Jim Langevin

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the Armenian victims of the genocide brought upon them by the Ottoman Turkish Empire and to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey, Congressman Frank Pallone, and the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Joe Knollenberg, for organizing this special order today so that Members of the House may take the time to remember this solemn occasion. April 24th marks the beginning of the systematic and deliberate campaign of genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Turkish Empire in 1915. Over the following 8 years, 1.5 million Armenians were tortured and murdered, and more than half a million were forced from their homeland into exile. Regrettably, in the years since, the Turkish Government has refused to apologize for these atrocious acts, or even acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, despite overwhelming documentation. By recognizing the victims of the genocide, we commemorate both those who perished and those who were able to begin a new life in communities like my home State of Rhode Island, where many Armenian families continue to thrive today. I hope that recognition of this atrocity will help erase the remnants of an era in which propaganda and deceit held precedence over truth and human dignity. Our nation must never allow oppression and persecution to pass without condemnation. Armenians are a strong, resilient people, struggling to heal the wounds of the past. However, until the Armenian genocide is officially acknowledged, these wounds will remain. We should not deny the Armenian people their rightful place in history. To do so would dishonor them, and blight our understanding of the past. It is the best interests of our nation and the entire global community to remember the past and learn from history. Even as we remember the tragedy and honor the dead, we also honor the living. Out of the ashes of their history, Armenians all across the world have clung to their identity and have prospered in new communities. The State of Rhode Island is fortunate to be home to such an organized and active community, whose members contribute and participate in every aspect of civic life. As an ardent supporter of the Armenian-American community throughout my public service career, I am proud to honor the victims of the genocide by paying tribute to their memory, showing compassion for those who have suffered from such heinous prejudice, and never forgetting the pain that they have endured. Let us never forget their tragedy, and ensure that such crimes are never repeated.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act. However, as a member of the Small Business Committee, I am aware of the tax burden under which many entrepreneurs and working families must operate, which is why I plan to vote for the Democratic substitute. I support efforts to protect small business owners and will work to ensure that they are not forced to sell businesses that have remained in their families for generations in order to pay estate taxes. Unfortunately, H.R. 8 does not effectively target the small businesses and family farms that are in greatest need of assistance. It would allow the wealthiest two percent of our population to pass wealth to their heirs without taxation, while hard working families would continue to be taxed on every dollar earned. It would also have a devastating impact on charities, foundations, universities and other philanthropic organizations. This legislation would cause enormous revenue losses and threaten our ability to address national priorities like extending the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, reducing our national debt, implementing a prescription drug benefit for seniors and improving education and health care. As the third installment of President Bush's $1.6 trillion tax cut package, H.R. 8 would gradually reduce and then fully repeal the estate tax over a ten-year period. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that this measure would reduce revenues by more than $192 billion over the next decade. Moreover, repealing the estate tax will cost states about $6 billion annually, possibly forcing them to make up the revenue through other tax or fee increases. Perhaps most important of all, the benefit of H.R. 8 to my constituents would be minimal. Based on Internal Revenue Service data for 1998, estimates show that of 10,000 deaths in my home state, only 361 Rhode Island decedents filed estate tax returns and only 187 returns resulted in an estate tax liability. In a similar study that same year, the IRS also found that only two percent of decedents nationwide--or 47,483 estates--were impacted by the federal estate tax. In fact, 3,000 of the most affluent individuals in the country paid more than half of all the estate taxes that year. If we are truly concerned about the small business owners and family farmers who are adversely affected by the estate tax, we should pass the Democratic substitute. This sensible reform would immediately exclude over 75 percent of estates by increasing the exemption to $2 million per individual and $4 million per couple. As a result, only \1/ 2\ of one percent of all decedents would pay the estate tax. Additionally, 99 percent of all farms would be exempt. Under our proposal, those eligible middle-income families, small business owners and family farmers truly in need would receive estate tax relief. Furthermore, they would receive the benefit now, rather than waiting years for relief, as required under the Republican plan. This measure, included with the tax cut plan and budget resolution already passed by the House, would exceed the projected budget surplus and require deep cuts in non-defense discretionary funding. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against this fiscally irresponsible measure and support the Democratic substitute. It ensures that small businesses and family farms can be preserved from one generation to the next, while retaining some of our budget surplus to pay down the debt, ensure the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, and allocate critical funding for our national priorities. Amendment In the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Rangel

