Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly oppose any attempt to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to industrial development and encourage my colleagues to support the Markey-Johnson amendment to protect this unique ecosystem, which is unlike any other in the world. It's outrageous that after 2 years we are here again debating whether to open America's last, untouched landscape. Having visited the refuge, I know firsthand how fragile it really is. This area is already under stress: global warming is thawing the Refuge's tundra and nearby development pollutes the air. Yet, this House is debating a bill that would permanently harm Alaska's coastal plain--an irreplaceable wilderness, a home to wildlife that sustains the culture and traditions of Alaska's native people--by allowing oil and natural gas development. What we should be debating is how to achieve true energy independence. This bill does nothing more than continue our pattern of increasing oil imports and unchecked consumption. Energy security and more jobs can be achieved if we invest in conservation and research the next generation of energy efficient appliances, homes and automobiles. Developing homegrown, renewable fuels like ethanol and wind will also provide more long-term benefits for our environment, our economy and our workers. It's time we end this debate, join with the majority of Americans and start prioritizing our energy future. Even if we open the Arctic Refuge tomorrow, it won't produce a drop of oil for over a decade. Even then peak production is 20 years away. We should not be shortsighted. Support the Markey-Johnson amendment today and oppose any attempts to open this fragile tundra to industrial development.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1104 the Child Abduction Prevention Act. This legislation takes a significant step toward bringing child abductors to justice by aiding law enforcement agencies to effectively prevent, investigate and prosecute crimes against children. H.R. 1104 also provides families and communities with immediate and effective assistance to recover a missing child through the AMBER Alert Network Plan. I believe it is important that the federal government send a clear message to child abductors that their actions will not go unpunished, and that we will take the appropriate measures to ensure the protection of our children. I am disappointed, however, that the Republican majority chose to add a number of provisions to this legislation that I oppose, including an expansion of the death penalty, making it easier to authorize wiretaps against criminal suspects, and establishing mandatory life sentences for certain crimes. It is unfortunate that these failed, controversial provisions were added to such an important piece of legislation. I will continue to support measures designed to keep child abductors off the street, and increase security for the children in our neighborhoods and communities. Furthermore, I remain opposed to the death penalty, expanded surveillance measures that violate our civil liberties, and mandatory sentencing guidelines that take away the discretion of a judge to decide a case fairly and justly. It's regrettable we could not pass a clean bill that reflects all of these ideas.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 975, a bill to modify our nation's bankruptcy system. I support holding individuals responsible for paying debts that they can reasonably afford. Our banks, credit unions and other responsible financial institutions should not have to foot the bill for individuals who take advantage of the system to avoid their debts. I support efforts to curb the overwhelming number of bankruptcies filed each year, which strain our responsible financial institutions and their ability to provide low- cost services to consumers. Unfortunately, I cannot support this very unbalanced legislation. I have spoken with bankruptcy judges from Minnesota who share my concern that this bill will be particularly harmful to working families. The bill before us today will make it harder for custodial parents to collect child support. Further, it does nothing to hold credit card companies accountable for using risky business practices to extend thousands of dollars of credit to those individuals already deep in debt. Despite significant pressure from Democratic members to implement meaningful disclosure requirements, this bill does not go nearly far enough in requiring that credit card companies provide information that consumers need to practice good financial planning. Supporters of this legislation claim that it puts children first by making child support claims the number one priority when assets are distributed in bankruptcy cases. But bankruptcy judges have told me that by forcing debtors to pay off more of their credit card debt after bankruptcy, this bill will directly impair their ability to make child support payments. It is wrong to make custodial parents and children who are owed support compete with the lawyers of credit card companies with deep pockets for the debtor's limited resources. This bill also fails to hold credit card companies accountable for extending thousands of dollars in credit to college students using questionable marketing tactics. College students and their parents tell me that students find almost unlimited credit readily available. Credit card companies are setting up shop on campus, offering easy credit with free gifts such as T-shirts, flashlights, pens or water jugs. Students are offered ``teaser'' interest rates of 5 to 7 percent, while failing to realize that their rates can later hit 20 percent. As a result, 10 percent of all college students owe $7,000 or more to credit card companies. Because financial aid has failed to keep pace with inflation, these students also owe an average of $17,000 to the federal government upon graduation. We must do more to help our students. We must do something to curb the number of personal bankruptcies that strain our banks, credit unions and responsible financial institutions. But we must not do so at the expense of children receiving court-ordered child support and college students who are targeted by lures of easy credit and already facing thousands of dollars in student financial aid debt.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, the state of Minnesota lost a friend in February. Born in 1918, Orville L. Freeman grew up in south Minneapolis, where his father owned a men's clothing shop. Graduating from Central High School at the height of the Depression, he attended the University of Minnesota because, as he stated, it ``was convenient and affordable.'' For 25 cents an hour, Freeman scrubbed walls at the University Hospital to help pay for his college tuition. As a summer job, he watered grass at Memorial Stadium and harvested grain with crews in Minnesota and North Dakota. And somewhere in between, he made time to play quarterback for the University of Minnesota Gophers football team. He received his diploma from the University of Minnesota magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1940 and began law school in 1941. But, Freeman's law school career was cut short with the bombing at Pearl Harbor that same year. The day after the attack, Freeman volunteered for the Marines. During World War II, as a Second Lieutenant, Orville L. Freeman led his combat patrol behind enemy lines on the island of Bougainville in the South Pacific in 1943. He was hit in the jaw by a bullet but managed to successfully lead his men to safety. Second Lieutenant Freeman spent 8 months in a military hospital, overcame partial paralysis, learned to speak again and was eventually awarded a Purple Heart before he was discharged as a Major. Upon returning to Minnesota, Orville completed law school at the University of Minnesota, married his college sweetheart Jane Shields and had two children, Constance and Michael. Mr. Freeman's interest and involvement in politics began as a college student at the University of Minnesota where he befriended soon to be United States Senator, Hubert H. Humphrey. They worked tirelessly to ensure the re-election of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and committed themselves to the reorganization of Minnesota's Democratic party. 1944 marked the year that brought the Farmer-Labor and Democratic parties together to form the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) party in Minnesota. Together, Humphrey and Freeman built the DFL party--uniting farmers, unions, academicians, small-business owners, veterans and female activists through their common interests and goals for a better Minnesota. With his political involvement and role as party secretary--Orville Freeman shaped the DFL and gave the party a face. His position gave him the opportunity to schedule events, control the party message and make connections in the community. He eventually made two bids for statewide office, first in 1950 for Attorney General--and then in 1952 for Governor. Although Freeman lost these two statewide races, at the suggestion of his good friend Humphrey, Freeman ran for governor again in 1954. Humphrey was running for re-election to the Senate that year-- and wanted someone he knew he could work with in the governor's office. Freeman's 1954 campaign for governor brought a new dynamic to political races in Minnesota. As the leader of the DFL, Freeman organized a statewide television campaign, and implemented a sample ballot that proved a very successful tool for the DFL that year, and years to follow. The sweeping DFL victory included electing Minnesota's first woman member of Congress, Coya Knutson, and winning all but one statewide DFL race. Freeman became the first DFL governor in Minnesota history, and was re-elected for two consecutive terms in 1956 and 1958. In his three terms as governor--Freeman's commitment to education for all students was truly inspirational to me. He understood the strong desire for a quality education for all Minnesotans. He instituted the state-aid system for K-12 education that guaranteed a basic minimum education for all students, regardless of their school districts' wealth. In addition, he was a strong supporter of making college more accessible and affordable to students. In 1960, Governor Freeman delivered the nomination speech in support of John F. Kennedy as the Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States and actively campaigned for Kennedy throughout Minnesota. Lutherans in Minnesota were apprehensive about electing the first Catholic President for fear the Vatican might influence him. This inspired Freeman to participate in a statewide television broadcast stating that religious prejudice had no place in Minnesota politics. While Freeman's dedication to Kennedy paid off--Kennedy won Minnesota by a 20,000 vote margin--Freeman unfortunately lost his re-election bid for governor by 20,000 votes. The new President did not forget the strong support Governor Freeman had given him in Minnesota. Kennedy rewarded these efforts by nominating Freeman as Secretary of Agriculture, and Freeman continued his public service in Washington, DC. As Secretary of Agriculture, he initiated a revolution in U.S. programs by launching the Food Stamp program, proposing the School Breakfast program, as well as the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program. Additionally, he was a major proponent of food safety. Secretary Freeman remembered those whose most basic needs were not being met by establishing a goal of eliminating hunger. Tying American farmers with the world market, he expanded the Foreign Agriculture Service and visited other countries to encourage opportunities for further U.S. trade abroad. Globally, he organized a massive program to ship U.S. grain to India that was instituted early enough to avert an impending famine. Vice President Walter Mondale, his friend and mentor, may have put it best by saying this of Orville Freeman: He was one of the great public men in modern Minnesota history and American history. He fits Tom Brokaw's definition of America's greatest generation--enlisting in the Marines, becoming an officer, being seriously wounded and almost dying, fighting back, becoming a lawyer, leading the new generation in the DFL that was so successful and regaining the governorship.'' Orville L. Freeman, Minnesota's 29th Governor, died at the age of 84 on Thursday February 20, 2003 in Minneapolis, MN. Minnesotans will miss the leadership and the dedication of Orville Freeman--his family will miss the wonderful, loving family man. From the military to elected office to an appointed office, Orville Freeman dedicated his life to public service. He was a dynamic leader, an organizer and pioneer for his party. He was always a champion for the state of Minnesota and the United States and a champion for those that could not fight for themselves. It is from his example that we should learn and follow. The Honorable Orville L. Freeman is survived by his loving wife of 61 years, Jane, their two children Constance and Michael, and three grandchildren Katie, Beth and Matthew.