Jim Langevin

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sorrow that I rise to recognize the death of LCpl Nickolas D. Schiavoni--a brave Marine who served with dignity and honor in Iraq. I join his family and the people of Rhode Island in mourning this great loss. On Tuesday, November 15, Lance Corporal Schiavoni was killed by a suicide bomber near Karmah, Iraq, while conducting combat operations with his unit. He served with the 2nd Battalion, Second Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, out of Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Lance Corporal Schiavoni, age 26, was raised in Haverhill, Massachusetts; his mother, Stephany Kern, resides in Westerly, Rhode Island. This was Lance Corporal Schiavoni's second tour of duty in Iraq. He joined the Marines after meeting his wife, Gina Howe Schiavoni, who now lives with their two children, Marissa, 5, and Alex, 3, in North Carolina. Lance Corporal Schiavoni's service as a Marine demonstrates his commitment to our nation's freedom. He was awarded a Purple Heart during his first tour of duty and died supporting a fellow member of his unit in an investigation of a suspicious vehicle. The humility, dedication and courage that helped him to flourish in the service are also visible in his life at home--those who knew him well highlight the deep reverence he held for his wife and family. His 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 their nation called them to duty to preserve freedom, liberty and the security of their neighbors, they answered without hesitation. We remember those who have fallen not only as soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, but also as patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. May we keep their loved ones in our thoughts and prayers as they struggle to endure this difficult period and mourn the heroes America has lost. We will 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 this evening in opposition to this resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. It is a shame that some members of the House leadership have decided to turn one of the most pressing issues facing our Nation into a political stunt. This resolution is not offered in good faith; it is a blatant effort to confront, to embarrass, and to chide anyone who has legitimate questions about how this war is being prosecuted. It is cynical and mean-spirited, and most tragically, it is a disservice to our troops who are serving valiantly and sacrificing their lives every day to accomplish the mission they were given. Our Nation's future role in Iraq is a serious matter that affects the lives of all Americans. Consequently, the American public have legitimate questions--not necessarily about the value of our mission there, but about how we expect to achieve our goals. They want to know what victory will look like, the steps we will take to get there, and the appropriate time for our forces to leave safely. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, their families here at home, and all Americans deserve those answers. Yesterday, my friend and colleague, Jack Murtha, a patriot and a decorated veteran, attempted to start that dialogue. However, instead of having a frank discussion about the potential consequences of immediate troop withdrawal or addressing the burning questions in the minds of most Americans, the Republican leadership disingenuously twisted Mr. Murtha's words, making a mockery of the democratic principles that we hope to instill throughout the world. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the right to oversee the operations of the military. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, it is a responsibility I take very seriously. Instead of seeking a plan for victory, the Republican leadership has given the American people silence and the status quo. If we do not endeavor to provide the answers that so many demand, we will have failed in our responsibilities. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution and to demonstrate that we will not play politics on an issue of such magnitude.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4241, the Reconciliation Spending Cuts. This bill attempts to reduce the Republican-created budget deficit on the backs of those who can least afford it. H.R. 4241 does not reflect the values of Rhode Islanders and it takes from the poor to give tax cuts to the rich. As early as tomorrow, the same people who are voting to cut Medicaid, student loans, and food stamps will offer $57 billion in additional tax cuts for the richest Americans. While Republicans claim this bill is necessary to offset the costs incurred by Hurricane Katrina, their actions do not match their words. Months before Hurricane Katrina struck, Republicans in the House voted for a budget that cut $15 billion more than the bill we are voting on today. The programs the Republicans are attempting to cut, like Medicaid and food stamps, are the very programs that benefit those who have been affected by the hurricanes. Not a single dollar cut in H.R. 4241 will actually go towards offsetting hurricane costs and reducing the deficit. Instead, today's cuts will fund the upcoming tax cut, but in typical Republican fashion, the spending cuts won't even cover the entire cost of the tax cuts they have planned. While I am disappointed that we are voting on this bill at all, I am especially upset by a few specific provisions. First, this budget reconciliation will have a devastating impact on millions of low-income seniors, children, and people with disabilities across the country. This bill proposes billions in cuts to Medicaid, and Rhode Island alone will lose more than $66 million. Ultimately, these cuts are paid for by raising prices for those on Medicaid. Imposing cost sharing requirements on people who simply can't afford them will not save money. Instead, these cuts will result in patients waiting longer to seek care, longer lines in our emergency rooms, and greater burdens on doctors and hospitals, who will struggle to provide for this population. In the end, we will all pay for this mistake in some form. The Medicaid program provides access to health services for more than 51 million Americans--most of whom are among the most vulnerable members of our society. Now is the time to strengthen America's safety net, not weaken it with arbitrary and harmful cuts. I am also appalled by the message this bill sends to the millions of American students who rely on financial aid and federal student loan programs to gain access to higher education. By cutting spending on student loan programs by more than $10 billion, we are reneging on a commitment to these young Americans. At a time when college costs are rising faster than inflation, the bill proposes the largest cut in the history of the student loan programs. Food stamps are an important layer of protection to ensure the very poor are able to feed themselves and their families, the most basic necessity. However, today's bill will reduce food stamp assistance by approximately $800 million over five years, and more than 200,000 people will lose their eligibility. I am pleased to see that Republicans have removed the provision permitting drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. However, this was not a response to the public's overwhelming opposition to ruining this pristine wilderness area. Rather, it is a cynical ploy to gain a few votes from Members who would not otherwise vote for this bill. I have outlined only a few of the many reasons every Member should oppose this legislation. So many of its other cuts would have negative impacts on our communities, such as reduced child support enforcement, which means more than $50 million in lower payments for Rhode Island's single parents. If Republicans want a balanced budget, which this bill does not even begin to provide, they should learn from the past and reinstate what works: PAYGO budget rules and responsible tax and spending policies. Together, America can do better. We should be working together to address true priorities, like access to health care and soaring energy prices. I urge my colleagues to reject this travesty and instead focus on meaningful deficit reduction based on fairness and shared sacrifice.