Jim Langevin

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 556, the National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act. This legislation strikes the delicate balance between the need to encourage foreign direct investment in the United States and the ability to critically review potential investment deals that threaten our national security. I am particularly pleased that this bill formalizes the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) membership and designates the Secretary of the Treasury as the Chair. It is crucial to our economy that we continue to encourage foreign countries to freely invest in the United States, and the legislation before us will do just that. It is, however, equally important to ensure that in cases where potential investment deals could impact our national security, we have a stopgap measure allowing us to critically review the potential ramifications and to proceed with caution. I am therefore also pleased that this legislation designates the Secretary of Homeland Security as the Vice Chair of CFIUS. The United States has historically been open to foreign direct investment and has provided foreign investors with fair, equitable and non-discriminatory treatment, and I believe this legislation will be implemented within this context. Foreign direct investment continues to provide benefits to our economy in terms of jobs, technology, management expertise, and capital. The legislation we are considering today will continue to encourage such investment while strengthening the process through which we can ensure that none of these arrangements hinder our national security interests. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800). This bill will help give workers the leverage they need to negotiate for a better life for themselves and for their families. Despite several years of economic growth, many of America's middle class families still struggle to make ends meet. Every day, workers throughout the country face difficult choices about their family's basic needs as wages stagnate and the cost of living continues to rise. By restoring workers' freedom to join together to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions, we will help ease the burden that too many working Americans face. Collective bargaining is one of the best tools working men and women have to restore economic fairness and rebuild America's middle class. The benefit of unionizing also helps workers with low-wage jobs such as janitors, cashiers, and childcare workers to raise their earnings above poverty levels. Union workers tend to have more of the freedoms and rights that ultimately lead to greater opportunity. And members of unions traditionally enjoy higher earnings and better access to healthcare and retirement benefits than their non-union counterparts. Under current law, workers often face uphill battles when attempting to unionize. All too often pro-union employees are intimidated, threatened, and in extreme cases, they may even lose their jobs. The Employee Free Choice Act will help restore fairness to the collective bargaining process by imposing stronger penalties for employers that utilize these tactics. This legislation will also increase the amount of back pay employees receive when they unfairly lose their jobs for attempting to unionize. Furthermore, the Employee Free Choice Act will increase the United States' ability to compete in a global economy. The benefits of collective bargaining go far beyond helping individual workers. By giving workers the tools they need to bargain effectively for the benefits that come with unionizing, we strengthen the economic security of each worker and their families, which ultimately leads to a more secure and prosperous America. In passing this legislation today, we will be giving hardworking Americans the tools they need to negotiate for better wages and benefits in an open, honest, and fair way. Strengthening the security of American families strengthens our economy, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Employee Free Choice Act.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment with the President's budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2008. The President has said repeatedly that he wants to work with the new leadership in Congress, but his budget request tells a different story. It is clear evidence that he has little interest in making the hard choices facing our Nation and that he continues to favor tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of working Americans. One of the most notable changes in this budget as compared with those of previous years is the inclusion of supplemental spending requests for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do appreciate this development, as it will enhance Congressional oversight, which has been sorely lacking in the past. However, this improvement does not alter my deep opposition to the President's plan to augment existing force levels in Iraq by 21,500 troops, a number that could increase significantly once additional support forces are considered. It has become evident that the problem in Iraq cannot be solved by more U.S. troops. As the Iraq Study Group and other experts have concluded, it requires a diplomatic and economic solution, as well as a renewed commitment by the Iraqi government to take greater control of its own security situation. Consequently, Congress will carefully scrutinize the supplemental funding request so that we continue to provide our men and women in uniform with the resources they need to remain safe and effective while moving toward a swift conclusion of our military operations in Iraq. The American people have asked us to act, and we will do so in the coming months. Sadly, the remainder of the budget demonstrates the President's misplaced priorities and inability to operate within realistic expectations. Once again, the President claims he can have it both ways by making permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest while reaching a balanced budget by 2012. However, the numbers just don't add up. The President doesn't balance his budget through responsible decisionmaking; he does it by hoping for economic growth that may or may not occur. In fact, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the President has overestimated revenue projections in 2012 by more than $150 billion, and that his budget would actually result in yet another deficit. One hundred and fifty billion dollars is more than a rounding error; it is wishful thinking. What does the average Rhode Islander get from all of that deficit spending? Unfortunately, it's not much. The President's decision to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would cost hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue, necessitating drastic cuts to important services and resulting in a massive middle-class tax increase. By choosing to extend certain tax cuts expiring in 2010 instead of fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax, the President has made clear that his priorities are with the richest Americans and not the middle class. Our Nation's most vulnerable populations would also be harmed by the proposed budget. The President has called for $78 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, venerable programs that provide vital health care services to the