Jim Langevin

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 497. As a Boston Celtics fan, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution, which honors the memory of Arnold ``Red'' Auerbach. Red Auerbach was known as the man who turned the Boston Celtics into a dynasty franchise. A fiery and competitive coach, he understood the importance of each individual player's role on a team. He was also a savvy businessman who made his decisions based on what was best for his team, regardless of how society might have viewed him. His methods and coaching styles were copied by many, leading to Auerbach being called the inventor of modern professional basketball and one of the greatest coaches in professional sports history. Born on September 20, 1917, in Brooklyn, NY, Auerbach was a basketball captain and also school president at Eastern District High School. He went on to earn both a bachelor's and a master's degree from George Washington University, where he played basketball for three years. His marriage in 1941 to Dorothy Lewis, as well as his ties to his alma mater, led Auerbach to establish his home in the Washington, DC area, where he also began his basketball coaching career. In 1950, he began his legendary run as the head coach of the Boston Celtics. As the Celtics coach, he won nine National Basketball Association championships, including eight straight from 1959 to 1966, which still stands as a record in North American professional sports. Fearless and not easily swayed by the prevalent attitudes surrounding him, Auerbach drafted the NBA's first black player, named the first black coach in any professional sports league, and had the first all-black starting lineup in NBA history. After the 1966 season, he decided to hand over the coaching reins, but remained with the Celtics as an executive, and he would be affiliated with the organization for the rest of his life. Red Auerbach passed away on October 28, 2006, just shy of attending his 57th straight Celtics game opener in Boston. Red Auerbach was the epitome of the Celtics, and his legendary status made it seem he would live forever. While it is hard to picture the Celtics and the world without him, Red Auerbach has left his mark. His guiding principles-- family, loyalty, teamwork--should not only be taught on the basketball court, but guidelines we should all follow. Red Auerbach leaves behind two daughters, Nancy Collins and Randy; one granddaughter; and three great grandchildren. May we keep his loved ones in our thoughts and prayers, and may his memory live on forever.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the Combating Autism Act. As a member of the Congressional Coalition for Autism Research and Education, and as the uncle of a little boy with autism, I am well- acquainted with the issues faced by families of children with this disorder. I have been struck by the rapid increase in the number of children diagnosed with autism in the last decade, both nationally and in my home State of Rhode Island, and while we do not yet know for certain what causes autism, we do know that early intervention does make a difference in treatment. Mr. Speaker, we must commit ourselves to providing parents, pediatricians, early childhood educators and all those who have contact with very young children the resources and training to identify children who need help early enough to begin effective interventions. The Combating Autism Act is a tremendous step toward an effective national policy of autism research, screening, intervention and education. Like all children, those diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders are individuals with unique talents and abilities. Across the Nation, special education teachers, psychologists and others are working hard to bring these gifts and talents to light and help these children realize their potential. I urge all of my colleagues to support these professionals in their noble work, and these families in their time of need, by voting in favor of the Combating Autism Act. It is the right thing to do. It's an exciting piece of legislation, and I look forward to its passage.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sorrow that I rise to recognize the loss of a brave soldier in Iraq, SGT Michael R. Weidemann, a resident of Newport who served his country with dignity and honor. I join his family and the people of Rhode Island in mourning this great loss. Sergeant Weidemann was born in Canada and moved to Middletown, RI, with his family when he was 7. In 2001, he graduated from Rogers High School, where he attended the Newport Area Career and Technical Center and participated in the automotive program. He was also an honor student and an active member of the JROTC program. One month after graduating from high school, Sergeant Weidemann pursued his interests by enlisting in the Army as an auto mechanic and joined the 1st Battalion, 36th Infantry Regiment of the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division. After serving one tour in Iraq, Sergeant Weidemann was nearing the end of his second tour when, on October 31st, he was killed while on patrol near Hit, in Anbar Province. Those that knew Sergeant Weidemann remember his optimistic personality, his loyalty, his hard work and willingness to fix everything. Most importantly, he had a positive impact on all who knew him. This loss certainly causes us all to reflect on the bravery demonstrated by our men and women in uniform as they carry out their obligations in the face of danger. When Sergeant Weidemann's Nation called him to duty to preserve freedom, liberty and security, he answered without hesitation. We will remember him as a patriot who made the ultimate sacrifice for his country. Sergeant Weidemann is survived by his grandmother, Gertrude K.C. Miller; his sister, Catharine E. Weidemann; and his brothers, Richard L. Weidemann and Edward R. and Benjamin J. Berriault. May we keep his loved ones in our thoughts and prayers as they endure this difficult period, and may his memory live on forever. We will also continue to hope for the safe and speedy return of all of our troops serving throughout the world.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 3187, a bill that would designate a post office located in East Greenwich, R.I., as the ``Richard L. Cevoli Post Office.'' I thank my Rhode Island colleagues in the Senate for introducing this bill to honor U.S. Navy Commander Richard Cevoli, a life-long resident of East Greenwich who proudly served his country in World War II and the Korean War. Richard Cevoli was born in East Greenwich, R.I. in 1919, and graduated from LaSalle Academy and Rhode Island State College, which is now the University of Rhode Island. In World War II, Commander Cevoli was awarded the prestigious Navy Cross for his bravery during the Battle of Leyte Gulf off the Philippines Coast in 1944. In addition to the Navy Cross, Commander Cevoli earned two Distinguished Flying Crosses and eight Air Medals during his active flying career. He was also inducted into the Rhode Island Aviation Hall of Fame. Commander Cevoli died serving his country when his plane crashed during a training mission on January 18, 1955, leaving behind his wife, Grace, and three children, Steven, Carol, and Elizabeth. I ask my colleagues to support S. 3187 so that all Rhode Islanders can be reminded of Commander Cevoli's duty to his country and his impressive accomplishments.