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Labor, Health & Human Services and Education Appropriations bill before us. This bill quite simply fails to address the priorities of the American people. My concerns about specific cuts in this bill are many. It cuts funding for No Child Left Behind, an already vastly underfunded mandate; it fails to offer even the small increase in the maximum Pell Grant that was established in the House bill; and it sets a funding level for the National Institutes of Health that would decrease the number of federal research grants for the second year in a row. The consequences of this bill are far-reaching. Major cutbacks in the areas of education and health care will have a tremendous economic impact on our Nation. I would like to speak briefly about what my constituents have told me is important to them. Rhode Islanders, like all Americans, are concerned about health care. I have heard from many of them in recent weeks, in opposition to the devastating cuts to the Title VII health professions programs. While the Administration has made it clear that Community Health Centers are a priority to them, this bill nearly eliminates the very programs that health centers rely on to recruit nurses to work in areas that are facing acute professional shortages and train medical students to work with underserved populations. With 45 million uninsured Americans, we cannot afford to eliminate programs targeted at meeting the needs of the uninsured or remove the support systems that exist for those doctors and nurses who are serving in areas where there is a shortage of professional health services. Rhode Islanders are also concerned about unemployment. With 7.4 million unemployed Americans, this conference agreement cuts critical services for the unemployed, including job training grants and unemployment insurance offices. Adult Training Grants, which provide training and related education and employment services to economically disadvantaged adults, are cut by $31 million--providing the lowest level of funding for these training grants in a decade. Youth training grants, which offer states the opportunity to develop on-the-job training and provide exposure to a wide variety of promising career paths for disadvantaged youth are cut by $36 million, offering 12,000 less at-risk youth the opportunity to earn a high school diploma and find meaningful employment. When Congress passed H. Con. Res. 95, the Budget Conference Report, the Republican leadership set the stage for these devastating cuts. This legislation makes it clear that tax cuts for the wealthy will continue to be paid for by slashing programs that Rhode Islanders depend on. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 3010.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Citizens Financial Group, recently chosen as a recipient of the 2005 Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award. The award recognizes employers that were nominated by their employees who voluntarily serve in the National Guard and Reserve, for exceptional support above the requirements of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. This is the highest national award a company can receive for its support of the National Guard and Reserve. Citizens is the first Rhode Island employer to win the highest national award for their outstanding support of colleagues serving in the National Guard and Reserve and their families. Citizens is one of only 15 employers in the United States to receive this prestigious award from among 1,492 nominees. The Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award reflects the exceptional support, leadership, and devotion provided by employers to our brave men and women of the Reserve Forces. The importance of employers who are supportive of our enlisted men and women should never be underestimated, and Rhode Island is proud to have employers like Citizens Financial Group hard at work in our community. On behalf of my home state, I would like to thank Citizens Financial Group for their dedication, and I wish them much success in the future.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3893, which pretends to be a response to our Nation's exorbitant energy costs, but which is actually a giveaway to oil and gas companies that doesn't help America's struggling consumers. In fact, many of the provisions in this legislation are not new; we have seen them before, but they have proven so controversial that they were excluded from the energy bill that Congress passed earlier this year. Rhode Islanders are paying an average of $2.86 for a gallon of gasoline, and high home heating oil and natural gas prices are causing families to wonder how they will be able to afford to stay warm in the coming winter months. In recent weeks, Rhode Islanders have learned of two utility rate increases for both electricity and gas. These proposed increases come at a time when the average price of gasoline at the pump is up 51 percent, compared with last year, and home heating oil is up 57 percent in the same period. Congress must take swift action to reduce the cost of energy, but this bill benefits only the oil and gas industries, which have been reaping record profits in recent months. We have heard legitimate questions about how much of the recent increase in energy costs is the result of price fixing, yet this legislation's provisions to combat price gouging are insufficient and amount to no more than a slap on the wrist. Furthermore, it would reverse long-standing health and environmental protections, despite strong opposition nationwide to these proposals. In fact, one of the bill's original provisions-- expanding loopholes for refineries and power plants to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act--was deemed so controversial that it was removed in the dead of night. I support the Democratic plan to establish strong federal laws and new penalties to crack down on price gouging. The Stupak-Boucher substitute empowers the Federal Trade Commission to combat price gouging for gasoline, diesel, natural gas, home heating oil, and propane. Unlike the Republican bill, the Democratic proposal includes real penalties for price gouging and energy market manipulation--up to $3 million per day. Additionally, the Democratic plan would create a Strategic Refinery Reserve, which like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, would improve our Nation's ability to prevent oil and gasoline shortages in the wake of a natural disaster such as a hurricane. Our Nation needs a new, long-term energy policy that encourages the use of renewable fuels and energy conservation efforts. To this end, I have cosponsored legislation to increase automobile fuel efficiency standards and have strongly supported Congressman Inslee's New Apollo Energy Act, which would establish a nationwide commitment to developing and promoting new energy sources for the future. This strategy is important not only for our economy, but also for our national security. Unfortunately, the Republican bill considered today does nothing to move us toward that goal, but instead offers us more of the failed policies of the past. I urge my colleagues to support the Stupak- Boucher substitute and to oppose H.R. 3893.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2360 which will equip our Nation to better prepare and respond to future natural disasters and terrorist attacks. This bill includes needed funding for priorities such as 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents, port and transit security improvements, the Coast Guard's Deepwater program and a pilot program to improve air cargo screening. However, H.R. 2360 is not perfect. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned that this legislation implements structural changes proposed by Secretary Chertoff's second-stage review without full congressional scrutiny. While some changes may be warranted, today we will be voting to shift the TSA, eliminate the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security and weaken FEMA at a time when we need the agency to be strengthened, all without the benefit of significant oversight. That is why several members of the Committee on Homeland Security, myself included, have introduced the DHS Reform Act, which would improve the proposed reorganization plan by strengthening FEMA, detailing duties of the new chief intelligence officer and chief medical officer and establishing assistant secretaries for physical infrastructure security and for cyber security and telecommunications. Finally, it would require a quadrennial Homeland Security review, unlike H.R. 2360, which simply encourages such a review. Mr. Speaker, I hope we will have an opportunity to consider the DHS Reform Act before it is too late to alter some of the significant changes proposed by the second-stage review and included in this appropriations bill. Nonetheless, while the conference report is not perfect, it is indeed an important and significant step towards strengthening our Nation's preparedness, and I will support H.R. 2360.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 68, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY 2006. By funding the government at the lower of the House bill, the Senate bill, or current rate, this continuing resolution would require immediate cuts in programs that address the very problems that America's families are facing this fall--unemployment, education, health care, and emergency preparedness. Right now, there are 7.4 million unemployed Americans--1.4 million of whom have been jobless for more than 26 weeks. Thousands more are applying for benefits in the wake of Katrina and Rita, yet this bill would cut essential Federal training and employment services below last year's level, including $138 million, or 4 percent, from job training formula grant programs. Just as students are going back to school, this legislation calls for an $800 million cut in education programs. With 45.8 million uninsured Americans, this bill fails to provide necessary assistance to the Community Health Centers that serve these very citizens. In a time when emergency preparedness should be a high priority, the bill cuts Hospital Preparedness Grants by $15 million and Public Health Preparedness Grants by $66 million. In light of these pressing concerns for all Americans and rising defecits, we must spend our dollars wisely. Yet, we have been presented with a bill that shortchanges the very programs that promise to rebuild our workforce, educate our children and protect the health and well being of our citizens. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting fiscal responsibility by voting against H.J. Res. 68.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Pasquale Castagna, recently honored as Rhode Island's 2005 Outstanding Older Worker. Mr. Castagna, at the age of 84, continues to manage the Grandview Bed and Breakfast in Westerly, RI, and still finds the time to give back to his community through service and dedication. A World War II veteran and committed public servant, Pat Castagna began working for the bed and breakfast 18 years ago, after spending 34 years as a community postman for the U.S. Postal Service. He was honored in that position in 1973 for ``recognition of efforts beyond the call of duty in bringing credit to the postal service.'' Now property manager of the Grandview Bed and Breakfast, Pat has kept the house, grounds, and office running smoothly. His work has contributed to making Grandview one of the best in the area, winner of the 1998 Bed and Breakfast Excellence Award from the South County Tourism Council. After 84 years, Pat still finds time not only to continue performing his job, but to contribute to the community as well. He was cited for most consecutive years of community service for his work on the Westerly Town Council, helping plan the Columbus Day Celebration for 25 years and serving as a member of a committee to memorialize those who died serving our country. The Outstanding Older Worker award reflects the characteristics of ``leadership, learning, mentoring, and community service,'' and was created by Experience Works to honor America's senior workforce. The importance of this segment of the workforce should never be underestimated, and Rhode Island is proud to have people like Mr. Castagna still hard at work in our community. On behalf of my home State, I would like to thank Mr. Castagna and all older workers for their dedication to their jobs, and I would like to wish them all great success in the future.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3645, which will provide an initial installment of desperately needed supplemental funding for disaster relief efforts in the Gulf Coast region. Hurricane Katrina has left untold devastation and loss in its wake, and it is critical that we do everything we can to get assistance to those who need it without delay. I have received dozens of calls this week from Rhode Islanders who are angry and frustrated by the horrific images they are seeing from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. They are right to be outraged by the utter failure of our government to ensure the prompt evacuation and rescue of stranded residents or to deliver needed medical supplies, food and clean drinking water to the tens of thousands of people whose very survival depends on it. The Federal reaction to this crisis has been slow and ill- coordinated, which is particularly troubling in light of the advance notice and warning systems we are able to rely upon in hurricane and other natural disaster situations. I am deeply concerned not only about the response to this disaster, but about how much worse it could have been had we been given no warning, as in the case of a terrorist attack. Four years after September 11th and tens of billions of dollars later, we should have been better prepared for this disaster. We have received countless assurances from the Administration that this Nation is ready and equipped to keep our citizens safe, but our citizens have just come face to face with the truth, and it tells a shockingly different story. In the weeks and months to come, there will be many, many tough questions to be answered on the part of Federal officials and others. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I look forward to working with my colleagues to get to the bottom of this national failure as we carefully examine what went wrong, how the region and Federal Government could have been better prepared, and what must be done to ensure this kind of situation is never repeated. We must look at the organization of FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, funding for disaster response, coordination between domestic agencies and the military, interoperable communications, public health preparedness, critical infrastructure protection and much more. However, as the crisis continues, it is important that we focus on the critical days ahead and concentrate our efforts on ensuring that we are doing everything in our power from this point forward. Hundreds of thousands of displaced residents, many of whom have lost everything, are looking to us for help, and we can not let them down. Today's supplemental appropriation will provide an infusion of funding to allow immediate needs to be met, and my colleagues and I will be ready to provide whatever additional assistance may become necessary as the response progresses. Today, my thoughts and prayers go out to all those who have lost loved ones, had their homes and livelihoods destroyed, and who continue to suffer in terrible conditions, not knowing what the future may hold. I also want to express my deepest appreciation to those who are working to offer whatever assistance they can. Thousands of National Guard troops, local first responders, relief workers and others are putting their lives on hold to help, and we should all do whatever we can to aid in those efforts as well. Thank you Mr. Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3645.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago, the United States Congress passed, and President George H.W. Bush signed into law, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)--landmark civil rights legislation for people with disabilities. On this important anniversary, we must take the opportunity to reflect on the Act's successes and discuss the work left to be done. The ADA declared that 54 million Americans with disabilities, including myself, had the right to reasonable accommodations in the workplace and access to public buildings. In doing so, society acknowledged for the first time the civil rights of these Americans to live independently and to fully participate in all aspects of our society--our schools, our businesses, and our communities. At its core, the ADA was about empowerment--giving people the tools they need to pave their own way to success. For Americans with disabilities this can mean many things, from providing information and resources, to making public transportation and housing more accessible, to improving the healthcare system. As a result of the ADA, Americans with disabilities have made significant progress in terms of inclusion since 1990. Students with disabilities no longer have to make choices about their education based on the number of ramps on a campus or the school's willingness to put Braille signs in their dorms. Many individuals with disabilities have achieved greater participation in their communities through increased access to public buildings, improved accommodations in the workplace and a heightened awareness of their needs and talents. My own experiences and successes are, in many ways, a direct result of the ADA's intention. When I was first elected to Congress in 2000, infrastructure changes were necessary. For example, a chair was removed from the House floor to make space for my wheelchair, and an adjustable podium was built so that I could address my colleagues on the floor. The flexibility my colleagues have shown illustrates the tremendous advances America has made in accommodating disabled employees and it demonstrates how institutions, even those steeped in tradition, can adapt to assist people in special circumstances. Not only does society look different to people with disabilities since the ADA, it looks differently at people with disabilities. It is no longer considered charity for businesses to install support beams in their restrooms or curb cuts in their parking lots. By declaring these legal responsibilities, Congress has significantly empowered Americans with disabilities. And in the course of living up to requirements of the ADA, many business owners have discovered loyal customers and employees who might otherwise have been unable to enter their doors. The most effective businesses are active participants in their communities, and in order to be an active part of the community, a business must reach out to all of its members. Unfortunately, in many cases my success is still the exception rather than the rule. Barriers still exist. Although a major focus of the ADA was to improve employment opportunities, there has been little change in the employment rate of people with disabilities. Only 32 percent of people of working age who have a disability are employed. And today, people with disabilities are still three times more likely to live in poverty. In many cases, we can make change by bringing the spirit of the ADA to other government-funded programs. For example, Medicare does not sufficiently cover certain mobility devices, such as power wheelchairs, and can even work against people, by refusing to cover wheelchairs for those who are able to leave their homes. Furthermore, many forms of public transportation still aren't accessible to people with disabilities, and accessible housing is often scarce and unaffordable. Too many Americans, all of whom have gifts and talents to contribute to our country, continue to be imprisoned by their disability. Our work, as a nation, is far from finished. We have not yet met the goal of the ADA: ``to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.'' We must continue to strive for the day in our country when if you are qualified and you can do the job, you get that job-- without regard to disability. We must recommit to renewing our efforts to realize the promise of the ADA and working to restore its full protections. With thousands of severely injured soldiers returning home from Afghanistan and Iraq, we have a special responsibility to assure them that they will receive the fair treatment they deserve as they attempt to return to work and live in their communities. We must bring our nation closer to the ideals of equality and opportunity that are both our heritage and our hope. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the House to continue to lead the way in our national effort to make those ideals a reality for all Americans and to support H. Res. 378.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low Cost, Timely Health Care (HEALTH) Act. It is irresponsible to limit patients' access to the civil justice system, particularly without any guaranteed decrease in the cost of malpractice insurance coverage. This measure contains no provision requiring insurers to lower their rates once these so-called reforms are in place. As a result, it would leave countless patients deprived of relief while failing completely to help our struggling health providers. Like many of my colleagues, I am deeply troubled by the rising cost of malpractice insurance. Doctors across the country are being adversely affected by an increase in medical liability insurance premiums. These increases are making it more costly for physicians to practice, and rising insurance rates could eventually mean that patients no longer will have easy access to medical care. Doctors completing residencies in expensive areas are seeking better rates elsewhere, and physicians already in the market are leaving. I recognize that this is becoming a national crisis. There is wide agreement that something must be done to ensure reasonable rates and protect access to health care. Unfortunately, the leadership has presented us with a partisan bill, identical to that which we voted on in two previous Congressional sessions. Nothing in this legislation would decrease premium costs or increase the availability of medical malpractice insurance. Instead, it would make detrimental changes to the health care liability system that would extend beyond malpractice and compromise the ability of patients and other health care consumers to hold pharmaceutical companies, HMO's and health care and medical products providers accountable. Once again, we are presented with a bill that the leadership claims will lower costs of medical liability insurance for doctors, but fails to address the rate-setting process followed by the insurance industry. Insurance companies benefit from a federal exemption to antitrust laws, which allows them to collectively raise premiums without fear of prosecution. A recent study of the annual statements of the 15 largest medical malpractice insurers found that insurers substantially increased their premiums while both their claims payments and projected future claims payments were decreasing. Other studies suggest that rate changes in premiums are closely tied to the fluctuations of the stock market--not the increases in claims from frivolous lawsuits. Perhaps most troubling to me is that nothing in this bill stipulates that savings earned as a result of the ``reforms'' must be passed along to doctors, through a lowering of their own insurance costs. In light of the lack of transparency requirements of the insurance industry, there is no mechanism to hold them accountable to actually lower costs. I believe this must be the crux of any meaningful reform