Michael Capuano

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise first of all to thank the Committee on Rules for making the Democratic substitute in order. I appreciate their ability and their willingness to at least let us have a moment of time. I guess I want to just talk about a couple of things. First of all, I would like to point out what I think are the two most important differences between the substitute and the main bill. Certainly it is a matter of priorities. We do believe that if tax cuts are going to go in, they should go to those who need it the most. I do not think anyone can argue that people making over $100,000, of which every Member of this House is one, including myself, that anyone can argue that that is anything other than well off and that they do not need the extra help. That is number one; that is a philosophical issue. But I understand people can disagree on that. The second one that they cannot disagree on that has been called a red herring but it certainly is not, the difference between the Democratic proposal and the Republican proposal is that under current law and what we want to keep are the monies going to Medicare from this tax are from a dedicated revenue stream. Under the proposal as before us, without the substitute, it is simply a political promise, that we promise we will keep doing this. Well, I hate to say it, but I do not think most Americans trust us all that much, and I for one, would like to make sure that my mother, my wife and my children do not have to rely on the promises of future politicians. I want to make sure that they can rely on a dedicated revenue stream to make sure that Medicare is sound and healthy for the future. That is the main difference. The other thing I want to point out, as boldly as I can, and I know it has been mentioned by many people before, but this proposal, neither the Democrat nor the Republican proposal touches line 20(b) on the IRS tax form. Line 20(b) will be there today and will be there tomorrow regardless of what passes, regardless of what the President does, because this proposal does not touch the 1983 law that started taxing Social Security that was passed with 97 Members of a Republican team in favor. Many of those 97 Members are still here today. They voted for that 1983 proposal. Under today's rules, we should have taken the whole thing, scrapped it, had an honest discussion of what we can afford in tax cuts, targeted those tax cuts who could use it and simplify the entire form. We did not do that. We took a simple political approach to simply say cut taxes, which we are not doing, every senior citizen who is currently taxed under the law that is being proposed to be repealed today will be paying taxes next year, regardless of what the vote is here today. Line 20(b) will still be there. They will have a few less dollars being taxed, but they will still have to go through the worksheet on page 25 of their instruction booklet, which is complicated as heck, and I challenge anyone here to try to walk through that worksheet, not even part of the form, it is a worksheet, try to do it without professional tax help. That is why I rise today for the Democratic proposal, and that is why I repeat myself again. I thank the Committee on Rules for giving this a chance.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask a question. It seems to me from all the debate that I have heard in the last several hours that somehow the tax on Social Security is going to disappear. Well, for those people who understand the tax forms, who still do them, who still read the tax laws, I have one question. Will line 20(b) on the 1040 tax form disappear under your proposal? I will answer the question. The answer is no. The answer is no. Every single person, every single one who is currently paying taxes on any part of their Social Security will still pay taxes on their Social Security after the Republican proposal. I want to say that again. No single person will go to no tax on their Social Security because of their proposal. Not one. I also want to turn the clock back just a little bit. To hear it today, the world started in 1993. My God, it is amazing. I have to turn the clock back just a little bit further and go to 1983. 1983 was the year, the first time a single penny on Social Security income was taxed by anybody. This Congress voted it under President Reagan and Vice President George Bush's administration. They voted, along with 97 Republicans. Of those 97 Republicans who voted to tax Social Security, the gentleman from Florida was amongst that group, as was a gentleman named Mr. Cheney from Wyoming. They both voted to tax Social Security income. This bill will not do anything about that tax. My question is, if that is so good, what is so bad about our proposal to raise the tax level so that only the richest people in America get hit a little bit? If it is so morally reprehensible or morally wrong, to quote several comments made today, what is so morally right about a 1983 tax? The answer can only be, because in 1993 we had Clinton-Gore, and in 1983 we had Reagan-Bush. Somehow Reagan-Bush taxes are morally okay, but Clinton-Gore taxes are morally wrong. That is absurd. That is absurd and it is offensive to say it. I understand if you want to slash the tax, cut the whole thing out. After the proposal is passed today by the Republican majority, there will still be, this year, this year if this is ever passed into law, $13.8 billion still raised on the taxes on Social Security. I do not want anyone at home, including my mother who is here today, to go home thinking that they will not be paying taxes on their Social Security. They will be. This whole discussion is about politics. That is what it is about. It is about a convention coming up next week. People want to say, We voted to cut taxes. It is not true. It is a misnomer. It is as misleading as anything I have heard.