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 44, which recognizes the contributions of the many Mississippi River communities which are planning events to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Grand Excursion that took place in 1854. In 1854, the Grand Excursion was truly a historic event. It brought nationwide attention to the Upper Mississippi River and led Minnesota to statehood. This excursion transformed our entire region, bringing prosperity and economic growth. However, over time the development that followed separated the people from the river. Transportation and industry walled communities off from the Mississippi, and pollution took its toll. Now we are working to reclaim our relationship with the mighty Mississippi. In preparing to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Grand Excursion, communities all along the 419-mile route are redeveloping their river fronts. Citizens and business groups have joined with State and local governments to renew their commitment to this great international resource. River fronts are being revitalized, and our quality of life is being improved. St. Paul, for example, has turned the Mississippi River back into our community's gathering place. On Harriet Island, the Target Stage is a place for the world-renowned St. Paul Chamber Orchestra to play on summer nights, while people overlook St. Paul's downtown skyline or walk along the river. New projects are also planned to help reconnect St. Paul's people to its river's edge. Mr. Speaker, the Grand Excursion, the 150th anniversary celebration, is not just about recognizing these achievements; it is also an opportunity to learn about the Mississippi and what we need to do to protect it for future generations. The Mississippi is America's river, it is Minnesota's river, and like many towns in south St. Paul where I grew up, it is a childhood river. It is also a working river, a river that continues to work. Thousands of jobs and the livelihoods of many families are connected to it. People not only from St. Paul, from the United States, and from around the world call the Mississippi River home, but it is also home to our wildlife, from eagles in Minnesota to pelicans in the Delta Bay of Louisiana. Activities associated with the Grand Excursion's anniversary will bring its historical, cultural, and environmental importance alive for thousands of people. Hundreds of permanent exhibits will be established honoring the river's past and looking towards the river's future. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have an opportunity to support this resolution today. As an original cosponsor, I look forward to continuing working with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and others to bring attention to this national treasure, our Mississippi River, and to this exciting national event, the 150th anniversary of the Grand Excursion.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the budget we're considering today does not reflect America's priorities. At a time when Minnesota is making difficult choices to balance the State budget, at a time when we're confronting terrorism and a slumping economy, this budget turns its back on the American people. This budget is reckless and irresponsible and hurts American families. It explodes the deficit, fails to create jobs, and fails to invest in education and health care. Instead of a fiscally responsible budget, this budget piles up record deficits--the worst ever on record. Instead of offering a budget that creates jobs, this budget incorporates the Bush tax cut plan, which the Economic Policy Institute says would cause a net loss of 750,000 jobs by 2013. Instead of providing for a meaningful prescription drug benefit, the budget includes only $28 billion in new money for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and envisions cuts in both Medicare and Medicaid that put hospitals, seniors, children, and the disabled at risk. The Democratic budget I support focuses on America's priorities. Our budget includes an economic stimulus plan, which would jump-start the economy, provide tax relief and create 1 million jobs. Our budget provides more funding for homeland security, $34 billion, more funding for education, $44 billion, and more funding for the environment, veterans and other priorities. We also provide at least $500 billion more for prescription drugs. Finally, our budget matches the President's defense request for the next 5 years, and achieves balance by 2010.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 104, our troops in harms way in Iraq, and our President as Commander- in-Chief. I express my sincere disappointment that the rules for H. Con. Res. 104 did not permit a division of the resolution into two separate pieces of legislation. Had this division been allowed, I would have voted in favor of the provisions on Page 4, lines 1-16. I would have opposed the remainder of the resolution, pages 1-3, because in my opinion this language prevented the House from unanimously supporting our troops and the President as Commander-in-Chief. At a time of war, I believe we must stand together, united, behind our armed servicemen and women in the field, our commanding officers, and our military leaders. We must send a strong message to our troops that we stand behind them to the fullest degree, and we will continue to support them once their mission is complete. The service personnel and their families in the Middle East and throughout the world have my thoughts and prayers with them always.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to support House Concurrent Resolution 26, a resolution that I introduced to condemn the punishment of execution by stoning as a gross violation of human rights. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the Committee on International Relations for their support and thank my colleagues who have cosponsored this measure. This issue was first brought to my attention over 1 year ago when I learned of a woman named Safiya Hussaini, who had been sense sentenced to death by stoning in Nigeria solely based on the evidence she was divorced and pregnant. Safiya was convicted of adultery, sentenced to be buried in a pit and pelted with stones until dead. The authorities ignored her claims that she had been raped. The father of the baby was acquitted of all charges, as the law requires the testimony from four male witnesses to prove him guilty of the same crime, a virtually impossible task. The international outcry helped save Safiya's life. Her sentence was overturned on a technicality. However, on the day that Safiya was set free, it emerged that another young Nigerian mother had been sentenced to death by stoning, Amina Lawal. She has also been convicted of adultery; her crime, giving birth to a child more than 9 months after divorcing her former husband. Unless Amina's sentence is overturned, she will be stoned to death in a public square as soon as her baby is weaned, about this time next year. At her trial, Amina had no legal representation. She did not receive an adequate explanation of the charges against her. Frightened and unaware of the consequences of her response, Amina confessed. However, not much of a confession was needed, as her newborn daughter was proof enough to find her guilty of adultery. The man Amina identified as the father of her child denied the charges, and he was set free. On the day that Amina's case was last heard on appeal, dozens of people crammed into the small village courtroom to observe the proceedings. Amina sat alone on a bench as her daughter slumbered against her back. When the judge announced that Amina would be stoned to death, observers shouted their approval, while Amina clutched her baby and wept. A court will hear Amina's next appeal on March 25, but it may be a matter of hours or months until they issue a decision. Until then Amina must wait. She is hopeful that her life will be spared, but worries about what might happen to her daughter. If the court determines stoning her to death is justified, it will happen. Tragically, Amina is only one of a number of individuals who are at risk of being executed by stoning. Laws authorizing this punishment remain on the books in a number of other countries. Until these laws are repealed, many more people could face this inhumane punishment. Women remain particularly at risk for receiving this sentence due to double standards that exist in these laws. This resolution is important because it will send a message to the most remote corners of the globe that the sentence of stoning, particularly when used as a tool of gender persecution to control women and girls, is far beneath any minimum standard of human rights recognized by this House, by the people of the United States and by the world community. At the same time this resolution is not intended to be disrespectful to any nation, religion or culture. But I do believe so strongly that the most basic rights of every woman, man and child on this planet must be respected, protected and defended. It is this belief of fundamental human rights that compels me to speak out and encourage my colleagues to join me in the effort to extinguish this brutal punishment from the face of the Earth. I do not know the women who have been sentenced to death by stoning. I will likely never visit their villages in Africa or the Middle East, but I will stand with them as my sisters, as my fellow citizens of the world. I will work to defend their rights, the most basic human rights we all deserve to enjoy. Safiya and Amina are just two women in a distant land, far away from us here and far away from my constituents in Minnesota. Nevertheless, these women are targets for abuse and violence, and wherever women are targets for abuse and violence or death simply because they are women, I have an obligation to speak up, speak out and to fight for their rights, because they are my rights and your rights, too. My home in the State of Minnesota has a strong tradition of defending basic human rights, from former Congressman Don Fraser to the late Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife Sheila. Minnesota also is proud to be the home for the Center for the Victims of Torture, the American Refugee Committee and the Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights. I am proud to stand here today to continue this tradition. It is high time that the United States join the many nations who have condemned the inhumane punishment of stoning. I am pleased that House leadership has brought this resolution to the floor for its consideration, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure, to send a clear and a powerful message to every nation that stoning is an extraordinarily cruel form of punishment, and it must end today.