Jim Langevin

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Brittany Gilbert, who had the great honor of presenting her exhibit, ``John James Audubon: The American Woodsman Taking a Stand,'' at the Smithsonian American Art Museum's Renwick Gallery before the National History Day contest. Brittany, a student at North Kingstown High School, and 18 other students were chosen out of more than 2,000 participating finalists. The National History Day program allows students to create exhibits, documentaries and performances, by using their critical thinking and research skills in the subject of history. A basic knowledge of history is essential for our Nation's children to become informed participants in our democracy, and National History Day is promoting history education in Rbode Island and throughout the Nation. National History Day empowers teachers to improve history education so that every student will have historical knowledge and skills to contribute to the public good of our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Brittany, and may she have continued success in all her future endeavors.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey amendment. I acknowledge that this is a controversial issue, and it has been a difficult decision for me. While scientific evidence is inconclusive and the medical community has yet to speak with one voice as to whether there is a unique, therapeutic benefit to inhaled marijuana, some studies suggest that marijuana can relieve pain, nausea, and appetite loss. I have heard from many patients, suffering from some of life's most challenging conditions, who have informed me that the therapeutic value of inhaled marijuana is unmatched. I have always supported further study of medical marijuana because of the potential to ease the suffering of the many Americans dealing with chronic illness and disease While I have not supported amendments similar to this one in the past, the issue is different for me this year, as the Representative from the Second Congressional District of Rhode Island. Since we last debated this issue in June 2005, the state legislature of Rhode Island has passed--and the state Department of Health has implemented--a law allowing for legal access to medical marijuana. Under this law, the state established a registry that issues identification cards to qualifying patients or caregivers who register with the state. These patients, who suffer from an approved list of conditions including cancer, multiple sclerosis and AIDS, must provide certification from a Rhode Island physician. Once approved in the registry, the patient or a designated caregiver is permitted to possess up to a certain amount of cultivated marijuana and to grow up to 12 marijuana plants. The statewide discussion over the issue made clear that my constituents overwhelmingly support regulated access to marijuana for medical purposes; and the state legislature responded with overwhelming support by overriding a governor's veto with significantly more than the necessary 2/3 support in each chamber. I am aware that I now represent some constituents who are using medical marijuana, in compliance with state laws. I am also aware that under federal law, these Rhode Island patients run the risk of being arrested and prosecuted for federal drug offenses--and this troubles me greatly. My vote for the Hinchey amendment should not be interpreted as an unconditional endorsement of medical marijuana. I do believe the therapy deserves further clinical trials and scientific scrutiny. As we move forward with these policy discussions, we must bear in mind that marijuana is a narcotic and therapeutic usage must be carefully controlled. However, I rise today in support of the Hinchey amendment because I do not want my constituents, or those of the ten other states that have passed similar laws, to live in fear of arrest when they are complying with state law. I urge my colleagues to support the Hinchey amendment, as well as the further study of the therapeutic value of medical marijuana.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that, on Monday, the House passed S. Con. Res. 103, though I am disappointed by the events that necessitated its consideration. Last September, when the House considered H.R. 889, the Coast Guard Authorization Act, I expressed my concern about a provision that would have altered the existing evaluation and approval process for the Cape Wind project, a 420 megawatt offshore wind farm proposed for Horseshoe Shoal off the coast of Massachusetts. That project is currently undergoing a thorough review process that is working with numerous federal and state agencies, as well as interested parties, to assess potential impacts to the environment, navigation and other areas of concern. When the House and Senate went to conference, I wrote to the head House conferees, explaining the strong support in Rhode Island for the project and cautioning about the potential negative ramifications of the provision on the growing wind energy industry, which will help diversify our Nation's energy supply by providing a clean and renewable source to millions of Americans. Much to my dismay, during conference negotiations, a much broader restriction on the project was inserted--language that had not been considered by either the House or Senate--that would essentially circumvent the existing project by giving the Governor of Massachusetts veto power over this particular project. At a time when our Nation's economy is endangered by our dependence on foreign oil, we should be encouraging clean and renewable energy development, not blocking it. To protest this last-minute back-room conference deal, I joined the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Bass, in leading an effort to ask the House leadership to prevent the consideration of any final agreement on the Coast Guard bill that contained language endangering the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts. I am pleased that widespread public opposition to the language forced it to be removed from the bill, and I will continue my efforts to promote the responsible development of clean and renewable energy in Congress.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding and for drawing attention to the important issue of climate change. Last week, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that ``the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years.'' We can no longer ignore the fact that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, have increased carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and contributed to changes in the Earth's climate. The Pallone amendment recognizes that climate change threatens our coastal communities. In States like Rhode Island, which has about 400 miles of coastline and a significant portion of the population lives along the coast, the impact of rising sea levels would be downright disastrous. Beach erosion would lead to greater flooding and endanger our tourism-based economy, while the destruction of wetlands would eradicate wildlife habitat and reduce the natural buffer against storm surges. Mr. Chairman, global warming threatens to have a devastating impact on our Nation's environment and economy, and Congress must take swift action. We can start by funding important research into climate change impacts on our communities. And I urge my colleagues to support the Pallone amendment.