Jim McCrery

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. I yield to the gentleman from California for a colloquy between the chairman of the full Committee on Ways and Means and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of the entire bill, but particularly Division D of the bill.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3758, a private bill for the relief of So Hyun Jun (So Young June). This is a no-cost, no-controversy bill that will provide needed relief to my constituents John and Ok Sun Thornton of Leesville, Louisiana who adopted So Hyun in 2001. So Hyun was born in South Korea on September 16, 1984 to Mrs. Thornton's sister. A car accident in 1999 left her parents incapable of caring for her. At that time, Mrs. Thornton and her husband were contacted about the possibility of taking custody of So Hyun. While visiting her family in Korea, Mrs. Thornton had occasion to see first- hand the hardships suffered by her niece. The Thorntons immediately agreed to bring her to the United States. In February 2000, So Hyun arrived in Louisiana to live with her aunt and uncle. Mrs. Thornton traveled with So Hyun back to Korea during the summer of 2000 to collect her birth certificate and other important papers. It was during this trip that Mrs. Thornton's sister and her husband agreed to relinquish their parental rights, thus giving full custody to Mr. and Mrs. Thornton. Formal adoption proceedings were begun in August of 2000 and finalized in Louisiana State Court on March 6, 2001. The Thorntons were careful to work with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to ensure that So Hyun's move to the United States went smoothly. Mr. Thornton contacted the INS a month prior to So Hyun's arrival to inquire about the procedure for bringing her to the United States. He was told the best method would be to bring her over on a tourist visa and then file the necessary forms to complete the adoption process. During this time, Mr. Thornton was misinformed three times about the correct form to complete. In January of 2001, Mr. Thornton once again called the INS Service Center with a question about the immigration forms, as So Hyun's visa was soon expiring. He was told that there was no need to renew the visa since they were adopting the child. However, upon the adoption's finalization, the INS Adjudication Office informed the Thorntons that So Hyun's visa could not be renewed, nor could she qualify for permanent resident status, as her adoption was not finalized by her sixteenth birthday. She missed that deadline by only seven months. And this comment from the INS was the very first mention of an age requirement. While the Immigration and Naturalization Service may not extend permanent resident status to Miss Jun, she is eligible for private relief because her adoption was begun before she turned sixteen. Without this relief, Miss Jun risks deportation to Korea where no one is legally bound to care for her. Private relief is needed to help this adopted girl remain in the United States with her new family. I want to thank Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Gekas along with Ranking Members John Conyers and Sheila Jackson-Lee for their assistance in securing passage of H.R. 3758. I hope the Senate will follow the House's lead today by passing this private relief bill before the end of the 107th Congress. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 114. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 114, which would authorize the use of military force against Iraq. The diplomatic and military situation in Iraq without question remains one of the most difficult security issues facing the United States and the international community. It has only been further complicated by the terrorist attacks on our country last year. Recently, the President's national security adviser said Saddam Hussein has sheltered al-Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad and helped train some in the development of chemical weapons. Also of concern is the revelation that there may have been a meeting between a senior Iraqi intelligence official and Mohammed Atta, the leader of the September 11th attacks. The administration has stated on numerous occasions that the war on terrorism will continue to be fought against all countries that support or harbor terrorists. It appears that list must include Iraq. Our national security depends on preventing other countries from developing weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has pursued an agenda to develop weapons of mass destruction including chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons for many years. Saddam Hussein has already demonstrated an unconscionable willingness to use chemical weapons on his own people, attacking ethnic Kurds in Northern Iraq. He also used them against Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq's arsenal includes several delivery systems, including long-range missiles capable of carrying dangerous payloads to our allies in the Middle East and Europe, including U.S. military bases in Bahrain and Turkey. The United Nations Security Council required Iraq to scrap all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to allow for weapons verification inspections. For the past four years, Iraq has prevented representatives of the United Nations from inspecting Iraq's weapon facilities. It is clear that the Iraqi government has undermined the authority of the United Nations by rebuilding many of its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapon manufacturing plants. Iraq has a history of invading its neighbors and using any and all weapons at its disposal against its enemies. A nuclear weapon in the hands of Hussein's brutal regime would give him an unacceptable upper hand to expand control over the world's petroleum reserves and quite possibly give him the leverage he needs to expand the borders of tyranny. Mr. Speaker, it is not an unlikely possibility that Iraq, as a