John Barrow

Mr. BARROW

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will make good on a 50-year old promise that has been neglected in this country for 30 years now. For over 50 years, this government has promised veterans that they would be reimbursed for the full out-of-pocket costs they incur in traveling to and from medical care that they receive. For the first 20 years, this government kept that promise. Every time the civil service mileage rate went up, the veterans' reimbursement rate went up. But for the last 30 years, that promise has not been kept. The mileage rate for veterans traveling to get their medical treatment hasn't gone up, hasn't changed one bit since 1977. The rate for vets is the same $0.11 per mile today that it was in 1977. In 1977, civil servants got $0.11 and vets got $0.11. But, today, civil servants get 48.5 cents for every mile they drive their car. But vets still get the same $0.11 they got back in 1977. That is not all. Since then, Congress has tacked on a $6 deductible for vets that doesn't apply to civil servants. When you add it all up, you have got to travel over 50 miles to get the free medical care you have been promised before you will get one dime of reimbursement from the Federal Government. And if you have to travel as much as 500 miles, you get a lousy 48 bucks back in return. The reason for this problem is simple. When Congress made this promise way back in the 1950s, it passed a law that authorized the VA to keep up with changes in the cost of travel, to keep up with inflation, but it didn't require the VA to do anything about it. And since 1977 nothing has been done about it. My amendment will fix that by doing two things. First, it will eliminate the $6 deductible, round-trip deductible that applies to vets but not to civil servants; and, second, it will mandate that the mileage reimbursement rate for veterans traveling to and from medical care will go up every time the rate goes up for civil servants. There will be no more having to remember vets when they raise the reimbursement rate for civil servants, and there will be no more forgetting vets every time they are entitled to an increase in the reimbursement. This legislation has the support of the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the American Legion, AMVETS, Vietnam Veterans of America, and the Military Order of the Purple Heart. This amendment is about making good on a promise we made to our veterans, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support. On a personal level, I want to thank the chairmen of the committees of jurisdiction in this matter. I also want to thank the staffs of the committees on Armed Services and Veterans' Affair and the staff of the Rules Committee. And I want to thank Mr. Moran for his kind remarks earlier today. He supported this measure in the last Congress, and he continues to support it today. And I appreciate his support very much.

Mr. BARROW. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, with that, I will yield to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

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

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

Mr. BARROW

Mr. BARROW. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is with a certain amount of personal pride and a great deal of civic pride that I join my colleagues in support of this resolution today. On the civic side of things, I have the privilege of representing Savannah, Georgia, in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is my hometown. Juliette Gordon Low founded the Girl Scouts in Savannah. She was a native of Savannah. She founded the organization in 1912. The first organization's headquarters was in the back of her home in Savannah, Georgia, and from that humble beginning some 95 years ago we have gone from 18 members to almost 4 million members worldwide. I go by that building every time I am in town on the way to work, walking on the streets. It gives me a great deal of civic pride, along with the rest of my fellow Savannahians, who recognize that Girl Scouts the world over look to Savannah as the home and the homeplace of Girl Scouting. On a personal level, I venture to say that very few of us guys in the U.S. House of Representatives are closer to Girl Scouting than I am. I have three sisters. Every one of them was a Girl Scout, including my twin sister, and I can tell you as a guy you don't get much closer to Girl Scouting than that. I know that there are lots of organizations that promote courage, confidence and character in young girls but none do as good a job as the Girl Scouts. On behalf of my hometown, on behalf of the 700,000 people that I have privilege of representing in Congress, and on behalf of the millions of brothers of Girl Scouts the worldwide, I am proud to congratulate the Girl Scouts on their 95th anniversary, and I extend my best wishes for the next 95 years.