measure. I recognize that the rapid increase in insurance premiums is having real effects on the health care industry. Not only does it drive up the cost of health care for consumers and doctors--it is having an impact on the medical professional workforce. Residents are being encouraged to enter lower-risk fields of practice and doctors are making decisions about their careers based the costs of insurance. The Democratic motion to recommit proposes to address these issues by allowing patients to seek redress and providing assistance to physicians and hospitals in need. Specifically, this alternative would end frivolous lawsuits by requiring affidavits to be filed by qualified specialists certifying that the case is meritorious. It would also establish an independent advisory commission to explore the impact of malpractice insurance rates, particularly in areas where health care providers are lacking. These are the steps that we must take in order to adequately address this problem. In addition to meaningful systemic reform, any responsible approach to the issues of medical malpractice insurance costs should include efforts to reduce medical errors in the first place. Reports show that there preventable medical errors that kill nearly 100,000 hospital patients a year. The utilization of electronic health records at our hospitals can go a long way in this effort. The Veteran's Administration (VA), which relies heavily on information technology, has been the first large health system in the nation to replace paper charts with this fully electronic record. Electronic medical records and the efficient use of technology can be a significant agent for change in health care quality across all settings, reducing not only inefficiencies, but the number of medical errors as well. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill, support the Democratic alternative and commit to working together on reform measures that will result in significant change, benefiting doctors and consumers alike.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 525, the Small Business Health Fairness Act. I am deeply concerned that this legislation will jeopardize valuable patient protections for all Americans. While pooling insurance risks may allow employers to strengthen their bargaining power with insurance carriers and share administrative functions, the methods outlined in this bill would threaten the quality of health plans available to small business employees, and the stability of the market for small businesses without access to trade associations. This legislation establishes association health plans by removing them from state oversight--including the application of state patient protections and solvency standards. For example, my home state of Rhode Island is one of 15 states to mandate health insurance coverage of a colorectal cancer screening test. My constituents value this protection. But under this legislation, my constituents could find themselves enrolled in association health plans that are not required to follow that and other state laws designed to increase access to preventative care and screenings. In addition, this bill permits association health plans to offer coverage to specific types of employers, allowing plans to seek memberships with better risks and less costly populations. This ``cherry picking''--skimming off the healthiest consumers and leaving the sickest patients uninsured--will force premiums even higher for the majority of the market. A recent Congressional Budget Office study estimated that costs would decline for the 20 percent of businesses that join AHPs, but would therefore go up for the remaining 80 percent. Alternatively, the Democratic substitute would provide small business and their employees access to small employer health pools, without the negative features of H.R. 525, by including a number of protections for businesses and their employees. The substitute amendment provides that participating health insurance companies will remain subject to the requirements of state health insurance laws and stipulates that all participating insurers offer benefits equivalent to or greater than the options offered to Federal employees. There are ways to accomplish the goal of increased access to health insurance that do not threaten that patient protections and state laws that Americans have come to rely on. Small business employers and their workers do need better access to affordable health care coverage, but this misguided bill is not the way to accomplish that important goal. As we look for innovative ways to provide health care to all, we must not sell small business owners and employees short. We must address the health care crisis, and we must do it in a way that does not exacerbate the existing problems. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 525.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3045, to implement the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement. While I favor expanding trade and eliminating restrictive tariffs and barriers, the DR-CAFTA agreement does not create a fair playing field for United States companies and workers to compete. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting H.R. 3045 and tell the Administration to renegotiate a more responsible trade agreement. We can do better. For the DR-CAFTA countries, the agreement would permanently expand preferential market access for most goods. For us, DR-CAFTA would phase out duties on manufactured and agricultural goods over 10 to 20 years. The countries included in this trade agreement, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, are of extreme strategic importance to us. We must not neglect our neighbors to the south, and improving economic ties to these countries should be a top priority. However, the DR-CAFTA agreement before us today is just as likely to hurt workers in these countries as it is to help them. While a properly written agreement could mutually benefit companies and workers in all of the countries involved, this agreement avoids specific language to improve working conditions abroad. H.R. 3045 does not contain strong environmental or labor enforcement, which are the keys to fair trade. The agreement requires the DR-CAFTA countries to enforce their own laws, but it does not demand compliance with the International Labor Organization's core labor standards. Central America has among the worst working conditions in the world. In Nicaragua, for instance, more than 40 percent of the population lives on less than $1 per day, so the agreement could have vastly improved their living conditions. Instead, DR-CAFTA will likely continue the status quo of cheap labor and weak worker protections. Likewise, DR-CAFTA does not require countries to meet any minimum standards on the environment or public health. DR-CAFTA countries have no restrictions on air or water quality, which creates unhealthy living conditions and damages the environment. If a country does not meet its own environmental laws, it could be fined up to $15 million, a stark contrast to intellectual property violations, which have unlimited fines under the agreement. On a level playing field, American workers can compete and win, but it is unfair for our companies to compete against a DR-CAFTA country that employs minors earning pennies per hour without the same air and water quality guidelines under which American companies operate. In 2004, Rhode Island exported approximately $30 million to these countries, or 2 percent of the state's worldwide exports. This agreement is important to several companies in my district, but we must go back to the drawing board to ensure American companies and American jobs are not left behind. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 3045 and encouraging the Administration to renegotiate a more equitable agreement.