Mr. CAPUANO. If the gentleman will yield, I would not have opposed it. I would have voted with him.

Mr. CAPUANO. If the gentleman recalls his tax law, he would understand that they are both combined together on page 25 of the instructions.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas, for arranging tonight's special order, as well as the distinguished chairman of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Porter, for his work and dedication in support of biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). I believe it is essential that Congress move forward in its commitment to double the research budget at the NIH. Currently, scientists at the NIH are developing cutting-edge treatments for hundreds of diseases, including cancer, Alzheimer's, and diabetes. Increased funding for medical research and development will allow millions of Americans to lead healthier lives. I, therefore, rise in support of efforts to provide a 15% increase for NIH in FY2001. This increase will mark the third installment of the plan to double the NIH budget over a period of five years. Each and every day, researchers at the NIH succeed in making important discoveries about the human body and the diseases that may effect it. These scientists work tirelessly to develop cutting-edge technologies that push the envelope of human capacity. For FY2001, the NIH have developed four critical initiatives. These include: (1) Genetic Medicine--this involve the mapping of the human genome and the subsequent gene therapy. Advances in the treatment of cancer, chronic illness, and infectious disease may be possible through this work; (2) Clinical Research--this initiatives reinforces the goal of turning the results of laboratory research into treatment for patients; (3) Fostering Interdisciplinary Research; and (4) Eliminating Health Disparities. These four areas of scientific research present incredible opportunities that have the promise to generate tremendous benefits in the future. Providing increased funding for biomedical research today will allow millions of Americans to lead healthier lives tomorrow. With this in mind, I urge each of my colleagues to support funding the full 15% budget increase for the National Institutes of Health.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 372, and I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster); the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our ranking member; for bringing this bill to the floor so quickly so we can have it done in time. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), chairman of the Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member, for their guidance and leadership on such a relatively important bill.I would also like to thank the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for their support on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the history of the Coast Guard and what it is all about and why we are here. But I want to just bring a little bit more of a personal note to it. A few years ago, my family and I were enjoying a nice summer day out in the Boston Harbor and we had the misfortune of stumbling across an inebriated recreational boater. In his disoriented state, he did not have the slightest idea what he was doing and he proceeded to ram the boat that contained my wife, my child, my brother-in-law and his wife, several times. Mr. Speaker, if it were not for the Coast Guard, I have no doubt that my family would have suffered serious injury. And if it were not for the Coast Guard's actions after the incident, I know that my family would have suffered more trauma than they deserved. They were there when we needed them. They were there after the incident to walk us through the process on how to prosecute this individual and what our rights and obligations were. They did it with a humane face. To me, that is what the Coast Guard really is. They do a thousand things a day that the average American never sees. But they do 10,000 things a day that every average American, whoever steps 1 inch onto the oceans or the inland seas of this country, sees regularly. They save us and they protect us every day. Every year, they save over 5,000 lives. Every year, they save over a billion dollars worth of property. Every year, they are there to ensure our safety and security on the oceans and on the inland lakes. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say ``thank you'' for my family, for my constituents, and a happy birthday and a happy anniversary to the Coast Guard. It has had 210 years; may they have another 210-plus.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, on July 20th 2000, we will mark the 26th anniversary of Turkey's invasion of the sovereign State of Cyprus. It was on this date in 1974, Turkish troops began a campaign of terror. During the Turkish invasion, nearly 200,000 Greek Cypriots were forced to flee their homes in the northern part of the island of Cyprus. After twenty-five years, Greek Cypriots are still prohibited from returning to their homes and remain refugees within their own country. Over 1,400 men, women and children who vanished during the invasion have not been accounted for, and the Turkish government continues to refuses to provide information as to their whereabouts. During these 26 years of occupation, Turkey has relocated some 80,000 Turkish citizens to Northern Cyprus, thus changing the demographic structure in the north. Most of the homes and land that have been reoccupied by Turkish citizens were once the homes of Greek Cypriots who were evacuated during the invasion. Historical institutions of cultural and religious heritage, including archaeological sites and churches, have been pillaged and