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to address critical issues facing America's nurses, which have a tremendous impact on the quality of this Nation's health care system. As many of my colleagues know, we face an unprecedented, dangerous shortage in the number of nurses in our hospitals, extended care facilities, community health centers, nursing education, and ambulatory care settings. This shortage is due in large part to the aging nursing population, which is not being replaced by younger entrants into this field. Moreover, data on the nursing workforce shows that staffing shortages are already occurring and recruiting new registered nurses is becoming a looming obstacle which we will not be able to overcome without swift congressional action. The current shortage will soon be compounded by the lack of young people entering the nursing profession, the rapid aging of the nursing workforce, and the impending health needs of the baby boom generation. That is why I am proud to be an original cosponsor of legislation to improve access to nursing education, to create partnerships between health care providers and educational institutions, to support nurses as they seek more training, and to improve the collection and analysis of data about the nursing workforce. I congratulate my colleagues in both Chambers for their hard work in crafting this comprehensive legislation, and I urge both Chambers to bring this legislation to the floor as expeditiously as possible. An equally vexing issue concerning our hard-working nurses is mandatory overtime. Last week I joined the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) in introducing legislation to prohibit mandatory overtime for all licensed health care employees beyond 8 hours in a single workday or 80 hours in any 14 day work period except in cases of natural disaster or declaration of an emergency by Federal, State, or local government officials, or when it is voluntary. The practice of mandatory overtime tears at the fiber of many hard- working families. Instead of punching out at the end of an already lengthy shift and traveling home to their families, many nurses are forced to remain at work. But more than a family or labor issue, this is a fundamental public health problem with far-reaching consequences. Exhausted health care workers can inadvertently or unintentionally put patient safety at risk. A report by the Institute of Medicine on medication errors found that safe staffing and limits on mandatory overtime are essential components to preventing medication errors. An investigative report by the Chicago Tribune also found that patient safety was sacrificed when reductions in hospital staff resulted in registered nurses working long overtime hours and being more likely to make serious medical errors. Mr. Speaker, these studies confirm the grim stories I hear from my constituents on a regular basis. In fact, last October 1,900 people participated in a 1-day strike at Rhode Island Hospital which illustrated the magnitude of this problem facing Rhode Island nurses, hospitals and patients. I understand that hospitals need an ample supply of nurses to safely administer patient needs, and they are not to blame for our Nation's nursing shortages. But with nurses within the Lifespan Hospital network in my State working 180,000 hours of overtime, the equivalent of 22,500 extra 8-hour shifts last year, I cannot understand why Congress does not act now to stop this injustice which risks the lives of thousands of Americans each and every day. Mr. Speaker, what happened in Rhode Island is happening across America. That is why I urge my colleagues to join the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and me in ensuring expedient passage of both of these bills to help our hard-working nurses and to improve the kind of quality of health care that Americans expect and deserve.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act, because I firmly believe that Congress should provide meaningful relief from the tax burden on Rhode Island's married couples. However, we can and should improve upon this measure as it makes its way through the legislative process. In particular, the benefits of the bill must be targeted more directly to lower- and middle-income families who are currently penalized for being married. Further, the underlying bill does little to adequately adjust the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which increasingly affects the middle class. As a result, too many middle-income families remain unprotected from having most of the promised benefits of the bill taken away. I have additional concerns that this Congress has yet to finalize its work on a budget framework this year. We also have little perspective on how this legislation will fit into our other collective commitments to extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare and reduce our national debt. Congress needs to enact a budget that honors our commitments and our continued need to invest in education, law enforcement, the environment, health care and national defense, before enacting a large tax cut. For these reasons, I will support both the Democratic alternative and the motion to recommit. The substitute not only takes a large step toward eliminating the marriage penalty, but also would provide substantial tax cuts to all working families in a responsible budget framework. Specifically, this measure would create a new bracket for married couples, increase the standard deduction for married couples and adjust the AMT. Finally, the motion to recommit seeks to provide an immediate tax cut to boost our economy and help those families who need assistance now. Again, while I support final passage of this legislation because I believe hardworking Americans deserve some relief from the marriage penalty, I hope that his flawed bill will be improved in the Senate to ensure lower- and middle-income couples benefit as well. And more than anything, I urge my colleagues to focus on crafting a budget and tax cut framework that rewards hard-working taxpayers, while ensuring that our debt is paid down, Social Security and Medicare remain strong, and our national priorities like education and health care are not shortchanged.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this budget resolution. In particular, I object to its cornerstone: an enormous tax cut that is skewed towards the wealthy and based on unreliable ten-year surplus projections. Furthermore, it usurps funds that should go to other critical priorities--including long-term debt reduction, creating a stable defense, improving education, providing affordable health care and strengthening Social Security and Medicare. What is most important to me and many of my colleagues is that we enact a budget based on principles, not politics. I believe we should start by honoring our promises, and I remain committed to paying down the national debt, while providing responsible tax relief and ensuring our most pressing needs are met. The Administration's budget calls for a $2 trillion tax cut (including the resulting increased interest costs) that disproportionately benefits the wealthiest one percent of our society. However, the budget fails to explain how our other national needs can be funded. When properly accounted for, the $1.4 trillion ``reserve,'' which the budget resolution delineates as available for ``additional needs,'' would not even cover the costs of maintaining current programs, let alone support the initiatives the President himself proposed during his campaign. We would all like to