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as a proud member of the Hellenic Caucus, I rise today to recognize the 31st anniversary of Turkey's invasion of Cyprus. On this occasion, we mourn those who lost their lives and remember the barrier created on July 20, 1974. Sadly, that barrier still exists today, and despite attempts for a reunification settlement, the island remains divided between the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots. I thank Mrs. Maloney and Mr. Bilirakis for their ongoing leadership in the Hellenic Caucus and for bringing much-needed attention to issues of importance to the Hellenic community. On the occasion of this anniversary, in addition to mourning and remembering, let us also look forward to the promise of a peaceful settlement to the ongoing division in Cyprus, a goal that has eluded American and European leaders for more than 30 years. I have repeatedly called for a strong U.S. commitment to 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 illustrates 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 accession 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. Now that Cyprus is a member, it will benefit significantly from increased trade and economic investment while contributing its diversity and history to that of the EU. Turkey's desire to enter the EU provides a prime opportunity for Cyprus. The international community must demand that Turkey demonstrate its support for reunification as a requirement to become a participant in the Europe of the future. 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. By putting pressure on Turkish Cypriot leaders and reducing its military presence, Turkey can prove that it can work in the international framework to encourage a lasting peace in Cyprus. 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. We should heed the words of the Greek Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulus: ``We are determined to try, until the end, in a peaceful manner and through negotiations, to end the invasion and occupation. The people should be brave, patient, and work hard.'' Patience in particular is tantamount to this endeavor. A lasting solution is not one that will be attained with the implementation of a rushed plan. The United States has stood beside Cyprus in the past, and we will undoubtedly maintain this strong relationship for years to come. Again, I thank my colleagues on the Hellenic Caucus for their recognition of this important event.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization. We must provide law enforcement all the tools they need to keep us safe in today's changing world, but we need a bill that strikes a more appropriate balance between civil liberties and fighting the war on terrorism. Since the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act in the wake of 9/11, I have met with many constituents and countless groups to discuss the details of this controversial legislation. At a town hall meeting I hosted, the U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island and a representative of the state's American Civil Liberties Union passionately argued their cases. Some agreed with the U.S. Attorney that only the USA PATRIOT Act can prevent us from another attack. However, most of that crowd, as well as most Rhode Islanders, worry that we have already ceded too much ground on our precious civil liberties. In my state, six cities and towns have passed resolutions opposing parts of the USA PATRIOT Act, and my constituents understand what this bill means to them and their freedom. Keeping America safe is not a partisan issue, but unfortunately, several provisions of this bill are. We could have reached a bipartisan solution to extend the provisions that are effective, such as permitting searches to the Internet and e-mail, and modify the provisions that need changes, such as the searching of library records and ``sneak and peek'' searches, to which Congress has already voiced strong and clear opposition. Instead, we forgo Congressional oversight and take away future opportunities for review. I am most troubled that the Rules Committee has not permitted a single amendment to determine if 15 controversial provisions should expire. Sunsets require Congress to review the Act, extend what is working, and change what is not. Sunsets would make the bill better, and ensure regular oversight, but the rule does not permit us to vote on this important modification. Simply adding sunsets could have made the H.R. 3199 more palatable, and I am confident it could have had strong bipartisan support. However, the Republicans have again chosen division over unity. I recognize the need for our laws to keep pace with new technology and a changing world, and I am committed to ensuring our law enforcement has the tools they need to keep our nation safe. However, providing these tools need not come at the expense of the liberties and freedoms that we hold so dear. If we cede these, we have already given up the very values the terrorists are trying to destroy. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make many changes in H.R. 3199 to fight terrorism and protect our freedoms. I am encouraged that the Senate is taking a more bipartisan approach to renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act, and I look forward to a conference agreement that we can all support to protect our liberties and our country.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the Flake-Otter sneak-and-peek amendment to drop this provision. Keeping America safe is not a partisan issue; but, unfortunately, several provisions of H.R. 3199 are. Now, we could have had a bipartisan solution that extends the provisions that are effective and modifies those that need changes. This amendment addresses one of those changes by preventing the use of sneak-and-peek searches when the sole purpose of the delayed notification is to postpone a trial. The current provision is too broad, and this amendment would limit these searches to terrorism cases. Now, I recognize the need for our laws to keep pace with new technology and a changing world, and I am committed to ensuring that our law enforcement has the tools they need to keep our Nation safe. However, providing these tools need not come at the expense of the liberties and freedoms that we hold so dear. If we cede these, we have already given up the very values the terrorists are trying to destroy. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make many changes to H.R. 3199 to fight terrorism and to protect our freedoms. I urge the Senate to take a more bipartisan approach to the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act, and I hope that they are more open to sunsets which require Congress to review the act, extend what is working, and change what is not. Sunsets would make the bill better, but the rule does not permit us to vote on this important modification. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this responsible amendment.

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 Holly Ann Charette, a Rhode Island citizen who served with dignity and honor. I join her family and the people of Rhode Island in mourning this great loss. On Friday, June 23rd, Lance Corporal Charette died near Fallujah, Iraq, when her unit was attacked by a vehicle-borne explosive device. She was serving with Headquarters Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, out of Camp Lejeune, NC. Lance Corporal Charette grew up in Coventry, Rhode Island, and was an avid athlete who enjoyed competing as part of the field hockey team and cheerleading squad. She made the decision to enlist with the Marine Corps in 2002, desiring to serve her country after the attacks of September 11th. When her company completed training at Camp Lejeune, Lance Corporal Charette was deployed with them to Iraq in an administrative position, charged with handling the correspondence of her fellow Marines keeping touch with their friends and loved ones. She is survived by her mother, Regina Roberts, stepfather Ed Roberts, her father, Raymond Charette, three brothers and her fiance. The loss of Lance Corporal Charette gives us reason to reflect upon the courage demonstrated by our men and women in uniform on a daily basis, as they work to protect freedom around the world. They answered the call to duty without reservation, accepting the obligation of preserving freedom, liberty and the security of others no matter the danger. We must remember those who have fallen not only as marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen, but as patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice for us. May we keep their loved ones in our thoughts and prayers as they struggle to endure this difficult period and mourn the heroes America has lost. We will continue to hope for the safe and speedy return of all of our troops serving throughout the world.