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5825, the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act. Since the President's illegal domestic wiretapping program became public, I have called for greater oversight and Congressional involvement to ensure that we can provide our intelligence agencies with the tools needed to fight terrorism while protecting essential civil liberties of Americans. The bill before us today does not meet those standards. As a member of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees, I am fully aware of the dangers posed by those who wish to harm Americans, and I have strongly supported efforts to make our nation safer. However, the Bush Administration has not explained to my satisfaction why powers available under existing law cannot meet the needs of the war on terrorism. For example, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) already permits the warrantless surveillance of communications under certain limited circumstances. Nevertheless, the Bush Administration did not use those emergency powers and instead chose to expand the authority of the National Security Agency (NSA). The President's decision to expand domestic surveillance, while notifying only a handful of legislators, does not constitute Congressional consent and is a danger to our established Constitutional system of checks and balances. I would have been receptive to modifications to FISA that preserved the vital oversight through the creation of the FISA court system. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 5381, the Lawful Intelligence and Surveillance of Terrorists in an Emergency by NSA (LISTEN) Act, introduced by the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, the gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Harman. This legislation would mandate that all monitoring of calls, email records and phone records be carried out in accordance with FISA and further asserts that the 2002 authorization for the NSA domestic surveillance program outside of FISA was not within the Bush Administration's authority. Instead, this legislation gives the President broad authority to continue his domestic surveillance program without approval from the FISA court. It uses judicial and Congressional notification as a substitute for legitimate oversight, and it establishes such broad justifications for surveillance that the Administration will have almost unlimited ability to continue its past practices with little to no changes. Disturbingly, it also removes an important protection of current law that requires the government to certify that its warrantless surveillance of foreign agents would not intercept the communications of U.S. citizens. Once again, the President has sought to expand his own authority at the expense of Americans' civil liberties, and Congress has willingly abdicated its oversight authority. I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure so that we can find a better way to crack down on terrorist who would do us harm while safeguarding the rights of Americans.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act, which is a comprehensive approach to securing our ports. And though not a perfect bill, it surely could have been better, it is an important first step. One of the worst-case scenarios experts fear is that terrorists would be able to smuggle nuclear material across our ports. This is an unacceptable reality that we face today, which highlights just how important it is that we have adequate detection devices at all of our seaports and border crossings. Our radiation portal monitors are our last, best chance to prevent catastrophic nuclear or radiological attack, and our intelligence analysts continue to tell us that the threat is very real. I am glad to see that under this bill all containers entering the U.S. through the 22 busiest seaports will be examined for radiation by the end of next year. While this is certainly a great start, we ultimately need to deploy radiation portal monitors at every point of entry to fully secure our Nation's ports. I am also pleased to see that this bill contains provisions to strengthen the Container Security Initiative. Under the SAFE Port Act, we will have a greater ability to foster communication between the United States and the operators of foreign ports to inspect more U.S.- bound cargo before it reaches our ports. We need to continue to do everything in our power to screen cargo at its point of origin to prevent the dangerous possibility of nuclear material ever reaching our shores. Mr. Speaker, the SAFE Port Act most certainly makes strides in terms of securing our ports, but we must acknowledge that it is just one step in a much larger process. I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to secure our Nation's vulnerable ports. I want to commend both the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work in getting us to this point today. Again, it is an important first step. Let us continue to rededicating ourselves to making sure that we are doing all we can to make sure the American people are safe.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Before I begin, I just wanted to recognize and commend the great service of my friend and colleague, Congressman Hefley, and I have so enjoyed serving with you in a number of capacities, particularly in our work in the Armed Services Committee. We had an opportunity to work on several important issues, and I thank you for being such a gentleman and giving such great service to this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5122 and thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for their hard work. The bill helps our servicemembers and their families, as well as military retirees. It includes a 2.2 percent pay increase for military personnel and much-needed increases to end-strength numbers. It places a 1-year moratorium on cost increase for the TRICARE pharmacy benefit and expands TRICARE eligibility for Reservists, two very important issues to my constituents. I am particularly pleased that H.R. 5122 recommends $400 million to expedite the construction schedule for the Virginia-class submarine so that we can start building two per year as early as 2009. I commend the great work of my friend Congressman Simmons and his leadership on this issue. He is a great partner in this effort. The Navy's current shipbuilding plan would have our submarine fleet drop to dangerously low levels, and this bill understands we cannot allow that to happen. I thank the committee for its leadership in its efforts, all of the staff and all of my colleagues on the committee for their efforts to accomplish these important goals, and I encourage my colleagues to support the measure.