elderly, the disabled and the poor. Part of those cuts would come from an 8 percent reduction in Medicare reimbursement rates to physicians. Congress has blocked such cuts in the past because we know how devastating they would be to our health care system, yet the President appears oblivious to how dangerous they would be. When I am in Rhode Island, I hear constantly from doctors about how proposed cuts to Medicare reimbursement rates would result in their inability to treat Medicare patients. My State's 16 hospitals would not be able to meet the needs of the community, and our senior citizens would suffer as a result. While I agree that we need to address the long-term solvency of Medicare, any reforms should be implemented in a way that benefits, not damages, our Nation's health care system. The budget would also threaten to repeal health insurance for Rhode Island children. Rhode Island is one of 18 States that have implemented the State Children's Health Insurance Program to exceed minimum federal standards. Rhode Island's program, Rite Care, has leveraged SCHIP funding to provide health insurance to children in families up to 250 percent of the poverty level, as well as to additional populations such as pregnant women and parents. We have worked hard to bring our insurance coverage rate for children to 94 percent--above the national average of 88 percent. The President's budget would penalize States that are succeeding under SCHIP and increase the uninsured rate among children when we should be going in the opposite direction. As chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity and Science and Technology, I am concerned that the budget proposal does not invest appropriately in important homeland security initiatives. Despite tragedies experienced in Madrid and London, we continue to ignore the importance of rail security; the Transportation Security Administration budget contains only $41 million for surface transportation security. The Bush Administration has also proposed cutting biodefense-related programs and the Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate, both of which will help protect our Nation from emerging threats. Additionally, the budget would reduce funding for programs important to State and local law enforcement in Rhode Island, including the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which awarded $45.2 million to Rhode Island from 2003 to 2006, and the Law Enforcement Terrorist Prevention Program, LETPP, from which Rhode Island received $11.5 million in funding from 2004 to 2006. Despite their proven effectiveness in reducing crime in our communities, the Community Oriented Policing Service, COPS, and Justice Assistance Grants, JAGs, would also experience cuts in this budget proposal. The COPS program helps Rhode Island's law enforcement agencies hire police officers, enhance crime fighting technology, and support crime prevention initiatives, while JAG supports State and local drug task forces, community crime prevention programs and prosecution initiatives. In 2006 alone, Rhode Island received $1.6 million in JAG funding and $790,000 in COPS funding that helped keep Rhode Island families safe. An important component of homeland security includes providing our state and local law enforcement with the resources they need to be effective, and I will fight to block these proposed cuts. A budget is more than a simple ledger of revenue and spending. It is a demonstration of priorities. In this case, the President's priorities are out of touch with what the American people want. The new leadership in Congress is ready to craft a budget that will support strengthening our national defense and will carefully examine our ongoing commitment in Iraq while not losing sight of those priorities that need to be met here at home. Our budget will reflect the values and needs of working Rhode Islanders. I will fight to properly fund SCHIP so that Rite Care can continue to support our state's most vulnerable patients, and I will fight the drastic proposed physician payment cuts under Medicare so that we do not jeopardize the health and well-being of our Nation's seniors. Working to put our Nation back on solid financial footing will take time and dedication, and I am up to the challenge. I will fight for a fair budget that benefits all Americans. I look forward to advocating for all Rhode Islanders in the coming months.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Project BioShield Material Threats Act of 2007. The BioShield Program was created to develop and procure medical countermeasures against dangerous chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) agents, The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for determining threats posed to our country by these agents, and for taking specific steps to protect the nation's citizens from these harms. While I fully support the mission of BioShield, the program has encountered several problems since it was enacted nearly three years ago. One major shortcoming of the program is a lack of efficiency in the assessment of threats. Rather than examining each threat individually, we should be looking for ways to properly group these threats together, so we can develop appropriate countermeasures to combat multiple threats. My colleagues and I are introducing this legislation to improve and expedite the Department's conduct of Material Threat Determinations (MTD) and the more in-depth Material Threat Assessments (MTA). These MTDs and MTAs will promote a more strategic use of our Nation's resources when procuring medical countermeasures and will ultimately lead to a safer and better-prepared public health infrastructure. To date, DHS has completed fifteen MTDs. It took well over one year to complete the first six, but the pace picked up considerably since a shift towards less in-depth risk assessments of twenty-nine top threat agents listed by the Centers for Disease Control. The Department leveraged those risk assessments to more quickly complete the next round of MTDs. Soon the Department plans another round of risk assessments that will include more chemical agents. I hope this bill sends a clear message to the Department that we in Congress want to support and improve upon their recent efforts. Risk is assessed based on a combination of threat, vulnerability, and consequences, and we should encourage the Department to use threat information contained in existing risk assessments to inform and expedite the MTD/MTA process. This bill promotes the use of existing risk assessments if those assessments are considered credible by the Secretary. Another way to both accelerate and leverage assessments is to conduct them in groups, either by the physical or genetic similarity of the agents themselves or the symptoms they cause. Countermeasures that address more than one threat agent are commonly referred to as ``broad spectrum medical countermeasures,'' and these should be the gold standard for efficient use of BioShield resources. We must move beyond the current ``One Bug, One Drug'' approach we currently use to the ``One Drug for Many Bugs'' model that broad spectrum countermeasures offer. Finally, we all know that time is of the essence as we work to address those agents we already know and ensure we are prepared for emerging threats. The legislation I am introducing today requires all MTDs for CBRN