Jim Langevin

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1350, reauthorizing legislation for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The reauthorization of IDEA is critical to the educational outcomes of millions of students with disabilities for years to come. I am sorely disappointed that H.R. 1350 represents a lack of commitment to fulfilling the promise of IDEA by failing to fund the law, and even proposes changes undermining the very philosophy of IDEA. IDEA was enacted with the clear intention of eliminating discrimination against students with disabilities by promising a free and appropriate education to children with disabilities. Even with the increases in IDEA funding over the last several years, the federal government has never lived up to its share of this promise, which was intended to be 40 percent of the cost of special education services. These recent increases touted on the floor of the House have only added up to 18 percent--hardly significant in a time of state budget crises. As schools are forced to dip into their general education budgets to make up for the shortfall in special education funding, all of America's students are losing out--and those with disabilities are being left behind. Every year, access to education for students with disabilities is subjected to the federal appropriations process--and every year, it comes up short. I am dismayed that H.R. 1350 fails to provide for mandatory funding, and outraged that the leadership allowed for 14 amendments to be offered on this bill but denied my colleagues and me the opportunity to vote on two proposed amendments that would have guaranteed children with disabilities and their families the access to necessary resources for their education. Further, H.R. 1350 makes significant substantive changes counter to the philosophy of IDEA. One of many alarming changes is the elimination of a key civil rights protection providing safeguards for students with disabilities in instances where behavior problems may be a manifestation of their disability. Currently, IDEA sets up a structure for initial assessments and intervention plans, so that disruptive or problematic behavior can be avoided or mitigated. In instances where students with disabilities do violate a school code, IDEA currently requires administrators to determine if the offending behavior is a manifestation of a student's disability. If that is the case, then the student, teachers and parents can return to the original behavior plan and find a way to work together to avoid further problems. If that is not the case, the student can then be subjected to the same penalties as a non-disabled student would. I believe the current disciplinary review process is fair and in the best interest of all students. Even with these protections, students with disabilities are over-represented among students who are expelled. Yet, H.R. 1350 proposes to eliminate the provisions that require both consideration of a child's disability and use of functional behavioral assessments and intervention plans--denying students the safeguards that assure them access to educational services and placing them at significantly greater risk. I have also heard a strong sentiment against the proposed changes in the Individualized Education Program (IEP) from my constituents, and parents and educators across the country. H.R. 1350 contains a provision to eliminate the requirement of short-term benchmarks, resulting in a negative impact on the effective collaboration between home and schools providing appropriate education and related services to students with disabilities. Measuring student progress against short-term objectives is needed to ensure that student evaluations are regular and based on multiple criteria. 1 hear stories of students who have achieved the goals set in their one-year IEP in less than that time--this is something that should be acknowledged, celebrated and encouraged--not overlooked. Any steps toward imposing a three-year IEP are steps toward overlooking the progress made in the collaborations that are essential to IDEA. The reauthorizing legislation also fails to recognize a shortage of qualified personnel that has hampered the full implementation of IDEA for 25 years. H.R. 1350 eliminates language that sets standards for special education service providers. In the No Child Left Behind Act, Congress made it clear that every child should have a highly qualified teacher, yet H.R. 1350 removes the highest requirement provision--at a time when high standards were never more important. Every contentious issue related to IDEA--discipline, disproportionate representation of minorities, over-identification of students referred to special education--could be better addressed by ensuring an adequate supply of appropriately trained and highly qualified personnel. Ultimately, highly trained professionals make all the difference in providing an appropriate education for any student--students with disabilities are no different. I urge my colleagues to only support legislation that preserves the spirit and meaning of IDEA. I am disappointed that the reauthorizing legislation we are here to vote on today fails to live up to that standard, and I encourage my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1350.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) to hold gun dealers and manufacturers truly accountable for negligence and strongly support his amendment. Our Nation is familiar with cases of gun dealers who sell to criminals and claim ignorance about their intentions. Bullseye Shooter Supply, the Washington State gun dealer that was the source of the sniper rifle allegedly used by John Mohammed and John Lee Malvo in the D.C. sniper shootings, says it cannot account for that weapon, or 237 other guns in its inventory. We should be cracking down on deadbeat gun dealers, not exempting them from liability. I have introduced legislation to improve enforcement and inspection of these facilities, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for his support of that measure and for drawing attention to this matter with his amendment today. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Meehan amendment.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1036. By protecting an industry from liability, we eliminate a major incentive for it to operate in a safer way, and ultimately we make people and corporations less accountable for questionable manufacturing and sales practices. As an individual who was paralyzed at the age of 16 when a police officer's gun accidentally discharged and severed my spinal cord, I know how a person's life may be changed by gun violence or accidents. Our society frequently witnesses the needless misfortunes that can take place due to firearm mishandling, and we should strive to make our society safer. Yet this bill would move us away from that goal. Too many people who suffer from gun violence and accidents are victims of an industry that fights every effort to improve the safety of its products, including the installation of chamber load indicators and trigger locks, features that could have changed the course of my life. They are victims of dealers who look the other way as their wares are used for criminal activity, and gun control laws that are not sufficiently enforced. Supporters of the bill claim that it has exemptions to permit lawsuits in the case of clear knowledge of criminal activity or negligence. But they will not mention that the exemptions are so narrowly worded that they are meaningless. They also make intriguing parallels about how the gun industry is currently being held to a higher standard than other industries, while not recognizing the exemptions from Federal consumer safety laws that the gun industry enjoys. I am deeply disappointed that this measure will not do a single thing to prevent gun violence or accidents in the United States. However, I am even more disturbed that it may exacerbate our existing problem. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1036, so that we can demonstrate our commitment to a safer America.