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday night, the House passed H.R. 5631, the Defense Appropriations Act for FY2007. I commend Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha for crafting an important piece of legislation that will provide our men and women in uniform with the resources they need to continue their excellent record of service to the Nation. I was proud to vote for that measure, which passed by an overwhelming vote of 407-19. However, I am disappointed that the House did not pass a very important amendment offered by Congressman Schiff to block funding for any surveillance program that does not comply with the safeguards in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I have been deeply disturbed by the President's decision to expand domestic surveillance of U.S. citizens beyond what is permitted under existing law. 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, President Bush has not yet explained to my satisfaction why powers available to him under existing law cannot meet the needs of the war on terrorism. For example, the Foreign Intelligence Service Act (FISA) already permits the warrantless surveillance of communications by U.S. citizens 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). As I have said before, if President Bush believes that FISA needs to be altered or updated to address new threats, he should make his case to Congress and propose legislative changes. 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. While Americans may disagree about the merits of broadening the government's authority to combat terrorism, it is in all of our interests that such important decisions should be made publicly, as they affect the very values of freedom and liberty on which the Nation was founded. Opponents of the Schiff amendment argued that we shouldn't be considering such a significant change in a spending bill. Under normal circumstances, I would agree with that assessment. However, because the House has neglected to consider any legislation to address the serious issue of domestic surveillance, we are left with no other choice. We cannot continue to shirk our Constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight of the executive branch and its activities. We must hold hearings and consider legislation to ensure that our efforts to protect our nation are done consistent with the civil liberties that we hold dear and comply with the Constitution--the supreme law of the land.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5573, the Health Centers Renewal Act. By reauthorizing the health center program, we will ensure that community health centers are able to continue the delivery of cost-effective, high quality care to medically underserved communities. It is important to note that community health centers are the primary providers of health care to America's poor and medically underserved. For over 30 years, they have been responsible for bringing doctors, basic health services and facilities into the Nation's neediest and most isolated communities. Community health centers provide quality primary health care in over 20 locations to one out of ten Rhode Islanders throughout my home state. With increasing numbers of Americans losing access to employer- sponsored health coverage as a result of recent increases in unemployment and the rising cost of health care, it is more important than ever to support people and programs devoted to filling in the gaps. Without the services of community health centers, we would see even more over-crowding in our emergency rooms and unnecessary declines in quality of life for those who lack access to other forms of preventative care. Health centers do a tremendous job of managing the problems that exist in our broken health care system. But they cannot continue to do it alone. As we join together today to reauthorize the health center programs, I hope my colleagues will take this opportunity to reflect on the health care crisis that exists in America. I have introduced legislation that proposes a universal system of health care, offering access to coverage for all Americans. Under my proposal, all Americans would have the opportunity to participate in a program modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), which has provided Members of Congress, their staffs and other federal employees with quality health care over many years. With a commitment and partnership from businesses, consumers and the government, we could offer this kind of coverage and oversight to all Americans. Recent developments in Massachusetts and other parts of the country have shown us that the business community and Americans are ready to participate in such a system--it is now up to us, as Congress, to take on this Issue. Mr. Speaker, once again I call on Congress to join me in the effort to develop a universal health insurance program that will include all Americans. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of programs that make health care available to at-risk individuals in underserved communities and vote in favor of H.R. 5573.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to have a frank discussion about the Iraq war. We need to make hard choices to ensure that our presence in Iraq does not do long-term damage to our military or endanger the men and women who proudly defend our Nation. However, this resolution doesn't address any of those questions nor does it provide answers for a Nation that demands them. Instead, Republicans have given us more of the same. In October 2002, I voted against the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, but since then, I have supported every supplemental appropriations measure to fund our troops because it is Congress's responsibility to give them the resources needed to accomplish their mission. It is precisely that support for the troops that motivates me to point out how we may do irreparable harm to our military if we do not alter our mission in Iraq quickly. Our men and women in uniform have performed admirably in difficult conditions--in many cases adapting quickly to missions outside their traditional roles, such as policing and reconstruction. However, the current pace of operations is untenable, and we are seeing evidence of the impact it is having on our military. Our troops have faced numerous deployments to the area, with the National Guard and Reserve in particular demand because of their expertise in needed skills such as policing, civil affairs, and engineering. Nearly 500,000 members of the Selected Reserves have been mobilized since