state- sponsor of terrorism, would transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorists intent on using them against the United States. September 11th showed us that America is not immune to terror attacks, and Iraq's ties to international terrorist groups are unquestioned. I support the President's campaign against any state, including Iraq, which is found to support terrorism or seeks to develop weapons of mass destruction with the intent of attacking America or its allies. We cannot wait for a transparent threat to materialize. The longer we wait, the more we risk another unthinkable attack upon our soil. Simply put, the United States cannot ignore the threat that Iraq poses to our way of life and that of our allies. Saddam Hussein must be held accountable for years of noncompliance with United Nations resolutions. Failure to enforce the resolutions weakens the authority of the United Nations itself and sends a message to the foes of peace that future disobedience will be objected to solely through empty threats and resolutions without teeth. I am hopeful that diplomatic efforts may yet succeed, and believe the United States must try to work with our allies and the international community towards a peaceful solution to our present situation. Every Member of Congress weighs this decision carefully, knowing the votes we cast may place the men and women of our armed forces in harm's way. Yet if it becomes necessary, we must be certain we do not embark upon a Sicilian Expedition. Any use of force should include clear goals. If we are to enter into conflict in Iraq, we must plainly establish our objectives and follow through on a commitment to purge terror and rebuild Iraq into a strong and stable nation. Our first priority of any use of force should be to eliminate the ability of the Hussein regime to manufacture, distribute, or employ weapons of mass destruction. Hussein's goal has always been to obtain a weapon of such destructive force, that no other nation would be willing to resist his will. It would be fundamentally irresponsible to allow Iraq to obtain a weapon that could be used to deter allied forces from enforcing the internationally recognized authority of the United Nations. Saddam's arsenal of aggression and terror must be completely destroyed in order to encourage stability and prevent the proliferation of those weapons to other parts of the region. This action must be our first goal. The second goal, is the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Iraq has traditionally been a nation of commerce and prosperity, but Hussein hoards the resources of his country, starving her citizens into submission. His power is sustained by a 25,000-strong Republican Guard who, in return for maintaining Saddam's rule, are rewarded with Iraq's riches at the expense of her people. Hussein is not only guilty of some of the most heinous crimes against humanity, but he rules Iraq like a gangster by modeling his authority on the oppressive tyranny of Joseph Stalin and frequently and personally executes any who oppose his rule or stand in his way. We cannot continue to allow Hussein to cow the Iraqi people into living under an umbrella of terror. Hussein's sinister methodology of terror, assassination, and execution against all who oppose him must end. We must support a regime change. Our third objective should include a plan to root out all elements of terror within Iraq and bring accountability to the war on terror within the borders of Iraq. Hussein's government has proven uncooperative and refuses to help in the identification and apprehension of those in terror networks. The Hussein regime is unable to control areas within Northern Iraq giving terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda free rein to operate within Iraq's borders. This stands in stark contrast to the other nations in the region who are working with the United States to eradicate terrorist networks. Finally, the United States and the International Community must create a plan to rebuild Iraq and to restore a government that represents the interests of Iraqis and is dedicated to reconstructing an economy decimated by tyranny. New leadership will give the people of Iraq an opportunity to become a responsible member of the international community. Mr. Speaker, President Bush has requested the Congress pass a resolution authorizing the use of military force to enforce the United Nations' Security Council Resolutions which Iraq continues to defy. We must defend the national security interests of the United States. We must eliminate the threat posed by Iraqi terror and we must work to restore international peace and security to Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of House Joint Resolution 114.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Virginia, I do not disagree with the gentleman's purpose here, but there seems to be either some misunderstanding or some misstatement of fact by somebody as to the status of the report. I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) said it correctly when he said that if the report is unfinished, indeed, and it is not a matter of somebody withholding a finished product, then maybe we could get to the bottom of it by inspecting the product in its current state. I was prepared to debate this based on our information from the Joint Committee on Taxation that the report is indeed unfinished; that it was requested by Mr. Archer, and they began work on it. When Mr. Archer left, they stopped work on it. Then the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) just a few months ago requested that the report proceed, and indeed, they are proceeding. In fact, we are told that the Joint Committee on Taxation wrote the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the gentleman withdraw his amendment and let us work together to get to the bottom of this. I think there is a misunderstanding.