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and distinguished ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, for this timely special order. There is no more important issue facing us in Congress than protecting the freedom and security of the American people. I was deeply honored when the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) asked me to serve on the Select Committee on Homeland Security. It is a responsibility that I take very seriously and I am eager to embrace the challenges confronting us. We have an incredibly important obligation to our first responders across the country, and we must make their needs a top priority. Firefighters, law enforcement officers, health care workers, and others on the front lines need our support to keep America safe. With dozens of States experiencing their worst fiscal crises since World War II, combined with the activation of thousands of Guard and Reserve members, first responders are more desperate than ever for Federal assistance. In addition, we are faced with significant unmet needs in the area of port security, nuclear and chemical plant security, border security and more. Mayors and Governors nationwide are faced with soaring costs as they seek to meet their obligations under a heightened threat alert and a newly implemented Operation Liberty Shield. I was deeply disappointed to learn yesterday during the supplemental appropriations markup, Republicans voted down the Obey amendment to add $2.5 billion in homeland security funding. This funding is absolutely critical if we are to live up to our promises to the American people. The amendment would have meant an additional $3 million of first responder funding for my home State of Rhode Island, money that is sorely needed to equip our State and local governments to fight the domestic fronts of our war on terror. Another area that is of special interest to me is intelligence, and I am honored to be serving as interim ranking member on the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism. In this capacity I hope to turn the committee's attention to some critical issues facing Congress as the new Department of Homeland Security gets up and running. One of the most important things we must address is the issue of integration and cooperation among the different intelligence agencies. We need to know how DHS is receiving and analyzing information, what kind of intelligence the agency is getting, whether the process is efficient and streamlined, and whether DHS and the rest of the Intelligence Community understand their roles and obligations to each other clearly enough to make sure that there is neither too much overlap nor too much falling through the cracks. Along these lines it is absolutely critical that we look at the relationship between the President's proposed Terrorist Threat Integration Center and the DHS Information Analysis Directorate. Their roles sound strikingly similar to me and it has not been made at all clear how they will interrelate and work together. In addition, we must ensure that our State and local law enforcement agencies are properly equipped to share information and coordinated activities so that threats that cross jurisdictional lines can be adequately addressed. Finally, as we endeavor to identify threats before they become real dangers, we must be ever vigilant of the civil liberties of our citizens. Protecting the homeland does not need to run counter to protecting privacy and freedom. We should make sure that intelligence tools are used judiciously, and we must always work towards a balance that ensures both security and liberty. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for hosting this special order and urge my colleagues to make homeland security a priority both in words and in deeds.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by 22 of my colleagues in introducing the ``Crackdown on Deadbeat Gun Dealers Act'' to hold licensed gun dealers accountable when they knowingly sell guns illegally. Last year's tragic Washington, D.C., area sniper shootings provide a dramatic illustration of what many consider a lack of regulatory authority over the nation's estimated 104,000 licensed firearms dealers, which are overseen by just 600 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) inspectors who must also oversee breweries and tobacco plants among their other responsibilities. Federal agents, who searched Bull's Eye Shooter Supply of Tacoma, Washington, last December, indicated in a court affidavit that 78 firearms listed in the store's inventory were missing and could not be traced through required sales records and other documents. Among the missing weapons was the rifle allegedly used by the two D.C. sniper suspects, John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo. During the past few years, many weapons had simply vanished from the shop without an adequate paper trail--some of them possibly bound for people barred from owning firearms. Unfortunately, the Bull's Eye case is not an isolated one. Statistics provided by the ATF in 1998 show that over 50 percent of the firearms used in crimes nationwide were traced to just 1.2 percent of the nation's gun dealers. By conducting crime gun traces, the ATF can analyze why such a large number of firearms from this small proportion of dealers are used illegally and develop investigative strategies to address this problem. Currently, the ATF may inspect a licensed dealer's inventory and records without a warrant to ensure record-keeping compliance. The accuracy of a dealer's inventory is critical to the ATF's ability to trace crime guns. However; since 1986, criminal penalties for most dealer recordkeeping violations have been reduced from felonies to misdemeanors. In addition, current law restricts ATF to one compliance inspection of licensed dealers every 12 months. With the exception of violations committed by dealers in transferring firearms to prohibited individuals after national instant criminal background checks, the current law also generally limits ATF's administrative actions against dealers to revocation of the license. The Crackdown on Deadbeat Gun Dealers Act will increase compliance and keep guns out of the hands of criminals by increasing the permitted number of annual compliance inspections by federal law enforcement inspectors of licensed firearms dealers; raising the maximum criminal penalty for dealers who knowingly violate the law by committing serious record-keeping offenses that can hinder tracing guns used in crimes; and authorizing $320 million in grants for 5 years to hire 500 additional ATF inspectors. Now more than ever, Americans are demanding protection and security, and some are purchasing guns in an effort to protect themselves and their families. But we must remember that others with more sinister motives can just as easily do the same. Real protection means providing authorities with the strongest possible mechanisms to prevent unlawful purchases. I urge my colleagues to join me and the 22 original co-sponsors of this bill in holding licensed gun dealers accountable when they knowingly sell guns illegally. Please co-sponsor this responsible law enforcement measure, and help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today as a proud American and member of the House Committee on Armed Services to strongly condemn the cuts to our veterans health care that were pushed through in the House budget proposal for fiscal year 2004, and that we thankfully restored today when we voted overwhelmingly to instruct conferees to prevent those cuts from being considered by the conference committee. It is outrageous that upwards of 90 percent of the mandatory spending that would have been cut came directly from programs that provide service-connected disability and education benefits to our Nation's bravest citizens. These programs are the heart of the Veterans Administration, and in fact they are the very reason the VA was created. The across-the-board cuts did not stop there. Discretionary funding, which includes veterans health care, was also grievously cut by $14.2 billion over the next 10 years. Health care takes up 96 percent of that spending, meaning we were slashing at least $1.63 billion per year in health funding. At a time when this Congress is searching for ways to provide better health programs, like a prescription drug benefit to seniors, how could we have justified cutting into successful programs veterans currently receive? Many of these men and women would have no choice but to turn to Medicare because of our actions; and until the Spratt amendment, which was passed today, and spearheaded by so many of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, Medicare itself would have been cut as well. The path this House almost chose to embark upon is even more troubling given the action our military is now engaged in overseas. Our courageous servicemembers are engaged in dangerous combat, and a number of them will inevitably sustain injuries. Madam Speaker, I will not return home and tell the brave men and women and families of those deployed overseas that we are not doing everything in our power to support them when they return. We have promised these benefits again and again as the very least we can do to repay the risk and sacrifice the men and women of our Armed Forces make on a daily basis. We must not break that promise now. I choose to show our servicemembers that I support them and will continue to support them when they return home from combat. I want them to remain confident that they will be cared for should they be injured. I want the families to know that they will not be abandoned should, God forbid, their loved ones not return home to them. Madam Speaker, the Republican budget resolution did none of these things and must be improved. We took that step today. Earlier today I voted for the Spratt motion to instruct conferees to eliminate proposed cuts in so many programs vital to veterans to show our Armed Forces and veterans that they are not second-class citizens and that we value their efforts and sacrifice. This motion to instruct passed today, and I will continue to fight for our veterans just as hard as they have fought for us. It is the very least that they deserve.