agents that the Secretary determines to be capable of significantly affecting national security to be completed by December 31, 2007. Madam Speaker, this bill will aid the Department of Homeland Security in conducting threat and risk assessments, which is the first step to countermeasure procurement. We must address those agents--known and emerging, natural or engineered--that present the highest risk to our citizens, and we must do it quickly. Passage of this measure will help advance and improve that process, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in appreciation of our troops' exceptional service and sacrifice, and to voice my opposition to President Bush's plan to send more forces into what amounts to a civil war. As a former member of the House Armed Services Committee and a new member of the Intelligence Committee, I recognize that our next steps in Iraq present one of the greatest security decisions our Nation has faced in decades. The Iraq Study Group called the situation grave and deteriorating and said it requires a new approach. I agree. We can all conclude that an unstable Iraq, torn by sectarian conflict, would lead to continued violence and civilian casualties, provide combat training opportunities to those who would do us harm, and pose increased challenges to the region. Yet I disagree with President Bush's misguided belief that sending more Americans into combat will solve the problem. Our military has served valiantly for nearly 4 years, particularly in some very challenging and nontraditional missions, in some cases for which they were never trained. However, we have done all that we could do militarily to help the Iraqi people, and their problems no longer require a U.S. military solution. The underlying causes of violence are primarily political and must be addressed in that framework. Sending more troops would simply be a continuation of the same failed strategy. In October of 2002, I expressed my concerns that President Bush's approach to Iraq could have dangerous ramifications in the region and America's own efforts in the war on terrorism. For those reasons and many others, I voted against authorizing use of force against Iraq, a war that was mismanaged by civilian leadership from the start. Now, to address our troops' lack of protective gear and up-armored Humvees, I supported legislation to provide additional funding for proper equipment, as well as other efforts to assure our forces would be safe and effective. Now, however, we can best support our troops by changing our mission in Iraq and adopting a new strategy that reflects the realities on the ground. The Iraqis must now take the lead in providing for their own security, and we must reduce our presence to let them do so. The President's claim that by adding 21,500 additional combat troops we can force a greater stability in Iraq is an argument that ignores some basic truths. Not only have past surges of U.S. forces proved unnecessary in reducing sectarian violence among Iraqis, but the addition of more troops would further inflame anti-American sentiment and turn popular opinion even more against us in our efforts. We have no proof that another surge would lead to a different outcome than in the past, but we do know that it would have negative consequences. Now, perhaps of greatest concern is the impact of the surge on our military readiness. The President's estimate of 21,500 more combat troops does not count the additional 15,000 to 28,000 support troops that would be needed, spreading our military even more dangerously thin. Madam Speaker, we have asked much of our forces, included repeated deployments, and a surge will only exacerbate that problem. Operations in Iraq have also taken their toll on our equipment. According to the Government Accountability Office, 40 percent of the Army's and Marine Corps' equipment is now located in the Central Command theater of operations. Our National Guard/Reserve units are underequipped to deal with emergencies, and we have depleted our preposition stocks, which we need to respond quickly to other contingencies. Now, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee in January, General Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, noted that an increase in forces in Iraq would increase our strategic risk and possibly lead to slower and less effective response to another potential threat. Madam Speaker, sending more troops to Iraq is a dangerous gamble with our national security, and we need a new approach. A number of experts, including the Iraq Study Group, had made important recommendations, and they must not be ignored. It is clear that the President's plan for escalation would harm our national security and ignores the will of the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution so that we can promote a new strategy for Iraq and bring our troops home.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 20, the Joint Funding Resolution that will complete action on the remainder of the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bills. This measure is not perfect, but it addresses the most urgent funding needs of federal programs while remaining within the tight budget constraints imposed by the previous Congress. We are fixing this funding problem today because the former Republican leadership in the House and Senate failed to complete nine of the 11 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2007 before the 109th Congress adjourned in December 2006. The funding resolution we are voting on today will finally give federal programs a blueprint for their spending until September 30, 2007; however, it is not an ideal solution. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have rightly talked about challenges faced by certain programs that will see no increase over fiscal year 2006 levels. I cannot help but wonder where their concerns were when they controlled the fate of those programs last year? The Democratic leadership faced many hard decisions in funding the remainder of the appropriations bills, and my colleagues rose to the occasion. This endeavor required a careful analysis of many important programs, as well as a great deal of compromise. To start, this measure does not contain any earmarks or a cost-of-living pay increase for Members of Congress. I wholeheartedly agree that any congressional pay increase should not be passed until the minimum wage increase passes Congress. We all must move forward together. That is also why I am pleased that this measure will increase Section 8 funding, which will help renew vouchers for individuals and families that cannot afford exorbitant housing prices on their own. I am proud that my colleagues were able to increase funds for other high priority needs as well, such as veterans and military health care. We must make sure that service members wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan have the services they require, as well as anticipate the increasing number of returning veterans who have earned their promised benefits. This measure will also fund an increase in programs for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as local law enforcement programs, such as the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, which are critical to keeping our communities safe. At both the state and federal level, our work on intelligence and security must not