspective. Remember: In addition to the large number of retirees already in FEHBP, 50 percent of the Federal workforce is eligible for retirement in the next several years. With H.R. 2631, we are telling the people that we are going to live up to our end of the bargain. We are saying that with regard to prescription drug benefits, Federal retirees will continue to be placed on par with current employees, that OPM will not reduce their benefits as opposed to the benefit offered to current employees.

In crafting H.R. 2631, I thought it was important to continue to allow OPM as much flexibility as possible in negotiating future prescription drug benefits. And for the record, Senator Akaka, my colleague in the other body, has offered similar legislation on the other side of the Capitol. Thus, H.R. 2631 does not require OPM to offer a specific dollar amount of coverage that has to be maintained; they can raise or they can lower benefits as they see fit through negotiations with individual plans, but they have to do it for all FEHBP enrollees to treat them the same, regardless of their age. In essence, we are simply telling OPM to continue to do what they have always done.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I believe H.R. 2631 sends an important message to both Federal retirees and current Federal employees. It will be a helpful tool in our efforts to build and retain an effective Federal workforce and give these employees a career path and retirement they can depend on. Therefore, I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 2631.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a co-sponsor of this legislation and a leader in the fight for Federal employees' rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to help the gentleman solve the puzzle. The fact of the matter is there are 1.25 million Medicare-eligible Federal employees and annuitants. Only 388 retired Members of Congress are in FEHBP. The majority of retired Members of Congress do not even take FEHBP. They are in other plans or have opted out of this.

The fact is they are eligible for that by virtue of their service here. This legislation was not crafted by Members looking after themselves. It was crafted with the help of the National Association of Retired Federal Employees. It was difficult to write out the 388 retired Members who happen to use this, which is a minority of the retired Members. Most Members do not use FEHBP. I want to clarify for the gentleman that in no way, shape or form was this for Members. In fact, this was called to our attention by the National Association of Retired Federal Employees. I do not know any other way to get at the problem.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, all it does is ensures that Federal retirees will be treated the same as current Federal employees in regard to the Federal Employee Health Benefit plan. Currently, they are not in some areas. The feeling is that with this other plan, that retirees could have a different benefit program and that creates some difficulty. So we are trying to even this up and give that assurance.

Most Members of Congress do not opt for FEHBP. That is what the record shows after this is done. So that is kind of a misnomer. It is a small percentage that ends up in FEHBP when they retire. A few do, I grant to the gentleman; but that is not the purpose.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond that The New York Times chart is absolutely wrong when it says Federal employees have no deductible for their prescription drug coverage. What they get is, they get a set amount of dollars, and it is a cafeteria style. They can spend it on prescription drugs, preventive care, HMOs or whatever. So there is certainly a cost to that. But the way the system is set up, it is a total health care program.

So when the gentleman gets up and quotes this New York Times article, it is entirely misleading. Of course there is a cost to Federal employees opting for that over something else.

The other underlying part of the bill that this body passed 2 weeks ago is the fact that we did not want to drive private programs out of existence. Should we drive the 60 percent of seniors that are currently satisfied with their prescription drug program out of existence, then the Federal Government ends up picking up the total tab, and the cost rises significantly.

We are setting an example with this legislation that we are, in fact, making sure that the FEHBP program is not driven out of existence; that we maintain the parity it has always had with existing Federal employees. And this program ought not be diminished. It is the same thing that we have incentivized in the program passed 2 weeks ago by the subsidies that are in that program as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and let me just say in all candor that we have 1.25 million FEHBP employees covered by this, with 388 former Members of Congress. The vast majority of former Members do not even sign up for FEHBP, those who would be eligible for the plan passed by this body 2 weeks ago, and do not even use FEHBP, which is a more comprehensive option for retired Federal employees, including Members of Congress. So this really has nothing to do with Members of Congress.

The other question I pose is, why, when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle controlled this body for 40 years, did they not bring up any prescription drug benefit plan before this body for a vote? We have passed plans now the last 3 years, only this time has the Senate passed a plan as well, and we are giving meaningful relief to seniors who want it. It is a voluntary plan. It is not a perfect plan by any means, but it is within the budget limitations passed by this Congress. Their plan was outside the budget limitations.

I think we have to get real. I think we have a good deal for Americans in the plan that we passed 2 weeks ago. As we work with the Senate, we will try to refine it and make it better. I think this legislation today makes it better as well, recognizing that as we look at our Federal workforce, trying to make sure we have the right incentives to attract and retain the best and the brightest to fight for homeland security, to fight the battles for this country, to develop cures for cancer, that we are treating our employees well.