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud American to commend the brave men and women of our armed services who are carrying out the mission to provide hope and freedom to the Iraqi people held captive by Saddam Hussein and his regime. I also join my colleagues in praying for the continued safety of the Prisoners of War from the United States: five members of the 507th Maintenance Company, taken from their convoy during the confusion of war, and the two pilots of an Apache helicopter shot down while on a mission. Sadly, the fates of several others are still unknown. I am disgusted by the Iraqi regime's blatant disregard of the Geneva Conventions implemented after World War II to protect soldiers on either side of any conflict. The regime of Saddam Hussein, which rules over a signatory nation of the treaty, is responsible for the safety of our soldiers. If they ignore this serious responsibility, they will bear the consequences when they are prosecuted as Prisoners of War after this conflict. The United States will not allow Iraq's failure to abide by international law go unpunished. Finally, I wish to add my voice to those commending all our men and women in uniform, praising them for their efforts and praying for their swift and safe return to us.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in proud recognition of the 182nd anniversary of Greek Independence. This special day for Greece commemorates the end of nearly four hundred years under the rule of the Ottoman Empire and a return to its democratic roots. The political philosophies of both the United States and Greece have been challenged by oppressive powers, and both nations have proudly defended their right to self-government. After showing a desire to be free from the Ottoman Empire in 1821, Greece endured eleven long years of war to succeed in gaining independence. American and Hellenic cultures greatly respect their tradition of independence and recognize the importance of democratic principles. The United States and Greece have always enjoyed a reciprocal relationship in international and cultural endeavors. Hellenic principles resonate in our culture and politics, since the United States was founded on the principles of democracy developed thousands of years ago in the city-states of ancient Greece. Hellenic influence can even be seen in the architecture of our Capitol building. Our country has also had an influence on Greece since our Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution influenced their first Constitution. On a cultural level, I am looking forward to 2004 and the homecoming of the Olympic Games to Athens. Since Greece resurrected the Olympics in 1896, they have symbolized peace and excellence for people around the world. Greece will undoubtedly serve as a gracious host of the Games, and the 25th Summer Olympics will prove again to the world how Hellenic ideals such as equality and friendship have stood the test of time and continue to flourish at a global level. Hellenic culture, whether through its development of democratic government or from its espousal of friendly competition, encourages people to come together amicably even during the most difficult of times. Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult to imagine a United States of America, or even the world, without the great contributions from Greece. I will continue my work in Congress to support Hellenic causes and keep the ties between our two countries strong. I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating Greece on the anniversary of its independence. I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating this anniversary.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Hellenic Caucus, I rise to register my dismay that negotiations between the President of Cyprus, Tassos Papadopoulos, and Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash on a United Nations settlement plan to reunite Cyprus ended two weeks ago without a final outcome. Mr. Denktash has put most of the blame on his own shoulders for this lost opportunity. By not allowing the Turkish Cypriots to vote on the U.S. settlement plan by a referendum, Mr. Denktash has made the decision for the Turkish Cypriots that they will not live under the European Union's laws or reap its economic benefits. Mr. Denktash should not just look at this as a personal matter, or even as a dispute between Turkey and Greece, but should rather take into consideration what is the right choicer for the people of Cyprus. As may other members have expressed, I do not want the recent reunification talks, the fourth attempt since the Turkish invasion of Northern Cyprus in 1974, to end in an impasse. The U.S. settlement cleared a path for all of Cyprus to unite once again, to share in the European Union's prosperity, and to end military zones. Now with just the Republic of Cyprus poised and ready for membership into the EU in 2004, a deeper divide between the two sides may grow without a push for future negotiations. The United States must continue its role in supporting negotiations so that there is still potential for all of Cyprus to join the EU. Consequently, I recently sent a letter to President Bush asking that we continue to encourage reunification negotiations in Cyprus. Although frustration levels at this point are high, the United States should still play a positive and supportive role that will lead to a final Cyprus settlement. I urge Congress to continue to support Cyprus' membership to the European Union and the United Nation's settlement plan.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, as we gather tonight, hundreds of thousands of Americans and allied troops are risking their safety to protect ours. They are courageously confronting Saddam Hussein and the danger his regime poses to the world, and we have the utmost confidence that their victory will be sure and swift. I pledge my full support to these brave men and women and my firm commitment to providing whatever resources may be necessary to back their critical mission. Just as importantly, I want to thank the loved ones these soldiers have left at home for their sacrifice during these difficult times. Sadly, the deaths tonight of 16 Marines and British troops in a helicopter crash in Kuwait remind us of the great and constant risk our servicemen and women are facing. I offer my deepest condolences to their families in their time of grief. Above all, I express the gratitude of every American for the brave patriots who have been called upon to defend freedom and security. May God be with each and every one of our troops as we all pray for their protection in combat and a quick and safe return home.