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Peace Corps Day, and in support of our nation's enduring commitment to progress, opportunity, and expanded development at the grassroots level throughout the developing world. Since 1961, more than 168,000 Americans--including over 5,000 Minnesotans--responded to our nation's call to serve by becoming Peace Corps Volunteers in 136 countries. Today, more than 7,000 Americans currently serve in the Peace Corps, providing valuable assistance to developing countries, contributing their skills to support programs in education, health, business, agriculture and the environment. Peace Corps volunteers have improved the lives of communities throughout the world by responding to real global crises such as poverty, hunger and HIV/AIDS. They have strengthened the ties of friendship and understanding between the people of the United States and those of other countries, and have brought back to the U.S. a deeper understanding of other cultures and nations. National Peace Corps Day recognizes the work of returned Peace Corps Volunteers as they bring their experiences to work, school, places of worship and recreation, sharing with colleagues, friends, and community members how their volunteer service changed and shaped their lives. Today, across the nation, we honor the spirit of these Volunteers and reaffirm our country's commitment to helping people help themselves throughout the world. In this spirit, and in honor of National Peace Corps Day, I have introduced House Concurrent Resolution 61, expressing the need to increase funding for the Peace Corps by $550 million by 2007. This legislation reflects the President's commitment to double the number of Peace Corps Volunteers over the next four years, and recognizes the unprecedented funding challenges the Peace Corps will face as the President's initiative to expand the program moves forward. As we gather today to honor the tremendous achievements of our Peace Corps Volunteers from the past, let us not forget the thousands that serve today, including the twenty-four volunteers from my Congressional District in Minnesota serving in such locations as Honduras, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan and the Philippines. Now, more than ever, it is clear that the cross-cultural understanding developed through Peace Corps programs is invaluable to our nation.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I, rise today in recognition of the opening of Minnesota's new Transitional Housing Program for homeless veterans, located at the Minnesota Veterans Home in Minneapolis. Today's celebration is an accumulation of hard work, dedication and determination, reflective of Minnesota's commitment to our nation's veterans and a testament to the spirit of the veterans' community in our great state. Most Americans are not aware of the severity of our veterans' homeless problem. Nearly 25 percent of homeless people are veterans, and many veterans who live in poverty are at risk of becoming homeless. On any given night, 275,000 veterans of the United States armed forces--including thousands in Minnesota--are homeless, and many struggle with alcohol, drug, and mental challenges. The goal of the new Transitional Housing Program is to provide and coordinate preventive transitional and permanent housing and supportive services for veterans who are experiencing homelessness or who are in danger of becoming homeless. This new program will help assist Minnesota's homeless veterans in gaining the necessary skills required to successfully transition back into mainstream society. The most effective programs for homeless veterans feature transitional housing with the camaraderie of living in structured, substance-free environments with fellow veterans who are succeeding at bettering themselves. Minnesota's new Transitional Housing Program seeks to employ these methods and provides an important community partnership in improving the lives of those who sacrificed so much for our freedom and democracy. As we celebrate this new program, I urge my colleagues to remember the thousands of homeless veterans across America that go without help each and every day. We must continue to support the efforts of those who seek to provide these honorable veterans with a better way of life.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in support of H. Res. 51, a resolution expressing condolences to the families of the crew of the space shuttle Columbia. Together, our nation, the people of Israel and the entire world grieve the loss of these seven heroes and remember their extraordinary lives. In the days following this terrible tragedy, millions of Americans have struggled to cope with the loss of these astronauts. We have worried about the ramifications of this accident for the future of our space program. But this past Tuesday, I was reminded by the students of the Farnsworth Aerospace Elementary School in Saint Paul, Minnesota that this tragedy can not diminish our hopes or dampen our desire to go after our dreams. In a touching memorial service, the Farnsworth students recalled the history of the space program and told the stories of the seven astronauts that they regarded as their heroes. Even as they expressed their sadness about the loss of these astronauts, the students shared their undeterred dreams to travel to space some day. Like the Columbia astronauts, the students of Farnsworth Aerospace Elementary School have always understood that travel into space is remarkable, but never routine, ordinary or without risk. While men and women across America mourn this tragic event, we must remember that our nation will overcome this tragedy and once again allow mankind to venture into space. The students of Farnsworth Aerospace Elementary School serve as an inspiration to us all. As they keep reaching for the stars, I will hold onto hope that some day, they will make it there.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District. I am pleased that the Environmental Protection Agency selected the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District as one of their Clean Water Partners for the 21st Century this year. This is a great honor and I am proud to support Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District's achievements. The Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District helps local landowners protect Minnesota's natural resources. Their assistance has been critical in controlling erosion near our lakes and rivers. They have also played a valuable role in helping integrate ecological and environmental considerations into all phases of urban planning, design and construction. Their assistance helps reduce contaminated runoff and introduces the use of wetlands and other natural processes to protect our water resources. The EPA's Clean Water Partners for the 21st Century program recognizes these extraordinary efforts. This award is presented to local governments that go beyond the requirements of the Clean Water Act. It goes to those willing to mobilize local resources in order to protect and improve the overall health of our watersheds. The Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District clearly fits this description. Mr. Speaker, protecting and improving the nation's watersheds is important to me and my district. I share in the excitement of this award and am proud of the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District's achievement.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, as a co-chair of the Congressional Mentoring Caucus, I am pleased to join my colleagues today in supporting House Resolution 25. This important resolution commends those who contribute their time and talents to mentoring programs and supports efforts to promote greater awareness of the need for mentors. As we recognize National Mentoring Month, we should all celebrate the positive effects that mentors make in assuring brighter futures for young people. Children who have mentors have a better chance of succeeding and are more likely to make positive choices. Young girls who have supportive mentors can grow up to be confident and powerful women by learning to make healthy decisions at an early age. The GirlVenture program in my home state of Minnesota has successfully connected more than 500 youth and 100 girls and their mothers with mentors who help them prepare for the workforce, become financially competent and make healthy life choices. GirlVenture also offers classes to help parents, educators and youth workers instill future-focused values in finances, relationships and leadership. GirlVenture is just one example of the countless mentoring programs that are making a difference in the lives of young people. Unfortunately, there are far too many at-risk children who are on waiting lists, hoping to soon be matched with a caring mentor. According to the Mentoring Partnership of Minnesota, there are an estimated 75,000 young people who want and need an adult mentor in Minneapolis and St. Paul alone. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution to honor mentors and encourage others to give their time and guidance to a child. And I wish to commend those mentors who are currently helping to shape the lives of young people through mentoring.

Mr. McCOLLUM