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, to those who say the benefit in this bill is not rich enough, Mr. Speaker, I would ask them to remember that Medicare spending, despite the bipartisan Balanced Budget Act of 1997, is still growing at an unsustainable rate. As a share of our gross domestic product, Medicare has grown from 1.3 percent in 1980 to more than 2.2 percent today and will hit 5 percent by the year 2030. By 2075, Medicare will be just under 10 percent of our gross domestic product. 10 percent of GDP may not seem like much until you consider that over the last four decades Federal tax revenues have averaged between 18 and 19 percent of GDP. In other words, Mr. Speaker, under current projections, unless the Federal tax burden is raised to new and potentially economically destructive levels, Medicare, together with Social Security and Medicaid, will quickly crowd out spending on other important initiatives, including defense, homeland security, education, transportation and others. These long-term trends will only be exacerbated by the addition of a prescription drug benefit which is not coupled with meaningful structural reform of the Medicare program. I am pleased, therefore, that the legislation before us this evening includes the first steps towards the long-term structural reforms needed to bend the growth curve. Just as it would be irresponsible for the Congress, Mr. Speaker, not to try to help seniors with the cost of prescription drugs, it would be irresponsible to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare without tackling these long-term trends in the growth of Medicare spending. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that next year we will come back here on this floor and continue the kind of reforms that we started in this bill tonight so that those who are under 65 in our society will not be burdened with a tax that just cannot be sustained and continue the kind of society, the kind of economy that we enjoy in this country. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this bill along with the minor reforms that we have this evening.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the bill that is on the floor today has everything to do with retirement planning, with the average employee of a company, whether it is a big company or a small company in this country, being able to plan with some certainty his retirement benefits. It has nothing, nothing to do with Enron, corporate inversions, companies moving to Bermuda; nothing. This bill that we are debating today and that we are trying to make permanent in the Tax Code is for the average worker in this country. We have heard the statistics today: Two-thirds of IRAs are held by people with incomes averaging less than $50,000 a year. We are not talking about fat cats, we are not talking about rich executives, we are talking about common people who are struggling to put aside something so that they will have some security in retirement. The underlying bill gives those average people some added tools to use to supply that security. That is what we should be really, frankly, not even debating; that is what we should be confirming with our votes today, just as this House did on a bipartisan basis several months ago with votes from this House of over 400 of our 435 Members. Really, this should be a rubber stamp today. We should just meet and say, gosh, that Senate rule that created this 10-year sunset is nuts, and we ought to say, Senate, use your 60 votes to overcome that silly rule, and let us make this good legislation that we passed on a bipartisan basis permanent. That is what we should be doing today, but instead, some are taking advantage of the generosity of the Committee on Rules in giving 60 minutes of debate time to a substitute by the other side and then a motion to recommit. They are taking advantage of that generosity to highlight issues that they think are going to have some value from a political sense. That is fine. We are all in politics; we are in government, we are all politicians. But the audience, the public, whoever might be listening to this ought to know that is what is going on. It has nothing to do with the underlying bill. The underlying bill is good. Over 400 of us agree with that, and probably today, a lot of us, maybe not 400, but a lot on both sides, are going to vote to confirm that. But I am the chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures of the Committee on Ways and Means. The chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), has asked me to work with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) and to work with the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), who is the ranking member of my subcommittee, to address some of the issues that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) has brought up in the substitute of the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), and I agree with the gentleman. I agree with the gentleman that there are problems in the Tax Code and in other parts of our Nation's laws with respect to those issues that he brought up. I want to work with him and others to solve some of those problems. We are going to have our first hearing on corporate inversions next week in my subcommittee. The gentleman is on my subcommittee, and I am glad he is on there. He has introduced some legislation which I think has some merit; it has also some problems, and those are the kinds of things we are going to discuss at a hearing setting, which is where we should do it, not on the floor of the House on an unrelated bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the underlying bill and rejection of the substitute. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to respond briefly to the remarks by the gentleman from Washington about the unfunded mandates in this bill. This is a report from the same Congressional Budget Office dated May 13, 2002. CBO says the TANF grant program, which is the subject of this bill, affords States broad flexibility to determine eligibility for benefits and to structure the programs offered as part of a State's family assistance program. Consequently, any new requirements to the program as proposed by H.R. 4090 would not be intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act to the States. With respect to the question of money, this chart clearly illustrates that we are giving the States more money for welfare on a per-family basis. In 1996, the year prior to welfare reform going into effect, States had about $7,000 per family for welfare. Next year under the first year in this bill, States will have almost $16,000 per family for welfare. Tell me how we are shortchanging the States. They are getting over twice as much money, and that is not counting the $4 billion extra we are giving them in child care. Give me a break.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion and of making permanent the tax cuts enacted last year. To me, the key consideration is ensuring the level of federal revenue is sufficient to meet the needs of the government without imposing an unsupportable burden on the governed. Over the last 40 years, federal government revenues have averaged about 18.2 percent of our gross domestic product. Some might argue that this was too low to meet pressing needs. Others believe it is so high as to stifle economic growth. But the fact is that while revenues fluctuated somewhat, they were usually within 1 percent of that 40-year average. That has changed in the last 4 years, as federal revenues as a share of GDP rose to exceed 20 percent. In January, the Congressional Budget Office confirmed that even with the passage of the 2001 tax cuts, federal revenues will continue to be close to 20 percent of GDP in every year of the 10-year budget window. That is contrary to claims that the phased-in nature of the tax cut will starve Washington of revenue in the second half of this decade. The truth is that between 2006 and 2011, federal revenues as a share of GDP will actually increase. In fact, only three times between the end of World War II and 2001, a span of more than five decades, did federal revenues consume a larger share of our national income than they will in 2011. And those years were 1998, 1999, and 2000. The real question is whether, over the long-term, allowing the tax cuts to sunset will increase federal revenues to an unsupportable level. A recent analysis by the General Accounting Office found that if the tax cuts are made permanent and discretionary spending grows as fast as the economy, federal revenues as a share of GDP will remain just under 19 percent for the next 50 years, still higher than historical levels. If the sunset is allowed to occur, the GAO concluded revenues will rise to 20.5 percent of national income every year through the end of their 75-year forecast period. Looking back 70 years--a period which includes the Great Depression, the New Deal, World War II, the Korean War, the Great Society, the Vietnam War, and the oil embargo of the 1970s--federal revenues have never exceed 20.5 percent of GDP for 2 consecutive years. Mr. Speaker, I remain concerned about the drag on our economy which results from having taxpayers send almost one in every five dollars of our national income to Washington. We should certainly not allow the 2001 tax cuts to sunset, thereby further driving up the federal government's take from the national income to historically high and potentially unsupportable levels. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this measure.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I first want to talk about why Republicans have stuck to our guns on insisting that extension of unemployment benefits be coupled with tax cuts for business so that they might create jobs and pull us out of this recession. I am going to quote from an online publication of Business Week magazine from yesterday: ``Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has repeatedly pointed out that the current recession was triggered by business cutbacks and said he'll need to see improved corporate demand before he's convinced the recovery is sustainable. ``Surveys of corporate buyers have consistently shown they plan only a gradual pickup in spending this year. Only 15 percent of respondents to a National Association of Manufacturers survey released on February 20 said they would increase capital spending by more than 5 percent in the first half of 2002. ``For the second half of 2002, only 25 percent of respondents said they expect to increase spending by more than 5 percent, but 54 percent said their increase would be in the zero- to 5-percent range.'' There is certainly a need, if we want to get out of this recession, if we want to create jobs and put people back to work, there is a need to give corporate America an incentive to invest; capital investment. That is what Chairman Greenspan is talking about. Therefore, we have stuck to our guns and we have won today. We have a package that is going to pass this floor and go to the other body and, hopefully, will be passed there, that will not only give some relief to the unemployed in the form of benefit checks, but it will also give them some hope in the form of a future job. Now, let us talk about the unemployment compensation benefits in this bill, because they are important. The gentleman from Maryland touched on them, but he did not go far enough in describing what is in this bill. Besides the extension of the 13 weeks of unemployment benefits, we also do what is known as a Reed Act distribution. That means that we are finally going to give to the States adequate monies for administration of the unemployment compensation system in the States, primarily the employment services portion of that system. That is what Congress has been shortchanging the States on for years now. In this bill, we are going to make good on our promise to give them adequate funds to administer this program to get people back to work.