Marilyn Musgrave

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Thomas Faria was a Connecticut businessman who contributed to the efforts of the National Right to Work Committee. In 1977, he sent a letter to committee president Reed Larson offering his services as a member of the board of directors. He wrote: ``Although I have supported the National Right to Work Committee for a number of years because of my strong belief in individual freedom, I did not really appreciate the clout of union political power until I worked on trying to close loopholes in Connecticut's unemployment compensation law. I would like the opportunity to do more in the area of right to work as I feel America's future depends upon it.'' Fortunately, Reed Larson took up Mr. Faria on his offer. Mr. Faria joined the board of directors of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation shortly thereafter. The right to work principle, the guiding concept of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and one of the guiding principles of Thomas Faria's work, affirms the right of every American to work for a living without being compelled to belong to a union. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation gives legal assistance to employees who have been victimized. I rise today to applaud Mr. Faria's efforts and the National Right to Work Committee with whom he served.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Larry Edward Penley as the thirteenth President of Colorado State University and third Chancellor of the Colorado State University System. Dr. Penley came to Colorado State University from Arizona State University, where he served as the Dean of the W.P. Carey School of Business for 12 years. He also held the Robert Herberger Arizona Heritage Chair while he was a professor of management at Arizona State University. Dr. Penley earned his doctorate in management from the University of Georgia and a Bachelor's Degree in psychology and a Master's Degree in communication from Wake Forest University. Dr. Penley has also served on staff for many other colleges and universities, including University of Texas at San Antonio, Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, and Universidad de Carabobo in Venezuela. Colorado State University has contributed much economically, historically, and culturally to Fort Collins and the State of Colorado. With Dr. Penley serving as the President of CSU, the tradition, history, and distinct achievements of Colorado State University will be further exemplified. So far, with Dr. Penley serving Colorado State University, he has accomplished many goals, some of which include: Working to strengthen the university's profile as one of the Nation's finest public research universities; Making an effort to listen to students and faculty and enhance the quality of the undergraduate experience, including refinements to the first year semester; Focusing the institution's efforts on recruitment of Colorado's top high school students from the States, without regard for origin, background, or socioeconomic status; Launching a comprehensive strategic planning effort to position Colorado State University for success as a 21st century land grant university. As an alumnus of Colorado State University myself, and now representing CSU in the United States Congress, I have had a determined interest in CSU's mission to benefit our great State. I am proud to know that the tradition and excellence synonymous to Colorado State University will be carried on through the dedicated work of Dr. Larry E. Penley.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request that the letter from the Non-Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America be included in the Congressional Record.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, today I submit the following article from Vital Speeches into the Congressional Record. ``U.S. Needs Space-Based Missile Defense'' is a speech given by my highly respected predecessor, Representative Bob Schaffer. [From Vital Speeches, Oct. 15, 2003] U.S. Needs Spaced-Based Missile Defense address by bob schaffer, former u.s. congressman from colorado, delivered to the council for national policy, colorado springs, colorado, september 26, 2003 Thank you, Ambassador Cooper. Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. I have been a long-time admirer of Ambassador Hank Cooper since before I went to Congress in 1996. As a Member of Congress, I relied on the Ambassador's judgment and vision for guidance when considering questions of America's defense against those who would threaten our liberty. The district I represented, up until January of this year, in Congress was essentially the entire eastern half of Colorado--very rural. Consequently, the committees to which I was assigned in Congress had to do with agriculture, natural resources and education. I served on no committees that had direct involvement with national defense, foreign affairs or military preparedness. But as one who represented a constituency of broad interests, I endeavored to learn as much as I could about national defense. And the more I learned about the very real threat America faces with respect to long-range missile attack, the more I became convinced that there are not enough leaders in Congress paying attention to this vital national security concern. As Ambassador Cooper mentioned, my interest led me around the world meeting with parliamentarians and defense leaders of other nations. I made eight trips to Russia, as many to Ukraine, and others to Asia, Central Asia, and Europe. Since September 11th, America has been focused on combating terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. We have been reorienting our national defense to address the weakness exploited by the terrorists who killed Americans on American