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this budget resolution, which undermines our long-term fiscal health and severely hampers our ability to meet critical domestic needs and foreign responsibilities. I stand united with the President and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in our commitment to win the war against Iraq and take all necessary steps to defeat terrorism and preserve national security both at home and abroad. However, despite the many new security and economic challenges confronting us, the war and our homeland protection efforts should not, and need not, shortchange our domestic priorities. We can win the war against Iraq and terrorism without raiding Social Security and Medicare and without increasing the national debt. Yet, this Republican budget resolution would accomplish just the opposite. Two years ago, the administration and Congress were looking covetously at a staggering $5.6 trillion cumulative surplus through 2010. At the time, Congress was continually reassured by the administration that we could afford an enormous tax cut, ensure the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, pay down the national debt, fund our domestic priorities and still have a large reserve fund for unanticipated emergencies. Like many of my colleagues, I cautioned the administration at the time that its budget and enormous tax cut were based on unrealistic surplus projections that would never materialize. Earlier this year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) confirmed that in less than 2 years the 10-year projected surplus has been erased. While portions of this decline are a result of our efforts to defeat terrorism and preserve national security both at home and abroad, the depletion of the surplus to date was largely caused by the fiscally irresponsible policies of 2001. The additional $1.3 trillion in tax cuts, much of which are due to excluding dividends from taxation, that the administration and the Republican leadership propose would only worsen our current situation and lead us further down the path of mounting deficits and escalating public debt. To pay for the additional tax cuts, the Republican's budget resolution would raid the entire $2.2 trillion Social Security trust fund to cover deficits in the rest of the Federal budget over the next 10 years. Moreover, the projections used to frame this budget are overly optimistic. They do not include the cost of the administration's plan to permanently extend several expiring tax cuts, which would add $100 billion to the deficit between 2004 and 2013. In addition, this budget omits the cost of extending relief from the selling individual Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) beyond 2005. Without AMT relief, the number of taxpayers subject to it will soar from 2 million today to over 43 million by 2013. The projections also leave out an assessment of the enormous cost of the current war and the subsequent costs of occupation, which could last for a number of years. The disappearance of the 10-year surplus compels us to consider not just a 1-year but also a long-term budget plan. Congress and the American people have the right to know how the Republican Leadership proposes to restore fiscal discipline while enacting additional multi- year tax cuts, boosting spending for the military, and meeting commitments to a growing number of retirees. Furthermore, I find it incredibly irresponsible that the majority continues to pursue large tax cuts while shortchanging important domestic priorities. Congress should devise budgetary rules that make tax cuts contingent on the realization of specified targets for the budget surplus and the Federal debt. Unfortunately, this budget fails on all those accounts. Moreover, this budget would cut domestic appropriations by $244 billion over 10 years below the amount needed to maintain services at the 2003 level. Remarkably, the funding levels in this budget are $115.3 billion lower than the level in the President's budget, which many Members--on both sides of the aisle--thought was too low. Further, it would require cuts of $265 billion over 10 years in programs such as Medicaid, veterans' benefits, student loans, housing assistance and pensions and benefits for Federal employee. This budget also fails to provide funds for necessary infrastructure improvements or help hard- pressed states and localities. Meanwhile, it provides an inadequate prescription drug benefit, and underfunds other key priorities without reaching balance until 2012. Instead, I plan to support the Democratic alternative that would eliminate the unfair, costly tax cuts for the rich, and would provide targeted tax rebates to working families, as well as additional funding for expanded unemployment benefits for laid off workers, assistance for states and localities, and necessary infrastructure projects. It would also provide greater funding for Medicare prescription drugs, education, housing, homeland security and other vital domestic programs. This alternative would provide an immediate boost to the economy and crate thousands of jobs, without aggravating our long-term deficits. The need to respond to new short-term needs is no excuse for ignoring the long-term problems we already have. Ultimately, deficits do matter. It is time that we all take the deteriorating budget outlook seriously. We need to ensure that the burden of today's fiscal policies is not placed on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren. This is a matter of fiscal stewardship and generational responsibility, and we must address it without delay. I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided budget and to develop one that will ensure security at home and abroad, without dramatically increasing our debt, borrowing against Social Security and Medicare, or abandoning our commitments to children, workers, senior citizens and all Americans.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of three talented and committed educators from Rhode Island. These outstanding teachers have been selected to receive the 2003 Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. The Presidential Award for Excellence in Math and Science Teaching was established in 1983 by the White House and is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. Each year, NSF identifies educators from the 50 states and 4 U.S. territories as leaders in the improvement of science and mathematics education. These educators are awarded a $7,500 grant from the National Science Foundation and a Presidential citation and serve as role models for their communities and colleagues. Additionally, the grants allow them to continue inspiring their students through innovative teaching. This year, the winners from my district are Ms. Ann Simonelli from Holden Elementary School in Warwick, Mr. Daniel Potts from Chariho Middle School in Wood River Junction, and Ms. Susan Osberg from North Kingstown High School. Ms. Simonelli has been teaching for 22 years, Mr. Potts for 12 years, and Ms. Osberg for 37 years. Their dedication to educating the leaders of tomorrow is laudable. As the United States works to improve its international rankings for math and science education, it is important to reward teachers who excel in these areas. Mr. Speaker, I find it heartening that there are educators in this country who devote so much time and effort to shaping the minds of our young people. I hope you and our colleagues will join me in recognizing and congratulating these outstanding teachers on receiving this prestigious award.

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, because this unhealthy act would severely limit patients' rights to sue for medical injuries while having virtually no impact on the affordability of malpractice insurance coverage. Because there is no provision in this measure requiring insurers to lower their rates once these so-called reforms are in place, 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. There is wide agreement that something must be done to ensure reasonable rates and protect access to health care. Unfortunately, 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. For example, the three-year statute of limitations on malpractice suits contained in this legislation is more restrictive than most state laws, and could cut off legitimate claims involving diseases with long incubation periods. Thus, a person who contracted HIV through a negligent transfusion but learned of the disease more than three years after the procedure would be barred from filing a claim. In addition, H.R. 5 would arbitrarily limit non-economic damages to $250,000 in the aggregate, regardless of the number of parties against whom the action is brought. This cap would hurt patients like Linda McDougal, whose breasts were needlessly amputated due to a doctor's carelessness, and Jesica Santillan, who died after her doctor transplanted organs with an incorrect blood type into her body. It would disproportionately impact women, children, elderly and disabled individuals and others who may not have significant economic losses from lost wages or other factors but are still suffering very real injuries, such as the loss of a limb, pain and disfigurement, the loss of hearing or sight, or the loss of mobility or fertility. Surely, the impact of these injuries on their lives cannot be quantified at less than $250,000. As an individual who was paralyzed at the age of sixteen when a police officer's gun accidentally discharged and severed my spine, I find this provision particularly offensive and callous. After my accident, my medical expenses were outrageously