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3127, the Sudan Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006, which passed Congress on September 25, and H. Res. 992, which calls for the appointment of a presidential special envoy for Sudan and passed the House on September 26. H.R. 3127 addresses the ongoing violence and humanitarian disaster in the Darfur region by directing the president to impose sanctions on the Government of Sudan as well as freeze the assets of anyone responsible for acts of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity in Sudan. H.R. 3127 also supports the United Nations and NATO to send a civilian protection force to assist the African Union Mission in Sudan. This is especially important since the Sudanese Government is currently refusing to allow U.N. troops into Sudan, which threatens a recent peace agreement and could lead to further violence. I am disappointed, however, that an earlier provision in H.R. 3127 that would have allowed States to make a decision to divest from Sudan was not included in the final version. This conflict has resonated with people all over the world who want this travesty to end. It is a shame that we have not learned from our mistakes in the past regarding genocide, but it is not too late to change the situation in Sudan. We must not stand by as the situation deteriorates in Darfur. It is our duty to end this human suffering, and I will continue to work to stop this conflict and promote peace in Sudan.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that there should be established a ``Let's All Play Day.'' I introduce this bill in support of the goals and ideals of Boundless Playgrounds. I would like to take this opportunity to share these goals and ideals with my colleagues in the House. An estimated six million children in the United States have some type of chronic condition or disability that makes it hard or impossible for them to fully enjoy traditional playgrounds. Those who work with children with disabilities stress the importance of play in their development. Boundless Playgrounds differ from traditional playgrounds in the sense that these playgrounds, and the equipment within the playgrounds, are accessible to all children. They are barrier-free, inclusive and configured to support children's development. Perhaps most importantly, by encouraging children with and without disabilities to play together, these playgrounds provide a space to celebrate similarities and differences and develop essential life skills. I can think of no better way to combat stereotypes than to expose our children to others with disabilities at a young age. Currently, there are more than 100 Boundless Playgrounds in twenty- one states, with more in development. In my own district, a Boundless Playground in Providence, Rhode Island provides many Rhode Island children and their family members the ability to interact and play together. I have been amazed and inspired by how the community has come together in support of this park--most notably the contributions of Hasbro, Inc. Such cooperation is a tremendous testament to Rhode Island's commitment to supporting children who struggle to overcome obstacles. Mr. Speaker, we could all take a lesson from the forethought put into the design of Boundless Playgrounds. In the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act and other initiatives that have encouraged the inclusion of people with disabilities in their communities, I am proud to recognize Boundless Playgrounds for their dedication to all children and families. I hope my colleagues will join me in the effort to acknowledge these extraordinary playgrounds by cosponsoring this resolution.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6166 and am deeply disappointed that Congress has missed an opportunity to act in a bipartisan manner to prosecute those who would do harm to Americans, while ensuring that such efforts would withstand legal scrutiny. In June, the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that President Bush exceeded his authority by establishing military commissions to try detainees in the global war on terrorism without explicit congressional approval. That decision presented Congress with an important opportunity to develop a proposal to try some of the world's most dangerous people and to provide swift justice to those who engaged in horrendous acts against our Nation. Unfortunately, instead of proceeding in a bipartisan manner to craft legislation that enjoys the full confidence of this body, Congress is faced with a proposal negotiated exclusively by Republicans and whose actual effectiveness in prosecuting terrorists remains in question. After the Hamdan decision, the House Armed Services Committee held numerous hearings on how Congress should respond, and I commend the chairman for his efforts to ensure that committee members learned the complexities of this topic. One constant theme we heard from the witnesses testifying was that Congress should ensure that any system established to try military detainees followed existing legal procedures to the greatest extent practicable. On that point, let us be clear. Despite the mischaracterizations of some Members on the floor today, no one has recommended giving terrorists the same rights as criminals or members of our Armed Forces. Everyone recognizes that many of these detainees are dangerous people, and we agree that the judicial system used to try them must reflect the complexities of prosecuting enemy combatants in the midst of an ongoing war. What the legal experts did counsel, though, was that if military commissions did not include basic, broadly accepted principles of jurisprudence, the commissions could be subject to legal challenge. Unfortunately, we have no idea if the legislation before us will withstand such scrutiny because the commissions it would establish vary significantly from other accepted forms of tribunals that have been used to prosecute crimes in times of war. I hope that this legislation does ultimately pass constitutional muster, because it would be a devastating blow to our efforts to combat global terrorism if the conviction of a terrorist were overturned on a legal challenge. However, because I am not confident that the legislation will be upheld, I must oppose it. The other overarching concern I have with this measure is the impact it will have on the United States' obligations under the Geneva Conventions. The legislation would give the President broad authority to interpret U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions and would create confusion about which practices