So I am very proud to support this legislation. I think it enhances and goes with the underlying theme of the legislation passed 2 weeks ago, and that is we do not want to drive current prescription drug benefit plans out of existence, which, if we do not pass this, we will be setting a terrible example here at the Federal level.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say two things. This vaunted Senate bill that passed a couple of weeks ago, Senator Akaka has also offered legislation in the Senate for their legislation as well. I think whatever happens under whoever's bill that passes, we want to ensure that we do not get that separation between the retired Federal employees and current employees in their health benefit premiums, and that is what this bill is about.

We had a spirited debate 2 weeks ago on a health benefit plan, and I do not think we need to continue to air this today. But I think this is good legislation, it is good protection for our retired Federal employees, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and thank them for the bipartisan support this bill is getting today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1761) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 9350 East Corporate Hill Drive in Wichita, Kansas, as the ``Garner E. Shriver Post Office Building''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1761.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1761, introduced by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 9350 East Corporate Hill Drive in Wichita, Kansas, as the Garner E. Shriver Post Office Building. All members of the Kansas congressional delegation have cosponsored this legislation.

Garner Shriver represented the Fourth Congressional District of Kansas in this House for 8 terms, from 1961 to 1977. He was a lifelong resident of the Sunflower State; he spent nearly his entire adult life working for other Kansas residents, first as the State legislator and later as a U.S. Representative. This legislation is a fitting commemoration of his service to his home State and to the entire Nation.

Mr. Speaker, Garner Shriver was born in Towanda, Kansas, July 6, 1912. He and his family moved to Wichita in 1925, and he graduated from the University of Wichita in 1934. Following his college graduation, he enrolled in the Washburn School of Law and received a law degree in February, 1940.

After he was admitted to the bar, he entered into public service for the first time by enlisting in the U.S. Navy. He spent 3 years as an officer in the Navy; and after being honorably discharged, he chose to run for public office. He was elected to the Kansas State House where he served 2 terms. In 1951, he left the State House to run successfully for the Kansas Senate, which he served from 1953 to 1960. Finally, in the fall of 1960, the voters of the Fourth Congressional District of Kansas sent Garner E. Shriver to Washington for the first of 8 distinguished terms in the House of Representatives.

In Congress, he was an influential member of the Committee on Appropriations. He accomplished much during his 16 years in the House, but he fought extra hard for his fellow veterans, particularly working to secure health and education benefits for his peers when they completed their duties with the U.S. Armed Forces.

Moreover, even when he left the House in 1977, he stayed in Washington to fight for veterans by moving a few blocks north and becoming the staff director for the Committee on Veterans Affairs. He worked in the Senate for 5 years before returning home to Kansas in 1982 to practice law.

Garner E. Shriver passed away on March 1, 1998, at the age of 85. He was a remarkable American who succeeded at everything he tried in life, and I know the citizens of Kansas still feel very grateful to him for his years of dedication. Congressman Shriver preceded the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) as the representative of the fourth district, and I congratulate my colleague for his work on this measure.

I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 1761 that honors the life and service of Congressman Garner E. Shriver.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), the author of this legislation.

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

I commend the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) for introducing this legislation. Garner E. Shriver during his years in Congress lived in Lake Barcroft, which is the community I live in and represent in Congress. He was a good family man and neighbor there as well. This is a fitting commemoration for a very distinguished statesman, and I urge all of my colleagues to support adoption of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2396) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1210 Highland Avenue in Duarte, California, as the ``Francisco A. Martinez Flores Post Office''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2396.

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, introduced by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1210 Highland Avenue in Duarte, California, as the Francisco A. Martinez Flores Post Office. All 53 members of the California delegation have signed on to this bill as cosponsors.

The story of Lance Corporal Flores is one of remarkable courage. Born in Guadalajara, Mexico, Francisco came to the United States with his family at the age of 3. His family settled in the community of Duarte, California, east of Los Angeles. He grew up in Duarte, attended Duarte High School where he was a standout in the jazz band and on the football team. When Francisco graduated from high school in the spring of 2000, he bravely enlisted in the Marine Corps despite not yet being an American citizen. He was assigned to the First Marine Division and sent north to Twenty-nine Palms, California, the home of the Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center. After 2\1/2\ years of active duty in California, Lance Corporal Flores courageously journeyed with many of his fellow Marines across the globe to Iraq in January of this year for the military buildup to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

On March 25, 6 days into the war of liberation of Iraq, Lance Corporal Flores was killed in action outside of Nasiriyah in southeastern Iraq.

Sadly, he was less than 2 weeks from earning his United States citizenship, something that was his lifelong dream.