reward hard-working Americans by returning some of their tax dollars, but we also have an obligation to pay down as much of our publicly held debt as we possibly can. We ought not pass these bills onto our children, as the Bush Administration and this budget resolution propose. Further, we should use our current prosperity to enhance those federal programs relied upon by some of the most vulnerable members of society. Our senior citizens, as well as younger generations, deserve to know that the Social Security system will be strong and viable, whether they need it now or in twenty years. We must reform and strengthen Medicare, without slashing benefits or increasing costs for seniors. And we must provide an affordable prescription drug component for all seniors. This budget resolution would cut appropriated federal programs that are absolutely vital to our nation's small business, worker, health, environmental protection, and housing needs. The Bush budget also shortchanges our vast transportation and infrastructure needs, decreases funding for critical law enforcement programs, and cuts budget authority for the benefits our veterans need and deserve. And at a time when an energy crisis is threatening large portions of our country, why would the Administration propose to cut our energy budget below current levels? Furthermore, the Small Business Administration (SBA) would receive a cut of over 46 percent in its overall budget. Small businesses are the backbone of Rhode Island's economy and account for more than 95 percent of the jobs in the state. They bring new and innovative services and products to the market place and provide business ownership opportunities to diverse and traditionally underrepresented groups. Many of these small businesses rely on the valuable loan assistance and technical training programs offered by the SBA. These cuts could severely impact Rhode Island's small business community, just when we need their contributions the most. I support a more balanced approach to our federal budget that allows for a significant tax cut, but also takes into consideration a wide range of short and long-term budgetary needs. It is for these reasons that I will support the Democratic and Blue Dog alternatives. Under the Democratic alternative, we could extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare and have a sizable tax cut that would benefit every family. This measure would also allow us to adequately fund our top priorities, including education, prescription drugs, defense and small business, and still retire all redeemable public debt by 2008. The Blue Dog Budget Alternative would set forth a five-year budget framework to account for the uncertainties in long-term budget forecasts. The plan provides for retiring over half the publicly held debt by 2006 and eliminating back-loaded tax cuts and unnecessary spending increases. By reserving half of the on-budget surplus for the next five years, we could continue to pay down the debt and strengthen Social Security and preserve Medicare. Finally, like the Democratic alternative, the Blue Dog budget sets aside a pool of money to help states and localities improve their voting systems in time for the next federal elections. The Bush framework completely ignores this urgent need. The Bush Administration's budget threatens the quality of life of millions of Americans. There are many tough choices ahead, but I firmly believe that with cooperation and an eye towards operating within a responsible framework, this Administration and Congress can and should develop a budget that will ensure that everyone's needs are met. I encourage my colleagues to join me in rejecting this ill-conceived Republican proposal and supporting instead a sensible, well-balanced budget resolution that speaks to the needs of every American family.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the Veterans' Opportunities Act. I commend our veterans who have made such significant sacrifices to preserve this Nation and protect the freedoms we cherish. Many people do not realize just how many veterans are among us: 19,520 war veterans, 1,854 Persian Gulf veterans, 8,177 Vietnam Era veterans, 4,257 Korean Era veterans, and 6,002 World War II veterans. In supporting the Veterans' Opportunities Act today, I pay homage to the more than 25,000 veterans in this nation. I am particularly proud to vote for this legislation because it takes critical steps toward strengthening the Veterans Affairs Department. It expands payout amounts for several VA death and retirement benefits and extends coverage under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program to dependent spouses and children. It also increases the maximum allowable annual ROTC award for benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill and expands the VA's work-study program for veterans who are students. Moreover, the Veterans' Opportunities Act increases funding for the automobile and adaptive equipment grant for severely disabled veterans and allows the disabled spouse or surviving spouse of a severely disabled service-connected veteran to receive special restorative training--both of these provisions are vital to many of my constituents. Finally, this legislation makes these much-needed changes retroactive to October 1, 2000, for service members killed in the line of duty. This language ensures that the service members killed in the terrorist attack on the USS Cole last October are covered. I applaud the tireless efforts of the Chairman and Ranking Member on behalf of America's veterans over the years. They have succeeded in producing valuable legislation that will help those who need and deserve these services the most. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for our veterans by voting for the Veterans' Opportunities Act.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 802, the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act, which would create a national medal for public safety officers who exhibit extraordinary heroism in the line of duty. As someone who once aspired to serve in law enforcement and a proud member of both the Congressional Law Enforcement and Firefighters Caucuses, I deeply admire those who devote their lives to public safety. We are blessed to have dedicated men and women public safety officials throughout this nation who consistently risks their lives on a daily basis to protect our families and communities. It is absolutely critical that we recognize these loyal public servants and ensure that the risks that these brave individuals assume in the course of their duties are not taken for granted. Although many local public safety organizations honor those who have demonstrated bravery, the federal government does little to reward and recognize these individuals. By passing the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act, Congress would have the unique opportunity to express its appreciation for