be threatened by a lack of resources. The funding resolution will also increase the maximum amount of a Pell grant so that more than 5.3 million students can help pay rising college expenses. I am especially pleased that this increase, the first in 4 years, will strengthen a program first introduced by an esteemed Rhode Islander, Senator Claiborne Pell. This measure also helps the youngest and most vulnerable group of students in our country by increasing Head Start funding to prevent a drop in enrollments. Finally, this resolution also highlights areas where we need to move our country forward like health care and energy security. We are providing increased funding for community health centers, as well as scientific research; both the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation will be funded over last year's level. The Department of Energy will also receive additional resources for research and development activities for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. After completion of H.J. Res 20, I look forward to working toward timely passage of a Fiscal Year 2008 budget that provides the necessary funding for some of our nation's most critical programs. The Democratic leadership has reinstated the pay-as-you-go budget rule, so that new spending has to be offset by a decrease in spending elsewhere in the budget. This promise was made last year, when we told the voters that we would bring this Congress in a new direction and demand fiscal responsibility. The measure we pass today, as well as the work we will do in the coming months, will show Americans that this Congress can be responsive to the public, enhance support for federal programs vital to our working families, and be careful stewards of taxpayer dollars.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I raise today in support of H.R. 521, which would designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located in Rock Island, Illinois, as the ``Lane Evans Post Office Building.'' I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill that honors my good friend and former colleague. Lane has always served his country with honor. From 1969 to 1971, he served in Vietnam in the U.S. Marine Corps, and as they say, ``once a marine, always a marine.'' When he was elected to Congress in 1982, he immediately worked to make sure veterans were given the benefits that they deserve, and he lent his voice to issues that might otherwise have been ignored. For almost a quarter of a century in Congress, Lane was a champion of America's veterans, and his passion for this cause is truly missed. Lane and I were able to develop a friendship that transcended politics. We worked together on many issues as members of the House Armed Services Committee. Serving others, especially his constituents, was something Lane did exceedingly well. I was able to see this firsthand when I traveled to his district in 2004. I was impressed, but not surprised, by the enormous number of people who showed up at an event he hosted, which certainly speaks to how well-liked and respected he was, and is, in the 17th district of Illinois. Serving with Lane was truly an amazing and educational experience, and his constituents were fortunate to have such a dedicated public servant as their representative in Washington. Unfortunately, Lane has had to battle Parkinson's Disease since 1995. In his fight against this debilitating disease, he has shown his characteristic courage and perseverance that proved to everyone that he was not going to easily give up. Lane has also been a great partner in the effort to advance stem cell research, which is a matter of tremendous importance to me. While we miss having him fighting with us in Congress, he can be assured that our efforts will continue so that patients with spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's Disease and other conditions will benefit from this research in the future. Mr. Speaker, it was a privilege to work with Lane Evans in the House of Representatives, and I am proud that today we honor his hard work and inspirational life with this bill.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, and to insert extraneous materials relating to the bill under consideration into the Congressional Record.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I request that the following letters be made part of the Congressional Record. Professional Services Council, Arlington, VA, January 22, 2007. Hon. James Langevin, Chairman, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, Science and Technology. Hon. Mike Rogers, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Management, Investigations and Oversight. Homeland Security Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Langevin and Congressman Rogers: On behalf of the Professional Services Council (PSC), the leading national trade association representing the professional and technical services industry selling to the Federal Government, I am writing to endorse the legislation introduced by you and others (H.R. 599) to streamline the SAFETY Act and anti- terrorism technology procurement processes. We appreciated the bipartisan leadership of Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King during the 109th Congress to provide strong oversight of SAFETY Act implementation, including the execution of the responsibilities of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Under Secretary for Science and Technology in administering the Act. We are confident that the Committee's support for the full implementation of the law and for extending the coverage of the Act to appropriate anti-terrorism technologies will remain strong through your Subcommittees' leadership. ' PSC has been a strong and active supporter of the SAFETY Act since its development in Congress in 2002. We have commented extensively on the Act, on the implementing regulations, application kits, and operating principles. We have met repeatedly with key leaders within the Department and other offices in the Executive Branch. We testified before your Committee last year on the Act. We are pleased with the recent progress made in providing the regulatory and administrative framework for implementation, and with DHS's renewed commitment to moving that implementation forward. However, more can and should be done. While the Department is fully committed to robust implementation of the Act, we see your bill as an important step in helping the Department achieve that goal--whether through the allocation of additional full-time DHS employees to carry out the functions assigned under the Act or ensuring that the Department's internal procurement and policy organizations are aligned with and use the authorities provided under the Act. In addition, the Department plays an important role in providing guidance and information to other federal agencies and to other stakeholders about the Act. Each of these important items is addressed in H.R. 599. We appreciated the opportunity to comment on the draft bill and are pleased to offer PSC's support for the legislation as introduced. We strongly support passage by the House early in the legislative cycle and look forward to further legislative and administrative action to fully implement the goals and objectives of the SAFETY Act. We also look forward to working with your Subcommittees and others on this important homeland security initiative. In the interim, if you or your staffs have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, Alan Chvotkin, Esq., Senior Vice President and Counsel.