would be prohibited. The Supreme Court specifically stated in Hamdan that basic protections of the Geneva Conventions' Common Article 3 apply to detainees, but the legislation actually complicates compliance with Common Article 3 by creating new definitions of offenses that do not comport with international law. Unfortunately, this change could endanger our own men and women in uniform by encouraging other nations to redefine how they treat captured prisoners. We would not want other nations to offer anything other than full Geneva protections to our own troops, and we must therefore respect the concept of reciprocity on which the Conventions were established. As Colin Powell noted, respecting the Geneva Conventions not only protects our own servicemembers, but it affirms our commitment to international standards of law and justice at a time when our moral authority in the global war on terrorism is increasingly being questioned. I am deeply disappointed that, on a matter of such importance to the American people, Congress did not act in a careful and bipartisan fashion to establish a system of military commissions that can protect the American people and withstand legal scrutiny. Instead, the leadership is forcing this measure through the House while ignoring some very valid concerns. I simply ask where their sense of urgency was nearly 5 years ago when the President established military tribunals without congressional input. Some of my Democratic colleagues have argued for years that we need greater congressional involvement in the justice system for military detainees, but those appeals were ignored. Once again, Congress has abdicated its constitutional oversight responsibility for too long and, when finally forced to act, has chosen partisanship over sound policy. I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure so that we can craft an alternative that is tough on terrorists while meeting our legal and international obligations.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that Americans have paid record high prices at the gas pump this summer, the Bush administration and the Republican friends in this body have voted to give tax breaks to big oil companies. At the same time, they refuse to move forward on policies to achieve energy independence and keep our Nation from relying so heavily on foreign oil. Now American families are facing a long winter of high home heating bills with no end in sight. Mr. Speaker, Democrats strongly believe that this body should not adjourn until action is taken to address the energy concerns of all Americans. We support a comprehensive policy that will roll back the tax cuts for big oil companies and invest the savings into developing alternative fuels and achieving energy independence. Keeping fuel prices under control is essential to working Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. Mr. Speaker, in light of the Republican leadership's unwillingness to address the energy concerns of American families, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 4479, a bill to repeal subsidies for big oil companies and give them to consumers, low-income heating programs, and small businesses.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to call on my colleagues in Congress to refocus their efforts on comprehensive immigration reform. What we need is not to debate and pass a bunch of bills that duplicate legislation already passed by the House--legislation that has little chance of passage in the Senate. What we need is to get back on track with what the bipartisan 9/11 Commission has repeatedly called for-- comprehensive immigration reform. Only when we enact comprehensive reform will we be truly effective in securing our Nation's borders. Today we are considering three bills, which do little to fix our Nation's illegal immigration problems. We need to do more, and we need to do it in a sensible, bipartisan and comprehensive fashion. The American people expect Congress to secure our borders, and that extends to understanding who currently resides in our country and why they are here. Just as importantly, in considering border security legislation, we need to focus on securing weapons of mass destruction to ensure they do not make their way through our ports of entry. I find it redundant and unnecessary that we are going back to consider legislation that has already been passed by this body when there is so much unfinished business we ought to be focusing on. We need to focus on ``smart security'' and develop a comprehensive plan. I continue to support the Kolbe-Flake-Gutierrez bill, which is a broad and multi-faceted approach to securing our borders. Under this legislation, we would hire and train more border patrol agents to secure our borders, improve our surveillance technology, and require employers to verify the status of their employees. This proactive approach ensures we keep those wishing to harm us out of our country and allows us to ascertain precisely who is in our country and why they are here. We also need to refocus our efforts on monitoring exactly which materials come through our borders. As the lead Democrat on the Subcommittee for the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack, I have called for the installation of radiation portal monitors at designated ports of entry to screen all inbound cargo for radiological or nuclear materials. I am dedicated to ensuring we have this important technology at every entry point. However, instead of addressing these real problems, the Republican leadership has chosen to bring up legislation that we have already passed--not because they want a solution to our immigration problem, but because they need to distract the American public from their inability to accomplish any real reforms. My Democratic colleagues and I have fought for increased funding for more border patrol agents, detention beds, and immigration and customs agents, but Republicans have voted against those efforts 10 times. I call on my colleagues to refocus their efforts to enact a comprehensive immigration plan. Time in the 109th Congress is quickly running out, and we are doing our country a disservice when we focus on political rhetoric instead of real solutions. It is time to get back on track with what the bipartisan 9/11 Commission has tasked us with-- comprehensive reform.