high, and amounted to more than most people make in a year. Although there is no amount of money that can ever return what was taken from me, I was awarded non- economic damages in the lawsuit my family filed shortly after my accident. Granted, my condition was not the result of medical malpractice, but had the non-economic damages in my case been capped, my life would have been profoundly affected because I would not have been fully compensated for my future health care needs. Likewise, I would not have been afforded the opportunity to attend college or had the hope of beginning a new life. While our civil justice system has determined that it is the injured party who deserves the greatest measure of protection, I find it a great disappointment that attempts to limit remuneration to victims of malpractice still persist. In 1976, California enacted the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, MICRA, which limits non-economic damages to $250,000, and is similar to the cap being proposed in this legislation. However, in the twelve years following the enactment of MICRA, California's medical malpractice liability premiums actually increased by 190 percent. It took enactment of insurance reform in 1988 that mandated a 20 percent rate rollback to finally lower and stabilize malpractice premium rates. It is important to note, however, that California's rates are no lower than the national average. Moreover, California's 1976 cap on non- economic damages is now worth only $40,389, in 2002 dollars. As a result, a patient would need to recover $1,547,461 in 2002 for the equivalent medical purchasing power of $250,000 in 1976. Further, H.R. 5 would completely eliminate joint liability for economic and non-economic loss, preventing many injured patients from being compensated fully. Joint liability enables an individual to bring one lawsuit against multiple entities responsible for practicing unsafe medicine or manufacturing a dangerous, defective product and have the defendants apportion fault among them, if the jury finds for the plaintiff. Rather, our top priority in reforming America's health-care system should be reducing the shameful number of preventable medical errors that kill nearly 100,000 hospital patients a year--the equivalent of three fatal plane crashes every two days. In fact, only five percent of doctors account for 54 percent of malpractice payments. Earlier this year, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that surgical teams leave clamps, sponges and other tools inside about 1,500 patients nationwide each year. Making it more difficult for these victims to seek compensation will not lead to safer medicine; it will only protect egregious medical malpractice behavior. Moreover, there is no evidence that the tort reforms proposed in H.R. 5 would guarantee a decrease in insurance rates. In fact, the average liability premium for both internal medicine and general surgery in 2001 was actually higher in states with caps on damages than in states without caps. The proponents of this measure claim that limiting ``frivolous lawsuits'' will lower premiums. However, a study that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1991 concluded that only about 2 percent of those injured by physicians' negligence ever seek compensation through a lawsuit. Recent studies show that this figure remains unchanged. That means that even completely eliminating medical liability would have virtually no impact on the cost of health care. Do we need to find a way to lower insurance and health care costs? Absolutely. Is H.R. 5 the way to do it? Absolutely not. Instead, I plan to support the Democratic motion to recommit, which would allow patients to seek redress and provide 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. Again, I would urge my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill, and to support the Democratic alternative.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Today, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act, because this unhealthy act would severely limit the ability of patients to bring suits and seek appropriate damage awards while failing to require insurers to lower their rates once the so-called reforms are in place. This misguided measure would unfairly impact women, low income families and children or have absolutely no impact on the affordability of malpractice insurance coverage. Proponents of this legislation claim that it contains the right cure for the medical malpractice liability crisis. This elixir is nothing more than a placebo that will not lead to safer medicine, but rather protect egregious medical malpractice behavior. Though not a victim of medical malpractice, the $250,000 cap in this legislation could never compensate me for what I lost when I became paralyzed. For these reasons, I would strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill and to support the Democratic alternative, which would allow patients to seek redress while providing relief to physicians and hospitals in need while holding insurance companies more accountable.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I appreciate his comments; and my condolences go to the families that lost loved ones in the Chicago tragedy as well. We share his pain in these two tragic events. Madam Speaker, on the night of February 20, Rhode Island suffered a devastating tragedy. On that night, a massive fire, ignited by a pyrotechnic display during a rock concert, tore through The Station nightclub in West Warwick, Rhode Island, in my congressional district. That fire took 99 lives and left nearly 200 injured. In any community, this tragedy would have been overwhelming, but in a small State like Rhode Island, when a closeknit town falls victim to one of the worst nightclub fires in the Nation's history, the impact is simply incomprehensible. Everyone in Rhode Island has a connection to one of the victims; and indeed, connections have been made all across New England and, indeed, the Nation. I have introduced the resolution before us today to memorialize this horrible event and honor the victims and to express thanks for heroic efforts of so many emergency personnel, medical workers, community members, and government officials who have helped us through this tragedy. Just as importantly, I was compelled to draw the attention of my colleagues to this fire in order to reinforce the urgent need for increased attention to fire safety nationwide. Federal, State and local officials, along with proprietors of nightclubs and other commercial facilities, must reevaluate safety regulations and their enforcement to ensure that this kind of tragedy never happens again. If the West Warwick fire can serve as a wake-up call and lead to improved safety across the country, then these 99 lives will not have been lost in vain. It is the very least we can do to honor the victims. As Rhode Islanders continue the healing process, I want to express my deepest condolences to those who lost loved ones in this horrible fire. There are no words to adequately express our profound sadness. Please know that they are in the thoughts and prayers of us all, and we will not let the lives of their husbands, wives, sisters and brothers, children, parents and friends be forgotten. As of this afternoon, at least 40 people remain hospitalized, nearly half of them still in critical condition. I know my colleagues join me in offering up prayers for their quick and full recovery. They are fighting every hour, and they need our strength now more than ever. Our best wishes go out to them and their families as they weather the tough days ahead. I would also like to express my immense gratitude for the heroic efforts of people and agencies from Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and elsewhere who have helped respond to this disaster. The firefighters, police, emergency responders who were first on the scene made a herculean effort under unimaginable circumstances; and we have them to thank that even more lives were not lost. In addition, over a dozen hospitals in Rhode Island and Massachusetts have been caring for patients since this tragedy. The doctors, nurses, mental health professionals, and support staff of these hospitals have worked tirelessly to help the injured; and we are grateful for their service. As usual, when tragedy strikes Rhode Island, our community has proven strong, resilient and boundlessly generous. I want to recognize the countless volunteers who have put their lives on hold to help in any way they can. Likewise, many of our State's business community have come forward to provide food, shelter, transportation and much more to those affected by