the unnoticed acts of valor committed by public safety officers who have gone above and beyond the call of duty. Further, this legislation will help send a positive message across the country that our public safety officers deserve our utmost respect for their service and sacrifices. I will continue to applaud the courage and dedication to duty of all public safety officers and would strongly urge my colleagues to support the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, last week, I announced the introduction of a resolution calling on Congress to enact meaningful election reform legislation. Today, I am proud to introduce another measure on election reform and to announce an important voting technology demonstration I am sponsoring tomorrow with my former secretary of state colleagues who are presently now in the House and the Senate. I am pleased to introduce legislation today to improve the voting process for millions of elderly Americans and persons with disabilities. In every election year, many of these people stay at home, stay away from the polls, not from apathy but from concern about their ability to cast a vote independently. The elderly and visually impaired may not be able to decipher small print or confusing ballots, and people in wheelchairs may have difficulty maneuvering in older voting booths. Unfortunately, this problem is pervasive throughout the United States. With nearly one in five Americans having some level of disability and approximately 35 million Americans over the age of 65, we must act now to ensure that our voting system is accessible to all Americans. To ensure that Americans are not discouraged from voting because of outdated voting equipment and inaccessible voting places, I am introducing the Voting Opportunity through Technology and Education, or VOTE, Act. This measure would require the Federal Election Commission to establish voluntary accessibility and ease-of-use standards for polling places in voting equipment. In 1984, Congress passed the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act. This legislation required that all polling places in the United States be made accessible to the elderly and the disabled, but provided the FEC with little enforcement power. With the establishment of the new accessibility and ease-of-use standards in my VOTE Act, the FEC would be able to provide secretaries of state and election administrators with more information and support services to help them comply with accessible laws. Additionally, the voting technology industry could use these standards to ensure that their products may be correctly used by all Americans at the polls. Finally, the VOTE Act would provide grants to States so that they may improve their voting systems and educate poll workers and voters about the availability and benefits of these new technologies. Mr. Speaker, I know first-hand how modern voting systems can increase voter turnout and improve accuracy. As a secretary of state for the State of Rhode Island, I was the chief architect of a plan to upgrade the State's voting system and equipment. The replacement of outdated lever machines with optical scan equipment and Braille and tactile ballots helped increase voter turnout and significantly reduced chances of error. To highlight this equipment, as well as other voting technologies now available, I am joining former secretaries of state now in Congress, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), in hosting the voting technology demonstration on Thursday, March 22. There we will address our own work at the State level to improve voting accountability and accuracy and demonstrate the various forms of election equipment, including punchcard ballot, optical scan and direct recording electronic systems. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to attend this educational event, as it will help prepare us for a nationwide discussion on election reform. Additionally, I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this VOTE Act to make voting one of the greatest expressions of civic participation available on an equal basis to all Americans.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in proud recognition of the 180th anniversary of Greek Independence. This is a great day, for it commemorates the return of democracy to this, the cradle of Western Civilization, after nearly four hundred years of foreign trade. Greece has always been proud and independent by nature. Its people were a powerful force both culturally and militarily, as evidenced by the works of Homer and the multitude of Greek philosophers. The pinnacle of Greek influence was Alexander the Great and his unification of the eastern Mediterranean and ancient Middle East. Greek culture was spread throughout the new empire and for the first time, people were communicating with a common language, sharing ideas in a way never before possible. This hellenization was an idea that transformed every place it touched. Nearly two thousand years later, another important concept from ancient Greece came to the forefront of modern thought. The concept of ``rule by the people,'' an alien idea in a time still dominated by kings and queens, gained prominence in the young United States. This was the desire of the framers of our Constitution, and they found their inspiration in the principles of the polis of Athens. Thirty years later, in 1821, spurred on by the American example, the people of Greece acted upon a desire to be free. The Ottoman Turks had conquered the region in 1453, bringing an end to over a thousand years of rule by the Orthodox-Christian Byzantine Empire and its resurgence of Greek culture. After a bloody eleven-year war, Greece was finally free once again. In the modern era, one of the most important reminders of Greek heritage is the Olympic Games, which are finally returning to their origins in Athens in 2004 for the 25th Summer Olympic Games. Every four years, the Olympics have symbolized peace and excellence for people the world over, reassuring us that even the smallest nation can compete on an equal ground with the largest country. Madam Speaker, it is this feeling that I believe is the greatest contribution Greece has given to our world. We are all equal, whether it is in our democratic government, or in friendly competition, and we can come together in friendship even during the most difficult of times. With that, I would like to thank my colleagues for holding this special order and once again congratulate Greece on the anniversary of its independence and all of the gifts it has given us.