Mr. BARROW

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, it is long past time to fix what is broke with the CFIUS process, and I want to commend all involved in bringing us thus far on the project. I want to thank Mrs. Maloney and Mr. Frank and the Financial Services Committee for their work in bringing this important legislation to the floor. Last year, in response to the Dubai business, we had sort of a reprise of the Dubai business in my district. We had yet another CFIUS deal that actually came to public light, the Doncaster's deal that affected a plant and a business in my district. In response to the concerns that were swirling then around the Dubai business, I introduced a bill in the Congress last time, the Protect America First Act. And I am pleased to say that the bill before us incorporates many of the basic features of the Protect America First Act that I drafted in the last Congress. One important area that I want to focus on has to do with the subject of postapproval oversight, the process or the lack of process under the existing law whereby Congress knows what is going on as it happens and after it happens. Congress has had no effective postapproval oversight of the project for the last 14, 16 years, and as a result, we have had many, many transactions without anybody having any idea what is going on. Section 7 of the bill before us greatly addresses that problem by providing some meaningful postapproval oversight, the first real, effective oversight that Congress has had in this process since it was launched back in 1988. The purpose of my amendment is to significantly enhance the postapproval oversight of Congress by making sure that not just folks with the greatest need to know, but the folks who know the most about the deals are also provided postapproval oversight. My amendment does one thing and one thing only; it simply expands the universe of those folks who will be told what has happened after it has happened, to include the Members of the United States Senate from the States affected; and the Members of the House, not just the chairmen of the respective committees, but the Members of the House whose districts include the businesses and the employees of the businesses involved. That is the purpose of my amendment. That is all it does. I urge approval of the amendment.

Mr. BARROW

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise this afternoon to remember one of our fellow delegation members, the Honorable Charlie Norwood. I know that many Members of this body served with Charlie much longer than I did, but unlike them, I think I may be the only Member here with the distinction of once actually having been represented by Charlie as one of his constituents. Charlie Norwood was an accomplished and a tireless legislator who had stands on issues that ran the political spectrum. And while I may not have agreed with him on every issue, I always admired his spirit, and I say that as a former constituent and as a colleague. As anyone who knew him will tell you, Charlie cared deeply for the State of Georgia and for the people he represented in Congress for over 12 years. In this Chamber and among this delegation, there is no question that Charlie Norwood will be missed and his absence will be long felt here in Washington and back home in Georgia. My prayers remain with Congressman Norwood's wife, Gloria, and with their entire family.

Mr. BARROW

Mr. BARROW. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, since taking a seat in this body over 2 years ago, I have supported our President's efforts in the war on terror at every turn. I have been to Iraq. I have visited those wounded there, and I have spoken with family members who have sacrificed more for their country than most people could stand. I have carefully considered the President's plan. I have listened to his reasons, and I have tried to understand them. But the inescapable conclusion is this. While there are differences between the President's new strategy and his prior conduct of the war, the similarities still outweigh the differences. The President's new plan is not a new strategy. Instead, it represents more of the same strategy that has gotten us to where we are today. If we are going to defeat terrorism in Iraq, we simply cannot afford to keep doing more of the same. Congress cannot manage a war, and it should not try. Instead, Congress' job is to demand accountability from those charged with the conduct of the war effort, and so far Congress has failed to do that job. This resolution, however imperfect, is intended to bring about some accountability on the part of those charged with the conduct of the war effort, and it says of the President's plan, thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting. The President's plan is found wanting because he doesn't explain how this escalation in the number of American troops can make any difference in a war plan that depends on redeploying so many more Iraqi troops. We have been given no credible explanation as to why 21,000 more American troops can accomplish what the 130,000 already on the ground cannot accomplish. The President's plan is found wanting because it calls for completely new rules of engagement. The President's plan is found wanting because it calls for new rules of engagement, with no explanation as to why such rules of engagement were not allowed in the past when they would have done the most good. The question before us is not whether the President's new plan represents a better chance of success in Iraq. The real question is whether the chances for success it represents is a good enough chance to be worth the sacrifices that our soldiers will have to make to implement it. A 1 percent increase in the chances of success may be better than no increase, but our troops deserve a better plan that that. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that this plan represents the change in strategy that we need in Iraq, nor does it offer a good enough chance for success to be worth the sacrifices that it will cost. And that is why I will support the resolution.