this event. I would particularly like to thank the Red Cross and its scores of volunteers for all they have done to give comfort and assistance to those whose loved ones were lost or injured. Rhode Island's Governor, Don Carcieri, has provided outstanding leadership throughout this ordeal and shown extraordinary sensitivity to the families involved, and I have personally heard from many of them how much they appreciate his efforts. West Warwick's town manager, Wolfgang Bauer, has worked hand in hand with State officials to help the people of his community through this event. Lieutenant Governor Charles Fogarty and Major General Reginald Centracchio, cochairs of the Emergency Management Advisory Council, have also played a crucial role in this crisis; and the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency has impressively and effectively coordinated a myriad of State and local activities. I would also like to thank my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), who is an original cosponsor of this resolution, for his assistance, his friendship and support through this difficult time, and, of course, Rhode Island's senior Senator, Jack Reed, and Senator Lincoln Chafee for their tremendous efforts and leadership. And I want to express my great appreciation to several Federal agencies, including FEMA, the Social Security Administration, SBA, HHS and ATF, for all of their support. Their involvement has been critical, and I look forward to working with them further in the weeks to come. Finally, Madam Speaker, let me address the issues of safety in our clubs, concert halls and other public places. As Americans have been reminded so painfully by the West Warwick fire, as well as the tragic nightclub stampede in Chicago just a few days earlier, we cannot relax our efforts to ensure that our fire and safety regulations are strong and effective and our entertainment facilities are in full compliance with them. As we now know all too well, to lose sight of the overall importance of safety can be fatal. I have been greatly encouraged by the intense efforts going on across the country in recent weeks to revisit fire safety regulations and step up enforcement of existing laws. Our State and local officials are taking this issue seriously, and I am hopeful that the result will be improved safety in every city and town in America. I know that my colleagues are ready to offer whatever Federal assistance might be needed to support these efforts and ensure that the horrific events in Chicago and West Warwick are the last of their kind. In closing, I urge support of House Concurrent Resolution 85.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lifespan Respite Care Act, which I am reintroducing today with the support of a group of 51 original cosponsors from both parties. Each year, over 26 million Americans care for an adult family member who is chronically ill or disabled. An estimated 18 million children have chronic physical, developmental, behavioral or emotional conditions that place significant demands on their parental caregivers. Nearly four million Americans of all ages who have mental retardation or another developmental disability live with their families. Providing voluntary care for these people is equivalent to nearly $200 billion annually, which is the estimated cost if the family caregivers' services were provided by paid caregivers. More importantly, this voluntary care allows seniors and others to continue living at home, which improves their spirits and often speeds up recovery time. Family caregiving has some clear benefits--it contributes to family stability and it often spares families from more costly, out-of-home placements. While voluntary care is personally rewarding, it can result in substantial emotional, physical, and financial strain on the caregiver. Surveys of family caregivers consistently show an unmet need for respite care services. Respite care services relieve caregivers from daily caregiving tasks on a temporary or longer-term basis. This is often necessary for caregivers to address their own health issues or other crises a family may encounter--for example, in the areas of employment, housing or domestic violence. In too many situations, caregivers do not know how to find information about available respite care and access these services. In other cases, respite care is still unavailable to those who need it. Meanwhile, existing respite programs are finding it difficult to recruit and retain trained providers. In response to this need, I have worked together with the National Respite Coalition to craft legislation that eases the burden of responsibility on the family caregivers who give so much. In many cases, this would allow them to continue to provide care for their loved ones. Many lifespan respite programs are already in place at the state and local levels, providing invaluable services to the families of people with chronic disease or disability. We are proposing to build upon these tremendously successful existing programs. The Lifespan Respite Care Act would authorize funds for development and coordination of state and local respite systems, training and recruitment of respite care workers, and creation of a National Resource Center on Lifespan Respite Care. By passing this legislation, we could take a proactive step toward providing quality at-home care for millions of Americans with special needs, preventing caregiver burnout, and safeguarding against the unsafe or inappropriate care that can result from the unmet need for respite care. I thank you for the opportunity to bring this legislation to your attention and ask for the support of my colleagues to move this bill forward.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight with great sorrow and a heavy heart to honor the victims of last week's horrific night club fire at the Station Night Club in West Warwick, Rhode Island, that claimed 97 lives and left 187 injured. In any community, that tragedy would have been overwhelming; but in a small State like Rhode Island, when a close-knit town in the center of our State falls victim to one of the worst nightclub fires in the Nation's history, the impact is simply incomprehensible. It is said that in our world today, only 6 degrees separates each one of us from any other person. As our Attorney General remarked, in Rhode Island, that distance is more like 1\1/2\ degrees. Everyone here has a connection to one of the victims and, indeed, connections are being made by people all across New England and the country. As Rhode Islanders begin the healing process, I want to express my deepest condolences to those friends and family members who lost loved ones in this horrible fire. There are no words to adequately express our profound sadness. Please know that you are in the thoughts and prayers of all Americans, and we will not let the lives of those 97 sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, mothers, and fathers be forgotten. As of this afternoon, 64 people remain hospitalized, 46 of them in critical condition. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues join me in offering our prayers for their quick and full recovery. They are fighting every hour, and they need our strength now more than ever. Our best wishes go out to them and their families as they weather the tough days ahead. I would also like to express my immense gratitude to the incredible and heroic efforts of the multitude of people and agencies throughout Rhode Island and Massachusetts who have helped respond to this disaster. The firefighters, police, and emergency responders who were first on the scene made a Herculean effort under unimaginable circumstances, and we surely have them to thank that even more lives were not lost. In addition, over a dozen hospitals in Rhode Island and Massachusetts have been caring for the patients since this tragedy, many of whom have made amazing progress. The doctors and nurses and the support staff of these hospitals have worked tirelessly to help nearly 200 injured victims, and we are grateful for their service. As usual, when tragedy strikes Rhode Island, our community has proven strong, resilient, and boundlessly generous. I want to recognize the work of countless volunteers who have put their own lives on hold to offer time, financial resources, and the many other kinds of assistance and who helped in any way that they could. Likewise, many members of our State's business community have come forward to provide everything from food and shelter to transportation to those affected by this event. I would particularly like to thank the Red Cross and its scores of volunteers and for all that they have done