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 599) to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to streamline the SAFETY Act and anti-terrorism technology procurement processes.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to thank the speakers who have come forward. I want to thank Members on the other side of the aisle for working with us in a bipartisan fashion to bring this bill to the floor. I want to particularly recognize the leadership of Chairman Thompson and his due diligence in seeing that this act was put together in such a timely fashion and brought to the floor so quickly. It is the responsibility of every level of government, whether it is the local, State or Federal level, first and foremost to protect our citizens. Our Nation is at war, and homeland security must be our top priority. The quicker that we can get these new and vital technologies in place that will better protect the American people, the better off we will all be. So it is my intent that this act will clarify some of the problems with the original SAFETY Act and with the implementation that has been witnessed by the Department of Homeland Security, and I am pleased that we have brought this act to the floor today. Madam Speaker, I move its passage.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

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

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of legislation I introduced, the SAFETY Reform Act of 2007, which will help ensure that safe and effective antiterrorism technologies are being deployed by the Department of Homeland Security to bolster our security throughout the country. The Support for Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002, or SAFETY Act as it is known, was designed to provide incentives for development and deployment of antiterrorism technologies. The SAFETY Act was intended to address the liability concerns of businesses and to pave the way for innovative development of key antiterrorism technologies. Unfortunately, a lack of personnel within the Office of SAFETY Act Implementation, an excessively burdensome application process, and a lack of communication between the Department's procurement and management divisions made for difficult implementation of the SAFETY Act. This legislation which I have introduced, along with Chairman Thompson, Subcommittee Ranking Member Rogers and many other members of the Homeland Security Committee, should fix many of those shortcomings. Last year the Homeland Security Committee held a subcommittee hearing highlighting some of the problems that arose from the SAFETY Act's implementation. We heard from a variety of industry leaders and experts that the application process was overly burdensome, and that it took far too long for the Department of Homeland Security to properly evaluate and approve many of the applications that businesses submitted. While I am pleased to see that many companies with new and innovative technologies have already applied for the SAFETY Act program, the program can be effective only when the applications are properly approved. My legislation, therefore, takes three important steps to improve the effectiveness of the application process. First, this bill will help facilitate communication between the Department of Homeland Security's procurement sector and the Department's Office of SAFETY Act Implementation, which is the entity tasked with reviewing the applications. This approach will allow officials at DHS to thoroughly review applications while also maintaining quick turnaround times. Second, the bill would require that the Secretary employ a sufficient number of analysts in the Office of SAFETY Act Implementation who can deal with the ever-growing number of applications. Appropriate staffing will help ensure that the applications are being processed in a timely manner, thereby allowing us to deploy the newest and best technologies as quickly as possible. Finally, this legislation will help raise awareness of SAFETY Act risk management provisions among procurement officers across Federal, State, and local levels, and throughout the private sector. Contributions made by private enterprises are an extremely important component of our Nation's security, and our governmental policies should continue to encourage innovation, not stifle it. By passing the SAFETY Reform Act, I am optimistic that we will be able to effectively streamline the application process and encourage participation in this program across all levels of government and the private sector. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the SAFETY Reform Act of 2007. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise in support of H.R. 6, which will help our Nation take a major step toward energy independence. We must recognize that we cannot dig or drill our way out of our energy crisis and must move away from our reliance on oil and gas. Our nation deserves a comprehensive energy policy that guarantees access to affordable power, encourages energy conservation efforts, and pursues increased use of environmentally responsible and renewable sources of energy. H.R. 6 moves us in exactly that direction. It will close expensive loopholes and end giveaways to oil and gas companies and invest those dollars in clean and renewable sources of energy here in the United States. I have strongly supported efforts to develop and adopt new sources of energy, not only for the important environmental benefits they create, but also for their positive impact on our economy and national security. Just as our Nation worked together to put a man on the moon, we must now unite behind an energy policy that enhances national security, creates American jobs, and protects our environment. We must harness Americans' ingenuity and creativity to make the United States a world leader in new energy technology and move our nation toward energy independence. Many of my colleagues have talked for a long time about how we need to end our addiction to foreign sources of energy. Today we finally have an opportunity to follow through on our promises by voting for H.R. 6.