Mr. Speaker, Lance Corporal Francisco A. Martinez Flores lived an extraordinary life, albeit a tragically short one. He represents the best of what American immigrants bring to this country. I commend the gentlewoman from California for introducing this bill, that it will appropriately honor his sacrifices to our Nation.

I want to let all Members know that Lance Corporal Flores was deservingly granted his U.S. citizenship posthumously on April 6, right on schedule. Therefore, I urge all Members to support the passage of this bill that will name this post office after Lance Corporal Flores in his hometown.

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

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

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

Let me say I commend my colleague for bringing this legislation to the floor. In our usual order of things, it is individuals with power, prestige, and notoriety that get postal namings, but it is the Francisco Floreses of this world, many of them immigrants, who built this country, who make it run every day, and who fight to keep it free. He is in a larger sense, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) says, an American hero, and I urge adoption of this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as we near the 3-year anniversary of Plan Colombia, it is important to reaffirm our commitment to this program, to the people of Colombia, and to American citizens. I have led three congressional delegations to Colombia over the past 5 months. I can say firsthand that our significant investment is beginning to pay dividends. Together with the strong commitment of the Uribe Administration and historic levels of support from the Colombian people, U.S. involvement in Colombia is beginning to hit narco-terrorists where it hurts.

We are seeing tremendous results in illegal crop eradication, and Plan Colombia's efforts have produced record reductions in coca production and in the destruction of drug labs. Each week brings news of new seizures of cocaine and heroin--interdictions that are usually the result of U.S.-supplied intelligence. In fact, just this last weekend, Colombian officials seized over a ton of cocaine from a drug trafficking boat off the Caribbean coast. The Colombian government is reestablishing state presence in areas of the country that for decades lacked it. Criminals who have remained at bay for years are being captured and extradited to the United States for prosecution. During the 11 months of President Uribe's tenure, 68 individuals have been extradited from Colombia to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, Plan Colombia is working. I have just returned from a trip to Colombia with Chairman Souder and have seen first hand the devastation that drug production and trafficking has on this country. To those who question our investment, I would ask them to visit, as I have, Colombian soldiers who have lost their limbs or eyesight or sustained permanent disabilities in their battle to return peace to their nation and keep drugs off American streets. I would also ask them to visit Barrio Nelson Mandela, a USAID sponsored facility for internally displaced people who have been forced from their homes by drug traffickers and guerillas. This facility showed me how our work on behalf of Colombia's millions of internally displaced people is offering men, women, and children a second chance at a violence-free, productive life.

The United States, however, should not have to do this alone. An increasingly significant amount of Colombian cocaine and heroin is being trafficked through Europe for consumption. I would like to urge our European allies to recognize their responsibility to do their share in supporting Colombia in the battle to reduce the supply of drugs entering the world market. The war on drugs cannot be won without appropriate funds, resources and tools. Every contribution possible is needed to disrupt the market and make the drug trade less profitable. The battle going on in Colombia against narco-terrorism is Europe's battle as well. A European contribution to fighting the war on drugs could provide these innocent people with a better life by strengthening the rule of law, protecting human rights, and providing security for all Colombians.

During my recent visit to Colombia, it was evident to me just how effective U.S. assistance is to their government. Colombia's ability to combat both drugs and terror has been strengthened due in large part to our support as well as the will and determination of the Colombian people. With such promising results over the last 3 years, it is important to continue our support and sustain the momentum. Goals are being met, and new goals need to be set. Of course obstacles remain, and progress is slower than we would like it to be. But now is not the time to turn our backs on this battle that is so intrinsically tied to our war on terrorism and illegal drug use. In light of the strong progress being made in Colombia, I urge all of my colleagues to continue their support of Colombia's unified campaign against narcotics trafficking and terrorist activities and their effort to bring democratic security to the country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy with my colleague.

Can she confirm that the language in H.R. 1 includes plans under the Federal Employee Retirement Plan as an employment base plan?

I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

This will allow OPM to take advantage of the subsidies in the bill just as other employees and unions will?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's and the chairman's willingness to work with us on this issue. I think that allowing the subsidies H.R. 1 provides for will result in lower premiums and improved benefits for all FEHBP enrollees.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I appreciate the willingness of the gentlewoman to clarify that.

I have another concern, that Federal employees are often treated differently from current Federal employees in ways that are not always equitable. Retirees are different from current Federal employees. For example, current employees are allowed to pay their health insurance premiums from pre-tax dollars. Federal retirees are not.

FEHBP currently does not provide different benefits for retirees and current employees. One is simply a member of FEHBP. I think it is important that this dynamic remain once a Medicare prescription drug benefit is put into place, whichever plan passes.

As chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, I look at this from an employer's perspective. We do not want private employers to drop the prescription drug coverage they provide for their retirees. H.R. 1 provides incentives so that they will not do so, but we as the Federal Government have to lead by example.

I have introduced legislation that simply states that Federal retirees will continue to be treated on par with current Federal employees when it comes to prescription benefits. I regret we were unable to include this language in H.R. 1, but I am grateful to have the commitment of the Speaker and the majority leader to bring this bill to the floor as soon as we return from recess.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2555, the Fiscal Year 2004 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act.

This important legislation provides $30.4 billion in funding for the upcoming year, $1 billion over the Administration's request, including $4.4 billion for grants to the police, firefighter and emergency medical personnel that are on the front lines of our nation's homeland preparedness and emergency response. In addition, I am pleased to see in this legislation a timeline to expedite the allocation of these resources within 120 days of passage of this Act.

We have heard today, Mr. Chairman, and will continue to hear that there are simply not enough funds included in this bill to achieve our goal of making our homeland secure. The fact, however, is that to date the federal government has spent $20.8 billion for our nation's first responders, and we will continue to fund what is necessary to ensure they have the training, equipment and resources necessary to do their job.

We in this House know full well that money spend does not simply translate into increased preparedness. This in only a start, and we must continue to be vigilant in not only appropriating adequate funds, but ensuring that these funds are administered strategically as part of a comprehensive plan to address our nation's vulnerabilities and needs. We must remember that while the Department of Homeland Security develops our national homeland security strategy, the implementation and the ultimate success of that strategy rests with our state and local governments.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the protection of the American citizens is the first and foremost duty of the federal government, and this Congress will continue to work with the Administration, and our states and localities to this end. This bill is a solid next step for our nation's emergency preparedness and response capabilities and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the gentleman's amendment because it proposes to impose new duties and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2(c) of House rule XXI.

I reserve the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Actually, this amendment would radically change the current application of the Buy American Act from 50 percent to include products made in America even if most of the cost of the components, up to 65 percent, are produced domestically. This substantially increases the 50 percent test as provided in the current regulations.

Some companies have responded to the current Buy American Act restrictions by establishing costly, labor-intensive product-tracking systems that are not needed in the commercial business to ensure that the products are being sold to government. In a few cases, companies have simply stopped selling certain products in the Federal marketplace. This denies our government access to some of the latest, most cost-effective products in our fight against terrorism and preserving homeland security. This radical Buy American Act if it were allowed to be part of this legislation would impose financial and legal burdens on taxpayers and the commercial companies that sell to the Department.

I would, therefore, insist on my point of order.

Point of Order

I do, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I make the point of order because it proposes to impose new duties and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and violates clause 2(c) of House rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I move to table.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in support of the gentleman's point of order. This amendment would apply a radical domestic source restriction to the acquisition of main propulsion diesel engines for use in Coast Guard vessels, and my friend from Michigan just said, in the middle of the game. It could delay this procurement.

This could have a devastating effect on the Coast Guard's ability to buy the best propulsion engines at reasonable cost to support its critical antiterror missions because it takes competition out of the picture. Restrictive provisions such as these run counter to efforts to create an open, flexible, responsive, and impartial competitive acquisition system that will enable all government agencies, including the Coast Guard, to acquire from the world market the best products available at fair and reasonable prices. Indeed, we owe our taxpayers nothing less than to get the best value for the taxpayer dollar as we buy these, and this amendment abrogates that Buy America Act provisions apply here.

It has been reiterated here by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) that this amendment would impose substantially new duties on the Department, and because of that I believe it also violates House rule XXI; and I want to applaud the gentleman for raising the point of order and support it.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation, along with Education and Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner, that would provide relief to some of the long-standing challenges facing students in the District of Columbia public school system. The ``DC Parental Choice Initiative Act of 2003,'' H.R. 2556, would authorize the appropriation of $15 million in new Federal funding to the District of Columbia to provide individual students up to $7,500 in scholarship money to be used at private schools of their own choosing in the District of Columbia.

One thing is clear: too many kids in our Nation's capital are not getting the education they need and fully deserve. Lower-income families concerned about the quality and safety of their children in District of Columbia public schools should not have to resign to sending their children to under-performing schools where students are not adequately motivated to perform.

At the same time, a school should not take for granted that it will automatically enroll every child that lives within a given radius of the school. Instead, that school should be striving everyday to ensure that it provides a learning environment that will attract new students and parents.

Over the past decade, Congress has spent considerable time and resources working with the District to reform its education system. Enacted laws, such as the ``District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995'' and the ``D.C. College Access Act of 1999,'' have provided an impetus to level the playing field and brighten the future for D.C. students.