soil, and toward protecting Americans abroad from similar potential attacks. This, of course, is necessary and exactly what we should be doing. America is not focused enough on conventional threats. Let me explain my concern for national security through an analogy of home security. As homeowners, we put the toughest lock, where, on the front door, right? Well, the burglars have figured out how to get in through the windows. In response,we are now fortifying our windows, doubling them up, and locking down the smaller points of access. This maks perfect sense. However, my friends, we are leaving the front door wide open to conventional attack from potential threats far more sophisticated and direct than the terrorists of rogue nations. We can't forget that countries like China still maintain arsenals of long-range ballistic missiles targeted at American cities like the one we're in right now. From their current launch sites, these missiles are just a half- an-hour away from their American targets. Once launched, we have no defense against them. Good leadership is essential. As a suggestion, I was asked to speak on what it will take for us to build the effective defenses we need, to defend us from the increasing threat and proliferation of ballistic missiles of all types, whether short-range, intermediate- range, and long-range, capable of attacking our homes and cities. Two words will do. Good leadership. In one way, the current Bush administration has displayed good leadership in its missile defense program. It has exerted the will to deploy a missile defense as seen in its decisions to withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty, deploy a National Missile Defense system, and increase funding. As a result of President Bush's leadership, the 1972 ABM Treaty resides in the dustbin of history. As a result of President Bush's leadership, the United States stands on the verge of deploying a National Missile Defense system, which is expected to reach initial operation in the next few years. It may be helpful to review some highlights of the National Missile Defense program, if only to point how Americans not only have the desire to defend themselves from ballistic missile attack, they also have the commitment and ability to build a defense. Highlights include how: In early September Northrop Grumman submitted a bid to compete for the Missile Defense Agency's Targets and Countermeasures prime integration program, valued at more than $1 billion for an initial four-year program. The Bush administration takes the issue of mid-course-phase decoys and countermeasures seriously. In August this year, progress was reported on the construction of a $900 million sea-based X-band radar, which will be home ported at Adak, Alaska, in the Aleutian Islands superceding earlier plans to build a ground-based Xband radar on Shemya Island, also in the Aleutians. This sea-based X-band radar will be self-propelled, using a semi-submersible oilrig being modified at shipyards in Brownsville and Corpus Christi. The radar will weigh 50,000 tons and be 390 feet long and 250 feet high. Scheduled to begin operation in 2005, this sea-based X band radar will hand off ballistic missile tracking information to interceptors located at For Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base. Also in August, Orbital Sciences Corporation test launched from Vandenberg a prototype of the three-stage booster to be used in the ground-based interceptor for our National Missile Defense system. President Bush's plan calls for deploying by 2004, four ground-based interceptors at Vandenberg, and six groundbased interceptors at Fort Greely, increasing the number of ground- based interceptors deployed at Fort Greely to a total of 20 by the end of 2005. Contracts have been let for pouring concrete for the missile silos at Fort Greely, and for refurbishing existing missile silos at Vandenberg Air Force Base. In June 2002, for example, it was reported how a contract for $325 million was issued to build six underground missile silos at Fort Greely. These are significant steps to our deployment of a National Missile Defense. The deployment of X-band radar, development of a booster for the ground-based interceptor, testing of the kinetic kill vehicle, and fielding of interceptors are coming together. Intelligent design. But good leadership involves more than the will to deploy a defense. While the will to deploy a missile defense is a key ingredient, an ingredient missing from the preceding Clinton administration, which believed in the ABM Treaty as the cornerstone of arms control, good leadership also needs to point the way of how to build an effective defense. Building an effective defense requires more than spending money. It requires an intelligent design. Speaking of money, Congress and the Bush administration have recognized the importance of funding missile defense. For example, in June of this year the House Appropriations Committee approved a budget of about $8.9 billion for missile defense, an increase of about $1.3 billion. Real money is being spent. Congress has shown increasing willingness to fund a missile defense, and for good reason. Not only has the threat of ballistic missile attack increased from China's buildup of ballistic missiles of all types, but the proliferation of ballistic missiles continues to increase. The proliferation of ballistic missiles poses a grave threat internationally. India and Pakistan look at each other in terms of increasing numbers of ballistic missiles, some of which are presumably armed with nuclear weapons. Japan is losing any sense of complacency over the increasing ballistic missile threat it faces as it was reported in June how North Korea has fielded between 160 and 170 intermediate-range Nodong missiles that can reach nearly all of Japan. In June it was also