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sorrow that I rise to recognize the loss of a brave soldier, in Iraq, 2LT Matthew Coutu, a great citizen who served his country with dignity and honor. I join his family and the people of Rhode Island in mourning this great loss. On Monday, June 27, Lieutenant Coutu died in Baghdad, Iraq, when his unit was attacked by enemy small-arms fire while investigating a bombing. He was serving with the 64th Military Police Company, 720th Military Police Battalion, 89th Military Police Brigade, out of Fort Hood, Texas. The son of two native Rhode Islanders, Lieutenant Coutu grew up near Chicago and had a lifelong dream of joining the military. It was no surprise that he chose his college, the University of Maine, primarily for the strength of its ROTC program and the ability to be commissioned when he graduated. He was the top cadet in his graduating class, choosing to train with the military police at Fort Hood as soon as he was commissioned. Remembered by those close to him as a remarkable man and born leader, he planned to serve his country as a soldier in the Army or in federal law enforcement. He is survived by his mother, Donna Coutu-Freeland, his father, Michael Coutu, his brother Derek, and both of his grandmothers. The loss of Lieutenant Coutu should make us pause and reflect upon the courage embodied by our men and women in uniform on a daily basis, as they work to protect freedom around the world. They chose to answer the call of duty to their nation without hesitation, dedicating themselves to the preservation of freedom, liberty and the security of others no matter the cost. We must remember those who have fallen not only as soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, but as patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice for us. May we keep their loved ones in our thoughts and prayers as they struggle to endure this difficult period and mourn the heroes America has lost. We will continue to hope for the safe and speedy return of all of our troops serving around the world.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Labor, Health & Human Services and Education Appropriations bill before us. This bill fails to address the priorities of the American people. The bill shortchanges critical health care programs, offers the smallest increase to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) In 36 years, and falls to fulfill promises this Congress made to disadvantaged children. With 45 million uninsured Americans, we cannot afford to eliminate programs targeted at meeting the needs of the uninsured or remove the support systems that exist for those doctors and nurses who are serving in areas where there is a shortage of professional health services. Furthermore, in a time when scientists are just beginning to make meaningful progress on the projects they began between 1998 and 2003, it is irresponsible to fund NIH at a level 2.6 percent short of what they need to keep up with inflation in research costs. Under this legislation, NIH will be able to support about 505 fewer research grants than just two years earlier. Finally, with a record 55 million children in public schools and state budgets stretched thin, this bill proposes to cut No Child Left Behind funding by $806 million, leaving 3.1 million low-income children behind. This brings the total NCLB funding shortfall to $40 billion, since its enactment in 2002. The Appropriations Committee did take care to address some critical issues, such as restoring funding for the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Program and the Assistive Technology Act, and I appreciate the support for these important programs. Unfortunately, the budget resolution for FY2006 prevented appropriators from being able to put forth a bill that truly reflected the needs of the American people. When Congress passed H. Con. Res. 95, the Budget Conference Report, the Republican leadership set the stage for these devastating cuts. This legislation makes it clear that tax cuts for the wealthy will continue to be paid for by slashing programs that Rhode Islanders depend on. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 3010.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 65.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1815, and thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for their hard work. This bill supports our men and women serving in the armed forces and make- investments to keep our military strong in the future. H.R. 1815 is committed to a strong Navy through shipbuilding increases. With cost controls and investments in our industrial base, we can ensure that our future navy will be robust, innovative and effective. I am pleased that the bill directs the Navy to begin design work on a next-generation submarine that will incorporate emerging technologies. Currently our Navy has no plans for the submarine to follow the Virginia-class, which threatens to cause our design and engineering base to disappear. If we lose design capability, we will do irreparable harm to our shipbuilding industry. Given certain nations' investments in their navy and undersea capabilities, I appreciate the commitment in this bill to guaranteeing our nation's undersea dominance. However, I am concerned by the recommended cuts to DD(X), the Navy's future destroyer that will serve as the model for our naval surface combatant transformation. DD(X) is the cornerstone of our future fleet, and I fear that the cuts in this bill could endanger the project. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address any existing concerns with DD(X) and to continue this program. This bill also contains important language to ensure that civilian employees at the Department of Defense do not lose their jobs to private contractors without first having the opportunity to compete for the work. It closes loopholes that have permitted DOD to outsource work without proving that the private sector can do it more cost- effectively. Finally, it expresses the sense of Congress that civilian employees should have the same rights as private contractors during contract competitions. I thank the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, Mr. Hefley, for working with me to craft the language and Chairman Hunter for his commitment to defend our provisions. Furthermore, the committee report encourages the President to update the National Security Strategy so that we incorporate all instruments of national power into a comprehensive approach to security. We need a vision of national security that complements our military might with enhanced soft power capabilities such as communications and diplomacy, economic cooperation and foreign aid, cultural exchanges, and investments in educational disciplines such as science, engineering and foreign language skills. Joseph Nye, the former dean of the Kennedy School of Government and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, has written extensively about the need to supplement our military might with efforts to win the world's hearts and minds with our values and culture. As the 9/11 Commission so eloquently put it: ``If the U.S. does not act aggressively to define itself [. . .], the extremists will gladly do the job for us.'' I thank the committee leadership for addressing my concerns in this area. Again, I commend the Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Skelton and my colleagues on the committee for a well-balanced bill, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 810, and I want to acknowledge the bipartisan effort that has gone into this legislation and the incredible grass roots movement that has built support for this groundbreaking medical research. It has been inspirational to see so many Members putting aside politics and partisanship to address this issue which affects the lives of millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, I am one of those Americans. At age 16, I was an Explorer Scout in my hometown police station. One afternoon, in the police locker room, a gun accidentally discharged. The bullet severed my spinal cord, and I have been paralyzed ever since. This experience shapes my perspective in so many ways. Above all, it has given me tremendous appreciation and respect for life. My life as a quadriplegic is filled with challenges and obstacles, yet I am grateful for every minute. This gratitude has become a passion, and it has motivated me to help create a culture that values and protects life from its beginning to its end. To me, being pro-life also means fighting for policies that will eliminate pain and suffering and help people enjoy longer, healthier lives. And to me, support for embryonic stem cell research is entirely consistent with that position. What could be more life-affirming than using what otherwise would be discarded to save, extend, and improve countless lives? This research offers the opportunity to discover cures and treatments for diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, ALS, diabetes, spinal cord injury, and many others. But it will take not only the talent of our scientists, but also the support of our government to realize its full potential. We have a responsibility to ensure that this research proceeds, and it does so with ethical safeguards and strict guidelines. By permitting research only on excess embryos created in the in-vitro fertilization process, and by establishing a clear, voluntary consent process for donors, H.R. 810 meets this responsibility. Stem cell research gives us hope and a reason to believe. I believe one day a child with diabetes will no longer face a lifetime of painful shots and tests. I believe one day families will no longer watch in agony as a loved one with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's gradually declines. And I believe one day I will walk again. There are few moments in medical history when we can clearly identify a giant step forward in improving countless lives. We saw it with the discovery of antibiotics and the advent of organ transplants. Mr. Speaker, I believe that adult and embryonic stem cell research is another of these great moments. Today we have a historic opportunity to make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans and for people around the world. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 810.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Ranking Member Thompson's substitute amendment. While H.R. 1817 takes important steps in improving our security and preparedness, it simply does not go far enough. Now, the Thompson substitute contains the critical provisions that I believe must be in any comprehensive, effective DHS authorization. Now, all told this amendment would provide about $41 billion for our homeland security needs, nearly $7 billion more than requested by the President. This substitute would provide additional grant funds for continuing needs, in port, rail, transit and bus security, communications interoperability and firefighter hiring and preparedness. It also enhances air security by requiring that 100 percent of air cargo be screened within 3 years, tightening restrictions on access to sensitive airport areas, and providing flight crews the training and communications tools to effectively respond in an emergency. Furthermore, the Thompson amendment ensures that we fulfill commitments made in the intelligence reform bill to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. It authorizes funding for nearly 2,000 new border patrol agents and provides resources to install explosive detection systems to baggage screening at airports, which is a critical unmet need at T.F. Green Airport in Rhode Island. Now, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Threats, I am particularly pleased to note that the Democratic substitute would provide for the installation of radiation portal monitors at all ports of entry. This is a key step in our efforts to keep dangerous materials out of our borders. Finally, this substitute makes significant progress in addressing critical infrastructure protection. It provides funding for an assessment of risks to nuclear and chemical plants and requires that chemical plants capable of threatening a large number of people in the worst-case situation take steps to increase security, implement safer technologies when feasible. Just as importantly, the amendment sets deadlines for completion of a list of high-priority critical infrastructure assets. Now, this list should be the very basis for our Nation's security plans and funding decisions, and there is no excuse for the continuing delays in its completion. Mr. Speaker, while we are indeed safer today than we were on September 11, the truth is that there still remains a significant security gap that must be filled. The Thompson substitute takes a comprehensive approach to addressing these vulnerabilities, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this restrictive rule which does not make in order several key amendments that could go a long way to enhancing our security efforts and addressing serious vulnerabilities. Case in point: the cargo security amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and just spoken of by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). That being said, today we will consider H.R. 1817, the first ever authorization measure for the Department of Homeland Security. I want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking member, for bringing this important bill on the floor. I am proud to serve with them on the Committee on Homeland Security. While it is not as far reaching as many of us had hoped, H.R. 1817 takes several critical steps in improving our Nation's security and preparedness. It authorizes sufficient funding to hire an additional 2,000 border patrol agents, which will help us meet the goal of 10,000 new agents over 5 years set forth in last year's intelligence reform bill. The measure also streamlines the background check system for those working in sensitive positions, creates an Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity, and requires reform of the homeland security alert system so that more specific and targeted information can be provided to those who need it. Finally, this bill will improve our intelligence and information capabilities by allowing new recruiting tools to attract the best- qualified analysts and mandating increased coordination in the dissemination of threat information to State, local, and private sector officials. But this bill could have gone further. While I understand the jurisdictional constraints facing the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox), I firmly believe that a DHS authorization bill should include critical components like port security, nuclear and chemical facility security, bioterrorism preparedness, communications interoperability, and rail and transit security. That is why I will be supporting a substitute amendment offered later today by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking member. This comprehensive amendment takes the right approach to homeland security needs that still face our country. In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me again thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking member, for their hard work on this legislation. It is not a perfect bill, but it is indeed an important and significant first step.