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4844 because of the dangerous impact it would have on voter participation in the United States. When I was Secretary of State, I led an effort to reform our elections. We replaced our outdated voting equipment, made polling places accessible, and significantly reduced error rates. My job was to make voting open and accessible to eligible citizens, and to encourage people to participate in the process. From that experience, I know this legislation would practically do nothing to reduce fraud, while creating new barriers for Americans to vote. Should H.R. 4844 become law, fewer eligible citizens will be able to vote because they lack proper identification or documentation. Maybe it is an elderly woman who leaves her home of 50 years to enter an assisted-living facility. It could be a resident of New Orleans whose public records were lost in Hurricane Katrina. The list goes on and on. However, these people have one thing in common: Once they are turned away from voting, it is unlikely they will return. They may not return that day because of a lack of time or transportation; or they may not return in future elections because of the hassle they experienced. New obstacles to voting will cause many to drop out of the Nation's election system because it failed them. Not only would the bill make it harder for every American to vote, but it would also add massive new compliance requirements for election officials. It also unnecessarily duplicates current law, which requires that voters in Federal elections be U.S. citizens. Fraudulent voter registration is a felony punishable by 5 years in prison. Furthermore, the bill does not address other, more prevalent forms of voter fraud and additional problems that we have witnessed in recent elections. Mr. Speaker, Congress has a proud record of removing barriers and increasing the opportunity of all Americans to vote. It guaranteed the right to vote to citizens whose only disqualification was the color of their skin. It opened polling places to the disabled. It extended the franchise to Americans living overseas. It did all of this on a bipartisan basis and while maintaining the integrity of our elections. H.R. 4844 is a step away from that proud tradition because it would erect new barriers for eligible citizens and disenfranchise many Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4844 so that we may preserve the most precious right, the right to vote.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. This bill is not about border security or terrorism prevention, as the name implies, but is rather a gimmick and will not in fact solve our nation's border and immigration problems. We need to focus on ``smart security'' and develop a comprehensive plan. Only then will we truly secure our borders and ensure our safety as Americans. This bill strays far from those priorities and is opposed by almost every reasonable business, labor, and civil liberties advocacy group in the country. The bill before us does not provide any specific dollar amounts to build the mandated fence, and nowhere does the bill even authorize additional Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or Customs officers needed to secure the border. Blindly erecting a fence, without taking into consideration the needs of the area and the men and women who work on the front lines of our borders is not effective and we can do better. We need to focus on ``smart security,'' and we need to do it now. It is extremely important to know who is entering our country and who is already here. We need to focus on strengthening our borders by improving our surveillance technology, deploying more border patrol agents, and providing them with the materials they need to effectively do their jobs. This is why I am proud to support Mr. Thompson's substitute amendment. The substitute amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive border security strategy by deploying at least 3,000 additional Border Patrol agents and 2,000 additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at our borders each year for the next four years. The substitute also provides helicopters, portable computers, radio communications and hand-held global positioning devices so the agents have all of the resources they need to get the job done. Mr. Thompson's substitute also ends our ineffective ``Catch and Release'' practice. We need to ensure that we have adequate space in which to house people until we determine who they are and why they are here. It is unacceptable that illegal immigrants have been released after being charged with a crime simply because there is not adequate space in which to detain them. The substitute authorizes 100,000 additional detention bed spaces through FY 2010 to assist with the detention of undocumented individuals. We also need to refocus our efforts on monitoring precisely which materials come through our borders. As the lead Democrat on the Subcommittee for the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack, I have called for the installation of radiation portal monitors at designated ports of entry to screen all inbound cargo for radiological or nuclear materials. I am dedicated to ensuring we have this important technology at every entry point. Although erecting a security fence in specifically targeted areas may be necessary, it needs to be part of a much larger comprehensive plan. In order to employ a plan that is truly effective, we need to take into consideration all of these factors, not just a select few. Rhetorical bills proposing a quick fix will not secure our borders, and I will not support legislation that does not propose a comprehensive solution. I am proud to support Mr. Thompson's substitute amendment, and I urge my colleagues to follow suit.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sorrow that I rise to recognize the loss of a brave soldier in Iraq, Sergeant Moises Jazmin, a Rhode Island resident who served his country with dignity and honor. I join his family and the people of Rhode Island in mourning this great loss. Sergeant Jazmin grew up in Providence, RI, and attended Central High School until he enlisted in the Army at the age of 17. He is remembered as a committed and loving member of his tight-knit family. Sergeant Jazmin was serving in Iraq in the 1st Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment, 1st Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division. On Sunday, August 27, he was on patrol when an improvised explosive device detonated near their Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The blast killed him and three other soldiers in his unit. This loss causes us to reflect on the bravery demonstrated by our men and women in uniform as they carry out their obligations in the face of danger. When Sergeant Jazmin's nation called him to duty, he answered without hesitation. We will remember him as a patriot who made the ultimate sacrifice for his country. Sergeant Jazmin is survived by his parents, Leon and Rosa, and many other friends and family members. May we keep his loved ones in our thoughts and prayers as they endure this difficult period. We will also continue to hope for the safe and speedy return of all of our troops serving throughout the world.