reported how Japan, in response to this hostile buildup of ballistic missiles by North Korea, requested an additional $1.2 billion for the next fiscal year to deploy a two layer missile defense system, consisting of PAC-3 missiles produced under license, and upgrading its four Aegis destroyers to deploy the SM-3 interceptor. From our experience in Iraq we know that the PAC-3 missile works very well, both as an interceptor of short-range ballistic missiles and of aircraft, using hit-to-kill technology based on radar guidance. PAC-3 performed with a high probability of intercept, unlike the earlier improved PAC-2, which although successful from a strategic viewpoint in the 1991 Gulf War, was essentially jury-rigged for its mission of intercepting Scuds. The Navy's SM-3 ballistic missile interceptor has proved itself positively, achieving three interceptions out of four attempts. The four interception test in June 2003, while unsuccessful, demonstrated the ability of naval ships to share target cuing information as the firing of the SM-3 from the U.S.S. Lake Erie was reportedly cued from another ship up-range. The test failure of the SM-3 evidently occurred when one of the cells of its solid fuel Divert and Attitude Control System failed to ignite--a problem of quality control rather than the underlying technology. The United States has over twenty years of experience in testing hit-to-kill technology for missile defense, achieving its first successful interception of an ICBM target in the June 1984 Homing Overlay Experiment. The time has come to deploy hit-to-kill technology in an effective defense. But building an effective missile defense requires an intelligent design. It requires the same elements of good strategy that have always formed an essential part of military victory, whether victory through a policy of peace through strength, or a policy of determination to achieve victory and lasting peace. An effective defense requires good position. No small part of military strategy is devoted to the maneuver and positioning of troops. Good position, good location, holding the high ground, whether the top of a hill or a mountain top, being able to look down and fire at an approaching enemy, is a key element of military strategy. For this reason U.S. military strategy emphasizes air superiority, the high ground of combined air, land, and sea operations. There is also the high ground of space, which U.S. military forces recognize as vital to the operation of our intelligence, communications, reconnaissance, and navigation systems, which rely heavily on satellites. Building an effective missile defense also requires good position. But this position isn't found on the ground, it is found in space where the ballistic missile operates. Building an effective missile defense requires a strategy that deploys a missile defense in the high ground of space. Good leadership would deploy a missile defense in space. Good leadership would point the way to space. Both the Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980's and early 1990's and Project Defender of the later 1950's and early 1960's pointed the way to space, recognizing the inherent advantages of deploying a missile defense in space. The earlier Project Argus nuclear test shots in 1958 and Starfish 1962 also pointed to space. Dr. Nicholas Christofilos from Lawrence Livermore realized space provides a position with global coverage against ballistic missile threats. The strategic advantages of deploying a missile defense in space are considerable. Global coverage, the capability for boost-phase interception, the use of robotics minimizing operational costs, and the potential of high-energy lasers and particle beams led these earlier missile defense programs to emphasize the development of defenses based in space. Even the Clinton administration was aware of the advantages that accrue from deployment of a missile defense in space, as seen in its decision to complete the termination of the Brilliant Pebbles program for deploying a space-based interceptor defense, and attempt to terminate the Space Based Laser. Believing in the ABM Treaty as the cornerstone of arms control, the Clinton administration was not interested in building effective defenses. While Brilliant Pebbles had been approved fro acquisition in 1991, it was subsequently opposed by key Democrats in Congress, who sought a technological regression, unwilling to change the strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction embodied in the ABM Treaty. Technological leadership and space superiority. Building an effective missile defense requires the United States to deploy its kinetic kill interceptors in space like Brilliant Pebbles, not in the underground concrete missile silos. An intelligent design would utilize the advantages that deployment in space offers in providing global coverage, boost-phase interception, the use of robotics, minimal operational costs, and the ability to use high-energy lasers for boost phase interception and active discrimination of decoys. There is a third ingredient for building an effective missile defense. This ingredient is technological leadership, including the ability to manage programs involving technology to produce timely results. Good leadership needs to manage the effort to build a missile defense effectively, to produce timely results rather than create an endless cycle of studies, delays, testing, and indecision. In the past the United States has exhibited bursts of technological leadership, including President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, which supported a vast program of research and development for missile defense technology. We need to remember those times and examples of technology leadership to build an effective missile defense. Good leadership involves more than creating program momentum