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, today we consider H.R. 327, the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act, which will reduce paperwork for America's hardworking small business owners. As the son of a small business owner, I support efforts to reduce paperwork for small businesses and protect them from unnecessary and onerous regulatory requirements. This measure, while similar to legislation approved by the House in the last two Congresses, excludes controversial language that would have waived civil fines on small businesses for first-time paperwork violations. However, I maintain significant reservations about voting on a small business bill that was never considered by the Small Business Committee on which I proudly serve. One concern I would have liked to address in the committee is the need to balance the reduction in paperwork with the prevention of willful mistakes and worker safety hazards. It is our responsibility to ensure that the workplace remains safe. Further, we need to maintain our ability to sanction those small numbers of businesses that are undercutting their competition by willingly circumventing or ignoring the law. Small businesses are the backbone of Rhode Island's economy and account for more than 95 percent of the job market in the state. They create new businesses and jobs; bring new and innovative services and products to the marketplace; and provide business ownership opportunities to diverse and traditionally underrepresented groups. I remain committed to the small business community of Rhode Island and will support the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act, but I strongly urge my colleagues to continue to examine this issue through the appropriate legislative process.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to talk on a special order on election reform. Today I am proud to introduce my first piece of legislation in the United States House of Representatives, a resolution calling on Congress to take swift and meaningful action on election reform so we can implement significant improvements before 2002. I am committed to making election reform a top priority and ensuring that America's faith in democracy is not diminished by pervasive problems in our voting system. We must enter the next Federal election cycle with full confidence in our Nation's voting technology. That is why I urge my colleagues on both side of the aisle to work together to ensure that in 2002 each and every vote counts. Exactly 1 month ago, I addressed this House on this very same issue. At that time I spoke of my work as Rhode Island's Secretary of State in modernizing our State's antiquated voting equipment. During my tenure, Rhode Island upgraded its voting machines from the worst in the Nation to among the best. We improved our technology, we improved accessibility, we improved accuracy in our elections and achieved a significant increase in voter participation. Furthermore, all of these reforms were cost effective. Models exist for accurate and cost-effective election reform that States can replicate to assure true democracy. In fact, my former staff has been working with election officials in Florida and New York as well as researchers at MIT to discuss how they can emulate our success. Many of our Nation's election administrators right now are working tirelessly to improve their voting systems, and I applaud their efforts to ensure that no voter is disenfranchised and that all ballots are counted accurately. However, I know from personal experience that upgrading an entire State's election system is no small feat. It requires a great deal of planning, investment of time and resources, and the coordination of efforts with different levels of government. Fortunately, 21 Members of this House have introduced legislation to help improve our Nation's overall voting system. The sponsors of these bills hold a variety of ideological views. However, we all share one common goal, to ensure that our Nation's election system does not undermine citizens' confidence in the democratic process and that every vote counts. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I am introducing this sense of the Congress resolution encouraging Congress to make this vision a reality by the 2002 election. Though we may disagree about some of the details, my colleagues and I are willing to put aside our differences and work for the betterment of our Nation. We must act now to ensure that the United States has an accurate and open election system, we must act now to ensure that our elderly and disabled voters can cast their votes independently, and we must act now to ensure that every one of our Nation's military voters counts. We can attain all of these goals, but we must begin our efforts immediately to reach them by 2002. One person, one vote is the fundamental principle upon which American democracy stands. Please join me in cosponsoring this resolution and in learning about the various voting technologies at the secretaries of state demonstration I am sponsoring next week which will give us an up-close look at the various types of voting technology available and in taking an open-minded, bipartisan approach to resolving this national problem. Nothing can be more important to Congress than guaranteeing every American free and fair access to our democratic process.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the victims of gun violence at Santana High School, the countless lives that have been affected by this tragic incident, and the numerous similar tragedies that have happened over the past few years. The violence at Santana is deeply disturbing. No child should fear for her life in school, and no child should feel so alienated that he perceives violence as his only option. When Charles Andrew Williams entered school on Monday, March 5, he had already cried out for help. He had told his friends his plan. He had even told his friend's parent. In all, Andy Williams told over 20 people what he planned to do. But no one took him seriously and now two children are dead. While this was clearly an act of rage, it was also one of fear and desperation. And sadly, Andy was not alone. Within 48 hours of his arrest, 16 other children in California had been arrested or detained for suspicion of gun-related violence. In fact, since Dylan Kelbold and Eric Harris killed thirteen of their classmates at Columbine High School almost two years ago, over eighteen separate incidents of student-to-student gun violence have occurred. Many more planned attempts to emulate this violence have gone unreported or perhaps never even known. Just six weeks ago in East Providence, Rhode Island, a hit list was found that was written by four fifth graders. Many of us are at a loss to explain this explosion of school violence in recent years, but everyone agrees that we must address the mental health needs of our children. Education Secretary Rod Paige has attributed the rash of school shootings to `alienation and rage.' A recent Secret Sservice study concluded that the common theme underlying perpetrators of violent crimes in schools is depression. Three-quarters of children committing these crimes have talked about or attempted suicide. More than two-thirds report having been bullied by their