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to join my colleagues and millions of Americans in mourning and honoring those who bravely lost their lives on September 11, 5 years ago. Their memories must be honored and they must not be forgotten, and we must ensure that they did not die in vain. It is our job as elected officials to learn from those vulnerabilities that terrorists were able to exploit to ensure that similar tragedies never happen again. Unfortunately, the resolution before us today places politics ahead of honoring our fallen heroes, and it does nothing to ensure that our Nation becomes safer. It is nothing but a divisive and partisan measure that allows Republicans to pat themselves on the back and give them peace of mind. Well, I refuse to be complacent. There is simply too much that remains to be done to secure our homeland. We need to get back on track in implementing the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. Our borders, ports, and virtually every entry into our country remain unsecured, and the 9/11 Public Discourse Project has given the administration a D on their efforts to protect against weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Speaker, one of the worst case scenarios experts fear is that terrorists would be able to smuggle nuclear material across our borders or through our ports. This is an unacceptable reality. As the lead Democrat on the Subcommittee for the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack, I have called for the installation of radiation portal monitors at designated ports of entry to screen all inbound cargo for radiological and nuclear materials in and at our border crossings. Mr. Speaker, we need to significantly strengthen our radiation detection technology, and we need to do it now. Five years after the terrorists attacked our country, we still lack the capability to identify exactly what comes through our ports. I urge my colleagues to refocus our efforts on implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, as this is truly the way to honor the heroes who lost their lives on that devastating day 5 years ago.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sorrow that I rise to recognize the loss of a brave Marine in Iraq, Lance Corporal Eric Valdepenas, who served his country with dignity and honor. I join his family and the people of Rhode Island and Massachusetts in mourning this great loss. Lance Corporal Valdepenas, a resident of Seekonk, Massachusetts, was a graduate of Bishop Hendricken High School in Warwick, Rhode Island, my own alma mater. He was an honors student and co-captain of the school's championship lacrosse team. He is remembered by his teachers and classmates as having tremendous energy and an exceptional character. After high school, he attended the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and was pursuing an engineering degree when his Marine Reserve unit was called up in December 2005. Lance Corporal Valdepenas served with the 1st Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment, 4th Marine Division. He demonstrated the same commitment and positive attitude in Iraq that his family and friends knew well, and he earned numerous military awards, including the Purple Heart. On September 4, while on patrol in al Anbar province, an improvised explosive device detonated next to his vehicle, killing him and two other Marines. This loss causes us to reflect on the bravery demonstrated by our men and women in uniform as they carry out their obligations in the face of danger. When Lance Corporal Valdepenas's nation called him to duty, he answered without hesitation. We will remember him as a patriot who made the ultimate sacrifice for his country. He is survived by his parents, Jesus and Ann-Marie, and seven siblings Marie Drury, Karen Ing, Nora Lough, and Teresa, Edna-Anne, Neil, and Sean Valdepenas. They will remember his great love for his family, his loyalty and his kindness. May we keep them and other friends and family in our thoughts and prayers as they endure this difficult period. We will also continue to hope for the safe and speedy return of all of our troops serving throughout the world.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve an up-or-down vote on the minimum wage and not have it tied to a poison pill that is designed to kill that increase. That is not what we are getting tonight. Mr. Speaker, I am outraged that men and women across this country go to work, working 40 hours a week, often more, and can't even make ends meet. The minimum wage hasn't been increased since 1997. Workers in Rhode Island, for example, have to earn approximately three times the minimum wage just to afford a basic two-bedroom apartment. A majority in this House supports an increase in the minimum wage, but the Republican leadership only wants to help a privileged few. To put this in perspective, thousands of families in Rhode Island and millions of families across America would benefit from a minimum wage increase, while the Republican tax plan would help a handful of the wealthiest. This costly political stunt will add billions of dollars per year to our national debt and demonstrates the Republicans' misguided priorities. It is time for a new direction. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this sham bill and supporting a stand-alone vote to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. It is the right thing to do for the American people.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express some concerns with the bill before us, but also to urge my colleagues to find ways to encourage the careful development of meaningful health information technology systems. It is critical that we move rapidly toward the development and implementation of an electronic health information system, but it also is critical that this be done with great forethought and integrity. I regret that I cannot support the bill before us today because it fails to include critical components mandating quality in our health care technology systems. Furthermore, I echo the concerns of my colleagues regarding the need for patient privacy standards and important consumer protections. This is a missed opportunity for our nation's health care system. The goal of moving health care from pen and paper to the digital age has enjoyed bipartisan support. I am troubled that the bill presented to the House of Representatives today fails to meet the standards of the bipartisan coalition spearheaded by my colleague, Patrick Kennedy. In recent years, I have been proud to see the health care community in Rhode Island come together to accelerate the use of health information technology in our state. One project in particular--and this is just one of many--called EHR-RI, has brought together physicians, hospital administrators and insurance company representatives to focus on the goals of getting this technology into physicians' offices and aiding in the often-complicated transition to new systems. The health care community recognizes the need to compromise and work in collaboration to achieve the goals of using technology to help patients and their families. Because the efficient use of technology is central to our efforts to control costs and increase quality in health care, I urge my colleagues in Congress to follow their lead. Support stronger legislation that would truly advance the electronic health information exchange in our nation's health care system.