in many cases completely destroyed. Tragically, there are only 500 Greek Cypriots still living in the occupied area, and even those few families are subject to constant and systematic campaigns of harassment and intimidation. In some instances, they are forbidden to travel and attend school, clearly being denied of their basic rights. In 1983, Turkey encouraged a ``unilateral declaration of independence'' by the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). This declaration was condemned by the U.N. Security Council, as well as the U.S. government. Consequently, the U.N. Security Council called for Turkey to withdraw from Cyprus immediately. To date, the TRNC is not officially recognized as a sovereign State by any country except for Turkey. In June of 1999, the European Commission of Human Rights found Turkey responsible for continuing to violate several provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights, including not accounting for missing persons, limiting the living conditions of the enclaved, and failing to protect the properties of the displaced person. Despite the continuing efforts on behalf of the U.S. and the international community to negotiate a peaceful settlement, 35,000 heavily armed Turkish troops continue to occupy more than one-third of the island. Turkey had previously thrown a wrench in the peace talks by advocating two preconditions: first, prior recognition of the TRNC, and second, Cyprus withdrawing its EU membership application. Fortunately, through international pressure and diplomatic maneuvering, a new round of proximity talks were undertaken without implementation of these conditions. The first of which took place in December 1999 under U.N. auspices, and the most recent talks commenced on July 5th in Geneva. Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my argument from last year that the continued occupation of Northern Cyprus is clearly an affront to countless U.N. resolutions calling on Turkey to withdraw its forces and return all refugees to their homes, and for Turkey to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and unity of the Republic of Cyprus. this is an insult to the United States and the global community which has worked tirelessly to unify Greek and Turkish Cypriots in a peaceful manner. I hope that the U.S. and the international community will continue to advocate for this new round of proximity talks and fervently work to find a peaceful solution to this conflict that has torn Cyprus apart and caused 26 years of suffering for thousands of families.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of passage of my bill, H.R. 2870, the Medicare Vision Rehabilitation Coverage Act. As Congress considers its health care initiatives, I would like to highlight a proposal that would help over 6 million seniors in the United States receive services necessary for maintaining their independence. The Medicare Vision Rehabilitation Coverage Act would provide access to vision rehabilitation services for Medicare beneficiaries who report some level of vision impairment and would end up saving Medicare funds. H.R. 2870 would extend Medicare coverage to orientation and mobility specialists, rehabilitation teachers and low vision therapists. These professionals provide critical specialized rehabilitation services to help people with a vision impairment to be able to adjust the loss of sight and carry out normal daily activities. These services can restore a person's independence, improve their quality of life and save unnecessary suffering and expense by preventing injuries. Vision loss has a powerful impact on one's daily life. It affects an individual's ability to communicate through reading and writing, manage simple household tasks, move around safely and handle medication. In addition, vision that cannot be corrected by medical or surgical intervention or corrective lenses, is a major contributing factor to falls among older adults which can cause hip fractures and other injuries. The Framingham Eye Study reports that 18 percent of all hip fractures in the elderly are a result of vision impairment. This year alone, it is estimated that 63,000 hip fractures will occur due to vision loss. The cost incurred for the medical treatment of a hip fracture is $35,000. Therefore, the total estimated cost of medical treatment for hip fractures this year alone is $2.2 billion. Conservative estimates illustrate that 20% of these hip fractures could have been prevented if elderly persons suffering from vision impairment had access to vision rehabilitation services. This would save $441 million annually for the federal government. Savings to Medicare also occur by reducing the need for in-home and nursing home care By providing the skills and services to those with vision impairment, Medicare promotes quality of life and independence for the individual. I know first-hand, the cost factors and emotional strain related to the loss of independence and need for additional health care services due to vision impairment. My mother, who suffers from vision impairment, benefited tremendously from the rehabilitation services provided by the Greater Boston Aid to the Blind. Studies by the National Center for Health Statistics and others find age-related visual impairment to be second only to arthritis/rheumatism as a cause of disability. In addition, the Alliance for Aging Research found visual impairment as one of four conditions leading older citizens to lose their independence. Medicare must provide its beneficiaries with the ability to live a normal life. Please join me and nearly 80 other cosponsors in this effort by including vision rehabilitation professionals in Medicare reform legislation.