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding and also in particular thank and recognize the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for their exceptional leadership, and that of many others on the stem cell research bill who have fought so hard to bring us to where we are today. I am proud to be a partner with them in this effort. Mr. Speaker, America has waited a long time for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, and I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 3 and be a part of a Congress that has made this a top priority. This legislation has strong bipartisan support in both Chambers of Congress and enjoys the support of up to 70 percent of the American people. Most importantly, it offers hope and the promise of a cure to millions of people who are living with the constant challenges and burdens of chronic disease and disability. Mr. Speaker, when I was injured in an accidental shooting almost 26 years ago, I was told that I would never walk again. Now, I always held out hope that someday that would change, that through the miracles of science and prayer, someday there would be a cure for spinal cord injuries. It is only until now that that possibility of a cure has become truly real. I am the first to admit that my understanding of stem cell research has involved ongoing education, thought and prayer. As a pro-life Member of Congress, I have not taken my decision to support this legislation lightly. But I have come to the conclusion that being pro- life also has to be about caring about those people who are living among us with some of life's most challenging conditions and diseases and caring about the possibility of both extending and improving the quality of life itself. That is what the promise of stem cell research offers. Over the years, I have had the good fortune to learn about stem cell research from some of America's most renowned scientists as well as pro-life leaders like Senator Orrin Hatch and a dear friend of mine who is certainly on my mind today, Christopher Reeve. My education on this issue has filled me with tremendous hope not only that stem cell research might lead one day to a cure for spinal cord injuries, but that one day a child with diabetes will no longer have to endure a lifetime of painful shots and tests. I truly believe that families will no longer one day have to watch in agony as loved ones with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease gradually decline. I am thrilled to be able to share this hope with millions of others. We live in exciting times, truly at the threshold of a new generation in medicine. Today, newly spinal-cord-injured patients, many of them teenagers as I was, are told about developing treatments and scientific progress. They face a world, very much the same challenges that I faced in 1980. But they also face a time with real hope and the real promise of a cure. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. I want to thank the gentlelady, and before I begin on my comments on H.R. 3, the stem cell research enhancement act, I want to just thank my colleagues for their important comments on Iraq and the direction that the Iraq war has taken and the failed policy that we have seen in Iraq and the strain that it has put on the families of soldiers, the soldiers themselves. Clearly, we need a change in direction in America. That is what the American people expect. This 100 hours agenda, obviously, is an important topic. I rise in strong support of the 100 hours agenda. As a four-term Member of Congress, it has been exhilarating for me to return to Washington and tackle the issues of the American people which have long been ignored. I am so proud to be a part of this new direction and a Member of this Chamber. As we prepare for the embryonic stem cell research debate which will take place tomorrow, I am reminded that one of the primary reasons I ran for Congress, which was to make a positive difference in people's lives. The 110th Congress is being ushered in with a tremendous sense of hope and optimism. In the first legislative week, we have taken great strides towards improving the lives of hardworking Americans by increasing the minimum wage and fully implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. H.R. 3, the stem cell research enhancement act, is yet another example of this agenda of hope. This legislation will remove the restrictions that current administration has placed on the advancement of medicine and the hopes of millions. Tomorrow, we will hear from both sides of the stem cell debate about whether the Federal Government should support this type of research. We will hear promises and stories of tremendous scientific advancement. We will hear the limitations on these advancements, and we will also hear some distortions. But I come before you tonight with confidence; confidence in the science of stem cell research; confidence that the American people overwhelmingly support this legislation; confidence that tomorrow a great majority of my colleagues will once again vote in favor of the stem cell research enhancement act; and confidence that, one day, once all of our Nation's leaders will rally all around all types of stem cell research, and we will see big changes in the field of medicine and in the lives of so many people who are suffering today. So tonight, I rise, I rise to help spread this message of hope and optimism to our constituents who are watching at home; for the 400,000 Americans who are living with MS; the 60,000 American family whose have faced the fear of a loved one's Parkinson's diagnosis this year; the thousands of Americans who have seen family members come to Alzheimer's disease; the 250,000 Americans who, like me, live with the constant challenges of a spinal cord injury, and so many others. To all of you, I say: Help and hope are on the way. I want to thank my colleagues for giving me time tonight and being part of this 100 hours agenda debate, particularly, again, what you have done for enlightening the American people on our position of the war on Iraq and the new direction that we need to take in this country. Thank you very much.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the Fair Minimum Wage Act (H.R. 2). This bill will bring a long-overdue measure of fairness to the paychecks of millions of hardworking Americans. We have now reached the longest period of time without an increase in the federal minimum wage since its creation in 1938. While the minimum wage remains stagnant, the cost of living for countless Americans continues to skyrocket. In my home state of Rhode Island, the average two-bedroom apartment costs over $1,147 per month. As a result, many people would need to obtain more than three full-time, minimum wage jobs just to afford a decent home, and that does not take into account other critical living expenses like food and medicine. This is an unacceptable reality that millions of hardworking Americans continue to face. Raising the minimum wage is a critical first step in Congress's efforts to strengthen the economic security of our Nation's families. The Fair Minimum Wage Act will increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 incrementally over a 2-year period. Americans who work hard to make an honest living should not be forced to live in poverty, and by passing the Fair Minimum Wage Act, we will help ensure that all Americans have the ability to provide for their families and prosper. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Fair Minimum Wage Act.