September 11, with more than 10,000 members having been deployed more than three times. We are spending more and more money in an attempt to meet recruiting and retention goals in the active military and reserve components, and we are nevertheless starting to see increasingly more mid-level officers exiting the force--a dangerous sign for the future health of the military. Furthermore, the harsh desert conditions in Iraq--coupled with the high operational tempo--have taken their toll on our equipment, which is wearing out at twice to nine times the normal rate. The National Guard has only one-third of its equipment on hand, which weakens our ability to respond to a natural disaster or other major event on U.S. soil. Despite the billions we have provided in supplemental appropriations, it will take years and tens of billions more dollars to restore our forces to appropriate levels. General Barry McCaffrey recently traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan to assess U.S. operations there. Upon his return, he briefed the Armed Services Committee on his findings and gave us a very frank assessment. He has stated that we should know by the end of the year whether the new Iraqi government will be effective in controlling the insurgency. He has also claimed that we cannot sustain our current level of operations beyond Christmas without breaking our military and endangering our ability to fight future missions. In other words, we are quite possibly six months away from a point of no return that could have long-ranging effects on our military and the stability of the Middle East. So what is our strategy to prevent the worst-case scenario from occurring? Where is the accountability? Where is the Congressional oversight? I'll tell you one thing--they're not in the resolution we're debating today. The Republican leadership promised a debate on Iraq but then refused to consider any alternatives to their own bill, preferring to embrace the status quo and ignore the very difficult decisions this Congress needs to make. We deserve better. Our brave men and women in uniform deserve better. The American people deserve better.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to Michael J. Day, who tragically died in the line of duty earlier this week. Mr. Day, the Deputy Assistant Fire Chief and 27-year veteran of the Providence Fire Department, was dedicated to his profession and to serving his community. On June 13, Mr. Day had returned to the Washington Street Fire House after responding to a fire earlier in the night. As the overnight shift began, Michael had been working in his office when a coworker found him unconscious. While his fellow firefighters did all in their power to resuscitate him, they were unable to do so. A lifelong resident of Providence, Mr. Day came from a family of firefighters, which included his father and three brothers. He attended LaSalle Academy and after graduating from the fire academy, he was appointed to the Providence Fire Department in 1979. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in Physical Education from Rhode Island College in 1980 and another B.A. in Fire Science at Providence College in 1981. Michael was promoted to Lieutenant in 1989, the same year he was honored as the Providence Firefighter of the Year and received the Heroic Action commendation for rescuing four people from the roof of a burning house. This was just one of many times he would be recognized for his outstanding service and courage on the job. He was promoted to Captain in 1995, Battalion Chief in 2000, and most recently to Deputy Assistant Fire Chief on June 30, 2005. He oversaw operations at multiple fire stations and was the top ranking officer of his shift. Michael had just completed his final class in the Executive Officer program at the National Fire Academy. As a beloved father figure to his fellow firefighters, I have no doubt that Michael Day will leave a lasting legacy to the entire Providence Fire Department and the Providence community. I extend my condolences to all who knew and loved Michael Day, especially his wife, Cynthia; his son, Michael; and his daughters, Amanda, Brianne and Stephanie. May we keep his loved ones in our thoughts and prayers as they endure this difficult period.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I know that it is Congress's responsibility to give our troops the resources needed to accomplish their mission. It is a responsibility that I take very seriously. It is precisely that support for the troops that motivates me to warn that we may be doing irreparable harm to our military if we do not alter our mission in Iraq quickly. General Barry McCaffrey recently shared his frank assessment of operations in Iraq. He said we should know by year's end whether the new Iraqi Government can effectively control the insurgency. He has argued that we cannot sustain our current level of operations beyond Christmas without breaking our military and endangering our ability to fight future missions. In other words, we are quite possibly 6 months away from a point of no return that could have long-ranging effects on our military and the stability of the Middle East and on our ability to defend this Nation. So what is our strategy to prevent the worst case scenario? Where is the oversight and accountability? Well, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you one thing. It is not in the resolution that we are debating today. The Republican leadership prefers to embrace the status quo and ignore the very difficult decisions this Congress needs to make. We deserve better. Our men and women in uniform deserve better, and the American people deserve better.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Democratic Pacific Union, DPU, whose goals include promoting democratic values, peace and prosperity among its member states. The DPU is an important development in the steady expansion of democracy among Pacific states. Led mainly by Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian and Vice President Lu Hsiu-lien, the Democratic Pacific Union was created last summer on the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II. In less than a year, the DPU has grown to 28 member democracies and has already compiled an impressive record of accomplishment. This record includes publishing its first quarterly journal, planning regional meetings, forming a Pacific economic advisory group, establishing a training program for typhoon and flood disaster reduction, and initiating the Pacific Congressional Caucus project. The Speaker of Taiwan's legislature, Wang Jin-pyng, has also formed a Taiwan Chapter of the DPU Congressional Caucus. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to acknowledge the importance of this initiative in strengthening democracy in the Pacific region. I congratulate Vice President Lu, the current Chair of the DPU, the leaders of Taiwan, and all the member states for their role in creating and supporting the Democratic Pacific Union.