to give comfort and assistance to those whose loved ones were lost or injured. I would also like to commend the excellent response by Rhode Island's elected officials and State and local agencies. Our governor, Governor Carcieri, has provided outstanding leadership throughout this tragedy and shown extraordinary sensitivity to the families involved, and I have personally heard from many of them how much they appreciate his efforts. Lieutenant Governor Charles Fogarty and Major General Reginald Centracchio, as cochairs of the Management Advisory Council, have also played a crucial role in this crisis, and the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency has impressively and effectively coordinated a myriad of State and local activities. I would also like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Patrick Kennedy), for his assistance, his friendship, and his support over the past several days, and Rhode Island's senior Senator, Jack Reed, and Senator Lincoln Chafee for their tremendous efforts and leadership. Finally, I want to express my great appreciation for the assistance of several Federal agencies, including FEMA, Social Security, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Their involvement has been critical, and I look forward to working with them further in the days and weeks to come. Mr. Speaker, in closing, allow me to offer these final thoughts. For those that have lost their lives, we can only take comfort that they are now in a better place. For those that fight hour to hour, we pray for their recovery. For the families and friends who have lost loved ones, we offer our shoulders to lean on in their time of need. For all Rhode Islanders and our fellow citizens across the country, it is our time to provide strength, comfort, and assistance to those who need it, and do whatever it takes to ensure that such a tragedy never befalls any community such as this again.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 141, and to commend Chairman Manzullo and Ranking Member Velazquez for their leadership in bringing this much needed legislation to the floor. Passage of S. 141 will be the first step in correcting the SBA lending problems plaguing our nation's small businesses. This measure encourages the Administration to use a 7(a) subsidy rate model that would more accurately reflect the true cost of the small business loan programs to the taxpayer. Specifically, it permits the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Small Business Administration (SBA) to use a recently completed econometric model to calculate the credit subsidy rate for the 7(a) small business loan guarantee program. Once enacted into law, this measure will allow SBA's flagship loan program to meet the borrowing demands of our nation's small businesses. Without this legislation, the program would limit 7(a) loans to less than $5 billion for FY 2003. Currently, the 7(a) program is operating at a very reduced capacity, with a loan size cap of $500,000, to avoid exceeding the program limitations. According to a recent GAO study, the current model has also resulted in overcharges or taxes of $1.5 billion over the last 10 years. By limiting the 7(a) guaranteed small business loan program, we are unnecessarily restricting capital for America's small businesses to expand and create jobs. In 2002, this crucial program backed 51,666 loans worth over $12 billion to small firms nationwide. Last year, 21 different financial institutions in Rhode Island approved 932 7(a) loans for a total of over $75 million to Rhode Island's small business community. In fact, 7(a) loans make up nearly one-third of all long-term loans made to U.S. small businesses. This program is important to every small business in America and deserves our continued support. Small businesses are the backbone of Rhode Island's economy and account for more than 98 percent of the jobs in the state. As a proud member of the Committee on Small Business, I have been extremely concerned about the ability of small businesses to start and grow in the current economic climate. Now more than ever, Congress must support the growth of America's small businesses and help stimulate the real engine of this nation's economy. For these reasons, I rise in strong support of passage of S. 141 and urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by 33 of my colleagues in introducing the ``Accidental Shooting Prevention Act'' to address the large number of firearm injuries and deaths that occur when users mistakenly fire guns they believe are not loaded. This sensible bipartisan legislation would require that all semiautomatic firearms manufactured after January 1, 2006, which have removable magazines, be equipped with plainly visible chamber load indicators and magazine disconnect mechanisms. As with many other consumer products, firearm design can reduce the risk of injury. But unlike other products, gun design decisions have been largely left to manufacturers. Fortunately, firearms manufacturers have already produced many guns with safety devices, such as chamber load indicators and magazine disconnect mechanisms, which can help reduce the risk of accidental injuries. A chamber load indicator indicates that the gun's firing chamber is loaded with ammunition, but to be effective, a user must be aware of the indicator. Generally, chamber load indicators display the presence of ammunition via a small protrusion somewhere on the handgun. Unfortunately, most chamber load indicators do not clearly indicate their existence to untrained users or observers. We must ensure these indicators are easily visible to all gun users, and my legislation will do just that. By comparison, a magazine disconnect mechanism is an interlocking device which prevents a firearm from being fired when its ammunition magazine is removed, even if there is a round in the chamber. Interlocks are found on a wide variety of consumer products to reduce injury risks. For example, most new cars have an interlocking device that prevents the automatic transmission shifter from being moved from the ``park'' position unless the brake pedal is depressed. It is common sense that a product as dangerous as a gun should contain a similar safety mechanism. At the age of sixteen, I was left paralyzed when a police officer's gun accidentally discharged and severed my spine. Although the act was unintentional, I am reminded every day of the tragedies that can occur when firearms are mishandled. Unfortunately, I am not alone in my experience. In 1999, the Centers for Disease Control reported that over 820 people were killed in the United States by accidental discharges of firearms, and many more were injured. Clearly, mistakes can happen even when guns are in the hands of highly-trained weapons experts, which is why safety devices are so critical. I urge my colleagues to join me and the 33 original co-sponsors of this bill in reducing the risk of unintentional shootings. Please co- sponsor this responsible measure, and help make firearms and their storage safer while protecting those unfamiliar with the operation of guns.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4, the welfare reauthorization bill. H.R. 4 is much the same as the legislation opposed by 197 Members last year. It imposes enormous unfunded mandates on State governments, while requiring States to make fundamental changes to their welfare systems. It caps the amount of rehabilitative services a State can provide and imposes inflexible work requirements that restrict States' ability to respond effectively to their populations. A little known fact about TANF is that 44 percent of families in the program include a person with a physical or mental impairment. Not surprisingly, studies show that families including a person with a disability disproportionately lose TANF assistance through sanctions. Increased demands on States and families of the disabled heighten their already extraordinary risk of inappropriate sanctions. It is our responsibility to incorporate safeguards for families caring for individuals with special needs. I urge my colleagues to act responsibly by supporting the alternative, Democratic substitute, which allows for State flexibility in meeting the needs of people with disabilities by leaving in place mechanisms for a real chance at rehabilitation.