However, the ability of D.C. schools to meet key performance goals has long been plagued by financial mismanagement as well as a host of other problems. Despite concerted efforts by local officials to improve the public school system, little evidence of progress in improving academic performance is available.

Poor academic achievement scores are unsettling to say the least: Only 6 percent of 4th graders in the District tested ``proficient'' or higher in math.

Standardized test scores remain stagnant for D.C. public schools: the average D.C. SAT score is 799 while the national average is 1020.

The National Assessment of Educational Process just released a ``Reading 2000'' Report Card: the District's school children were ranked as the worst readers in the country.

The disparity is too glaring to ignore. The drop out rate is about 40 percent. The current condition of schools is unacceptable.

I have traditionally opposed Federal dollars going to private schools because I think Federal dollars ought to be targeted to public schools. But, for the District, I think we have to ask this question: Wouldn't more choices funded by Federal dollars provide a needed alternative for low-income children attending low-performing schools?

As the United States Representative representing a district neighboring the District of Columbia, I have worked with the District on a number of initiatives to improve the standard of living in the District of Columbia, and along with it, the standard of living of the entire capital region. That is why I cannot ignore the grave challenges facing the District of Columbia public school system and that is why I am introducing the ``DC Parental Choice Incentive Act of 2003.''

The goal of school choice in the District of Columbia is to be an addition, not a subtraction. We all want the District's education system to improve, and this is at the very least a short-term effort to do something about it.

The bill I am introducing today, along with Chairman Boehner, would expand educational opportunities to D.C. students in under-performing elementary and secondary schools. The D.C. Choice Program would be established through a competitive process administered by the U.S. Department of Education to ensure that the public or private entity administering the initiative would be dedicated and capable of carrying out a top-notch program.

The D.C. Choice Program would provide scholarships of up to $7,500 to eligible students to cover the cost of tuition, fees, and transportation expenses, if any. The scholarship would be considered assistance to the students and not the schools. In order to ensure accountability, an evaluation would be conducted that would consider the impact and academic achievement attained by the program.

This legislation is the result of considerable negotiation and consultation with city officials, the Administration and the key committees of jurisdiction in Congress. And for the first time ever, the Mayor of the District of Columbia has come to the conclusion that ``. . . if done effectively, this program would provide even more choices for primarily low income families who currently do not have the same freedom of choice enjoyed by their effluent counterparts.''

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 658, the ``Accountant, Compliance and Enforcement Staffing Act of 2003,'' which was introduced by Chairman Richard Baker of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises in February of this year. The legislation would grant the Securities and Exchange Commission the flexibility to circumvent current federal hiring procedures in hiring accountants, economists and compliance examiners at the Commission.

The legislation being considered today is identical to the provision granting hiring flexibilities for the Securities and Exchange Commission that was considered and approved by the Government Reform Committee on May 7 as part of H.R. 1836, the Civil Service and National Security Personnel Improvement Act. The Government Reform Committee and the Financial Services Committee worked together with the Securities and Exchange Commission to craft this important legislation that should help to resolve some of the staffing shortages facing the Commission at a time when oversight of the financial markets is essential to restoring public confidence in the economy.

One of my goals as chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over federal civil service policy is to reform agency hiring processes government-wide. However, in considering some of the immediate challenges and staff shortages facing the Commission, I felt it was important to address their situation immediately, and then begin to focus on the rest of the federal government.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I look forward to working with them in the future as we move toward comprehensive reform of federal hiring procedures.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my voice in support of S. 703, the Carl T. Curtis National Park Service Midwest Regional Headquarters Building Designation Act.

Carl Curtis served in Congress longer than any other Nebraskan--16 years in the House followed by 24 years in the Senate. In those 40 years, he built a strong legacy of legislative accomplishments. One of his greatest was the creation of the Pick-Sloan Plan for the Missouri basin, which was the blueprint for flood control and irrigation along the Missouri River. In addition, he came to be widely regarded as an authority on tax policy. He also transformed the Senate Republican Conference, making it the research body it is today, providing relevant information on national issues for the members of his caucus.

Politically, he was a force to be reckoned with. Having defeated two incumbent governors, one former governor, one governor-to-be, and two former House members, Carl Curtis is known by many as ending or sidetracking many a political career. But for me, Mr. Speaker, it is just the opposite. I credit Mr. Curtis with having given life to my political career by virtue of the fact that he sponsored me as a Senate page. I served 4 years as a page, and have since gone on to serve in a number of political positions--in the Nixon Administration, Fairfax County Supervisor, and of course my current role as the Representative for the 11th District of Virginia. Along the way, though, we all remember the person who gave us our first break. For me, that person was Senator Carl Curtis.