by funding a single program with more dollars. It includes the ability to manage technology, and lead a fundamentally strong program to completion and success. It includes the ability to concurrently manage technology development programs with acquisition, to allow for improvements in current acquisition and the development of second- and third-generation defenses. It includes the ability to concurrently manage a variety of technology programs, pursuing at the same time different avenues of basing and technology, recognizing the wealth of ideas and technology developed under the Strategic Defense Initiative, giving the United States the ability to construct a missile defense in multiple layers. It includes the ability to match an intelligent design for building an effective missile defense with the pursuit of technology, seeking a technological momentum designed to defeat the ballistic missile. It includes an understanding of how the strategy of ``Mutual Assured Destruction'' which was behind the ABM Treaty was designed to restrain the use and development of new technology. Notably, space not only offers a position of advantage for deploying a missile defense, it stimulates the development of new technology. Technological leadership includes the ability to resolve problems. Highlights of where technological leadership has been lacking in the current program for building a missile defense, include: The termination in 2001 of the Navy Area Wide defense program, which would have provided Aegis cruisers and destroyers with a defense against short-range ballistic missiles and aircraft like PAC-3. While the proposed SM-2 Block VIA interceptor for Navy Area Wide would have relied on a blast fragmentation warhead rather than hit-to-kill, differentiating it from PAC-3, its program termination may be viewed with disappointment. The termination in 2001 and 2002 of the Space Based Laser program, which would have provided a very effective boost phase defense against ballistic missiles of all types, short, intermediate, and long-range. Notably, the Space Based Laser program successfully demonstrated its end-to-end beam generation and training back in 1997. From the point on, the program's next step was to test a scalable high-energy laser in space. Presumably, the termination of the Space Based Laser program came as a result of opposition in the Senate to the deployment of missile defenses in space. Apparently lacking in the current administration was an understanding of the advantages of technological readiness of the Space Based Laser, unwilling to overcome apparent political opposition at a time when most Americans support missile defenses. Technolgocial leadership also includes the ability to communicate the advantages of technology, as well as the ability to develop it. While the current adminsitration has demonstrated its commitment to fund a missile defense and support the deployment of a ground-based defense, and has withdrawn from the ABM Treaty, it has yet to support a design to build an effective defense, much less insist on technological leadership. America's current plans include a virtual technological regression in any planning for a space-based interceptor defense, unwilling or unable to use past technology developed for Brilliant Pebbles. Unwilling or unable to use Brilliant Pebbles technology for space-based interceptors, the current administration and the Congress have been unwilling or unable to employ technological advances that have occurred in: The increasing use of robotics, including autonomous operation and data fusing and joint decision making between independently operating robots, which NASA has developed for missions on Mars. The development and increasing use of photonic or fiber optics for sensors, communications, and computer processing, which provide a means to defend against electromagnetic pulse. The development of three-dimensional computer chips, allowing for the integration of different processes, whether computer processing communications, processing of sensor data, and active response within the same chip. These advances in photonics and computer chips, combined with continuing advances in nanotechnology, including Micro Electro Mechanical Systems or MEMS, could potentially allow for the development of kinetic kill vehicles smaller than Brilliant Pebbles, which were essentially based on late 1980's technology. Instead of building kinetic kill vehicles that weigh in the tens of kilograms, the United States could potentially be building kinetic kill vehicles that weigh under a kilogram, perhaps in the tens of grams, approaching the theoretical limits for kinetic kill vehicles suggested by Lowell Wood at Lawrence Livermore when he proposed the idea of Genius Sand as an advance generation Brilliant Pebble. America's defense planners seem to have a striking aversion to the development of advanced technology systems, especially those taking advantage of deployment in space, as seen not only in its termination of the Space Based Laser, but its very low level of funding for the development of a system of space-based relay mirrors that could utilize a high-energy laser to strike at targets around the world. This system of relay mirrors, suggested in the Strategic Defense Initiative as a way to take advantage of high energy laser technology that was ground-based or air-based, is being funded at a level of around $1 million when it should be funded at the billion-dollar level. The state of U.S. technological leadership is also seen by Pentagon planning to deploy a system of optical communication satellites, in other words, satellites using laser communications, which would provide much needed bandwidth and high security. These had been proposed in the early 1980's and the Air Force had performed some early demonstrations. More than twenty years after this exciting concept was proposed, the Pentagon is finally planning to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a satellite laser communications system. This comes after the European Union successfully demonstrated the use of laser communications with its Artemis satellite. I was asked to speak about what it will take for us to build the effective defenses we need. Good leadership is the answer. Three key ingredients to good leadership include not only the will to build a defense, but an intelligent design and technological leadership. Over the past three years, our country has clearly demonstrated its will to build a missile defense; I strongly suggest to you that we still need an intelligent design and technological leadership to build an effective defense.