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to the FY 2001 Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill to help address the area code crisis that we are facing in America. Since 1995, we have added 95 new area codes in the United States. At our current pace, some estimate that we will run out of area codes entirely as early as 2007. If we run out of available numbers, your constituents will foot the estimated $150 billion bill. The problem is not that there aren't enough numbers out there, it's that tens of thousands of numbers are being unused. Unfortunately companies have been forced to take numbers in blocks of 10,000--even if they were only going to use a handful of the numbers. The rest of the numbers just sit unused. In Massachusetts, the problem has become quite large in the last few years. In 1998, we added two new area codes in the state--781 and 978-- for a total of five area codes. At the time, we were assured that these new codes would last for many years and we wouldn't have to go through this disruptive process again. Unfortunately, less than two years later, we were informed that these new codes were running out of numbers already and that we would have to add four new codes in Eastern Massachusetts alone. Now the area code in Western Massachusetts is also in jeopardy. If we add all of these new codes, we'll have ten area codes in a state that had only three codes less than five years ago. While the FCC has recently moved to reduce the amount of numbers companies can take from 10,000 to 1,000, the same companies will not have to fully comply with the order until 2002. The wireless providers have an even longer time to make this change. My amendment asks the Commission to look at the possibility of shortening the timeline for the implementation of this order. If we wait for two more years, we may have added dozens of new area codes that are not needed. The amendment also offers several other suggestions that I believe the FCC should consider as they produce this study. These include encouraging states and telecommunications companies to work together on rate center consolidation plans. Some believe that the number of rate centers in certain areas is significantly contributing to the overall area code crisis. While I know this is a complicated issue, and there may be valid concerns about the cost, the Commission should study the issue closely. In addition, my amendment asks that the FCC address the issue of technology-specific area codes reserved for wireless/paging services or data phone lines. As more and more Americans take advantage of the new technologies available, more and more telephone numbers must be set aside for these services. There may be an opportunity to ease the numbering problem by reserving specific area codes for these new technologies. If none of these suggestions offer a real solution to the problem, my amendment asks that the Commission study the costs and technological problems of adding an additional digit to existing phone numbers. This should focus on any potential ways to minimize the impact and cost on consumers and the business community. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a common-sense amendment to help us deal with the area code crisis. We must act quickly to address this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, I believe it is Amendment No. 3.

Mr. CAPUANO. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for allowing me the unanimous consent request. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with probably one of the few issues that will affect every single American, has affected most Americans already and will do so within the next 5 years, every single American; namely: the issue of area codes. In 1947, the North American Numbers Plan was enacted to establish the current numbering of all of our telephones, seven numbers with three digit area codes. As of 1994, we had 151 area codes. In the last 5 years, that number has doubled, and as of 1999, the people that administer this, the Lockheed Martin, estimates that by the year 2007, we will be completely out of telephone numbers based on the current explosion of telecommunications. Mr. Chairman, all this amendment does is simply ask the FCC to have a study and issue a report to this Congress as to what they intend to do about this situation. Mr. Chairman, there are many things that we could do that we could suggest to the FCC, but at the same time, I think it is incumbent upon them to tell us if they have a plan that they intend to implement in the manner that will save lots of Americans lots of money. Many of us have been through situations where area codes have been added, or others have been through situations where area codes have been overlaid so that many Americans today have to dial 10 digits simply to call across the street. Many people certainly have to dial 10 digits to get to the town next door because so many area codes have been added in this country; that situation is going to get horrendously worse each and every day. Just last year, the FCC cited 25 additional area codes as those, quote, in jeopardy. That happened since just last June. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a simple amendment. It does not propose that we know the answers, it simply asks the FCC to provide us with their proposals as to what the answers will be. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. CAPUANO. Only momentarily, Mr. Chairman, I understand and respect the point of order, and I would say that the next time I come here on this issue, I will actually be proposing suggestions for the FCC to do, because if I am going to get ruled our of order, I may as well get ruled out of order on something substantiative as opposed to simply a request for information.