Senator Curtis passed away on January 24, 2000. I still owe him a debt of gratitude, and appreciate this opportunity to express my continuing appreciation.

Mr. Speaker, ``At every dramatic turning point of our long national nightmare known as Watergate, Roll Call was there. Sid Yudain reported the Watergate break-in a full three days before Nixon's resignation,'' quipped Washington's favorite political satirist, Mark Russell some twenty years ago.

Russell's dig was aimed at the man credited with discovering him, Sid Yudain, founder, publisher, editor, and even occasional delivery boy of Capitol Hill's own newspaper, Roll Call. Now, this weekend Mark and his wife Ali are hosting--and perhaps roasting--Sid at a party celebrating his 80th birthday.

Sid, who had spent several years in Hollywood following World War 11 where he became a columnist and raconteur for movie stars, had come to Washington in the early 1950's to work as press secretary for Congressman Al Morano of his home state of Connecticut. He soon noticed an ongoing void of information about what was going on around the Capitol Hill community. Sure, there were plenty of newspapers in town that wrote about Congressional legislation and political debates. But an incident involving two Ohio Congressmen, who were exchanging greetings when one expressed total surprise at learning from the other that a member of their state delegation had died, provided the spark that finally led Sid to create his own newspaper, Roll Call, in 1955.

Interestingly, Roll Call was not to be a newspaper about Capitol Hill, but as its masthead boldly proclaimed, ``The newspaper of Capitol Hill.'' Judging by the names of those who wrote its early columns and stories, it lived up to its assertion, because Members of Congress and their staffs eagerly contributed to its pages. Vice President Richard Nixon insisted on writing a piece about a doorman who had passed away, and Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson related through the pages of Roll Call his experiences and thanks following his recovery from a recent heart attack.

For the 32 years that Sid owned Roll Call, the paper chronicled life on the Hill and promoted a community spirit where Members and staffers of all political persuasions could come together to celebrate their common service to the American people. Roll Call nurtured clubs and organizations, issued the ``Outstanding Staffer'' award each year, sponsored Congress'' annual baseball game, and gave gifted and often famous writers of all backgrounds the opportunity to inform and entertain arguably the most influential readership on the planet.

And, all this time Sid was having the time of his life. His Capitol Hill townhouse parties featuring steaming cauldrons of his homemade soups fed to noteworthy musical and journalistic friends were legendary, and his zany humor brought raucous laughter to any occasion.

Sid sold Roll Call in 1988 to spend more time with his family, friends, and saxophone, and to get more use out of the stage he built in his back yard for his music parties, a facility dubbed by associates as ``Sid Trap.'' Mr. Speaker, his get-togethers fall somewhere between a Pavarotti concert and a Don Rickles roast.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me with Sid's wife Lael; their children Rachel (and husband Amar Kuchinad) and Raymond; Sid's other family members; and his cadre of friends in wishing him a most happy 80th birthday. And, with all that talent he still holds in reserve, perhaps it's time to get started on the book he's promised to write.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary group of young men and women in Northern Virginia. This year, athletes on the West Potomac crew team took four gold medals at the Virginia Scholastic Rowing Championships. These accomplished individuals are tenacious, driven contributors to their high school community,

On April 26, 2003, West Potomac achieved its unprecedented success on the Occoquan River. The four first place West Potomac boats were the men's first four boat, the women's first four boat, the men's second four boat, and the women's second four boat. Crew is a difficult sport that requires strength, cooperation, coordination, strategy, and persistence. The youthful athletes of West Potomac demonstrated all of these traits in their quest for the state championship, and I am sure that they will continue to excel as sports team members and as citizens.

In a thrilling race, the men's first four earned gold for West Potomac for the first time in 16 years. Trailing McLean for much of their race, the Wolverines sprinted just past their opponents in the closing meters for a photo finish. At the official ceremony, the results of the race were revealed: West Potomac won the 1,500-meter race by four-tenths of a second! The members of the winning men's first four boat were coxswain Helen McGuirk, stroke Kip Wanser, 3-seat Will Aramony, 2-seat Luke Urban, and bow seat Paul Burgess. These Wolverines took the crown from defending champion, McLean in a high-paced, enthralling display of teamwork and athleticism.

The women's first four also came from behind in a tense and hard- fought race to win their gold. Gloucester led for most of the race, with West Potomac taking the lead with about 500 meters remaining and holding off Gloucester for a 1.5-second victory. Coxswain Ashley Morris, stroke Natalie Jones, 3-seat Dorothy Baden-Mayer, 2-seat C.J. Jenkins, and bow Kate Lord made history with their win as the first West Potomac women's varsity quartet to claim Virginia Scholastic Gold.