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as a proud member of the Hellenic Caucus, I wish to recognize the 32nd Anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. On July 20, 1974, under the pretense of peace-keeping operations, Turkish forces occupied northern Cyprus and gained de facto control in the annexed territory. Today we remember those who lost their lives, the barrier that was erected, and the political upheaval it created. Sadly, despite attempts by the United Nations for a reunification settlement, the country remains divided. On this anniversary, in addition to mourning and remembering, let us also look forward as positive developments have recently occurred. Earlier this month, Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat agreed to begin a process of bilateral discussions to find a comprehensive settlement to the ongoing Cyprus problem. Both sides recognize that the status quo is deplorable and its prolongation will continue to have negative consequences for both Turkish and Greek Cypriots. The Set of Principles agreed to by the leaders includes a commitment to the unification of Cyprus based on a bizonal, bi-communal federation and political equality, as set out in Security Council resolutions. Discussions would immediately commence to focus upon issues that affect the day-to-day life of the people while addressing those that concern substantive issues, both of which will contribute to a comprehensive settlement. This momentous agreement is the first step to engage in direct negotiations since Cyprus's admission to the European Union on May 1, 2004. Recent events represent great triumphs for the Cyprus state and affirm Cyprus's willingness and determination to diplomatically resolve the decades-old inter-communal conflict. U.S. support, in conjunction with the U.N. and EU, will play an integral role in ensuring successful Cypriot negotiations. The United States must consider Cyprus as one of our nation's top foreign policy priorities. As Americans, we must guarantee that our foreign policy reflects our values of justice, equality and responsibility, and promoting a lasting peace and stability in Cyprus will help further those values. The United States holds a unique position of trust with both Greece and Turkey, and we must use our influence to work toward a solution that is acceptable and equitable to all of Cyprus's residents. The European Union will also play an important role in charting the future of Cyprus. I was a strong advocate of Cyprus's admission to the EU because Cyprus, like the United States, shares a commitment to democracy, human rights, and the concept of equal justice under the law. Also, the EU's consideration of Turkey's application for membership provides a prime opportunity for needed reforms. If Turkey wishes to increase its global profile and to gain the world's respect, it must earn it by demonstrating its commitment to peace in Cyprus, as well as other important priorities such as ending the blockade of Armenia. Members of the EU have expressed similar concerns, and I have urged Secretary Rice to emphasize those factors as the EU continues its deliberations. Despite the obstacles and disappointments we have experienced in the past, we cannot abandon our vision of a Cyprus that is again unified and able to reach its fullest potential in the international arena. The United States has stood beside her in the past, and we will undoubtedly maintain this strong relationship for years to corne. Again, I thank my colleagues on the Hellenic Caucus for their recognition of this important event.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 5684, the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. Once again, the Administration has not met its promise to work with both sides of the aisle to craft a fair trade agreement. While I favor expanding trade and eliminating restrictive tariffs and barriers, the U.S.-Oman agreement does not create a fair playing field for United States companies and workers to compete. Oman is an important ally in the Middle East, and I respect their friendship. However, their labor laws are insufficient to create a level playing field for American companies. At this point, Oman apparently only meets three of the International Labor Organization's five core labor standards. There are no labor unions in Oman, and Oman's workers do not have the right to collectively bargain. Oman's lack of core labor standards alone should be reason enough to oppose the agreement. Unfortunately, this agreement could also cede our ability to select companies to operate our own ports. As the President learned during the Dubai Ports World controversy just a few months ago, the American people want control over our critical transportation infrastructure, but language in this free trade agreement specifically permits foreign companies to operate our ports as long as the company operates a port in Oman. In 2005, Rhode Island companies exported approximately $158,000 to Oman, or about .01 percent of the State's worldwide exports. We must go back to the drawing board to ensure American companies, American jobs, and American security are not left behind for such a small price. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 5684 and encouraging the Administration to renegotiate a more equitable agreement.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her exceptional leadership, along with Congressman Mike Castle's leadership on this exceptional and important issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express profound disappointment in the decision of the President to veto H.R. 810. This legislation passed with strong bipartisan support in both Chambers of Congress. It enjoys the support of upwards of 70 percent of the American people and, most importantly, it offers hope and the promise of a cure to the millions of people who are living with the constant challenge and burdens of chronic disease and disability. Mr. Speaker, when I was injured in an accidental shooting as a young police cadet almost 26 years ago, I was told that I would never walk again. The promise of embryonic stem cell research was at that time unheard of. While I always held out hope that I would one day walk again, it was not until the tremendous potential and advances in the field of stem cell research that I truly understood how a cure might work. Today I am thrilled to be able to share this hope with millions of others. We live in exciting times. Today, newly injured patients, many of them teenagers, as I was, are told about developing treatments and scientific progress. They face the world with many of the same challenges I faced in 