peers. Disturbing emotions of alienation and rage in our nation's schools are real and pervasive and deep-seated. We must take steps to alleviate this pain and provide the help that our children are crying out for in these violent actions. Our schoolchildren need professional counselors who can help them cope with the pressures of being a teenager. They need supportive adults in their lives. They also need a moral compass that will help them sort through the violence that permeates our culture. What they do not need is easy access to weapons. Whatever alienation Andy Williams was feeling, he could not have committed such a heinous act without the help of a .22 caliber revolver. Guns are simply too accessible to children today, and American children are suffering the consequences. The accidental death rate among children from gunshot wounds is nine times higher in the United States than in the other largest 25 industrialized countries combined, and at least six loopholes still exist that allow children and violent offenders obtain guns. Guns alone do not kill children, but in times of extreme emotional distress they enable a disturbed innocent child to become a murderer. Efforts to increase children's self-esteem and to reduce their access to guns will decrease the number of these incidents. While I applaud my colleagues in honoring the children and families of Santana High School, I urge you to let this be the first step toward change, not the last. As one whose life was forever altered when a gun accidentally discharged, I know first hand that guns are dangerous and far too often fatal. For the sake of our children, I implore my colleagues to pass meaningful legislation to end school violence once and for all.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3 because it flies in the face of the disciplined approach to spending, commitment to paying down the national debt and responsible tax relief that I have always advocated. In my home State of Rhode Island, the Republican plan will leave out an estimated 34,000 families and their 68,000 children because they do not have Federal income tax liability. A full 25 percent of Rhode Island's families with children would not see a cent under H.R. 3. That is why I have cosponsored and will vote today for the Democratic substitute. I support a tax package that provides relief to everyone who pays Federal income or payroll taxes. This plan is fiscally responsible and offers immediate and fair relief for middle- and low- income families. What is more, the Rangel substitute will leave enough room for us to make substantial progress in paying down the national debt, a goal which should inform every aspect of our budget policy. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute and vote against the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act, because it flies in the face of the disciplined approach to spending, commitment to paying down the national debt, and responsible tax relief that I have advocated since I entered public service 15 years ago. Instead, as a co-sponsor of the Democratic substitute, I support a tax package that would give relief to those who need and deserve it the most. As rosy as the budget surplus projections look now, it is important to remember that they are in fact only that: projections. We cannot assume that these projections guarantee a decade or more of windfall revenues, and such a rash conclusion could lead to our debt spiraling further out of control. A simple trigger mechanism would halt the implementation of tax cuts if the surplus does not materialize. This precaution would safeguard our budget against inaccurate projections, but H.R. 3 fails to include such commonsense protection. I would also remind my colleagues that Congress is required to pass a budget resolution at the beginning of each year precisely because Members need to know what funding levels are feasible for a broad range of critical federal programs. Otherwise, Congress risks spending money the government does not have, which is exactly what will occur with the passage of H.R. 3. Let us not forget that just recently we struggled with annual deficits of up to $290 billion, a national debt of $5.6 trillion, and interest-only payments on that debt of $300 billion annually. Put into perspective, those interest payments represented more than we were spending on Medicare, and almost as much as our entire national defense budget. Retiring the national debt is a paramount concern that should inform every aspect of our budget policy. I want to be secure in the knowledge that our debt will continue to be reduced and our children and grandchildren will not have to shoulder the burden of our recklessness. In addition, paying down the debt will result in one of the best tax cuts we can provide to America's working families. Reduction and elimination of the debt will ensure low interest rates and a sound long-term economic future for the nation. We all want to reward hard-working families by returning some of their tax dollars, but this cannot come at the expense of our nation's future fiscal well-being, nor should we adopt an approach that is so disproportionately skewed toward the wealthy. I have strong reservations about the size of the across-the-board tax cut included in H.R. 3 and the inadequate number of taxpayers who would benefit from it. Under this measure, an estimated 34,000 families with children, 68,000 children to be exact, in my home state of Rhode Island would not benefit from the proposed rate cut because they do not have federal income tax liability. In other words, 25 percent of Rhode Island families with children would not see a cent of the Republican tax cut! While they would see no benefit from an income tax cut, these struggling families would still be required to pay the same payroll tax as wealthier Rhode Islanders, which is a significantly higher percentage of their income. For most families, the largest federal tax burden is their payroll tax, not the income tax. Furthermore, all families must pay state and local taxes--again, low-income families pay a considerably larger percentage of their income in such taxes than wealthier families. That is why H.R. 3 is not a tax cut for all but rather the few. And that is why I cannot support this bill in its current form. Instead, I am cosponsoring the Democratic substitute with the Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Committee, because it is fiscally responsible and offers immediate and fair tax relief for middle- and lower-income families. This measure would create a new 12 percent tax bracket, give all Americans an across-the-board tax cut, and give those working families who pay only payroll and federal excise taxes a refund through expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. It also provides marriage tax penalty relief by doubling the standard deduction for married couples and leaves room in the budget for consideration of estate tax relief in the future. Most important of all, under our alternative, families with children who earn less than $65,000 will receive equal or larger tax breaks than under the Administration's proposal. I ask my colleagues to consider all of our nation's needs. Without a doubt, taxpayers deserve relief. But they also deserve a strengthened Social Security system, a Medicare program that covers necessary prescription drugs, a military that is equipped to protect our nation, a quality health care system that is affordable and accessible to every family, and a world-class educational system that prepares our children for the 21st century. These needs are great and they must not be ignored. Because--at the end of the day--I refuse to look into the eyes of our elderly, our children, our soldiers and our working families and tell them that I traded their futures for those of the wealthy.