Mr. LANGEVIN

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

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to ask all Members to fully fund the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office within the Department of Homeland Security. My amendment will add $36 million to the DNDO for a total of $536 million, the exact amount requested by the President. My amendment would increase the funding to the amount authorized also by the Safe Ports Act which passed this House just a few weeks ago by the overwhelming margin of 421-2. The DNDO was created within the Department of Homeland Security to develop, acquire and deploy the global nuclear detection architecture to prevent nuclear material from being smuggled into our country. The office coordinates with a variety of public and private sector organizations, including the Departments of Defense, Energy and State, the FBI, State, local and tribal governments. The office is jointly staffed by experts from many of these agencies. As the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack, I have to say, Mr. Chairman, I am kept awake at night by the fear that a terrorist could smuggle nuclear material across our borders to detonate a bomb in one of our cities. These radiation detectors are our last best chance to prevent a catastrophic nuclear or radiological attack, and our intelligence analysts tell us the threat is very real. The DNDO is already in the process of deploying radiation detectors at our border crossings, ports and other points of entry. They have a goal of deploying more than 3,000 of these detectors by 2009. But I believe the risk is too great to wait until 2009. Worse yet, a recent GAO report stated that the DNDO could not even meet the 2009 goal without additional funding. An additional $36 million will help speed the deployment and the development of radiation portal monitors, handheld and mobile radiation detectors, and the next generation advanced spectroscopic portals, which all provide a varying range of detection capability. Mr. Chairman, I have great faith in the DNDO, but they need sufficient resources to complete their vital mission. Every year we spend more than $9 billion in missile defense. Surely, we can spend an additional $36 million to prevent nuclear smuggling, which intelligence analysts insist is a far greater threat. Earlier this afternoon, I had the opportunity to question Vayl Oxford, President Bush's appointee to direct the DNDO, at our subcommittee hearing. He indicated that without full funding, DNDO would have to scale back valuable short- and long-term research and development projects that will lead to the next generation detection equipment, which will be faster and more accurate. My amendment is offset by the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management by $3 million and the Office of Undersecretary for Management by $33 million. Mr. Chairman, the threat of nuclear smuggling is too important to ignore. I ask my colleagues to join me in fully funding the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office to develop and deploy detectors before we miss our opportunity to prevent nuclear material from being smuggled into our country, and ultimately, it will allow us to save lives.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5429, yet another misguided bill that mistakenly believes we can drill or dig our way out of our current energy crisis. The supporters of the measure will argue yet again that drilling in this environmentally fragile area is the magic elixir to cure all of our energy woes. They will say we can lower gas prices and create hundreds of thousands of jobs, all while protecting the delicate ecosystem in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Unfortunately, those claims are based on wishful thinking and are not grounded in fact. The fact is that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will have no significant impact on our Nation's energy independence. All it will do is continue to pursue failed policies and priorities. Last year, Congress passed an energy bill that provided massive tax giveaways to the oil and gas companies. One year later, energy costs have actually risen, and so have the profits of oil and gas companies. We missed a chance to take a hard look at the global energy forecast and plan accordingly to protect American interests. Mr. Speaker, we should be making major investments in energy self- reliance, infrastructure, and new technologies. It astonishes me that the Nation that pulled together to put a man on the Moon is not leading the world in developing new, clean, and renewable energy sources. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and vote against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5429, yet another misguided bill that mistakenly believes that we can drill or dig our way out of our current energy crisis. The supporters of the measure will argue yet again that drilling in this environmentally fragile area is the magic elixir to cure all our energy woes. They will say that we can lower gas prices and create hundreds of thousands of jobs, all while protecting the delicate ecosystem in the wildlife refuge. Unfortunately, those claims are based on wishful thinking and not grounded in fact. The fact is that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will have no significant impact on our Nation's energy independence. All it would do is continue to pursue failed policies and priorities. Last year, Congress passed an energy bill that provided massive tax giveaways to the oil and gas companies. One year later, energy costs have actually risen, and so have the profits of oil and gas companies. We missed a chance to take a hard look at the global energy forecast and plan accordingly to protect American interests. Rising demand by India and China will likely guarantee high oil prices in the future, whether or not we drill in the Arctic. Instead, we should be making major investments in energy self-reliance, infrastructure, and new technologies. It astonishes me that the nation that pulled together to put an American on the moon is not leading the world in developing new, clean and renewable energy sources. Such an effort would revitalize our economy, improve our environment, and strengthen our national security. Instead of that type of vision, however, the leadership in Congress and the White House just offers Americans more backwards and wasteful policies like drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is telling that the Rules Committee did not allow amendments on this bill. If we had a broader debate about energy policy, we might have to confront the fact that a minimal increase in automobile fuel efficiency standards would have a greater impact on gasoline costs and energy independence than drilling in the