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great man who passed away on January 30th, 2003. Mr. Raymond K. Lang led a life of service both to his country and to his community. He served in the Air Force for four years, reaching the rank of sergeant, and was also a member of the Rhode Island Air National Guard's 143rd Arial Port Squadron for twenty years, retiring in April 2002 at the rank of master sergeant. In 2001, he received an associate's degree in computer science from the Community College of Rhode Island, and until his untimely death, he worked diligently as a project leader in the information technology department at the Wolverine Joining Tube Company. He was an active member of the Asbury United Methodist Church and a committed volunteer for Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Lang is survived by a wife, Debra Jean Lang; two sons, Peter R. and Ryan C. Lang; two brothers, John J. Lang Jr. and James E. Lang; and one sister, Lorena M. Zisk. They are a testament to his wonderful and giving life. He will be greatly missed and our thoughts and prayers go out to all those who mourn his loss. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleagues in expressing my deepest condolences to the families, colleagues and friends of the seven crewmembers lost aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia. The American people and the Untied States' space program have suffered a great loss in this tragedy. These explorers bravely undertook this journey, fulfilling a dream that many work a lifetime to achieve yet few accomplish. Columbia's crewmembers were pilots, physicians, soldiers, scientists, and patriots. Above all they were fathers, mothers, daughters, sons, and friends. It is my hope that this legacy will continue to encourage people around the globe to look beyond the confines of earth for new challenges and inspiration. There these heroes traveled so far and were so close to returning to their loved ones makes this loss even more upsetting. What had otherwise been a routine and successful mission turned tragic on Saturday morning, and I trust there will be a full investigation into this shocking accident to ensure that future shuttle missions do not meet the same fate. I join all Rhode Islanders in mourning the tragic loss of Shuttle Commander Rick D. Husband, Pilot William C. McCool, Payload Commander Michael P. Anderson, Mission Specialists David M. Brown, Kalpana Chawla and Laurel Clark and Israel's first astronaut, Ilan Ramon. My thoughts and prayers are with their loved ones as we remember their lives and honor their immense contributions to space exploration.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the measure passed by the Senate yesterday that would provide an extension of federal unemployment insurance benefits to jobless workers. I am pleased that Congress is finally extending unemployment benefits to the 800,000 Americans and 2,800 Rhode Islanders whose federal benefits were cut off on December 28, 2002. However, I would be remiss if I did not remind the House Republican Leadership that even with passage of this legislation, Congress would still leave out over 1 million workers nationwide, including thousands of Rhode Islanders, who have already exhausted their benefits and are still unable to find a job. Many Rhode Islanders, and Americans across the nation, are still struggling to find employment. The national unemployment rate reached 6 percent in November last year, its highest point in eight years, and Rhode Island's unemployment rate currently stands above 5 percent. Congress must provide all unemployed workers the resources they need to put food on the table and pay the bills while they weather this economic downturn. While I intend to support the underlying legislation, I would point out that passage of this bill, as important as it is, will leave too many people without any means of support, and I would strongly urge my colleagues to turn their attention to the unemployed workers who have already exhausted their extended benefits. In addition, I am very disappointed that the Republican Leadership has denied our colleagues the opportunity to debate and vote on a Democratic alternative, which would provide 26 weeks of additional benefits to struggling workers. We must not turn our backs on those who are most vulnerable during these trying times.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, last night the House approved the conference report for H.R. 4546, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. Passage of that legislation represents an important commitment by Congress to a strong national defense and to the men and women who provide it. As the United States continues to prosecute the war against terrorism, it is essential that our armed forces are appropriately equipped. The conference report provides vital support for homeland counterterrorism programs, increased weapons capability, and military research and development. Additionally, it recognizes the important role of our men and women in uniform by providing a 4.1 percent pay raise and authorizing a force increase of 40,000 people. I am particularly pleased that the conference agreement includes language prohibiting the military from requiring or strongly encouraging U.S. servicewomen in Saudi Arabia to wear the abaya--a long black garment required for women under Islamic law. I have been working with the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hostettler, and the gentlewoman from New Mexico, Mrs. Wilson, to remove this unnecessary and degrading mandate. The Defense Authorization conference report ends this double standard and guarantees that our servicewomen are not treated as second-class citizens. Additionally, the legislation breaks new ground by establishing a concurrent receipt program. For too long, our disabled military retirees have witnessed their military retirement pay reduced by the amount they receive in disability compensation. I have fought against this injustice since arriving in Congress and am pleased that this legislation will provide greater assistance to many of those who have made sacrifices for our nation. The National Defense Authorization Act is a great achievement and an appropriate recognition of Chairman Bob Stump's dedicated leadership. I appreciate having had the opportunity to serve with Chairman Stump on the House Armed Services Committee and commend him for his deft handling of the complex matters arising from the international war on terrorism. Together with Ranking Member Ike Skelton, Chairman Stump helped foster a collegial and thoughtful atmosphere in the committee, thus ensuring that Congress's approach to the war on terrorism was bipartisan and well considered. I wish him well in the future and thank him again for his leadership. As the House prepares to recess for the year, I am disappointed that we were not able to claim greater progress on appropriations bills and other important legislation. Nevertheless, passage of the Defense Authorization Act, coupled with the final agreement reached on the Department of Homeland Security, demonstrates Congress's commitment to ensuring the safety of the American people, and I am proud of the work we have accomplished in these fields.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the creation of a Department of Homeland Security and am pleased that we are able to consider this important issue before the end of the 107th Congress. I am pleased that this legislation largely reflects the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century, chaired by Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, which assessed the nation's security vulnerabilities and recommended the creation of a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. By consolidating the security functions of 22 separate federal agencies into one department, we can ensure that our nation puts forth a united front against terrorism on our soil. The new department represents a major step forward in our efforts to protect the American people. Furthermore, it will serve as an important resource to police, fire, and emergency medical service workers, who represent the first line of defense against terrorism. In July, the House passed a similar measure, H.R. 5005, which I supported. However, at that time, I urged my colleagues to improve certain provisions in the bill so that we might safeguard civil service protections for department employees and preserve existing good government laws. I am disappointed that today's bill did not go further in those respects. The proposed Department of Homeland Security could employ as many as 170,000 people, and we should promote a work environment that enhances their ability to protect the American people. I will support this legislation today because it is the responsibility of Congress to keep America safe from future acts of terror. Furthermore, I will closely monitor its implementation to ensure that we protect the security of our nation as effectively as possible.