Continuing the winning streak for the Wolverines that same day was the men's second four boat, manned by coxswain Stephanie Zvonkovich, stroke Trey Burnett, 3-seat Justin Brown, bow Alex Fedgatten, and 2- seat Andrew Norbert. West Potomac held off Mathews and Gloucester for the win with a time of 5:37.3.

Members of the women's second four boat were: coxswain Ashley Thompson, stroke Stephanie Baker, 3-seat Amber Flynn, 2-seat Kelly Wernecke, and bow Moria Holt. This time it was Fairfax and West Springfield left behind in the Wolverines' wake, as West Potomac posted a winning time of 6:25.6 with their skilled and cohesive rowing.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all of the athletes of the West Potomac High School rowing program. Their dedication, persistence and resolve deserve our highest praise. I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating this group of extraordinary competitors.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sid Yudain upon his 80th birthday for his long, distinguished, and dedicated service to the world of journalism.

``At every dramatic turning point of our long national nightmare known as Watergate, Roll Call was there. Sid Yudain reported the Watergate break-in a full three days before Nixon's resignation,'' quipped Washington's favorite political satirist, Mark Russell some twenty years ago.

Russell's dig was aimed at the man credited with discovering him, Sid Yudain, founder, publisher, editor, and even occasional delivery boy of Capitol Hill's own newspaper, Roll Call. This weekend Mark and his wife Ali will host--and perhaps roasting--Sid at a party celebrating his 80th birthday.

Sid, who spent several years in Hollywood following World War II as a columnist and raconteur for movie stars, came to Washington in the early 1950's to work as press secretary for Congressman Al Morano of his home state of Connecticut. He soon noticed a general lack of information about the happenings of the Capitol Hill community. In 1955, Sid was inspired to create his own newspaper, Roll Call, when he overheard an Ohio Congressman's shocked exclamation at learning that a member of his state legislation had passed away.

As Mr. Yudain envisioned it, Roll Call was not to be a newspaper about Capitol Hill, but as its masthead boldly proclaimed, ``The newspaper of Capitol Hill.'' Judging by the names of those, including Members of Congress and staffers, who contributed early columns and stories to the newspaper, it lived up to the assertion. Vice President Richard Nixon insisted on writing a piece about a doorman who had passed away, and Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson related through the pages of Roll Call his experiences and thanks following his recovery from a recent heart attack.

Throughout the 32 years that Sid owned Roll Call, the paper chronicled life on the Hill and promoted a community spirit where Members and staffers of all political persuasions could come together to celebrate their common service to the American people. Roll Call nurtured clubs and organizations, issued the ``Outstanding Staffer'' award each year, sponsored Congress' annual baseball game, and gave gifted and often famous writers of all backgrounds the opportunity to inform and entertain arguably the most influential readership on the planet.

In 1988, after owning Roll Call for over 32 years, Mr. Yudain sold his newspaper in order to devote more time to his family, friends, and saxophone.

Mr. Speaker, I heartily commend Mr. Sid Yudain for his initiative and his commitment to serving his government and his country. His distinguished career is truly impressive and inspiring. I wish Mr. Yudain all the best on his 80th birthday and many more to come. I call upon my colleagues to join me along with Sid's wife Lael, their children Rachel (and husband Amar Kuchinad) and Raymond, and family and friends in applauding Sid Yudain for all he has done.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my concerns over this legislation.

Every few year, we return to the issue of adding slots at Reagan National. Every few years we tinker around with the Washington area airports in ways that congress shouldn't be tinkering.

It might be more convenient for some people to have the flights they want on airlines they want to favor, but these actions have real effects on the economy of my district in ways that I believe are not fully appreciated.

Three airports--Reagan National, Dulles, and Baltimore/Washington, serve Washington, D.C. region. Our region--my district--has developed around the services these airports provide. Along the Reston corridor one can see all the tech firms that have established themselves over recent years. One of the main reasons--one of the main selling points-- for these companies to locate in

Northern Virginia was the fact that Dulles airport provided an accessible, convenient transportation hub for flights all over the globe.

It is not a secret that the airline industry is in deep financial trouble. United Airlines, which operates 60 percent of the flights at Dulles, is struggling to emerge from bankruptcy. They are struggling to deal with the fallout from the War in Iraq, SARS, terrorism--and they are facing increased pressure form the bankruptcy court to abandon their Dulles hub. Understand that continuing to divert traffic away from Dulles, especially long-haul traffic, gives more fuel to those who would have United leave Dulles.