Mr. BARROW

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude today to Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar and to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines, Mr. Petri, and the ranking member, Mr. DeFazio, for working with me to include an amendment I offered in the committee's markup of this bill last summer. I also want to thank the International Association of Firefighters for supporting this amendment, and Jennifer Esposito with the Transportation Committee for her hard work on this bill and the amendment. The amendment included in this legislation increases the emergency response grant program by $4 million a year to a total of $10 million a year. The amendment also requires training standards to make sure that emergency responders have the training they need to protect nearby people, property and the environment from the effects of accidents or incidents involving gas or hazardous liquid pipelines. I have a letter of support for this amendment from the International Association of Firefighters, and I will include this letter in the Record. Mr. Speaker, this is important legislation to make our communities safer, and it gives first responders the training and resources they need. I encourage all my colleagues to support it. International Association of Fire Fighters, Washington, DC, July 19,2006. Hon. John Barrow, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Barrow: On behalf of the Nation's more than 270,000 professional fire fighters and emergency medical personnel, I applaud you for your efforts to improve emergency response to accidents involving gas or hazardous liquid pipelines. We strongly support your amendment to H.R. 5782, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act, to require strong emergency responder training standards, as well as your amendment to provide additional funding for emergency response grants. While the safety of emergency responders can never be fully guaranteed, the number of injuries resulting from gas or hazardous liquid accidents can be significantly reduced through appropriate training. While training is always necessary for new recruits, refresher training must also be provided on a continuing basis to ensure the ongoing safety of all first responders. Furthermore, in responding to an incident involving hazardous materials, it is extremely important that emergency responders are not simply trained, but are trained at a level appropriate to their response. Unfortunately, the level of training currently provided in many States and localities is inadequate to prepare emergency responders to respond to an accident involving gas or other hazardous materials. Your amendments not only help provide adequate. funding to ensure that all emergency responders are trained, but ensure that responders are trained to contain any release from a safe distance, keep it from spreading, and prevent people, property and the environment from harmful exposures. Thank you for your leadership on these vital issues. We appreciate your continued support of our Nation's first responders and look forward to working with you in the coming weeks to enhance hazardous materials emergency response. Sincerely, Barry Kasinitz, Director, Governmental Affairs.

Mr. BARROW

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it will actually make it harder for the Justice Department to use its authority under section 5 to prevent discrimination from taking root. It will do this by forcing the Department to treat those jurisdictions where the disease of discrimination is in remission as though the disease was cured once and for all. It will make it harder for the Department to do its job by forcing the Department to turn way from treating the disease where it is still rampant, and spend all of its resource reexamining and re-reexamining and re-re-reexamining those places where it is in remission. No doctor trying to eliminate a disease would regard remission as a cure, and neither should the Voting Rights Act. No doctor trying to eliminate a disease would ignore those who are obviously sick and spend all his time treating a patient whose disease is in remission, and neither should the Voting Rights Act. I was raised on the Ten Commandants, as was the sponsor of this amendment, and one of those commandments is one that I know he knows. It says, ``Thou shall not steal.'' Well, this amendment does not come right out and violate or break that commandment, but it does make it easier for those folks to break that commandment. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. BARROW

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan for their work on this important bill. Mr. Chairman, since I joined Congress last year, illegal immigration has been debated, discussed and voted on a lot in this House, and it is the number one concern with a lot of folks that I represent back home in Georgia. We all know that the explosion of illegal immigrants is imposing a huge cost on local schools and local hospitals, but it is also imposing a huge new cost on local law enforcement as well. Local police departments are already stretched to the limit financially in dealing with home-grown crime. Despite that, most do an outstanding job of serving the public without all the resources they already need. But because we still haven't secured our borders, we have caused local law enforcement to have to do more. We have asked them to do more, and yet the Federal Government is not helping them to deal with that part of the crime problem that the Federal Government has actually created. Since 9/11, Congress hasn't helped. We have given local law enforcement more to do, but less to do it with. We have expanded State and local law enforcement's authority to investigate, arrest and jail undocumented criminal aliens. When we expand the responsibilities of State and local police, when we ask them to do more, we have an obligation to give them the resources that they need in order to do more. In 1994, Congress created the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, the SCAAP program, and since then it has provided over $4.1 billion in financial assistance to States, reimbursing State and local police for the cost of jailing undocumented criminal aliens. In the last fiscal year alone, my home State of Georgia received $1.8 million in SCAAP funding for our State and local police. This year, funding for SCAAP was zeroed out in the President's budget. Fortunately, this bill will reinstate some funding for this program, but the amount is still far short of the amount that is authorized of the amount that is needed. My amendment would provide an additional $10 million to the SCAAP program. Frankly, we have enough home-grown crime to deal with already without having to deal with the crime that we are literally importing from other countries. As a result, my amendment pays for an increase in SCAAP funding through an \8/10\ of 1 percent decrease in funding from the account that pays membership fees to international organizations. Earlier this year, the President addressed the Nation and announced he would be sending National Guard troops to our southern border to help stem the flood of illegal immigrants flowing into the United States. National Guard troops on the border may help stem the flow of new illegal immigrants, but they do nothing to deal with the criminal element that has already gotten through. With an estimated is 11 million illegal immigrants already living in the United States, our local law enforcement agencies continue to serve as our first line of defense in dealing with the criminal element that has already entered the country. That is why we need to provide State and local police with the resources that they need to do the job that we impose upon them. I therefore urge my colleagues to help State and local law enforcement deal with undocumented criminals and support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARROW

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I want to address an issue that is important to all the families that I represent; and it is just being abandoned in this 2007 budget proposal submitted to Congress. I am talking about support for our local police officers and law enforcement agencies, men and women on the frontlines of homeland security, protecting our communities and patrolling our neighborhoods. Large cities in my district like Savannah are dealing with a rise in violent crime. At the same time, many of our smaller rural communities in Southeast Georgia and all around the country are fighting an epidemic of meth labs. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to let drugs and violent crime continue to go up in this country. For more than 14 years, homicide was on the decline in this country. That changed last year. According to the latest figures from the FBI, homicide rose by 2.1 percent in the first 6 months of 2005, the first increase since 1991. That is unacceptable, and these cuts in this budget are unacceptable. The COPS program, cut by $376 million. During the '90s, we figured out what works in reducing crime. More police officers on the streets makes them safer and reduces crime. The COPS program helps our community hire, train, retain and equip our police officers. But this budget cuts this program by 78 percent. The Byrne Justice Grant Program, completely eliminated. Byrne JAG grants help State and local law enforcement agencies identify and break up regional drug syndicates. This budget completely eliminates that program. Why would anyone want to do that? If you think that a rise in violent crime is an issue that Congress should ignore, then this budget is for you. If you think we ought to be cutting back on the tools we give our police officers to keep our neighborhoods safe, then this budget is for you. In the short time since the President dropped this budget, I have discussed this budget with sheriffs and police chiefs all across my district; and the verdict is unanimous. These budget cuts are hurting and not helping local law enforcement. We need to do more, not less, for our police officers. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the proposed budget cuts to the COPS program and to oppose the complete elimination of the Byrne JAG grants. Our local police deserve all the tools that we can give them to protect our families. We need to give them more help, not less.

Mr. BARROW

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. BARROW. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, if bills in this Chamber required names that accurately describe their consequences, this bill would best be called the Frivolous Litigation Proliferation Act and not the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act. Many of us who oppose the underlying bill do so because it will actually increase the volume of frivolous litigation. For example, some sort of Rule 11 procedure exists in virtually every State in the country. To impose a new Federal law in every State court action will make State courts conduct a minilawsuit on Federal validity before conducting a minilawsuit on State law validity, before they ever get to the merits of the case. A lawsuit within a lawsuit within a lawsuit. Mr. Speaker, that is as absurd as it sounds. If Members think that there are too many frivolous lawsuits against good, honest corporations, and the only way to fix this is to make it harder for everyone to sue anyone, and that this bill is the only way to do it, then vote for the bill. But if there is one area where we do not have a problem with too many frivolous lawsuits, it is with lawsuits against price gougers. And if there is any area where we want to make it easier to get to the merits of the underlying claim, not harder, it is an area of lawsuits against Federal contractors who are engaged in defrauding the public. Right now the government is awash in government contracts awarded on a no-bid basis. Whether it is disaster relief or the war on terror, we have never done so much of the public's business on a no-bid basis. There has never been more opportunity for waste, fraud, and abuse in the conduct of the public's business than right now. This motion to recommit gives us one opportunity to protect our constituents from price gougers. The motion to recommit is simple. It says that Federal contractors, engaged in price gouging in disaster relief work can still be sued anyplace where they can be sued now, in any State where both the laws of the State and the U.S. Constitution says it is okay to sue them. The underlying bill gives price gougers extra protections, the same benefits that we are extending to honest corporations. One such protection, the only one addressed by this motion to recommit, is the right to avoid lawsuits in States where the Constitution says it is okay to seek justice. Since price gougers do not deserve this protection, and since they do not need this protection, they should not get this protection. This House has voted time and again to protect companies that are gouging consumers in the wake of natural disasters and national tragedies. If Members vote against this motion to recommit, they are voting to give the same special protections that we give to honest corporations to Federal contractors who are engaged in price gouging in public relief work. Mr. Speaker, the folks I represent back home in Georgia want relief from price gougers, not relief for price gougers. For that reason I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense and limited motion to recommit.