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Loveland, Colorado Valentine Card Remailing Program for their outstanding and creative service to Loveland and to the rest of the Nation. The Loveland Valentine Card Remailing Program began in 1946. Postmaster Elmer Ivers, Chamber of Commerce president Ted W. Thompson and his wife Mabel were the original founders of this unique tradition. What began as a stamp club project has since grown into the largest remailing program in the United States of America. In 1947, 40 cards were sent through the Loveland, Colorado Post Office and postmarked with a unique Valentine inked stamp. Now every year nearly 300,000 valentines are sent through the Loveland, Colorado Post Office. Behind the scenes there are about 50 senior citizen volunteers that hand stamp a message of love on the envelopes that are received. This year's message of love, called a ``cachet,'' was submitted by Diana Reed and reads ``Sweet Promises on Arrows Ride from Loveland's Heart to the Whole World Wide.'' Stephanie Moss submitted the Cachet design. The Cachet design is Dan Cupid holding a heart shaped world in one hand, with doves and mountains framing the verse. Loveland's official Valentine Card design was submitted by Brenda Crow and pictures two white doves sitting in a bed of lavender flowers below three red hearts framed in flowers. On the inside of the card a Valentine verse reads ``Loveland, Colorado, the Sweetheart City has a Valentine Poem for the Witty. Candy is Sweet, Lemons are Sour, I'll be loving you through the Midnight Hour.'' And was submitted by third grader Shelsey Sybrandts who is the youngest author of the Valentine Verse in the 57-year history of the Loveland, Colorado Valentine Remailing Program. The modest city of Loveland has created quite a name for itself and is globally known as the ``Sweetheart City.'' Valentines are sent through Loveland from all fifty States as well as 120 countries. The Loveland, Colorado Valentine Remailing Program has been featured globally on PBS, the London Broadcasting Company, radio casts in Australia, and is mentioned in many more newspapers and magazines. A special Valentine representative is also chosen by a committee to win a $1,000 scholarship and to represent Loveland in various meetings with the Governor of Colorado and will often make speeches in front of the State House of Representatives and the State Senate. In the past, Miss Loveland Valentine has been the only person to be allowed to make a presentation in front of Colorado's State Legislature. I am so very proud of the humble town of Loveland, where my office headquarters are, and the Loveland Valentines Remailing Program. I ask my colleagues to join me in a unanimous tribute to all of the senior citizen volunteers, the authors of this year's Valentine card: Shelsey Sybrandts, Brenda Crow, Stephanie Moss, and Diana Reed, and to congratulate Sara Craig for being this year's Miss Loveland Valentine. May this noble tradition lift up our hearts and spread love and compassion around the world for years to come.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Boy Scouts of America and specifically the Longs Peak Council Boy Scouts of America for their outstanding service and commitment of duty to our local communities and to the nation. The Longs Peak Council covers a large area spanning from northeastern Colorado and up into the Wyoming and Nebraska area. As of December 31, 2002, the Boy Scouts of America had nearly 3,325,504 active Boy Scouts nationwide. On the local level this equaled out to 30,230 hours of community service in hundreds of different community service events. Nearly 1,420,000 hours from 5,917 volunteer leaders have been spent teaching by example the values of citizenship and the rewards of participating in their local communities. The fulfillment of being active in the community has not only been a valuable lesson for the Boy Scouts, but the citizens of Colorado have been sincerely grateful for all of this hard work. In the Greeley flood of 1996 Scouts and leaders filled thousands of sandbags and helped protect the property and lives of the residents of Greeley. One year later hundreds of Larimer County Scouts and leaders assisted elderly residents in recovering their belongings from the destroyed homes in the devastating Spring Creek flood of Fort Collins. Each year in the Scouting for Food program the local Boy Scouts gather 50 to 80 tons of much needed canned food for local food banks. The Boy Scouts of America is truly the largest and most successful youth protection program among the youth-serving agencies nationwide. From CPR training, first aid and life guard training to computer science and rock climbing courses, the opportunities for enrichment abound for the boys and young adults of Colorado's 4th Congressional District, and indeed, nationwide. I am so very proud of all the Longs Peak Council Boy Scouts of America has done for our communities. I ask my fellow congressmen to join me in publicly honoring the Boy Scouts of America and their tireless dedication to serving others. May God bless the Boy Scouts of America for decades to come.