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, today I filed the Public Investment Recovery Act of 2000. This legislation would enable the Federal Government to recover a portion of the taxpayer dollars currently used to develop pharmaceutical, biologic and genetic products. It is important that both Congress and the pharmaceutical industry recognize that the American people, through Federal tax money, contribute substantially to the development of new drugs. Sadly, many of these same taxpayers are without prescription drug coverage and cannot afford the high costs of these medications. Consider a recent report in the New York Times which focused on the hardships of one of our nation's senior citizens who has no prescription drug coverage. The gentleman featured in the report depends on an $832 monthly Social Security check to survive. Tragically, these funds are not enough to pay for the eye drops he needs to battle his disabling glaucoma. Yet, the drug he so desperately needs--Xalatan--was developed with significant investment by the National Institutes of Health; an investment funded primarily by the ordinary American taxpayer. The fact is a significant portion of the drugs sold on the market have benefited from taxpayer investment. How much? The answer is not clear; the pharmaceutical industry is protective when it comes to the costs of drug research and development. What is clear is that in 1999, alone, the top 12 drug companies made over $27.3 billion in profits. Moreover, a study done in 1995 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that 11 of the 14 drugs identified by the pharmaceutical industry as the most medically significant in the past 25 years (1970 to 1995) were developed with taxpayer dollars. We cannot continue to fund basic research that allows the pharmaceutical industry to generate such substantial profits while consumers are required to pay excessive prices for their prescription drugs. The Public Investment Recovery Act of 2000 will recoup a portion of the initial federal seed money for the government which could then be used to finance additional research and development efforts as well as to strengthen a Medicare prescription drug benefit. As stakeholders in our national research efforts, we should not be asked to contribute to research without the benefit of having access to affordable medicine that this research yields.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, due to prior commitment in my District, I was forced to return to Massachusetts on Thursday, June 15th, 2000. I was therefore unable to cast a vote on rollcall votes 288, 289, 290, and 291. Had I been present, I would have voted `nay' on rollcall 288, `nay' on rollcall 289, `nay' on rollcall 290 and `nay' on rollcall 291.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I just rise to ask a few questions. I have heard an awful lot of comment today about how immoral, unethical, and somehow evil the estate tax is. Well, obviously, we can have philosophical agreements, but I would ask if that is the case, as of right now today, there are 16 States that have their own estate tax of significant nature, 7 of those have a complete Republican-controlled legislature and governor, none of them have repealed it. Are they completely immoral and unethical, or are they just wrong? If they are just wrong, maybe we better get on the phone and call them and tell them that. And when we do, maybe we need to suggest to them how they are going to raise the $6 billion that they raised in the last year to pay for policeman, fireman, teachers and et cetera. And on top of that, I just want to repeat what I said earlier, it is not a 50 percent tax, it is a 20 percent tax at this point. The democratic substitute will lower it to a 16 percent tax. The average person after tax, after tax, the average person who is subject to this tax will still have $2.7 million left. My gosh, how difficult it must be to get by on that amount of money.

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of questions that have been raised in my mind since I have been listening to the debate. I guess if this tax is a bad tax because everybody earned the money, that is true. That is true for every single tax we have. Of course Americans earn the money. It is no different here than in the income tax or sales tax or any other tax. If the argument is valid, it is valid for every tax. Let us just get rid of them all and base this country's entire economic system on gifts. It is not going to happen, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not propose it, so the argument does not hold water. I also hear today about how difficult it has been on a few individuals. Of course, every system has problems. In general, though I have also heard many comments about different businesses that are second generation, third generation, fourth generation businesses. How did they make it? How did they get through the estate tax if it is so bad? Let us tell the truth. The Democratic proposal deals with the problems that are on the table. Everyone here wants to deal with them. It will cut from 2 percent. If the Democratic proposal is adopted, it will be 1 percent. We take almost half of the people today and not tax them at all. On top of that, when we are finished if the Democratic proposal is passed, the average estate, the average estate that would be taxed would be worth $3.5 million. And they would not be taxed at 55 percent. Anybody who knows anything about taxation knows the difference between marginal taxation and effective taxation. The effective tax rate, the thing that is really paid by people, currently is about 20 percent. It is not 50 or 55 percent as everyone keeps saying because that is a nice number to use. But it does not mean a thing. It is 20 percent. If the Democratic proposal is passed, it would be 16 percent. The Democratic proposal would still leave the average taxpayer with $2.7 million of that 1 percent of people.