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to S.J. Res. 6. This resolution would effectively overturn ten years of scientific study, public debate and agency efforts, which have resulted in a comprehensive and historic rule to protect the health and safety of America's workers. In 1990, when this process was initiated, Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole expressed her concern that repetitive stress injuries constituted one of the most serious worker safety issues of the decade. Now it is a new decade, and we finally have a standard in place to prevent millions of injuries and create a safer environment in workplaces across the country. It would be a tragedy to dismantle all the progress that has been made and deny our workers the protections they deserve. I understand the concerns of many business owners that compliance with the ergonomics rule will impose an economic and administrative burden, and I am particularly sensitive to the potential impact of the rule on small businesses, which drive the economy of Rhode Island and many other states. However, OSHA estimates have shown that, while the new standard will cost business approximately $4.5 billion annually, it will likely save twice that much in worker's compensation and lost productivity each year. I am committed to ensuring that the Department of Labor stands ready to offer any technical assistance businesses need in implementing the new standard in individual workplaces, and I would be willing to revisit this issue as we begin to develop a clearer picture of the actual costs and benefits of the rule. However, I am not prepared to reverse this landmark standard, which stands to benefit so many millions of hard-working Americans, before we have even given it a chance to work. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this ill- advised resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 333, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. I have spent a great deal of time examining the public debate surrounding bankruptcy reform and looking for assurances that H.R. 333 will reduce the number of abusive bankruptcy filings by holding debtors responsible for repaying their debts. Although bankruptcy filings continued to decrease this past year from the record 1.4 million consumer bankruptcy petitions filed in 1998, they still remain six percent higher than five years ago, when filings first passed the one million mark. Last year, the number of personal bankruptcy filings in Rhode Island decreased by 12 percent from the previous year, but that number is still too high, as the number of personal filings in the state has more than doubled in the last decade. Unfortunately, hardworking consumers shoulder much of the economic burden of these bankruptcies. While there are many factors contributing to the increased number of bankruptcy filings, statistics have shown that a significant number of individuals are permitted to walk away from their debt by filing under Chapter 7 when they have the ability to repay most, if not all, of their debt. Our bankruptcy system should direct filers to the chapter that best matches their needs and allow them to pay off as much debt as possible. H.R. 333 will help reestablish a degree of personal responsibility by utilizing a needs-based test to identify debtors making over the median income who have an ability to repay at least a portion of their debts. However, this legislation is by no means perfect and it fails to hold credit card companies accountable for the credit they issue. An increasing number of individuals who have experienced events such as illness, job loss or a recent divorce and have no financial recourse other than bankruptcy are being overwhelmed with misleading and abusive marketing strategies of the credit industry. As a result, too many consumers are prone to predatory lending practices after filing for bankruptcy and are never truly granted a fresh start by the system. It is for these reasons that I will support the amendment offered by my colleague from Texas, Ms. Jackson-Lee, and the motion to recommit offered by the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, during consideration of the bill. These provisions would strengthen the bill and address credit card company practices that have contributed to the increasing level of consumer debt and the rise in consumer bankruptcies. Specifically, the Jackson-Lee amendment seeks to modify the means test to allow more flexibility in determining a debtor's expenses, including health insurance premiums, other medical expenses, and the costs relating to the care of foster children, and extend the deadline for filing and confirmation of reorganization plans by small businesses. The motion to recommit would prohibit credit card companies from issuing credit to individuals under the age of 21 unless there is written parental consent or the individual can demonstrate an independent source to pay the debt. Nonetheless, even if these modifications are not approved, I do intend to support the underlying bill because I believe Congress must do something to address the current state of abuse and overuse of our bankruptcy system. However, Congress should also continue to pursue common-sense reforms that will not only cut down on fraud within the system but also hold credit issuers accountable for their actions while protecting the vulnerable consumer. I would strongly urge the Senate to keep these arguments in mind as it continues to debate its version of the bankruptcy reform bill.