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend this body for considering legislation which with finally get us back on track to fully implement all of the recommendations made by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission in 2004. The 9/11 Commission provided our nation an objective and eye-opening assessment of how terrorists were able to exploit our security vulnerabilities on September 11th and made 41 key recommendations to address these shortcomings. Unfortunately, two and a half years after the Commission's recommendations, there are still glaring threats that remain to be addressed. In fact, just over a year ago, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project issued a report card that gave the Administration D's and F's in some of the most critical areas. Today, we finally have an opportunity to ensure that the 9/11 Commission's tireless efforts were not in vain. The legislation before us would shore up remaining vulnerabilities and implement recommendations that have been ignored completely or only partially addressed until now. As the former Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack, I am particularly pleased that this bill contains several provisions to make our nation more secure from the threat of a nuclear attack. H.R. 1 strengthens our most effective global non-proliferation programs, like Cooperative Threat Reduction and the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. These programs have proven successful in securing the most dangerous nuclear material abroad, before it can get into the hands of those who would do us harm. Additionally, this measure gives the United States the power to sanction individuals involved in the illegal trade of nuclear material. It also builds upon the recently enacted SAFE Ports Act by requiring all cargo containers be scanned before leaving their port of origin and improves the quality of their inspections. Today we are also taking a long-overdue, comprehensive approach to the vulnerabilities that remain in our aviation system. Under this measure, we will finally screen 100 percent of cargo on passenger planes and improve airline screening checkpoints to detect explosives. This measure will also create a redress process for passengers misidentified against the ``No Fly'' or ``Selectee'' watchlists who have been wrongfully delayed or prohibited from boarding a flight. This measure provides significant support to first responders, who place their lives on the line each day, by funding state and local efforts to obtain the interoperable communication systems essential for emergency response. Additionally, our bill will considerably improve information sharing, which is one of our most effective forms of defense. H.R. 1 will strengthen fusion centers across the country, helping state and local law enforcement build relationships across every level and discipline of government and with the private sector to help ensure that criminal intelligence and other information is shared with those who can put it to the best use. Finally, this legislation will protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans, while effectively combating terrorism. Under this measure, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be reestablished as an independent agency, which will greatly enhance the Board's oversight functions and help to ensure that we do not sacrifice freedom in the name of security. The best way to honor those who died in the attacks of September 11th is to learn from the lessons of that tragic day, and this bill brings us much closer towards achieving this goal.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend Joan Countryman, who recently became the head of the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls in South Africa. In 2005, Ms. Countryman stepped down as head of the prestigious Lincoln School for girls in Providence, Rhode Island. Ms. Countryman, a Quaker, began her career first as a math teacher and then as an administrator at the Germantown Friends School in Philadelphia, which she attended as a student. She received a bachelor's degree from Sarah Lawrence College in 1962, and after taking part in the civil rights movement, she received a master's degree in urban studies from Yale. In 1966, Ms. Countryman received a Fulbright fellowship to the London School of Economics. She is also a former Columbia University Klingenstein Fellow and a Woodrow Wilson Fellow. Ms. Countryman is also the author of works such as her 1992 book, Writing to Learn Mathematics, in which she explained how she approached the teaching of math by using such tools as journals, learning logs, and formal papers. Before asking Ms. Countryman to head her new academy, Oprah Winfrey first asked her to lend her experience and expertise as a consultant. Oprah Winfrey founded the Leadership Academy with the goal of targeting South African girls from poor families and giving them an educational opportunity that they would otherwise not have received. Beginning with 152 girls in the seventh and eighth grades, the academy has a goal of expanding through grade 12. I know that Joan Countryman will institute a welcoming and challenging school environment at the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy. Rhode Island was honored to have Ms. Countryman as an educator for twelve years, and the girls in South Africa will be lucky to have her there now. Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join with me in wishing Joan Countryman well in her new endeavor, as well as success to the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the service of my colleague and good friend from Illinois, Mr. Lane Evans. Lane has always served his country with honor. From 1969 to 1971, he served in Vietnam in the U.S. Marine Corps, and as they say, ``once a marine, always a marine.'' When he was elected to Congress in 1982, he immediately worked to make sure veterans were given the benefits that they deserve, and he has fought to bring up issues that would go unknown if it was not for his voice. For almost a quarter of a century in Congress, Lane has been a champion of America's veterans, and his passion for this cause will truly be missed. Lane and I were able to develop a friendship that transcended politics. We worked together on many issues as members of the House Armed Services Committee. Serving others, especially his constituents, was something Lane did exceedingly well. I was able to see this firsthand when I traveled to his district in 2004. I was impressed, but not shocked, by the large amount of people who showed up at an event he hosted, which certainly speaks to how well-liked and respected he is in the 17th district of Illinois. Serving with Lane has truly been an amazing and educational experience. Unfortunately, Lane has had to battle Parkinson's Disease since 1995. In his fight against this debilitating disease, he has yet again shown courage and perseverance that proved to everyone that he was not going to easily give up. Lane has also been a great partner in the effort to advance stem cell research, which is a matter of great importance to me. This effort will continue so that patients with spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's Disease and other conditions will benefit from this research in the future. Lane, thank you for making a difference. While you will be missed in the halls of Congress, I wish you the very best in the next chapter of your life.