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I could speak all day long on why this particular bill is a bad one and why this particular rule is a bad one, but I think we will hear lots of debate on it. No one will come to this well on either side asking that small businesses and small farmers be overtaxed. I think everyone here would be happy to work on those two issues. That is not the point, and everybody here knows it is not the point. This bill goes way beyond that. On top of that, it does an additional thing no one seems to want to talk about. Many States in this country raise lots of money through the estate tax. That is their choice. Nobody makes them do it. Of our 50 States, 34 of them, plus the District of Columbia, raise estate tax money solely on the Federal income tax credit that is allowed for estate tax deductions. The maximum amount allowed. That is all they raise their money on. The taxpayer would have to pay the same amount of money no matter what, it is just a matter of who they cut the check to. Of those 35 States, right now approximately $4 billion a year are raised out of that money; $1 billion in New York, $730 million in California, $480 million in Florida, $180 million in Massachusetts, $200 in Illinois, $200 million in Texas, $130 million in Arkansas, et cetera. If this bill is passed, these States will lose that money. Now, I understand fully well that there are philosophical differences, but I ask the people that propose this bill to then turn around and tell these States what they are going to do, how they are going to help them to educate their children, to put police on the street, and to do all the other things that States do. Because this bill, the way it is written, will take that money out of those State coffers.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, on May 23, 2000, I attended the funearl for the brother of Representative Anthony Weiner and was therefore unable to cast votes on rollcalls 214 through 223. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: ``Yea'' on rollcall 214; ``yea'' on rollcall 215; ``yea'' on rollcall 216; ``yea'' on rollcall 217; ``yea'' on rollcall 218; ``yea'' on rollcall 219; ``yea'' on rollcall 220; ``yea'' on rollcall 221; ``yea'' on rollcall 222; ``yea'' on rollcall 223.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I look at this bill and I ask myself, why did I come here? I came here to defend the rights of Americans and the rights of people all around the world. I look at China, I see no freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no freedom of association, no freedom to do anything unless the government says so. That alone is enough to vote against this bill.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, due to inclement weather, which forced the cancellation of flights from my district, I was unavoidably detained in Massachusetts this afternoon. I was therefore unable to cast a vote on rollcall Votes 211, 212, and 213. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 211, ``yea'' on rollcall 212, and ``yea'' on rollcall 213.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, due to a personal family commitment I was unavoidable detained in Massachusetts today May 15, 2000 and was therefore unable to cast a vote on rollcall Votes 180, 181 and 182. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 180, ``nay'' on rollcall 181, and ``yea'' on rollcall 182.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, in honor of National Teacher Appreciation Week I pay tribute to some of the outstanding teachers that serve in the Eighth Congressional District of Massachusetts. In Belmont, Massachusetts, several teachers have received local and national accolades for their outstanding dedication to their jobs: Janice Rosenberg was selected to join the National Science Foundation's Teachers Experiencing Antarctica and the Arctic; Kimberley Mayer received a Teacher Award in the 2000 Space Settlement Design Contest sponsored by the NASA Research Center; and Eleanor Palais was honored by the Belmont School Committee for the success of 15 students in B.C. Calculus, all of whom received a perfect score of 5 on the AP Exam. In Somerville, Massachusetts, two teachers, John O'Keefe and Barbara Marder, were recognized by the Department of Education for completing the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification; and Alice Comack was recently honored by the Massachusetts Teachers Association for her work in the area of human rights. Since becoming a Member, I have visited schools all over my district. In Watertown, Massachusetts, I toured the Cunniff Elementary School and viewed how they are wiring their school and upgrading their computers. In Boston, Massachusetts, I visited the Winship Elementary School and discussed the Constitution with fifth graders. I am always amazed at the warm greeting I receive from students, and from teachers. For them, it does not matter who the visitor is, but rather that someone cares and recognizes the hard work they do. Mr. Speaker, almost 5,000 teachers in over 176 schools educate approximately 86,000 students in the 8th district; far too many teachers to mention everyone by name. However, I would like to take a moment to thank all the teachers in Belmont, Boston, Somerville, Cambridge, Chelsea and Watertown for tirelessly giving of themselves to educate our future leaders. Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to debate the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I hope each Member of Congress will reflect upon the valuable contributions of teachers in their respective districts, and work to pass legislation that helps our nation's teachers provide the best possible education for our children.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following editorial from the Boston Globe on April 29, 2000, for the Record. The editorial was brought to my attention by Mr. Shri Srithilliampalam, president of the Eelom Tamil Association of America and an activist in the Boston area that continues to call for observance of human rights in Sri Lanka and a peaceful settlement to the 17-year ethnic conflict. We must encourage the parties involved to stop the terror and negotiate a peaceful and immediate end to this war. [From the Boston Globe, April 29, 2000] Pushing Peace in Sri Lanka The long, lethal civil war in Sri Lanka receives little attention here, but for sheer senseless blood-letting it is comparable to the Balkan conflicts. The need for a cease-fire and mediated peace talks became more evident than ever this week when the separatist Tamil Tigers chased 17,000 Sri Lankan army troops from their key strategic position in Elephant Pass, straddling the narrow isthmus that links the south of the country of Jaffna, capital of the Tamil area in the north. Both sides in this merciless war have committed atrocities, both have suffered terrible losses, and both have sought revenge for past outrages. When government forces recovered bodies of soldiers killed in the fall of Elephant Pass this week, they discovered to their horror that many of the corpses had been mutilated. The Tamil fighters were taking vengeance for the desecration of their cemeteries four years ago and for acts of ethnic cleansing visited upon the civilian population of their northern province. The Tigers have often sent terrorist packing suicide bombs into crows of civilians. This past December they wounded Prime Minister Chandrika Kumaratunga in one eye and killed 25 people in such an attack. To overcome the army's base in Elephant Pass this week they blew up wells, cutting off the troops' water supply in a dry climate where the heat surpassed 100 degrees. Senior officers dying of dehydration were airlifted out of their trap. For their part, government forces have been denounced by Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross for denying medicines to everyone in the north, civilians and fighters alike. The United States has had little to do with this war except to sell some weapons to the government and provide some military training. Many of the weapons have fallen into the hands of the Tigers, and the training has done little good. To save the lives that are being squandered on both sides, Washington should now counsel Kumarantunga and her government to accept a cease-fire supervised by international monitors and to pursue to peace talks that Norway has offered to mediate.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) brought forth by Chairman Young and Ranking Member Miller of the House Resources Committee. H.R. 701 is the product of a historic, truly bipartisan effort to bring to the House floor landmark environmental legislation that would go far to protect our nation's resources for future generations. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act is based on a vision that began in 1964 with the creation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The LWCF provided for a dedicated source of revenue to be devoted from offshore oil production towards preserving our natural resources. However, during the past 15 years, over $11 billion of that supposedly guaranteed source of revenue has been diverted to other programs. H.R. 701 is a balanced measure that addresses urgent public resource needs while at the same time respecting legitimate concerns related to private property. Over three-quarters of the House support the bill, which would set aside nearly $3 billion annually for various conservation, resource protection, and recreation initiatives. These include: the allocation of $900 million for LWCF, $1 billion for coastal conservation, $350 million for wildlife conservation, $200 million for Federal and Indian land restoration, $125 million for urban parks and recreation, $100 million for historic preservation, and $50 million for endangered species. These funds would be made available automatically, without having to be appropriated. In my State of Massachusetts, the passage of CARA will result in an additional $50 million that will go far toward preserving land that will benefit the State for years to come. This includes nearly $8 million to the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program, which provides 70 percent matching grants to local governments toward the revitalization and maintenance of open space that could be used for the development of recreation programs. Now is the time for Congress to provide significant new resources to support State and community efforts to protect wildlife and local green spaces, reinforce Federal efforts to save national and historic treasures and expand efforts at all levels to protect ocean and coastal resources. Passage of CARA will represent one of the most important environmental issues that Congress passes this year as the measure would restore the government's promise of protecting lands and resources nationwide and would eliminate the inclusion of incentives for additional offshore drilling. With this in mind, I urge each of my colleagues to give H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, and the manager's amendment their strongest support.