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 2001 National Sportsmanship Day. This program is designed to encourage students' sportsmanship and foster their leadership and academic skills. It teaches them the importance of honesty and fair play in both athletics and society as a whole. More than 12,000 schools from elementary through high school, along with colleges and universities in all 50 states and from over 101 countries, are taking part. The eleventh annual National Sportsmanship Day includes student-athlete outreach programs, coaching forums, and writing and art contests, all geared to further the principles of sportsmanship and ethics. I am proud to represent the Institute for International Sport in Kingston, Rhode Island, the sponsor of this worldwide event. The group has been working since 1986 to spread the values learned through good sportsmanship around the world. They also hold the World Scholar- Athlete Games, which gives high school students from around the world the opportunity to come together every four years to showcase their athletic or artistic abilities. The third World Scholar-Athlete Games will take place this summer in Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I hope you and our colleagues will join me in recognizing this program as an excellent way for us to teach our young citizens the value of teamwork and fair play through athletics.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here on the floor of the House this afternoon submitting this special order on election reform. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to address an issue that has been prominent in the minds of many Americans over the past few months but has been on my mind since 1993. Twenty election reform proposals have been introduced in the House of Representatives since the opening of the 107th Congress. I applaud the thoughtful and expedient response of my colleagues as I myself am soon to unveil my own proposal for strengthening America's voting system and have, in fact, organized my first town hall meeting during the President's Day recess on this specific issue. When I was elected Secretary of State for the great State of Rhode Island, it had the oldest voting equipment in the entire Nation. Beginning in 1993, as a State representative and then as Secretary of State, I worked with my colleagues in the legislature, the State Board of Elections, local canvassing authorities, and the public to investigate voting problems throughout the State and develop effective solutions. By May of 1994, our Commission reported the need to replace our antiquated Shoup lever voting machines with optical scanning equipment. Because it is cost effective, it would help increase voter participation. By the end of 1996, the procurement process had begun; and by September 1997 primary local elections, the optical scan equipment was firmly in place. In both 1998 and 2000 elections, these machines were in full operation throughout the State of Rhode Island. Implementation of the new optical scan equipment was cost effective because it was cost neutral. Rhode Island's revenue neutral laws ensured that the expenses for staffing, storage, and transportation of voting equipment and printing and mailing ballots all equal the cost of establishing this new system. We also met our goal of increasing voter participation by increasing the number of registered voters by nearly 60,000 from 1993 to the year 2000. Finally, ensuring timely accuracy in tabulating votes was also a top priority. Because the optical scan machines read voting ballots by sensing the mark within a defined period indicating the vote, this method ensures the clear intent of the voter is transmitted and tabulated. This system also provides an audit trail for each ballot and enabled the use of ballots printed in multiple languages. However, since the machines were not accessible to blind or sight-impaired voters, I also introduced the Braille and Tactile ballot initiative to ensure that those who have lost their sight or are sight-impaired maintain their right to vote independently. As Congress works with the President to explore ways to modernize the machinery of voting, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in applying proven success stories such as what we have done in Rhode Island. Models exist for accurate, efficient, and cost-effective election reform, which we should utilize in our efforts to ensure true democracy in America. Our voters deserve no less.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I wish today to congratulate several young students from my district who have achieved national recognition for performing outstanding volunteer service in their communities. Rochelle Cotton of East Greenwich and Michelle Wheelock of North Kingstown have been named as my state's top honorees, and Claire Berman of North Kingstown is a state finalist in the 2001 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program. This is an annual honor that is conferred on the most impressive student volunteers around the country. Miss Cotton is a junior at East Greenwich High School and was recognized for founding the Rhode Island Student Alliance. This student-run non-profit organization identifies issues that affect teenagers in the community and attempts to find solutions. Miss Cotton expanded the program to the entire state, personally presenting her idea to the principals of each high school. Representatives from every school in Rhode Island now meet monthly to work on a variety of projects, such as curbing youth violence and creating an advice book for high school freshmen. Miss Cotton is pleased that students can now come together for cooperation rather than competition. Miss Wheelock is currently in the seventh grade at Wickford Middle School. She was honored for her work with seniors at a local nursing home. Motivated by the opportunity to ``brighten up the day of every resident I met,'' Miss Wheelock never tires of trying to improve the lives of her new friends. Throughout her service with seniors, she always strives to understand what they are going through and listen to their concerns. Miss Wheelock plans to continue volunteering at the nursing home for as long as she can, sharing her happiness with her new friends. Miss Berman is a junior at North Kingstown High School, who was instrumental in the collection of more than 840 cans of food for the North Kingstown Food Pantry. She accomplished this by organizing a competition where students competed to construct four-foot ``Empire State Buildings'' out of canned goods that were then donated to the pantry. These three students are examples for all our young people. Given the growing trend of Americans being less involved in community activity than they once were, it is important to encourage the kind of dedicated service shown by these three young women. They are inspiring role models for us all. Miss Cotton, Miss Wheelock and Miss Berman should be extremely proud to be chosen for this honor out of a group of such motivated volunteers. I would like to honor these young citizens for their initiative in bettering their communities. They are truly extraordinary in their level of commitment, and they deserve the admiration and respect of us all. Mr. Speaker, I hope you and our colleagues will join me in congratulating these students, along with all of the Prudential Spirit of Community awardees throughout the country.