I hope you understand why this is so important to me. This isn't solely a debate about noise and increased air traffic, although those are important issues to my constituents as well. It is a debate about continuing to erode the cornerstone of the Northern Virginia high-tech corridor.

That said, it seems a little unfair that if we must continue to add outside-the-perimeter slots at National, that we do not allow U.S. Airways--the airline that has put so many resources into making Reagan National a world-class airport--the opportunity get any of them. U.S. Airways is also an important part of our economy in Northern Virginia. They have done an outstanding job to re-emerge from bankruptcy, and I think it is time we started recognizing the contributions they have made for the National Capital Region.

To close, I would love to see an end to Congressional micromanagement in MWAA affairs. I am hopeful this will eventually happen. Until then, understand the true nature of my opposition to adding more long-haul flights to National.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Don Clausen upon his retirement as Principal of Annandale High School after more than 30 years of distinguished service to Fairfax County Public Schools.

In 1966, Mr. Clausen graduated from Valparaiso University with a B.S. in physical education, and immediately began his service in the Peace Corps as a volunteer to Ecuador. There he helped local communities improve and enlarge their educational programs. He continued this work until 1968 when he began teaching at Langley High School. Mr. Clausen taught physical education at Kings Park and Kings Glen Elementary Schools from 1973 until 1976. In 1976 he became the Assistant Principal of Oakton High School. During that year he also finished his Master's in Education from George Mason University. Over the next thirty years, Mr. Clausen came to serve as Assistant Principal at several other schools including, George C. Marshall High School and Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. In July of 1994, Mr. Clausen became the Principal of Annandale High School where he remained Principal until his retirement.

Mr. Clausen has received a multitude of awards and honors throughout his career. In 1990, he was invited by the government of Nicaragua to serve as a National Elections Monitor. In 1991, he received the Department of Community Action nomination for ``Excellence in Education Award.'' Then in 1993, he was once again invited to be a National Elections Monitor for the government of El Salvador. On December 17, 1997 he hosted the initial national education hearings of President Clinton's Advisory Board of The President's Initiative on Race. From 1998 to 2002 he served an appointment to the Executive committee of Virginia High School League. In 2000, Mr. Clausen was nominated as ``Principal of the Year.'' For the last two years he has chaired the Virginia High School League; and from 2001 to 2002 he was recognized for significant progress in improvement of Virginia State Standards of Learning scores.

Mr. Clausen has been a member of the Board of Directors of the Network of Educators for Central America and he currently serves as the Chairman of Fairfax County High School League. He is a member of the Panel at Chesapeake Chapter of the National School Public Relations Association, as well as a member of the National Activities Committee or NASSP.

Mr. Clausen was one of five secondary school principals from the nation honored by the Metlife Foundation Bridge Builders Initiative, which recognizes teachers and administrators for forging strong relationships between the school's staff and the community.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I wish the very best to Mr. Clausen as he is recognized for service to his community and to Fairfax County Public Schools. During his many years of service, he certainly has earned his recognition, and I call upon all of my colleagues to join me in applauding his tenure.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor Richard Nugent as the Braddock District Council Citizen of the Year.

Although Mr. Nugent can boast many civic contributions, the most dramatic impact he has had on his community is his active participation in charitable organizations in the Braddock district, Fairfax County and beyond.

Richard is a regular volunteer at the Northern Virginia Training Center, assisting with field trips for residents. Through the Church of the Good Shepard, he has organized the delivery of birthday cakes and Christmas boxes to residents of NVTC. He is also an active participant in the interfaith service organizations F.I.S.H. and F.A.C.E.T., delivering meals and other needs to the less fortunate.

Through his church, Mr. Nugent's service extends also to the national organization ``Habitat for Humanity.'' In addition to assisting at a local Habitat worksite, he also raised $3,200 through Christmas tree sales for that organization.

Under the aegis of his church, Mr. Nugent regularly delivers clothing, books and school supplies to an Appalachian town in West Virginia. Extending his commitment to service even farther, he has traveled to Honduras the

last two years to assist in building houses and schools as part of a church mission project.

In addition to these charitable pursuits, Richard has served in the all-volunteer Coast Guard Auxiliary for the last three years and is presently the Flotilla Commander. Mr. Nugent teaches boating safety classes, conducts recreational boat safety checks, and participates in safety and security patrols on the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. Mr. Nugent has also served his immediate neighborhood as a Board officer of the Somerset South Homeowner's Association for the last ten years.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, it is with great pleasure that we extend this recognition to Mr. Richard Nugent. His notable contribution to his community deserves to be commended, and we call upon all of our colleagues in joining us to applaud Mr. Nugent for all of his accomplishments.