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BARROW

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. House of Representatives and the citizens of Georgia's 12th Congressional District commend the heroism of the crews of Coast Guard Air Station Savannah for their lifesaving efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Thanks to Coast Guard Air Station Savannah's immediate response in a time of need, 376 American lives were saved. Our nation will remain forever grateful to the following Coast Guardsmen for their selfless and noble actions: LCDR Mark Jones, LCDR John Hollingsworth, LT Steven Foran, LT Ryan Allen, LT Chris Howard, LT Matt Walker, LT Tim Eason, LTJG Andy Kirkpatrick, AST2 Scott Beitel, AST3 Matthew Laub, AST3 Jonathon Ardan, AMTCS Bryant Denning, AMT1 Chuck Hyland, AMT1 William Breiner, AMT1 Philip Vanhornbeck, and AMT2 Brandon Weaver.

Mr. BARROW

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I want to address a serious problem with the underlying bill, and that is that it relies exclusively on the Federal Trade Commission and its willingness and ability and resources to enforce the price gouging remedy in the bill. I think we should all remember this is the same FTC that said, we do not have any authority to investigate price gouging in this area; we do not need any authority in this area. Everything is just fine, thank you very much; and then, when pressed further, said we do not want any authority in this area because we will just make a bad situation worse. Well, Mr. Speaker, relying on a sorry bunch of people that do not know their job, do not care about their job, and do not believe in their job is like going hunting and having to tote the dog. Our substitute corrects this problem by giving the States attorneys general the same authority to enforce the price gouging remedies that we give the FTC. The attorneys general of our States are elected by our constituents, they know the conditions in their States better than we do, they have the resources and the discretion under the substitute to decide whether or not it is in the best interest of their constituents, our constituents, for them to act when we do not. This is Federalism at its best. I urge everybody to support the substitute for this reason, if none other. Any attorney general doing something is better than the FTC doing nothing.

Mr. BARROW

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of Augusta, Georgia's finest community leaders. Georgia State Representative Henry Howard passed away Monday morning. A dedicated public servant and a believer in the power of gospel music, Henry Howard always served his hometown with dignity, compassion, and an endless supply of love and goodwill. Mr. Howard was a beloved son of Georgia's Garden City. An entrepreneur with a sound business sense, he helped build up many small businesses across the city. Later he would enter public service, serving on the Richmond County Commission. Soon after that he was elected to the State legislature, where he established himself as one of Augusta's most accomplished and hard-working State representatives. He was reelected seven times in a row. Just before his last reelection, the local paper praised Representative Howard, saying simply: ``His goal is the same of every Augustan, the betterment of our city.'' When Henry Howard passed away Monday morning, we lost a public servant who led by example, a leader who shared the beliefs and hopes of his hometown. The Bible says a good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favor rather than silver or gold. Mr. Speaker, Henry Howard made a good name for himself, his family; and he enjoyed the loving favor of all who knew him.

Mr. BARROW

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 196, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BARROW

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I have every intention of supporting today's homeland security authorization bill, but I think this bill could be dramatically improved, especially regarding the rail safety standards that apply to the shipment of extremely hazardous materials in local communities all across our Nation. Three days after I took office this year, an early morning train carrying three rail cars filled with chlorine gas slammed into a parked rail car in the town of Graniteville, South Carolina. This produced a toxic cloud of chlorine and sodium hydroxide that forced 5,400 local residents to flee for their lives. In all, over 240 people were sickened by the gas and 10 people died because of the accident. The long-term effects of the leak are still unknown and the cleanup process continues to this day. Mr. Speaker, what happened in Graniteville was not an isolated incident. Train accidents occur frequently in the United States. Rail cars carrying hazardous, flammable or explosive materials not only pose a major health risk to the communities they travel through, they are vulnerable security threats to our Nation's homeland security efforts. These are would-be terrorist targets begging for attention. Since the Graniteville incident, I have met with a number of safety experts, and I guarantee that if any Members of this Congress were to sit down with these representatives they would be shocked to learn how many commonsense safeguards are out there that have not been implemented to address rail safety in this country. It is time to do more to improve rail security measures. The current safeguards for the transportation of hazardous materials are nowhere near what they need to be. That is not just a health concern for our local communities, it is a security concern for our entire Nation. The amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and I offered yesterday helps close this gap in rail security measures. It provides hazardous material training for local first responders. It implements coordination and communication plans in the event of an accident or an attack, it develops new technology to make rail cars more resistant to punctures and, most importantly, it requires prenotification for local law enforcement whenever hazardous materials are being shipped through their communities. These safety standards are long overdue and they deserve a vote on the House floor. Local leaders and the American people should not have to beg for sound safety measures and they should not have to wait for a debate on the issue.