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, as a co-chair of the Congressional Mentoring Caucus, I am pleased to join my colleagues today in supporting House Resolution 25. This important resolution commends those who contribute their time and talents to mentoring programs and supports efforts to promote greater awareness of the need for mentors. As we recognize National Mentoring Month, we should all celebrate the positive effects that mentors make in assuring brighter futures for young people. Children who have mentors have a better chance of succeeding and are more likely to make positive choices. Young girls who have supportive mentors can grow up to be confident and powerful women by learning to make healthy decisions at an early age. The GirlVenture program in my home state of Minnesota has successfully connected more than 500 youth and 100 girls and their mothers with mentors who help them prepare for the workforce, become financially competent and make healthy life choices. GirlVenture also offers classes to help parents, educators and youth workers instill future-focused values in finances, relationships and leadership. GirlVentrue is just one example of the countless mentoring programs that are making a difference in the lives of young people. Unfortunately, there are far too many at-risk children who are on waiting lists, hoping to soon be matched with a caring mentor. According to the Mentoring Partnership of Minnesota, there are an estimated 75,000 young people who want and need an adult mentor in Minneapolis and St. Paul alone. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution to honor mentors and encourage others to give their time and guidance to a child. And I wish to commend those mentors who are currently helping to shape the lives of young people through mentoring.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Conference Report for the ``Bankruptcy Reform'' bill, H.R. 333. This legislation will impose new restrictions to prevent working families facing financial misfortune from getting back on track. It also does nothing to stop the irresponsible and predatory practices of some businesses and credit card companies. I support efforts to prevent abuse of our bankruptcy system as a financial tool but this legislation goes too far in cutting off avenues to relief for working families who face unmanageable debt. Central to this legislation is a new, inflexible ``means test'' that will be imposed on every individual filing for bankruptcy. While judges currently have the ability to determine the appropriate relief for consumers, this new ``means test'' will eliminate that flexibility and prevent all but the most impoverished families from filing for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. The implementation of this ``means test'' will also be a costly mandate on our bankruptcy court system, which is already operating on rudimentary funding. I have listened to concerns of bankruptcy judges in my state of Minnesota who fundamentally oppose this legislation because of the disastrous effect it will have on working families facing financial crises. These judges echoed facts that are widely known--that the vast majority of individuals who file for bankruptcy are low- and moderate- income citizens facing crisis situations such as the loss of a job, medical emergencies or divorce. The actual number of individuals who try to ``game the system'' and escape debts by filing for bankruptcy is very low. According to one bankruptcy judge, abusive filings constitute only about 2-3 percent of all cases and bankruptcy courts are currently able to block about 95 percent of those ``bad faith'' filings by converting or dismissing certain cases. This legislation would also have a negative impact on the availability of quality, affordable representation for families filing for bankruptcy. Provisions of this legislation would impose new liability standards on bankruptcy attorneys, making them responsible for the accuracy of all information given to them by their clients when filing a bankruptcy petition. Many attorneys will be apprehensive to continue representing clients in bankruptcy cases knowing that they may be sanctioned for inaccurate information. Bankruptcy lawyers in Minnesota have told me that this will severely decrease the number of attorneys willing to provide pro bono services, limiting the ability of low-income individuals to obtain quality legal representation. I agree that something must be done to curb the number of personal bankruptcies that strain our banks, credit unions and responsible financial institutions. But we must be equitable in asking everyone-- borrowers and lenders alike--to practice good financial planning. This unbalanced legislation unfairly targets consumers and allows irresponsible companies to continue extending credit to college students and others who are already deep in debt or have had a past history of bad credit. For the working families of Minnesota and the nation, I cannot support this legislation.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following National Journey story, ``Bush's Quiet Plan,'' for the Record. It clearly describes how this administration is rolling back our key environmental protections. [lsqb]From the National Journal, Nov. 23, 2002[rsqb] Bush's Quiet Plan (By Margaret Kriz) The Bush administration is quietly but systematically working to make the 32-year-old environmental law that's considered the Magna Carta of national environmental policy less of an impediment to development. Environmentalists charge that, by routinely bypassing or greatly speeding up the preparation of environmental impact statements required under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Bush White House is chipping away at the very foundation of the Nation's environmental protections. President Bush has taken steps aimed at expediting or even eliminating the environmental impact studies that federal regulators have long been required to conduct before any major development project--whether it involves a new dam by the Army Corps of Engineers or logging in a national forest-- can be undertaken on federal property or with federal funds. Industry lobbyists applaud the administration's actions because, in their view, environmental impact statements have largely served as a weapon for anti-development zealots to wield in court. Environmentalists contend that the administration's efforts to shorten the reach of the law known as NEPA are part of a continuing campaign to put resource development and business interests ahead of resource protection and environmental quality. ``The Bush administration views NEPA as an obstacle, not a tool,'' says Sharon Buccino, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. ``To the extent that they're removing these activities, like logging projects, from the NEPA process, they're cutting the public out of the process.'' NEPA is merely a full-disclosure statute: It forces regulators to make assessments and share them with the public, but it doesn't block projects that would harm the environment. Yet environmental groups have often been able to use the government's NEPA-mandated environmental impact statements in conjunction with the other environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act or the Clean Air Act, to persuade courts to stop or significantly modify controversial projects. Under NEPA, all government agencies--from the Interior Department to the Navy to the Small Business Administration-- must study the environmental implications of major projects before undertaking them. Private companies that receive federal funds or use federal lands also fall under NEPA's umbrella. Business lobbyists cheer Bush for using his broad administrative authority to limit the public's ability to challenge industry projects on federal lands. Supporters of the administration's approach argue that environmentalists have abused NEPA by filing thousands of essentially nuisance lawsuits that stem from a philosophical objection to, say, drilling for oil on federal land, rather than from objections to the potential consequences of a specific drilling proposal. ``A lot of challenges being raised are part of a larger strategy to oppose energy development in this country,'' contends Lee Fuller, vice president for government relations at the Independent Petroleum Association of America. NEPA's defenders charge that regulators are already producing slipshod impact assessments in their rush to comply with Bush administration demands for faster action. ``Asking them to do [lsqb]the assessments[rsqb] more quickly raises more opportunity for litigation,'' because careless work would leave the government open to charges of not having complied with NEPA, warns Jonathan Adler, an environmental law professor at Case Western Reserve University. The controversy over the accelerating attempts to rein in NEPA centers on several administration actions: A Forest Service proposal--leaked by environmentalists and slated to be formally released later this year--would allow federal regulators to rewrite National Forest Management Plans without first assessing the environmental implications of the new plans. Forest plans are the blueprints for commercial development, recreation, and land preservation on the nation's 191 million acres of national forests and grasslands. Bush's wildfire proposal, dubbed the ``Healthy Forests Initiative,'' would exempt 10 million acres of national forest lands from NEPA to speed up the logging aimed at thinning the trees in those forests. The plan was drafted in response to this summer's catastrophic forest fires and would allow commercial logging companies to remove some large, healthy trees as an incentive to participate in the thinning projects. The Democratic-controlled Senate blocked Bush's proposal, but the plan is certain to be resurrected after the Republicans take control of the chamber in January. The administration tried to exempt most U.S.-controlled ocean waters from NEPA. But in October, a federal court rejected the Justice Department's contention that the environmental law's reach did not extend beyond this country's territorial waters, which end three miles offshore. The court ruled that NEPA applies within the nation's entire Exclusive Economic Zone, which extends 200 nautical miles offshore. That case was triggered by objections to Navy sonar tests, which environmentalists claim have caused whale beachings and permanent damage to whales and other sea mammals. In September, Bush issued an executive order requiring federal regulators to speed up environmental assessments of transportation construction projects. Transportation Department officials say the administration is also considering legislation to amend the law's application to highway and other transportation projects. The administration has not taken a position, however, on a bill introduced this year by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young, R-Alaska, that would create a separate, less rigorous environmental-assessment process for transportation projects. In May, Bush ordered expedited environmental reviews of energy-development projects. Meanwhile, Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., has urged that NEPA requirements be waived for energy development on tribal lands. According to Forest Service officials, the administration plans to greatly expand the ``categorical exclusion'' provisions of NEPA to exempt certain kinds of logging projects--the logging of dead trees in burned forests, for example--from environmental impact statements. These exemptions would apply to far more than the 10 million acres included in Bush's forest fire proposal. Meanwhile, the White House Council on Environmental Quality, which has jurisdiction over NEPA, has created an interagency task force focused on updating the NEPA process. James Connaughton, who heads the council, said the task force seeks to ``modernize'' the way federal regulators conduct their environmental reviews--by, for example, increasing the use of computers. Some departments, he said, ``are using the Pony Express when we could be using the electron to facilitate all kinds of interagency and external communications.'' Environmentalists are suspicious of the task force. ``This administration,'' Buccino says, took ``significant destructive actions related to NEPA before they had even begun the task force.'' Bush's critics contend that what the White House portrays as mere streamlining is actually part of a far-reaching campaign to grant polluters and developers relief from environmental safeguards by doing such things as easing restrictions on coal-fired power plants and scuttling a Clinton-era rule that preserves roadless regions in the national forests. ``They're saying, `Trust us,' but we have no reason to trust them,'' says David Alberswerth, director of the Wilderness Society's Bureau of Land Management program. Connaughton angrily denies that the administration wants to gut environmental protections and says the environmentalists' accusations are politically motivated. ``I think that there is a lot of chasing