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I am going to try to get through my talk here without screaming, although it is difficult in the atmosphere that has been created here. It is an atmosphere all too often of hyperbole and even demagoguery, and I think it is time that those who might be listening to this debate are given some facts without hyperbole and certainly without demagoguery. This package that we are going to pass today to try to stimulate the economy, to generate economic growth, to create jobs, to get people back to work consists of about $150 billion over 10 years. The fact is that about two-thirds of this package, two-thirds of it, about $100 billion, are either tax cuts or benefits for not big corporations, not business, but individuals: workers, the unemployed. Two-thirds, $100 billion of the package, goes to individuals. One-third, about $50 billion, goes to corporations and other businesses, partnerships, sole proprietorships, small businesses and the like. Those are the facts. Despite all the yelling, the screaming, the demagoguery and the finger-pointing, those are the facts. Unemployment insurance. We go further than the Senate did in their package. We not only provide an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits to the 26 weeks that are already in place under the law for the unemployed, but we use an idea that came from President Bush in his budget this year to say we are going to lower the required trigger for extended benefits to 4 percent of the uninsured rate for any State. It does not have to be nationwide, like the current law; any State that exceeds the 4 percent unemployment insured rate automatically gets extended benefits. That is in our bill. It is not in the Senate bill. So we are trying to do more for the unemployed and their unemployment benefits. Mr. Speaker, let me point out quickly, nobody in this bill or any other bill is raiding the Social Security trust fund, which has been said erroneously by more than one Member today. Yes, we are using surpluses generated by the payroll tax to pay for other things in government, but nobody is raiding the trust fund. Every penny that is supposed to be going into the Social Security trust fund is going, and will continue to go.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Also, the previous speaker characterized the Reed Act transfers as being of very little help to the unemployed. The fact is that States can use Reed Act transfers immediately to help the unemployed find a job. Some of the unemployed might consider that help. So I just wanted to make clear that the Reed Act transfers can be used immediately for that purpose.

Mr. McCRERY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. McCRERY. No. But reclaiming my time, they can use it to help the unemployed find a job. It is called unemployment job services.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, with respect to my good friend from Washington's (Mr. McDermott) comments, I agree that people who go from a job to being unemployed and on unemployment insurance have a tough time meeting their mortgage payments and so on. So in this compromise bill we are considering tonight, in the first time of the history of the United States, we are offering the unemployed a 60 percent subsidy for their health insurance. The gentleman says that they will not use it. Well, the experts who we hire around here to look at these things and estimate how much a proposal will cost have estimated it will cost $13 billion, so somebody is going to take advantage of it.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I do not think my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, meant to characterize the Reed Act transfers as he did because he quickly corrected himself to say, well, there are limits on how they can use those. First, he said the legislatures have to go back into session to use the Reed Act transfers. That is incorrect. Current law allows the States to use the Reed Act transfers within some limits, yes; but they can use those immediately upon transfer.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for their eloquent statements on behalf of the support of this resolution for the Year of the Rose. Mr. Speaker, the American Rose Society is headquartered in my hometown of Shreveport, Louisiana. The American Rose Society has designated 2002 as the Year of the Rose, and at a time in which images of violence and war are a constant reminder of the capacity of man to be cruel to its fellow man, the rose stands as a reminder of the beauty and the fragility of life. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution will call public attention to the worthy goals of the Year of the Rose, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, in response to the claims that there is no bipartisanship present in this bill, that is not so. The chairman, I, and other Members on the Republican side took into account in drafting this bill that is on the floor today the Democrat ideas for net operating losses to be carried back. That was a Democrat proposal. We included it in the bill. We included in the bill the provision to provide a rebate of taxes to taxpayers who did not get a check under the previous tax cut. That was a Democrat proposal. Both of those are in the bill. I reject categorically the claims that no Democrat ideas are included in this bill. This is a bipartisan compilation of ideas.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker implied that all of the AMT relief is going to go to 100 corporations. That is a little bit short. It is actually 17,000 corporations that will benefit from the repeal of the AMT in this taxable year, and a refund of the credits. I want to make sure that Members do not think that all of the $25 billion for AMT relief is going to a few corporations. 17,000 corporations in this country will benefit from that. The average benefit will be about a million dollars. That should clear that up. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Florida to correct a misstatement that has been made.