1980, but they also face the world with the hope and real promise of a cure. Under the current policy, however, that promise is limited. Embryonic stem cell research has been limited to the lines derived before August 9, 2001, the date of the President's policy announcement. When the President announced his policy almost 5 years ago, even he acknowledged the tremendous potential of embryonic stem cell research. In fact, that policy allows the research to proceed but only in a very limited way. The resources that we had in 2001 have run out. This research cannot truly move forward without a change in policy. That is why I am disheartened by the President's decision today. H.R. 810 was crafted according to the ethical guidelines outlined by the President, and it is why I will vote to override his veto today. It authorizes research only on excess embryos originally created for in vitro fertilization but which are slated for destruction. It requires informed, voluntary consent of the donor. The only change to existing policy would be the lifting of the cutoff date of August 9. This is, in fact, not a debate about the ethics of stem cell research, or a debate about when life begins. It is a debate about a date. H.R. 810 offers our nation's scientists the tools they need to proceed down this historic path. Stem cell research represents the most noble activity in which our government can engage: the protection, promotion, and, indeed, affirmation of the lives of our most vulnerable citizens. With millions of American patients and their families in mind, I will proudly cast my vote today to override the President's veto. I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of the override.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of our Nation's scientists and medical research. Today the Senate passed three bills. Now, I believe that it is important to pursue all types of research, and the bill that we are debating presently is something that NIH and our researchers can already do. But let me be very clear: only H.R. 810, which this Chamber passed over a year ago, H.R. 810 is the only bill that holds the tremendous potential to cure some of life's most challenging conditions and diseases. Mr. Speaker, we stand at the threshold of a new generation in medical research. I believe firmly that H.R. 810 and stem cell research will fundamentally change the course of medicine within the next decade and well into the future in so many ways. We are limited only by the bounds of our own imagination. As long as our Nation's scientists and medical researchers have the tools and resources that they need, I believe that there is no limit to what they can cure. H.R. 810 and stem cell research offers the hope to cure Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, juvenile diabetes, and even spinal cord injuries. Mr. Speaker, I remember a time more than 25 years ago when I stood in the locker room of the police station as a young police cadet. A police officer's gun accidentally went off. That bullet went through my neck and severed my spinal cord. I have been paralyzed ever since. I was told that I would never walk again. But, Mr. Speaker, today is an exciting time in medical research. I firmly believe in a day in the very near future when a child with juvenile diabetes will not have to endure a lifetime of painful shots and tests; that families will not have to watch in agony as a loved one with Alzheimer's gradually declines; and, Mr. Speaker, I believe in a day when I will walk again. Today, Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to move research forward. H.R. 810 removes the restrictions that have been placed on it and offers hope to millions of Americans and people around the world. This is an important time. I ask the President not to veto this bill, but to join with us in passing H.R. 810 and changing the world for the better.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. Throughout my career in public service, I have fought to protect Americans' most fundamental right--the right to vote. As the secretary of state of Rhode Island, I worked to ensure the accuracy of our elections and to guarantee that all eligible voters were able to cast a ballot. I have the most profound respect for the great Americans who came before us and who worked tirelessly to fight injustice in our electoral system. We honor their service and their sacrifice today by reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation. The Voting Rights Act has proven extremely effective in expanding the freedom to vote to citizens who had previously been disenfrachised, and, as a result, minorities have been able to participate in elections at record levels. However, while we have made significant progress, recent cases of voter intimidation and discrimination demonstrate that we have more to accomplish. We need to reauthorize this landmark legislation so that we may build on past progress. The Voting Rights Act's strength lies in its mandate that states not use tests of any kind to determine a citizen's eligibility to vote, and in its requirement that states with a history of unfair voting practices obtain federal approval before enacting any election laws that may have a discriminatory effect. I am deeply disturbed that a vocal contingent of Republicans wants to weaken this bipartisan legislation by gutting the very provisions that have made the Voting Rights Act one of the greatest legislative accomplishments in our history. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendments we will consider today and to support final passage of H.R. 9 so that we may continue to protect the most precious right of Americans--the right to vote.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it has been 6 months since the Republican prescription drug plan went into effect, and we are seeing prices shoot up faster than they have in 6 years. That's right, prices have increased by almost 4 percent in the last 6 months. Weren't Republicans promising prices would actually go down after their plan took effect? The reason drug prices are not falling is because the Republican law forbids the Federal Government from using the purchasing power of 40 million seniors to actually negotiate for lower prices, an issue I raised when this prescription drug plan was first taken up by this House. That is exactly what the Veterans Administration does for America's veterans. According to a report released last month, veterans' drug bills are 43 percent lower than seniors' bills as a result. Well, today, thanks to a Republican plan that was written here in the back rooms by the pharmaceutical industry, these companies can charge our seniors any price they want. Unlike our Republican colleagues, House Democrats actually want to help our seniors. We want to give the Federal Government the ability to negotiate for lower prices, something that is good for our seniors and good for the American taxpayer.