after ghosts,'' he says. (For a Q&A with Connaughton, see p. 3476.) Overdue or Overboard? The Bush administration's aggressive efforts to limit NEPA's role represent a marked change in federal environmental policy--and in some quarters, a welcome one. ``It represents a shift in the institutional perspective on NEPA,'' says Chris Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. ``They're saying that the statutory sprawl that NEPA has created is not acceptable. [lsqb]The shift[rsqb] is something that's long overdue.'' But environmentalists are alarmed. Unlike the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act, which deal only with certain environmental issues, NEPA is a comprehensive tool that activists can use to force regulators--and, by extension, industry--to abide by a multitude of environmental laws. ``NEPA is a procedural statute that cuts across every environmental program,'' says William J. Snape III, chief counsel at Defenders of Wildlife. ``So rather than announce that they're going to gut NEPA, the administration has decided that they're just going to do it on an individual- sector basis. That makes it difficult for us to piece [lsqb]the administration's actions[rsqb] all together.'' Most environmental assessments are completed without a hitch. But projects that compete for space with wildlife and wilderness areas--logging, energy development, and military action on federal lands or waterways, as well as transportation construction projects--often rise red flags with environmental activists and nearby residents. Lengthy lawsuits often ensue. Bush administration officials insist that they're not out to stop all environmental analyses or to propose a wholesale rewrite of the law. According to Connaughton, the aim is to speed up the environmental-assessment process and focus on the biggest projects. The administration also wants to stem the flood of legal challenges to what government officials want to do on federal lands. ``There's just too many lawsuits, just endless litigation,'' Bush told an Oregon audience in August in introducing his forest fire plan. ``We want to make sure our citizens have the right to the courthouse. . . . But there's a fine balance between people expressing [lsqb]themselves[rsqb] and their opinions and using litigation to keep the United States of America from enacting commonsense forest policy.'' Since its inception, NEPA has been largely defined by court rulings that give it teeth. NEPA was passed during the Nixon administration but floundered until President Carter's Council on Environmental Quality outlined a regulatory strategy for systematically complying with its mandates. Since then, each agency has developed its own NEPA rules designed to mesh with the laws the agency implements. Until those ground rules were established--and even since then--judges often were the government officials who determined what a NEPA requirement meant in a given situation. ``Court decisions were pouring out,'' recalls James Gustave Speth, who headed the Council on Environmental Quality under President Carter and now is dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. ``It was the first major federal environmental legislation. And it became extraordinarily powerful, primarily because of the courts.'' Environmentalists, who filed many of those lawsuits, see NEPA as one of the best ways to force recalcitrant bureaucrats to weight--and disclose--the environmental consequences of their proposals.``The whole purpose of the law was to slow down the government juggernaut and to make public officials think long and hard before they take any action that could be harmful to the environment,'' notes John Echeverria, executive director of the Georgetown Environmental Policy Project. ``There's no question that environmentalists have used NEPA to block projects that they thought were ill-advised and particularly harmful.'' Conservatives and industry lobbyists, for their part, say NEPA causes delays that inflate the price tag of important business and government initiatives. The Transportation Department, for example, estimates that environmental impact statements for major highway projects take an average of four to five years to complete. ``Sometimes you feel a little bit like that small rodent in a maze, trying to complete all these reviews,'' complains Mary E. Peters, administrator of the Transportation Department's Federal Highway Administration. But many observers insist that NEPA's foes vastly overstate the influence of NEPA reviews. ``The great bulk of NEPA projects are changed in the NEPA process, but they're not, in the end, stopped,'' says Yale's Speth. Environmentalists are not the only cause of delay. Government regulators often lack funding to undertake NEPA reviews quickly. The petroleum group's Fuller says that some oil companies, eager to begin work on new projects, have begun paying the government agencies to complete the required environmental assessments. ``We've found that in order to get our permitting processes moving, the only way to do that is to provide private money,'' he explains. Federal officials still control the studies, he adds. The environmental reviews are also hampered by bureaucratic resistance. Even after 32 years, some regulators still oppose having to consider the environmental implications of a project early in the planning stages, according to law professor Adler. ``At a lot of agencies, their decision- making process does not incorporate the sorts of factors that NEPA asks them to look at,'' he says. ``That's one of the reasons why agencies get into trouble with lawsuits.'' Thumper Trucks and Snowmobiles In April, an internal review board at the Interior Department issued a scathing judgment criticizing the Bureau of Land Management for approving coal-bed methane extraction projects in Wyoming's Powder River Basin. Interior's Board of Land Appeals ruled that the environmental yardstick that regulators used to assess the projects was woefully inadequate and failed to consider the ``unique potential impacts'' of the proposed extraction process. Coal-bed methane extraction, first tested in the 1990s, involves draining salty water from coal seams to tap the methane gas trapped in the coal. The tainted liquid often pours onto nearby lands. But the bureau had approved the methane leases based on studies that looked solely at the environmental effects of entirely different projects--oil and natural gas drilling in the region. In a separate case, a federal judge recently suspended a seismic exploration project near Arches National Park at the urging of two environmental groups. The organizations charge that the government failed to examine the environmental impact that the heavy pounding of 30-ton ``thumper trucks'' would have if energy companies were allowed to use them in searching for oil deposits. Environmentalists argue that regulators are doing slap-dash environmental analyses on these and other energy projects in response to increased administration pressure to open more federal lands to mining and drilling. ``This administration is indicating that every square acre of land in the West ought to be open to oil and gas'' says Snape of Defenders of Wildlife. ``They don't care about environmental quality or the public. This is `Energy uber alles.' '' But perhaps the most dramatic NEPA developments are occurring at the Forest Service, where Bush administration officials are rewriting the rules for managing the nation's 153 national forests. In the past, developing a forest management plan, which spells out how a forest can be used, was considered to be a ``major action'' that required extensive environmental impact analysis under NEPA. Now Bush officials are working on a proposal that would give forest supervisors greater leeway to revise forest plans without having to conduct in-depth environmental studies. Under the revised rules, full environmental reviews would continue to be required when industry groups sought permission to begin specific projects, such as logging or construction of new recreation facilities. But more general changes to the forest management plan might not require extensive study, according to Mark Rey, the Agriculture Department under-secretary for natural resources and environment who has authority over the Forest Service. ``In the past, we were dealing with the first generation of a forest plan, and there was no question that an environmental impact statement was going to be required,'' he said. ``What we're saying now is, it is not as clear that revising plans or amending them involves a need for a similar level of analysis, depending on the circumstances.'' Rey cites the example of a forest supervisor considering changing a forest plan to allow more snowmobiles to be used in a forest. ``If we're saying that we might accommodate a greater degree of snowmobile use but that we don't have enough information right now to decide where we're going to locate the trails, then we probably would acknowledge that this issue is under consideration,'' he said. ``But we'd do an environmental impact statement when we're ready to lay out the trails.'' Logging industry officials enthusiastically support the new approach, arguing that it makes more sense for regulators to focus their NEPA resources on industry development projects than on forest management plans. ``Why would you do a full- blown analysis of how you're going to basically zone a forest and manage it, when the real rubber hits the road when you propose an action,'' said Chris West, vice president of the timber industry's American Forest Resource Council in Portland, Ore. But environmentalists say that Rey's proposals are purposely vague and confusing. They accuse him of attempting to create loopholes to allow forest supervisors to make sweeping changes in the way the forests would be used without gaining public input or examining the environmental consequences. The Forest Service is also considering new proposals that would make it easier to approve some logging projects without having to assess the environmental impact of each project. Agency staffers are working on ``categorical exclusions'' that would pave the way for quicker approval of forest- thinning projects and logging of dead and dying trees after forest fires. Those exclusions are similar to the president's forest proposal, which would exempt some national forest lands from NEPA. Environmentalists say they'll fight those changes. The Long Hand of NEPA Bush officials are more than happy to share their anecdotes about NEPA reviews gone haywire. They point to the case of the little town of Stillwater, Minn., 13 miles east of St. Paul, which has spent 30 years trying to build a four-lane bridge over the St. Croix River. Bridge proponents say the new structure is needed to replace a 70-year-old lift bridge, which is on National Register of Historic Places. City officials and local developers say they hope a new bridge would divert truck traffic away from historic downtown Stillwater and increase development in communities on both sides of the bridge. ``The mayor of Stillwater told me recently that sometimes you can't see the historic town for the semis lined up to go across the bridge,'' says Peters of the Transportation Department. But the $135 million project is opposed by environmental groups, who say the new bridge would damage wetlands and mar the bluffs that line the St. Croix River, which is a ``wild and scenic river'' protected by federal law. Environmentalists also assert that the project would accelerate urban sprawl from the Twin Cities area into western Wisconsin. Some of these concerns are shared by the National Park Service, which has jurisdiction over wild and scenic rivers. Over the years, several environmental analyses of the proposed bridge have been completed, but no consensus about its impact has been reached. The Transportation Department is trying to break the deadlock by including the Stillwater Bridge project on its list of seven high-priority construction projects set for quick environmental review under the president's September executive order. The department plans to add more projects to its priority list in December. Conservatives charge that the long hand of NEPA is increasingly reaching into unlikely government programs. Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute cites a recent lawsuit in which environmental groups and the city of Boulder, Colo., claimed that the Export-Import Bank of the United States and the Overseas Private Investment Corp. violated NEPA when they gave developing countries more than $32 billion for oil fields, pipelines, and coal-fired plants without first assessing the projects' contribution to global warming. Horner argues that as a result of the lawsuit, agencies could soon be pressured to consider global warming in their NEPA reviews. ``You're talking about a tremendous new regulatory burden, which is going to cost you more time and money,'' he says. Industry lobbyists see such delays and expanded use of NEPA as reason to dramatically scale back the environmental impact assessment process or eliminate it altogether. One industry group boldly suggested amending the law to bar national environmental groups from filing NEPA lawsuits. In recent comments to the White House task force on NEPA, the Idaho Cattle Association recommended that NEPA lawsuits be limited to ``individuals who have an economic stake in the outcome of a NEPA decision or those who are directly affected'' by the project being reviewed. Connaughton of the Council on Environmental Quality says he disagrees with that proposal but understands the frustration of industry groups. ``The procedural requirements of the law should not be deployed to wreak havoc,'' he argues. But what the White House and industry see as abuse of the system, environmental activists see as their fundamental right to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not spent on projects that harm the air, water, wildlife, or wilderness. NEPA supporters say they fear that the environmental goals that NEPA was created to advance could be lost in the rush to speed up or eliminate environmental assessments and to restrict the public's ability to challenge their conclusions. As the Wilderness Society's Alberswerth puts it, ``If you don't have judicial review, you have no guarantee that the [lsqb]Bureau of Land Management[rsqb] or any other agency will comply with the laws.''

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation (S. 3156) to create a living memorial for Paul and Sheila Wellstone in my home district of St. Paul. I am pleased that both the House and Senate were able to agree on such a fitting tribute. Senator Wellstone was my colleague, but Paul and Sheila were also my constituents and my friends. Over the years, Paul and I have walked the streets door knocking and listening to the concerns of Minnesotans, working together to address the challenges of our communities and neighborhoods. Paul and Sheila's enthusiasm for public service and their commitment to Minnesota were unmatched. Today, I stand with the Minnesota Congressional delegation to pay tribute to Paul and Sheila with a true living memorial to their lives of serving the people of Minnesota. This legislation will authorize the design and construction of a new community center in St. Paul at the Neighborhood House. The Neighborhood House has played a long-standing role in building community values among diverse peoples. Since the 19th century, the Neighborhood House has supported ethnic and cultural groups through times of transition or need so that they go beyond mere self- sufficiency, develop critical workforce skills, and become active members of our democratic process. From Hmong immigrants to Hispanic women facing domestic violence, the Neighborhood House provides all those who come an opportunity to improve the quality of their lives. The new center to be named after Paul and Sheila Wellstone will host youth and family programs, immigrant education programs such as English classes, employment services and workforce development. It will provide a forum for new citizens to learn and integrate themselves into their new society and will strengthen Minnesota's richly diverse community. Paul and Sheila Wellstone were advocates for people from all walks of life. They were open to all Minnesotans. In the Senate, Paul spoke for those who had no voice and he worked hard to empower those who needed help the most. This new center embodies the ideals and principles that Paul and Sheila lived every day. I thank all my colleagues in Congress for honoring Paul and Sheila Wellstone in a way that will continue their work and improve the lives of Minnesotans for years to come. Discharged from the Committee on International Relations and Agreed to H. Res. 604, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should adopt a global strategy to respond to the current coffee crisis, and for other purposes. H. Res. 604 Whereas since 1997 the price of coffee has declined nearly 70 percent on the world market and has recently reached its lowest level in a century; Whereas the collapse of coffee prices has resulted in a widespread humanitarian crisis for 25,000,000 coffee growers and for more than 50 developing countries where coffee is a critical source of rural employment and foreign exchange earnings; Whereas, according to a recent World Bank report, 600,000 permanent and temporary coffee workers in Central America have been left unemployed in the last two years; Whereas the World Bank has referred to the coffee crisis as ``the silent Mitch'', equating the impact of record-low coffee prices upon Central American countries with the damage done to such countries by Hurricane Mitch in 1998; Whereas 6 of 14 immigrants who died in the Arizona desert in May 2001 were small coffee farmers from Veracruz, Mexico; Whereas The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal report that cultivation of illicit crops such as coca and opium poppy is increasing in traditional coffee-growing countries, such as Colombia and Peru, which have been adversely affected by low international coffee prices; Whereas the economies of some of the poorest countries in the world, particularly those in Africa, are highly dependent on trade in coffee; Whereas coffee accounts for approximately 80 percent of export revenues for Burundi, 54 percent of export revenues for Ethiopia, 34 percent of export revenues for Uganda, and 31 percent of export revenues for Rwanda; Whereas, according to the Oxfam International Report ``Mugged: Poverty in your Coffee Cup'', in the Dak Lak province of Vietnam, one of the lowest-cost coffee producers in the world, the price farmers receive for their product covers as little as 60 percent of their costs of production and the income derived by the worst-off farmers in that region is categorized as ``pre-starvation'' income; Whereas on February 1, 2002, the International Coffee Organization (ICO) passed Resolution 407; Whereas Resolution 407 calls for exporting member countries to observe minimum standards for exportable coffee and provide for the issuance of ICO certificates of origin according to those standards; Whereas ICO Resolution 407 calls on importing member countries to ``make their best endeavors to support the objectives of the programme''; Whereas both the Specialty Coffee Association of America (SCAA) and the National Coffee Association (NCA) support ICO Resolution 407 and have publicly advocated for the United States to rejoin the International Coffee Organization; Whereas on July 24, 2002, the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives held a hearing on the coffee crisis in the Western Hemisphere; Whereas the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has already established coffee sector assistance programs for Colombia, Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, East Timor, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda; and Whereas the report accompanying the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2003 (House Report 107-663), highlights the coffee price crisis as a global issue and ``urges USAID to focus its rural development and relief programs on regions severely affected by the coffee crisis, especially in Colombia'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That-- (1) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that-- (A) the United States should adopt a global strategy to respond to the coffee crisis with coordinated activities in Latin America, Africa, and Asia to address the short-term humanitarian needs and long-term rural development needs of countries adversely affected by the collapse of coffee prices; and (B) the President should explore measures to support and complement multilateral efforts to respond to the global coffee crisis; and (2) the House of Representatives urges private sector coffee buyers and roasters to work with the United States Government to find a solution to the crisis which is economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable for all interested parties, and that will address the fundamental problem of oversupply in the world coffee market. Discharged From the Committee on Government Reform and Agreed to H. Con. Res. 499, honoring George Rogers Clark. H. Con. Res. 499 Whereas George Rogers Clark was a colonial frontiersman who succeeded in protecting western colonists through diplomacy and advocacy with the colonial government of Virginia; Whereas George Rogers Clark doubled the size of colonial America through western exploration and by founding towns in Kentucky; Whereas George Rogers Clark was an expert negotiator with American Indian tribes, securing trade and security for western colonists; Whereas George Rogers Clark ensured American control of the Northwest Territory by leading a small band of soldiers during the Revolutionary War and successfully capturing British outposts along the Mississippi and Wabash Rivers; Whereas George Rogers Clark boldly and courageously led fewer than 200 soldiers to recapture the British Fort Sackville at Vincennes, Indiana, in the winter of 1778-1779; Whereas the soldiers marched across Illinois through flooded and frozen territory and reached Vincennes on the evening of February 23, 1779; Whereas upon surrounding Fort Sackville, George Rogers Clark was able to give the impression of having a much larger army convincing the British that they were no match for Clark's forces; Whereas on the morning of February 25, 1779, the British Lieutenant Governor Henry Hamilton surrendered Fort Sackville to George Rogers Clark and his soldiers; Whereas this victory foiled British attempts to drive the Americans out of the region west of the Appalachians and pulled vital resources from the eastern theater during the American Revolution; Whereas George Rogers Clark showed great leadership by commanding an expedition northward in 1782 to control unrest caused by British forces in the region; Whereas George Rogers Clark continued to offer leadership after the Revolutionary War by serving as an advisor to his community; and Whereas the 250th anniversary of George Rogers Clark's birth is November 19, 