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for the many beneficial elements of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act. This bill includes several greatly needed extensions of tax provisions that will continue to help middle class families and small businesses to prosper throughout our Nation. The measure before us today has many provisions I support, including extensions of the Research and Development Tax Credit and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, the deduction of higher education expenses, and others. I am a cosponsor of legislation to make the Research and Development Tax Credit permanent, as it keeps American companies competitive and provides a strong incentive for businesses to invest in the future and create jobs. I am also pleased that this bill includes provisions to help make college more affordable to millions of students and allow teachers to deduct out-of-pocket expenses. This bill will also ensure that a pending 5.1 percent cut in Medicare payments to physicians does not take effect. While I believe we could-- and should--have addressed this issue much earlier, I am pleased that these cuts will not take effect. I expect that next year, Congress will take meaningful action to reform and stabilize the Medicare provider payment system and I pledge to support efforts to that end. Unfortunately, this legislation also contains language authorizing an expansion of drilling in certain areas in the Gulf of Mexico. While I support efforts to improve our overall domestic energy production, we have not taken the necessary steps to encourage conservation efforts and energy efficiency programs, preferring instead to rely on oil and gas exploration. As I have stated in the past, we cannot dig or drill our way to energy independence. We need a comprehensive and forward- thinking energy policy that provides affordable energy, encourages the development of clean and renewable sources, and enhances our Nation's economy. While I strongly believe that many of the tax provisions included in this legislation will significantly strengthen the middle class in our country, I am dismayed by the process through which we are considering this bill. The Republican majority has again waited until the last minute to bring this legislation to the floor, thereby considerably hindering our legislative process. In the 110th Congress, I will work with my colleagues to ensure measures are brought to the floor according to a process that allows ample time to review and debate legislation in an open and honest way.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today we are debating S. 3421, a bill that would authorize major Veterans Affairs medical facility projects and also overhaul VA information technology. A goal of this bill is also to provide more resources for mental health services to veterans. It is one of our most important obligations to help those troops returning from combat to readjust to society, particularly those suffering from mental health issues, such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Research has already demonstrated that military service in Iraq and Afghanistan, like service in past combat zones, is having an adverse effect on the mental health of our men and women in uniform. We have certainly improved the mental health services offered to our troops. However, I am concerned about a recent Government Accountability Office report which found that not only did the VA not spend all of its money allocated for mental health services, but they also lacked proper oversight of how the funding was spent. Furthermore, there have been media reports that the mental health services in place for servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have been overwhelmed and unable to accommodate those seeking help in a timely fashion. It has also been reported that the stigma surrounding the admission of having mental health issues still exists. Sadly, many servicemembers are afraid to admit to symptoms related to PTSD while still in the service, since it may jeopardize their military career. Mr. Speaker, we cannot cut corners on this issue, and we certainly cannot ignore the veterans and servicemembers who will be left behind if they do not get the help they need. Our patriotic and reassuring words are not enough, especially when we are dealing with men and women with real mental health issues. We must ensure that our veterans and servicemembers are provided with the access to specialized mental health care they deserve. We need to legislate better oversight, both to ensure the funding is allocated appropriately, and also to make sure the programs are working properly and addressing all concerns. I am ready to deal with this difficult issue in the next Congress because we owe it to the brave men and women who have served our nation with courage and integrity. We need to show them the same.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson), my partner in this effort, for his leadership on this exceptional bill. Mr. Speaker, it is with great enthusiasm that I voice my strong support for the Lifespan Respite Care Act. For more than 4 years, I have worked to pass a bill that would ease the burden of responsibility on family caregivers. I particularly want to acknowledge the hard work of so many advocates, organizations and individuals who worked with me to get this bill to where it is today. In particular I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, and I also want to thank Jill Kagan of the National Respite Coalition for her tireless efforts over many, many years. Mr. Speaker, an estimated 26 million Americans are currently caring for an adult family member who is chronically ill or disabled. Additionally, an estimated 18 million children have chronic physical, developmental, behavioral or emotional conditions that place significant demands on their parents. Family caregivers live in all of our communities and they are often silent heroes, ensuring family stability and helping those who struggle with disease or disability to avoid more costly institutional placements. While voluntary care is personally rewarding, it can result in substantial emotional, physical and financial strain on the caregiver. When one family member is caring for another, it doesn't mean that the other responsibilities of the family simply stop. Children still need to be brought to school, food shopping still needs to be done, doctors appointments still need to be made and kept, particularly when it involves the caregiver themselves. Mr. Speaker, they need to know that they are not alone and they need to know where to turn when the pressures of their situation become too much for them to bear. Respite care services relieve caregivers from daily care giving tasks on a temporary or even long-term basis. Many lifespan respite programs are already in place at State and local levels, providing invaluable services to the families of people with chronic disease or disability. Yet in too many situations, caregivers simply don't know how to find information about available respite care and access to these services. In other cases, respite care is simply unavailable to those who need it. I originally introduced the Lifespan Respite Care Act in the 107th Congress, working with the National Respite Coalition to craft a bill that would assist States and local organizations in identifying and filling the gaps in their systems. While I do wish we could have addressed this important issue sooner, I am grateful to Representative Ferguson for his leadership in ensuring that this bill came to the House floor. By passing this legislation and committing to build upon successful existing programs, we can make a powerful statement to so many Americans who are silently struggling right now. It is a statement of gratitude for their many hours of work and a statement of support for when the challenges become too daunting. Mr. Speaker, I thank the congressional leadership for their hard work in moving this bill forward and bringing it to the floor today, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the Lifespan Respite Care Act. To the people at home, help is on the way.