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, in March 2003, the House Small Business Committee convened a hearing to review a prospective rule from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This rule was intended to alter the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. During the past 2 years, HUD has been working to simplify the real estate settlement process. Their goal is to produce a uniform packaged pricing concept for consumers that incorporates all pricing elements including home inspections, title insurance, and interest rates. During the March 2003 hearing, HUD officials testified to the Small Business Committee regarding different elements of this initially proposed rule. Much attention focused on the inadequacy of the economic impact study contained within the rule, particularly with respect to the effect on small businesses nationwide. After fielding questions from nearly every Member seated on the Committee, HUD agreed to give additional consideration and possible revision to their prospective rule. It became evident during review of the initially proposed rule that it would be a step in the wrong direction. Consequently, it had no support from the real estate and mortgage industries, as well as little support from consumer advocacy groups. During the process leading up to last spring's hearing, the Department of Housing and Urban Development was forthcoming about details of the rule prior to last spring's hearing. But since then, HUD has been virtually silent about changes, despite receiving tens-of- thousands of pages of comments during the extended review period. Mr. Speaker, it troubles me that, as of late, HUD has been stonewalling Congressional inquiries by not responding to suggested comments, as indicated, and to questions asked during the hearing. Surprisingly during the recent Congressional winter recess, and without notice to Congress regarding the nature of any changes, HUD submitted their final rule to the President's Office of Management and Budget in December 2003. Now, executive privilege prevents Congress and the public from reviewing the final rule. While it is HUD's prerogative to forward this rule during Congress' recess, this instance clearly circumvents the intent of congressional oversight for departmental and agency rulemaking. Depending on the contents of this final rule, the largest of the market lenders may seek to establish exclusive relationships with real estate service providers, such as home inspectors, title insurers, mortgage brokers, or real estate agents. Home inspectors, for instance, would be forced to accept below market pricing for their inspection services, or face difficulty finding work. Furthermore, large and small businesses alike would spend millions of dollars to change forms and reformat their disclosures, losing valuable time being retrained to present a product they already produce ethically and efficiently. This does not make sense. Ultimately, consumers would be left with limited choices and higher prices. Smaller businesses unable to compete, due to a lack of sufficient resources, would be forced to close their doors. Mr. Speaker, I encourage OMB to make the right decision on this delicate matter and to operate transparently and deliberatively when considering rule proposals. The opportunity to purchase a home through easy and equitable transactions may be lost for many, should this final rule become published.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my gratitude to the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), and especially to my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis). In the West we care very deeply about this legislation, particularly in Colorado. We have had the Buffalo Creek Fire, we have had the Hayman Fire in Colorado, we have had massive loss in acres of our beautiful forest land. We have had immeasurable damage to the environment, to our water quality. The Denver Water Board spent over $20 million cleaning up after the last fire. Habitat has been destroyed. Our tourism industry has been harmed greatly. And, more importantly, we have lost the lives of our brave firefighters in Colorado. We are in strong support, those of us that care about our national forests and our private forests, are in strong support of this conference committee report. And I commend all those who have worked so hard on this conference committee and this legislation.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great American, Dr. Edward Rozek, for his years of dedicated service to the cause of freedom and democracy as a soldier, scholar, author, and college professor. Edward Rozek was 18 years old when Adolf Hitler conquered Poland. He decided to join the Allied forces in the west and escaped through Slovakia to Hungary, where he was captured by the Nazis and spent several months in a slave labor camp. Upon escaping from the Nazi camp, Rozek made his way to England, where he joined the First Polish Armored Division. He became a tank officer in the Armored Division's Reconnaissance Regiment and fought from Normandy through Belgium. Achieving the rank of Major, Rozek was wounded four times and received four Purple Hearts, three Crosses of Valor, as well as numerous other decorations. In 1948 Dr. Rozek arrived in the United States without family, money, or profession. He was admitted to Harvard after earning money to pay tuition by working on a dairy farm and then at a gasoline station. In 7 years, he earned a Bachelor of Arts, Magna cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, Master of Arts, and his Doctorate of Philosophy. After leaving Harvard, Dr. Rozek became a Professor of Comparative Governments at the University of Colorado. He was Director of Slavic Studies