Arctic Refuge would. We might have to admit that we can guarantee more well-paying American jobs by developing new clean technologies. Yet we were denied that debate. I urge my colleagues to vote against the failed policies of the past. Vote against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it has been 1 year since the historic bipartisan achievement in the House of Representatives when we voted overwhelmingly to support stem cell research. Yet Americans and others around the world have continued to suffer from devastating illnesses and disabilities while scientific progress has been limited at home due to restrictive policies. Other nations with more progressive policies have not let the opportunities slip by. Let us look at lung disease as one example. In the past year, an estimated 342,000 Americans have died of lung disease; yet researchers in London have coaxed embryonic stem cells to change into specialized lung cells, highlighting the potential for embryonic stem cells to be used in regenerative medicine. All this while the United States Senate has failed to hold a vote on H.R. 810 and the President has failed to offer support for the advancement of this science, which holds tremendous potential not only for lung disease but Parkinson's disease, ALS, and even spinal cord injuries and so many others. Mr. Speaker, the suffering faced by so many Americans dealing with disease and chronic conditions is shameful in the face of such potential treatments and cures. I urge all my colleagues in the House to encourage our friends in the Senate to act swiftly to pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, soon our country will be rightfully commemorating the sacrifices made by our military servicemembers on Memorial Day, and words alone can never sufficiently express our gratitude for their service and their dedication to our country, especially those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Today, the House is considering H.R. 5385, a bill that would fund essential medical programs for our courageous veterans. With the return of our servicemembers from Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, we have learned last year that the demands on our veterans health care system have risen at a rate for which we were not prepared. While I am pleased that H.R. 5385 contains significant increases from last year and does not recommend the administration's fee increases for TRICARE recipients, I am still concerned that this bill does not fully reflect the needs of our returning troops, nor does it guarantee that our veterans receive the very best health care. I encourage my colleagues to support increased funding so that our veterans have accessible, timely, and affordable health care. I especially support more funding for mental health assessments for servicemembers returning from abroad, particularly now that our troops are stretched incredibly thin and the psychological burdens and the stresses on them are tremendous. We need to make sure that they have sufficient support when they return home, whether it is counseling services or other things, to help them fully integrate into society. It has an effect on them, their families, and society as a whole. Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope that we learn from past mistakes that we cannot and must not shortchange the veterans who have so selflessly served our country. Mr. Chairman, it is our job and our duty to ensure that our veterans receive the benefits that they were promised and the recognition that they deserve.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Spratt budget substitute and in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 376, the Republican budget. Our son, daughters, and neighbors are bravely fighting wars abroad. Unfortunately, when they return home, they will find a country that has lost its way. We pay lip service to shared sacrifice, but while they risk their lives for us, Republicans in Congress are providing tax cuts for the richest 1 percent of Americans, slashing programs for working- class families and turning their backs on the middle class. The budget before us today continues these misguided policies. It does not represent the priorities of the American people, nor does it respect the values our soldiers are fighting to protect. For too long, Republicans have racked up charges on the national credit card, while passing the bill on to future generations. Now is our chance to set this country on the proper course to ensure America's economic success and protect our grandchildren from having to pay for today's irresponsible decisions. There is a better way. Despite the horrible fiscal outlook facing our Nation due to Republican policies, the Spratt substitute still manages to balance the budget in 6 years, cut taxes for the middle class, and provide realistic funding for education, health care, and veterans programs, all of which are shortchanged by the Republicans. The Spratt substitute has a better bottom line than the Republican budget every year. Fiscal responsibility today will lead to lower deficits, smaller interest payments, and less national debt in the future. Most significantly, after the budget is balanced, we can finally begin to pay off the trillions of dollars in debt that have accumulated since President Bush took office. Unfortunately, the budget proposed by House Republicans does nothing to improve the quality of life in America. It would add more than $350 billion to the national debt next year alone. Under Republican stewardship, the five years between fiscal year 2003 and 2007 will provide us with the five largest deficits in American history. This is not a legacy worth continuing. We cannot afford to borrow additional money to continue paying for failed economic policies. Not only does the Spratt substitute match the President's request for defense spending, but it also includes additional needed funds for homeland security programs, including port security. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am concerned that the Republican budget closely mirrors the President's, which proposes to eliminate several programs important to the safety of all Americans. Programs on the chopping block include the COPS Interoperability Grant Program, the SAFER Program for firefighting equipment, the Metropolitan Medical Response System, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and Justice Assistance Grants. In 2005, these programs provided more than $13 million in grants to help Rhode Island's first responders keep my constituents safe. Since September 11, we have asked our police and firefighters to do so much more, but this budget fails to provide the resources they so badly need. In addition, the budget would freeze or cut all non-homeland security discretionary spending. If the Republicans have their way, 5 years from now, education and health programs will receive even less than they do today. Cuts to social programs would place a larger burden on the working class at a time when they can least afford it. Even with all of these cuts, the Republicans still have no plan to balance the budget. Instead, they want to give away the savings to the wealthy by making permanent tax cuts on investment income. As a recent New York Times article indicated, ``Americans with annual comes of $1 million or more, about one-tenth of 1 percent of all taxpayers, reaped 43 percent of all the savings on investment taxes in 2003.'' At the same time, those earning less than $50,000 saved an average of only $10 on the same capital gains and dividend tax cuts. The wealthiest Americans are doing fine on their own, and we should not be borrowing money to give them more special favors. Deficit spending has stymied job growth and is plaguing our economy. No Rhode Islander would write a check without sufficient funds to cover it. Neither should the government. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Spratt budget substitute and opposing the underlying Republican plan.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sorrow that I rise to recognize the loss of a brave soldier in Iraq, Staff Sergeant Dale James Kelly, Jr., a member of the Maine Army National Guard and former Rhode Island resident who served his country with dignity and honor. I join his family and the people of Rhode Island and Maine in mourning this great loss. Staff Sergeant Kelly grew up in Cranston, Rhode Island, and graduated from Cranston East High School in 1976. After school, he signed up with the Rhode Island Air National Guard, where he met his future wife, Nancy Cabral. He later sought work at Bath Iron Works in Maine, where he and Nancy raised their three children, Jennifer, Julie, and Christopher. In addition to being deeply committed to his family, he was remembered as an avid outdoorsman and a model of selflessness, always ready to assist those in need. Staff Sergeant Kelly was serving in Iraq with B Company, 3rd Battalion of the 172nd Infantry Regiment, based in Brewer, Maine. A trained medic, he was in the lead vehicle of a convoy when a bomb detonated in Ad Diwaniyah, killing him and another soldier. However, prior to the incident, Staff Sergeant Kelly had taught his fellow soldiers how to administer their own intravenous medication in the event that he were harmed or unavailable. That instruction may have saved the life of Private Chris Fraser, who was seriously injured in the blast and administered his own IV. As was the case so many times in his life, Staff Sergeant Kelly's actions helped others in harm's way. 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 Staff Sergeant Kelly'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. Staff Sergeant Kelly is survived by his wife, three children, and three grandchildren; his mother, Barbara Kelly of Cranston; three sisters, Kathleen Kelly Sullivan, of Narragansett, Rhode Island, Barbara Wheaton of Yarmouth, Maine, and Kristin Kelly Ciamborne of Ashland, Massachusetts; two brothers, David Kelly of Warwick, Rhode Island, and Joseph Kelly of St. Petersburg, Florida; and many beloved nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, cousins, and other relatives. 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, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I had the honor and privilege of attending the 15th annual FIRST Robotics Competition in Atlanta, Georgia at the end of April. I watched teams from both the United States and foreign countries take part in contests using robots that they built with the help of professionals. While the winning teams were given awards, the primary goal of this competition was to help high school age students discover how interesting and rewarding the areas of math and science can be. As far as I am concerned, all of the students that participated are winners. Seeing these brilliant students in person inspired me to join my friend and colleague, Congressman Charlie Bass on the floor tonight to share the important lessons and insights that we gained from our experience. I am excited to hear what my colleague has to say this evening as well. Well, For Inflation and Recognition of Science and Technology, or, FIRST as it is known, was founded by my friend Dean Kamen, who is a brilliant inventor with a social conscience. Among his many distinguished achievements, he has invented the first wearable drug infusion pump, the first portable insulin pump, the Segway scooter and the IBOT wheelchair. His real passion, however, is inspiring younger generations and getting them excited about science and technology. In pursuit of this goal, FIRST uses partnership between businesses, educational institutions and governments. Through FIRST's many programs, students learn the value of teamwork and sportsmanship and have the opportunity to pair up with mentors in their desired field. FIRST also gives students a chance to apply for scholarship awards so they may pursue these schools skills at the college level. Now the success of this program can be seen by the fact that since 1992, the FIRST Robotics Competition has grown from 28 teams to over 1,000 today. The goal of this organization is one that I have supported since I first cochaired a special legislative commission as a state representative to get young people interested in math and science in Rhode Island. Now, as many of our colleagues have acknowledged, these are areas that our younger generations are not getting involved in sufficient numbers. This is detrimental to our country in the long run, not only for our reputation as innovators, but also for our national security. Now, the argument that inadequate research in education systems pose a threat to our national security was made in a 2001 report, the Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change. Now, this was issued by the U.S. Commission on National Security, better known as the Hart-Rudman Commission. The report stated American national leadership must understand these deficiencies as threats to national security. Now, if we do not invest heavily and wisely in rebuilding these two core threats, America will be incapable of maintaining its global position long into the 21st century. This is why I encouraged my fellow members to learn more about the FIRST program. It gets students in their district involved. It is our job, not only to protect our country, but to inspire the next generation and maintain our status as the world leaders in research and innovation. With programs like FIRST, I am optimistic about the future, Mr. Speaker. So I would like to congratulate all the teams that participated in the FIRST Robotics Competition and especially the three teams from Rhode Island, La Salle Academy, Middletown High School and Tolman High School, for a job well done. May they all have continued success in their future endeavors. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my friend, Dean Kamen, the mentors and everyone who organized the FIRST robotics competition. I congratulate all of them and wish them well.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 4297, the Tax Reconciliation Conference Report. This gimmick-laden piece of legislation will require taxpayers to borrow another $70 billion so that the wealthiest Americans can keep their taxes low in 2009 and 2010. What kind of priorities favor the wealthy in the future over working families today? We can ill afford the continued ``tax cut and spend'' mentality that has marked the House during the last few years. Without a change in fiscal policy, future generations will be buried under a mountain of debt created by the Republican Congress. H.R. 4297 includes a 2-year extension of the capital gains and dividend tax cuts, which are not scheduled to expire until 2008. Nearly half of these tax cuts will go directly into the pockets of the 1 in 500 taxpayers who earn more than $1 million per year. The contrast is stark: those who earn between $40,000 and $50,000 will see an average tax cut of $46, while those earning more than $1 million will save an average of $42,000 in taxes. More egregiously, those earning over $10 million will receive an average $500,000 tax cut per year. Regardless of what the Republicans claim, this legislation disproportionately favors the wealthiest Americans. For taxpayers earning less than $100,000 per year, only 1 out of 7 benefit from the dividend tax reduction, and only 1 out of 20 benefit from the capital gains tax cut. Under this legislation, an additional 20 million middle class families will have their taxes raised in 2007 thanks to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Congress had an opportunity to exempt the middle class from this complicated tax that was created to prevent a very small group of high income families from avoiding income tax altogether. Unfortunately, H.R. 4297 only offers a band aid to this massive problem, and more and more middle class families will have their taxes raised in the future because this Congress chose to cut taxes for multimillionaires instead. In addition, I am disappointed that unlike an early version of H.R. 4297, this bill does not include the extension of the Research and Development Tax Credit, which expired in December. I am a cosponsor of a bill 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. This year, we have a projected deficit of more than $330 billion. We will spend billions more in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as rebuilding the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. We simply cannot afford all of these emergency expenses while cutting taxes for the richest Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the conference report and supporting responsible tax policies that benefit all Americans, not just the wealthiest. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's fiscal house is not in order. The tax portion of the budget reconciliation bill, which we are considering today, does absolutely nothing to fix that. Congressional leaders and the President should go back to the drawing board and create a budget plan that more adequately balances the interests of the American people. When President George H.W. Bush faced a similar budget crisis, he had the courage to create a bipartisan budget summit and to implement needed fiscal constraints. America is better for it, and I hope that our leaders today will follow that example. I have no quarrel with providing a substantial tax cut for middle class Americans. That is why I have consistently supported legislation to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, to abolish the federal estate tax, and to allow persons to contribute more to their retirement savings. But, like with federal spending allocations, tax cuts must be paid for in the budget. In this case, they are not. The budget reconciliation bill contains more tax cuts than spending cuts and plunges our country deeper into debt. This is fiscally irresponsible and gives the short shrift to our children and grandchildren who will be forced to pick up the tab for such out of control budgeting. At a time when America is embarking on a prolonged and costly war on terrorism and is waging a war against insurgents in Iraq, I am convinced that this bill would make it far more difficult to meet the defense and homeland security needs of our Nation, while keeping Social Security and Medicare on sound fiscal footing. I hope my colleagues will abandon this reckless budgeting style and embrace a more common sense approach to drafting a budget. Reinstating the effective pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules, long championed by conservative House Democrats, that helped create the budget surplus of the 1990s would be a good place to start.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and H.R. 5122. I thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for their exceptionally hard work on this bill. This bill helps our men and women serving in the Armed Forces and makes investments to keep our military strong in the future. Now, I supported this measure in the House Armed Services Committee because it contains a number of provisions to assist our service members and their families, as well as military retirees. It includes a 2.7 percent pay increase for military personnel. This is higher than what the DOD requested, and much-needed increases to end-strength numbers. It blocks a controversial DOD recommendation as well to increase TRICARE fees and deductibles for military retirees and also extends TRICARE eligibility for reservists, two issues that have been very important to my constituents. I thank the committee leadership for their efforts to accomplish all of these important goals. Now, I am particularly pleased that H.R. 5122 addresses the current crisis in our submarine industrial base. Mr. Speaker, our Navy right now has no plans to develop a replacement for the Virginia class which I believe threatens to cause our design and engineering base to disappear. Now, if we lose design capability, we will do irreparable harm to our shipbuilding industry. The bill also includes $400 million to expedite the construction schedule for the Virginia class so that we can start building two submarines per year as early as 2009. This is critically important. The submarines current shipbuilding plan would have our submarine fleet drop to dangerously low levels and this bill clearly states that we cannot allow that to happen. I commend the chairman and ranking member for all those provisions. That is the good news. The bad news, however, I remain troubled by provisions regarding fee increases for certain prescription drugs under the TRICARE program as well as controversial language regarding religious expression by military chaplains. I hope that we will be able to consider amendments tomorrow to address these topics. But overall, however, the underlying bill addresses many urgent needs of our military, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the SAFE Port Act. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee and an original cosponsor of this legislation, I understand that port security is national security. Nearly all the foreign imports that enter this country come through our seaports and we must know who is handling cargo and what goods are being shipped. The port of Providence is located in my district in Rhode Island, and every year a wide variety of goods come through the port, including machinery, lumber and steel products. It is essential to my constituents that our port is secure to prevent unauthorized materials from being smuggled into our country. The SAFE Port Act adds the needed protections and resources to keep us safe. I am pleased that this bipartisan legislation requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a strategy for cargo and maritime security. This plan will help us prepare for any scenario, as well as create a plan for quickly resuming commerce in the event of an attack. The legislation doubles the authorized level of port security grants to $400 million. By creating a dedicated funding stream, our ports will no longer be competing with other critical infrastructure for scarce resources. The bill also establishes new security standards for all cargo containers entering the U.S. Unfortunately, the bill does not go as far as I would like in this area. I am disappointed that the Nadler- Oberstar-Markey amendment was not made in order the rule. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit to ensure the scanning of every cargo container at foreign ports and make this good bill even better. As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack, I'm pleased that this legislation authorizes the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office for the first time. This important office will oversee the country's global nuclear detection efforts and ensure that the best technology is deployed to find nuclear materials before they enter our borders. I still believe there is more work to be done, and I will continue working with my colleagues to ensure that DNDO has the funds needed to fully deploy radiation detectors at our borders and ports as soon as possible. We cannot afford to wait any longer. Overall, this bipartisan legislation is an important step towards securing our ports, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the SAFE Port Act.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as of this morning, Rhode Islanders are paying on average $2.92 a gallon for gasoline. That is 40 cents more than they were paying a month ago and 70 cents more than a year ago. Last year, Congress passed an energy bill which I opposed because it gave away billions of tax dollars to oil and gas companies, instead of investing in new technologies, alternative fuels and energy efficiency. As it turns out, oil and gas prices have gone up since we passed the Republican energy bill. And you know what else has gone up? The profits of oil and gas companies. Now the Republican majority is proposing even more giveaways to the oil and gas industry by handing over Federal lands to open refineries and by opening up ANWR. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. We cannot simply drill our way out of this crisis. Growing demand from China and India and other countries is going to keep the cost of oil high for years to come, and subsidies to the oil and gas industry will not change that. We need new leadership that will promote an energy policy that encourages new technologies, energy efficiency and creates American jobs. This morning on the ``Today Show,'' the chairman of ExxonMobil said they were in the business of making money. Well, we are in the business of protecting the American people, and it is about time this Congress does its job.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the SAFE Port Act, because it is important for the security of our Nation, but I rise in reluctant opposition to this restrictive rule. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee and an original cosponsor of the underlying legislation, I understand that port security is national security. We need this bill, Mr. Speaker, to keep America safe. However, this rule does not permit debate on an important amendment that I attempted to offer. My amendment would strengthen our security by requiring the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office to develop a report back to Congress of a plan to purchase and deploy radiation portal detectors at our ports of entry. My amendment would also authorize additional funds to help pay for these detectors. Our intelligence analysts tell us one of the greatest risks our country faces is the threat that a terrorist will smuggle nuclear material across our borders or through our ports and detonate a dirty bomb or a nuclear device in one of our cities. The technology, Mr. Speaker, exists to scan cargo for this radioactive material, and DHS is in the process of deploying it. In addition, DHS is in the process of awarding a contract for the next generation of detectors, which will cost at least twice as much as the current generation. However, a recent GAO report determined that DHS needs an additional $300 million to purchase and deploy the 3,000 current generation monitors. The report indicated that with current funding, DHS will be unable to deploy the monitors by its target date of 2009. In December I offered an amendment to require the full deployment of these monitors within 1 year. This amendment passed the Homeland Security Committee with bipartisan support. The amendment that I offered to the Rules Committee is a less drastic step but goes a long way towards keeping us safe. By requiring DHS to figure out what types of monitors they need at different locations, DHS will provide us with a better assessment of exactly how much this program will actually cost. Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot afford to wait any longer. Defeating the previous question will allow the House to consider both my amendment and Ranking Member Thompson's important amendment to increase the number of port inspectors over the next 5 years. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the previous question, voting to protect our ports and border crossings from nuclear material being smuggled across our borders and passing the SAFE Port Act.