2002: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress honors George Rogers Clark, whose patriotism and bravery helped to secure American independence and liberty. Discharged From the Committee on Government Reform and Agreed to H. Res. 582, recognizing and supporting the goals and ideals of ``National Runaway Prevention Month''. H. Res. 582 Whereas the prevalence of runaway and homeless situations among youth is staggering, with studies suggesting that between 1,300,000 and 2,800,000 youth live on the streets of the United States each year; Whereas running away from home is widespread, with 1 out of every 7 youth in the United States running away from home before the age of 18; Whereas runaway youth most often are youth who have been expelled from their homes by their families, physically, sexually, and emotionally abused at home, discharged by State custodial systems without adequate transition plans, separated from their parents through death and divorce, too poor to secure their own basic needs, and ineligible or unable to access adequate medical or mental health resources; Whereas effective programs supporting runaway youth and assisting youth and their families in remaining at home succeed because of partnerships created among families, community-based human service agencies, law enforcement agencies, schools, faith-based organizations, and businesses; Whereas preventing youth from running away from home and supporting youth in high-risk situations is a family, community, and national priority; Whereas the future well-being of the Nation is dependent on the opportunities provided for youth and families to acquire the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for youth to develop into safe, healthy, and productive adults; Whereas the National Network for Youth and its members advocate on behalf of runaway and homeless youth and provide an array of community-based supports that address their critical needs; Whereas the National Runaway Switchboard provides crisis intervention and referrals to reconnect runaway youth to their families and to link youth to local resources that provide positive alternatives to running away from home; and Whereas the National Network for Youth and National Runaway Switchboard are co-sponsoring National Runaway Prevention Month, during the month of November, to increase public awareness of the life circumstances of youth in high-risk situations and the need for safe, healthy, and productive alternatives, resources, and supports for youth, families, and communities: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes and supports the goals and ideals of ``National Runaway Prevention Month''. Discharged From the Committee on Government Reform and Agreed to H. Res. 599, congratulating the Anaheim Angels for winning the 2002 World Series.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great honor to recognize the vital contributions to public health made by the Minnesota Visiting Nurse Agency throughout its 100 years of service. Founded in 1902 by women in the Minneapolis community, the MVNA has grown from a single Public Health Nurse into an indispensable public health organization serving thousands of patients every year. Today the MVNA provides crucial public health services to the Twin Cities community including care for families and children, care for adults and the elderly, and hospice care for the terminally ill. It is my great pleasure to extend congratulations to the Minnesota Visiting Nurse Agency on its 100th anniversary.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2155, the Sober Borders Act. While I support the intent of this legislation, I am concerned H.R. 2155 unnecessarily fails to balance our need for safe driving on the borders with the interests of a safe and legal flow of people across the borders too and from the United States. At a time when our border patrol officers and Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) inspectors face heavy workloads, H.R. 2155 would impose new duties unrelated to terrorism that could potentially overwhelm the resources and personnel available at our borders. In the wake of the September 11th tragedies, it is important that we allow INS agents and officials do to their jobs correctly and efficiently, without burdening them with new responsibilities normally assigned to state law enforcement agencies. We must be careful not to stretch the limited resources beyond INS's immigration and anti-terrorism functions. I am also concerned that H.R. 2155 could be improperly used to target persons on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin unless safeguards are added to prevent racial profiling. During mark-up of H.R. 2155, a sensible amendment was offered to monitor whether law enforcement uses their authority in a discriminatory manner to detain, test and arrest persons suspected of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated and the bill brought before the full House contained no accountability measures to prevent racial profiling and provided no opportunity to address this issue further. I believe this amendment was a modest request that would have made the underlying bill stronger. New authority (such as the new authority granted in H.R. 2155) that creates a risk of racial profiling should be accompanied by accountability mechanisms that measure whether profiling has occurred. It is important that in our pursuit for greater safety we do not violate the rights of certain individuals based merely on race, ethnicity or national origin. I support measures that seek to reduce drinking and driving in America's communities and neighborhoods. But in these efforts we must be careful not to weaken existing law enforcement functions or violate the rights of the American people. Regrettably, H.R. 2155 does not meet these goals.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was Veterans Day, November 11. As I woke up in the morning, I thought, well, I am getting on a plane today and I am going to be heading off to Washington, a different type of Veterans Day than I was used to spending. See, I used to spend Veterans Day at veterans hospitals and cemeteries remembering those who had given their lives, remembering those who came home injured, whether it be physically or emotionally. I remembered those days because I spent them with Senator Paul Wellstone. Paul and I would often be at veterans hospitals, cameras long gone, with veterans from all over the United States, and we would sit and we would talk and we would have very personal conversations with some veterans who had not heard from family members in a long time and who were alone. Paul would be on a plane as he was the last time I flew out to Washington and he would be with Sheila. His back would bother him or his legs would be bothering him and he could not sit still for very long, so especially after they changed the flight time where we have to spend the last 30 minutes sitting on the plane, not moving as we approached Washington National since September 11, Paul would be on the plane walking up and down the aisles, talking to elderly people, talking to children, it did not make any difference whether or not they lived in Minnesota, asking them what was going on in their lives, what they were studying, how they were doing in school. Sheila would be sitting there reading, working on something to help Minnesota, to help our country, to help our Nation, women of domestic violence, children of domestic violence. We have heard testimony from Members here of what a great legislator Paul was, and he was truly a magnificent Senator. But he was all those things because he was a good teacher. He was a good father. He was a good friend. Sheila and Paul never forgot family and their family went beyond their children. Their family campaigned together. Marcia, who was a teacher, was on the plane. Over the last couple of weeks, I have met students of Marcia's. Paul was a good father, he was a good teacher, and he passed that on to his children. Mary McEvoy was also on the plane. Mary was a dear friend. Mary believed in the issues that Paul worked on, helping children succeed, helping children to be literate. Mary and Paul and Sheila together would work on those issues and make them a reality in the everyday lives of everyday children. But we all know and I know better than ever having served in this body of Congress that our staff is important. Just as we are judged by the friends we keep, I think legislatively we can be judged by the staff we work with. To the Chief of Staff, Colin McGuiness and the Washington staff, to State Director Connie Lewis, to all the staff in Senator Wellstone's office, he was so very proud of you and you in the work that you did made us proud of Paul. To Mark and David, our loss is different than yours. Yours is beyond my imagination right now having lost so many family members. You shared your grief with our State and with our Nation. November 11 will never be the same. I will never drive by a veterans cemetery or go by a veterans hospital without thinking of all the work that Paul did for the veterans in this country. I will never go in another grade school and not think of all the work that he did for children and education with those around him. I will carry on a women's domestic abuse roundtable that we are having with people in the Fourth District and Fifth District, St. Paul and Minneapolis, without Sheila's presence. There will be students in White Bear Lake who will always remember Marcia. And Mary is so deep in the hearts of many of us. But, Tom and Will, you also made an impact by allowing Paul to do the work that he did and we are blessed for having you all in our lives. Minnesota will never be the same. Minnesota will always remember what happened on the tragic Friday of October 25, where they were, what they were doing, when we all stopped and paused and remembered our blessings in having had such a special Senator. Paul, I will miss you in Washington and I will miss you at home.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, we live in a dangerous world. We always have. But every day, the greatest democracy on earth wakes. All of us from Minnesota, we get up every day. We take our children to school. We go to work. We enjoy the hope, opportunity and freedom of this great Nation. We know that our democracy provides hope and opportunity not only for our own families here in America but for nations around the world. Nevertheless, we do live in a dangerous world. We always have. I am 48 years old. There has never been a time in my life when the United States was not targeted by another country or countries with nuclear weapons, or when another nation has not had the capacity to attack us with chemical and biological weapons. How many nations today have the capacity to strike us within our borders? How many actually have targeted us today? The world is filled with dangers, and Saddam Hussein and his regime pose a real danger to America, to the global community. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda remain free and continue to pose a real danger to America. The anonymous assassin who 1 year ago murdered five Americans with anthrax remains free and is a real danger. How many other rogue states, terrorist organizations, drug cartels or pandemics pose a real security threat to the United States, our citizens and the millions of people around the world? If Saddam Hussein is today's threat, who or what is the next? Today, I rise in opposition to this resolution because I do not believe we should provide a blank check to this administration to unilaterally attack Saddam Hussein. The world looks to America to promote freedom and justice, not alone but in concert with the global community. In the past decades, we have had models of this success. Let us build again a global coalition. In 1991, the senior President Bush collectively and carefully assembled a broad coalition against Iraq, unified in purpose and in action. We succeeded, and we brought freedom back to the Kuwaiti people. After September 11, President Bush tapped the collective will of the international body to respond to terrorism around the world; and with the support of our allies, we rid Afghanistan of the Taliban. We sent operatives of the al Qaeda network scrambling, and we restored freedom to the Afghani people. But, today, the President seeks to engage the American people in another conflict, void of broad-based international support and lacking a cohesive international voice. Today, some of our allies are beginning to move forward, begrudgingly, to join us, spurred more by a threat of a weakened relationship with the United States than by an immediate threat of Saddam Hussein. While I believe Saddam is a threat, I do not believe we should take offensive military action, the first strike, without broad-based international coalition support. I ask why are we not standing side by side with our neighbors in the region, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, our allies around Europe and around the world? The United States possesses the intelligence capacity to assess potential threats to our security. A diplomatic corps capable of diffusing tensions and a potent military force prepared to take appropriate action if necessary. Why have been unable to convince our closest allies to join us in this military undertaking against Iraq? This is a question that the families in my district have been asking me. This is a question that no one in this administration has been able to answer. Mr. Speaker, as I said, we live in a dangerous world; and I want to be very clear if Iraq possesses an immediate threat to the American people, the President has all the authority he needs to take military action to protect our Nation without this resolution. The brave men and women of our Armed Forces must not be sent into harm's way alone. America's duty is to build a coalition of allies, seize the moral high ground, and act as part of a community of nations against Saddam's regime. When this administration convinces our allies in the region and around the world the need for joint military action, then the President will have my full support to take every action necessary to eliminate the danger in Iraq.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, during my days in grade school, the full participation of women in school athletics was not only discouraged, but also frowned upon. That all changed in 1972 when one woman challenged the system, changed the rules and inspired and empowered a new generation of young women. That woman is Patsy Mink. I offer my deepest condolences to Patsy Mink's family. I know that they will miss her, as will all of us in Congress who were fortunate enough to know her, not only as a colleague, but also as a leader, mentor and friend. Patsy Mink was a pioneer--she opened so many doors for a generation of women and for our daughters. She was the driving force behind Title IX, which mandated gender equality in education. Without this landmark piece of legislation, our daughters, granddaughters, nieces and young women everywhere would not have the opportunity to excel and display their talents in the classrooms and the playing fields across this nation. Without Patsy's unwavering efforts to implement this law, Title IX would have been the great idea that never came to be. I am honored to have served with Congresswoman Mink on the House Education and the Workforce Committee and feel privileged to have worked closely with her on the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness. I know firsthand her intense drive, dedication and devotion to her home State and her constituency. As the first Asian woman elected to Congress, she displayed unparalleled determination in fighting for human rights, civil rights and the rights of minority groups everywhere. We must now be vigilant and continue the crucial work that Congresswoman Mink undertook on behalf of people everywhere who felt they had no voice. Women, people of color and individuals throughout this nation owe a debt of gratitude to Patsy Mink and her trailblazing efforts. Her legacy of equality and integrity will live on not only in the halls of Congress, but on the playing fields and in the classrooms across this nation.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4600, the HEALTH Act of 2002. While this legislation should address the skyrocketing costs of medical malpractice insurance it is really a huge tort reform bill that threatens to weaken patient protections. This legislation goes well beyond medical malpractice. It would not only place restrictions on the ability of individuals to receive compensation when they are injured by the negligent conduct of health care providers. But it would also include, defective medical products, tainted prescription drugs, and claims against HMO's and health insurance companies. This legislation would preempt current state law regarding the statute of limitations for actions. During my time in the Minnesota House of Representatives, I supported legislation that lengthened the statute of limitations for medical malpractice cases to four years. H.R. 4600 would require lawsuits to be filed within three years of the date of injury or only one year after discovery. We must have a longer statute of limitations to help protect individuals who have diseases with long incubation periods. For example, a patient who contracts HIV from mishandled blood, but does not show symptoms until three years later, could not seek remedy for this gross injustice under this new law. A patient who has a medical device implanted and years later the device fails due to a part defect, will not be able to seek remedy under this new law. These patients deserve the same protections any other individuals who have been injured by other forms of negligence. The overly broad scope of this bill sets a dangerous new precedent. We should not prevent individuals from seeking remedy for their injuries by allowing medical manufacturers who obtain FDA approval, FDA ``pre-market approval'' or ``are generally recognized as safe effective'' to be exempted from liability. We should absolutely not be preempting states' HMO reform laws that have allowed patients to sue for wrongful actions. I have heard from doctors the challenges they face over the significant increases in medical liability insurance premiums. I am concerned that additional costs make it more difficult for physicians to stay in practice, however, this legislation does not address the real problem. This bill does nothing to fix the increasing cost of insurance premiums and goes far beyond its stated purpose of reducing the costs of malpractice insurance, while compromising the health and safety of patients.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1701, the Consumer Rental Purchase Agreement Act. While supporters of this bill claim that it will protect the interests of consumers, it will do the exact opposite in my state of Minnesota and other states that have enacted strong protections against abuses by the ``rent-to-own'' industry. If enacted, H.R. 1701 would pre-empt laws in Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Vermont that currently treat ``rent-to-own'' as consumer credit transactions subject to state credit sales laws. These strong state laws protect consumers from being charged exorbitant prices for items purchased through ``rent-to-own'' transactions. Conversely, H.R. 1701 would require all states to treat these transactions as renewable leases subject to minimum disclosures. H.R. 1701 would allow ``rent-to-own'' businesses to charge even more outrageous prices to consumers. While ``rent-to-own'' businesses must currently comply with usury laws that set maximum interests that may be charged for these transactions, H.R. 1701 will completely undermine this protection. Further, this bill would allow the ``rent-to-own'' industry to avoid millions of dollars in legal penalties that are collected from businesses in violation of Minnesota's consumer protection laws. With strong enforcement of these laws, Minnesota courts have collected $30 million in penalties since 1997 from just one ``rent-to-own'' chain. Clearly, the ``rent-to-own'' industry stands to benefit greatly from the ``get out of jail free'' card that H.R. 1701 would provide. During my time in the Minnesota House of Representatives, I fought attempts by the ``rent-to-own'' industry to strip these important protections from our state law. Now, as a member of Congress, I must fight these attempts again to protect the interests of the low- and moderate-income consumers who are targeted by the deceptive practices of the ``rent-to-own'' industry.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong unity with my colleagues in urging passage of the welfare reauthorization bill some time this year. We do have a responsibility to provide meaningful job training, job training that will work with our community colleges, our vocational schools; work that fits into training programs that are not eligible under the House bill. We need to get families back to work. We need to provide quality child care that will allow our children to grow up in a safe and nurturing environment. The House bill fails to do that. In Minnesota right now, I have waiting lists. I have waiting lists with thousands of children. The House welfare reform bill will increase, increase in Minnesota the number of children on the waiting list. I have heard from my county, I have heard from the State of Minnesota, I have heard from welfare reform recipients. Child care is critical, child care is needed, and child care is lacking in the House bill. Passing welfare reform during this Congress is not the only responsibility we must take. Families and seniors and all Americans are deeply concerned about skyrocketing health costs. Today's health care spending continues to consume too large a portion of all families' incomes and causes too many children to live in poverty. And, oftentimes, it is the reason why families end up in welfare. The average price paid for brand name prescription drugs is often three times, three times the same medicine in generic form. The residents in Minnesota's 4th District should not have to pay significantly more for the same medicine simply because it has a brand name attached to it. These are lifesaving medicines. We are dealing with lifesaving medicines, not designer jeans. Now is the time to close the loophole that allows some drug companies to continue their stranglehold on the market. We have arrived at a point where people throughout this country are literally breaking their prescription pills in two, scrimping and saving every dime to pay for their lifesaving medication. We cannot allow this to continue. We have an historic opportunity to pass legislation that restores fair competition and stops the continued rise in drug prices. This legislation has already passed the other body and we must act now. We cannot continue to keep affordable drugs out of the reach of people who need them the most. To do that would be unconscionable. To do that puts families in poverty. To do that can indirectly add to our welfare rolls.