Mr. McCRERY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McCRERY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I rose to correct a previous speaker who said that only 100 corporations would benefit from the AMT repeal. I said 17,000 would. Actually it is 23,000 corporations that will benefit from the repeal of the AMT. 17,000 refers to the number of corporations who will benefit from the redemption of the credits.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chairman, Mr. Skeen and the ranking member, Mr. Dicks, on their hard work on this important appropriations legislation before the House today. This bill provides funding for many important programs in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, just to name a few. So thank you both for making sure these vital programs received appropriate funding. Recently, I and several of my distinguished colleagues from Louisiana, sent a letter requesting that the Interior Conference Committee consider the inclusion of language in this bill that is very important to some of our constituents, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana. We sent the letter to bring to the attention of the Interior Conferees a situation that has unfortunately developed in Louisiana. The Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana currently services over 450 tribal members through Indian Health Services or IHS funds, and expects this number to rise due to its ever-increasing population. Unfortunately, access to IHS or tribally operated facilities and hospital access for certain medical needs, such as dialysis machines and specialized medical treatments, is limited. This is particularly problematic, given that diabetes is the Tribe's most critical health care problem. Consequently, because this type of care is not provided on-reservation, the Coushatta's health care costs have increased dramatically because tribal members must obtain services from local and community health centers. The Tribe does receive funding from IHS for health services performed off reservation but current levels fall significantly short of budget. Like most of Indian Country, the Coushatta Tribe needs more money for preventive care. They need to purchase necessary medical equipment, increase the clinic's hours of operation and hire a full-time physician to staff the clinic. The Tribe is fully committed to providing quality health care to its trial members and in fact currently dedicates many of its own resources to this cause. Additional IHS funding would go a long way in helping the Coushatta Tribe meet the health care needs of its members. Additional funds are key here and on that point, I'd like to commend the Conferees for including much needed additional funds for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. More specifically, I was pleased to see the Contract Health Services account increased. These funds will go a long way to address the health needs of the Native American tribes across the United States. I also want to specifically thank Mr. Dicks and all of the Conferees for their commitment to work with the Louisiana delegation to ensure that the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana is the recipient of some of these funds so they can address their critical health care needs.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 61. This resolution expresses clearly the sentiment not only of this Congress, but the sentiment of the American people. It condemns the despicable actions of terrorists who planned and carried out the attacks yesterday against the people of the United States. It extends the condolences of all our citizens to the victims and their families, commends the heroic actions of the fireman, police, and other rescue workers who responded to these tragic events, and underscores the resolve of all of us in America and many others around the world to fight and win this war against terrorism. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that so many Members of Congress are speaking for their constituents in support of this resolution, and that they are speaking, not as Republican or Democrats, liberals of conservatives. Easterner or Westerner, but as Americans. It is this unity of spirit, singularity of purpose, and faith in our destiny as purveyors of freedom which will see us through this and lead us to victory.