for 25 years and Deputy Editor for one of the most prestigious publications on Eastern Europe in the world, Journal of Central European Affairs. His best-known book is Allied Wartime Diplomacy, for which he received the National Foundation Book Award. The students at the University of Colorado selected him as Professor of the Year and Distinguished Faculty Member. During the 1980 Presidential campaign, Rozek was a member of Ronald Reagan's Advisory Council on Defense and Foreign Policy and is currently a member of the Reagan Associates. He is an honorary member of Solidarity, and received Knighthood in the Venerable Order of St. John from Queen Elizabeth. Presently, Dr. Rozek holds the Endowed Garnsey-Rozek Professorship in Economic and Political Freedom at the University of Northern Colorado. He will retire at the end of this year. Dr. Rozek is married to Elizabeth and has two sons and four grandchildren. On behalf of the countless number of students, citizens, and legislators he has touched, I want to thank Dr. Rozek for his years of dedicated service to liberty through classical liberal education. As the famous philosopher Sidney Hook said of Dr. Rozek in the dedication to his book, Academic Freedom and Academic Anarchy, Ed is truly an ``embattled fighter for free men, free society, and a free university against fascism, communism, and totalitarian liberalism.'' May God bless Dr. Edward Rozek and his epic legacy of service to free people everywhere.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding achievement of ConAgra Foods--Longmont Facility in Longmont, Colorado in the field of occupational safety and health. I also commend Ms. Stephanie Sparks, the Complex Safety & Health Manager for this facility, and her team for their continued excellence. Recently, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) awarded this facility with the agency's approval as a Merit participant in the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP). This exceptional facility joins fewer than 850 worksites under Federal jurisdiction that have received this prestigious award. To achieve important recognition, ConAgra has demonstrated an exemplary record of workplace safety and health, achieving injury and illness rates well below the industry average. ConAgra continually exceeds industry performance records and sets extremely high standards for their competition. I am very proud to represent such a commendable Colorado facility. Congratulations to ConAgra for another job well done.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, the House passed its version of the Healthy Forest Initiative in May of this year with an overwhelming majority and bipartisan support. The other Chamber has had our version of the bill for over 6 months and only passed it after fires in southern California scorched almost 1 million acres, destroyed over 3,400 homes, and killed 20 citizens last week. During a meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, one of our members expressed to us his sorrow that one of his cousins had been burned to death and her sister was burned over 85 percent of her body. One of our own Members lost his home in this tragic event. After we took this vote in the House, a simple motion to appoint conferees has been blocked by the minority party, preventing the swift conclusion of negotiations. The forest health conditions across the country are too extreme and the threats to our citizens' lives and property too severe for this to be a political football. In Colorado, a beautiful State with beautiful national forests, 7.5 million acres are at risk to fire, insects, and disease. This is more than two-thirds of our forested acres in my State alone. The need to provide the modest relief provided by H.R. 1904 can best be illustrated by what the people on the front range went through trying to protect their forest. Working in close cooperation with the local community, conservation groups, and Colorado State University, the Forest Service proposed a modest effort to reduce hazardous fuels in this region. After exhaustive NEPA analysis, radical environmentalists filed an administrative appeal, and then a lawsuit. As the process unfolded, the Hayman fire destroyed the watershed before the project could be implemented. My colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), described this in July, how devastating the Hayman fire was. Mr. Speaker, 138,114 acres were destroyed, and 132 homes were lost in that fire. In total, in the year of 2002, the damages were 619,000 acres burned, 384 homes destroyed, 624 additional structures demolished and, sadly, nine firefighters were killed in this fire. The damage from the fires closed 26 water treatment facilities. After two smaller fires, the Denver Water Board had to spend over $20 million cleaning up the reservoir. The crises in our forests warrant action. It is imperative that conferees be appointed. Partisan politics must be put aside, and Congress must act to protect our national treasures. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary group of young dancers from Northern Colorado--the High Country Cloggers. Recently, these dancers preformed in the Junior Olympic Games in Detroit, Michigan, and won top medals. Dancers from ages 11 to 22 took home silver medals in the a cappella category, bronze in the traditional line-dance competition, and gold medals for best in age group. Clogging is an old style of dancing, with its roots from the Appalachian region. These award winning young ladies and men are part of its recent revival. Encompassing traditional bluegrass music and dance style, these astonishing dancers are turning clogging into a style filled with country, pop, and even hip-hop. Among the dancers performing at the Junior Olympics, I would like to honor: Jenna Jordan, Elizabeth Lopez, Dessy Benesh, Jacey Sisneros, Cynthia Crookston, Meghan Meehleis, Amberley Meehleis, Caitlynn Meehleis, and Ashlee Meehleis. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I wish to honor Rick and Michelle Meehleis of Fort Collins, Colorado. As the founders of the High Country Cloggers, this extraordinary couple have dedicated themselves to the success of the young dancers. At its inception, 5 years ago, the dance group held evening lessons in the Meehlies family garage. Rick and Michelle have turned the once family hobby into a family-run business with the participation of tremendous dancers throughout the community. The clogging group now holds lessons in its own studio and performs around the nation. In addition to performing in Detroit, over the past year they have danced in Branson, Missouri; Atlanta, Georgia; and in Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to honor the High Country Cloggers and the Meehleis before the Congress today because they are remarkable examples of dedication, strong family values, and achievement.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, October 15, if the voting machine was working properly, it would have recorded my vote in favor of H.R. 1828, the Syria Accountability Act. The Syria Accountability Act is extremely worthwhile legislation and I was proud to cosponsor it on May 22, 2003.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, few things that we do in this life have significance as we go 10, 20 years down the road; but the work that we are doing today in this Chamber has enormous significance. Partial birth abortion defies logic. I try to imagine how an individual could even come up with this thing that is called euphemistically a ``procedure.'' I am trying to imagine in my mind how a doctor, who is calling on his or her life to be a healer, to extend life for individuals, came up with this procedure. I am trying to imagine how sticking scissors into the brain of a child that is partially born is called a ``medical procedure'' that is to benefit the life of the mother, the mother whose body is getting ready to birth this child, a woman who is going through all of the things that we have gone through, getting ready to have the child. It is an important thing in this Nation today that we have acknowledged what this really is, and it is a good day in America when our President will sign the partial-birth abortion ban into law.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I admire altruism. I am very impressed when people want to help other individuals. I am very skeptical of altruism when it is funded with other people's money. When we look at this Medicare prescription drug benefit, I think we ought to think about the young families in our country that are working very hard to make ends meet. Many of them are in their 30s, their 40s. They have young children. They are trying to figure out how they are going to pay for their little guy's glasses, the little boy in the second grade that cannot see the bulletin board. They are trying to figure out how they are going to have any quality time together because mom is working and dad is working and somebody has got to pick up the kids and somebody has got to buy the groceries. They are frazzled young families. They are trying to do the right thing by their family, but they are also trying to figure out how they are going to pay their taxes and they are going to make ends meet. When we look at these families and look at families where people are working in their late 50s and early 60s and they do not really have a very good prediction, good future for their retirement and they are working on because they are trying to make ends meet also, maybe we ought to think about those people before we try to figure out how we are going to give a benefit to the wealthy that do not even need it, the wealthy Americans who, God bless them, have been successful. I am all for people accumulating wealth and enjoying it and being very prosperous, especially when they have made good plans and in the elder years of their lives they are reaping the benefits. But it makes no sense to me to increase the tax burden on our working families to give a benefit to people that have not asked for it that are going to try to figure out how many weeks they are going to spend on their yacht. This does not make sense. I support the Flake motion. We need to have a means testing. It is common sense. That is how we need to be responsible with the only way government gets its money: from taxing our citizens.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1078.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution calling for Taiwan to become a member of the United Nations. The resolution states that it is the sense of Congress that ``(1) Taiwan and its 23 million people deserve full and equal membership in the United Nations and other international organizations; and (2) the United States should take a leading role in gaining international support for Taiwan's participation in these organizations.'' Taiwan, a strong advocate of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and a bastion of economic strength, deserves the same privileges as all other thriving democracies. With the election of its President, Mr. Chen Shui-bian, in a free and fair election in March 2000, Taiwan continues to strengthen its democracy by improving safeguards for human rights and contributing to the international community. Taiwan was driven out of the United Nations in 1971 and, since then, has continually tried to regain admission. The People's Republic of China (PRC) has blocked those efforts. The PRC, one of the five permanent Security Council members, which determines new UN membership, continually pressures other nations not to support Taiwan's membership. The 23 million people of Taiwan have much to contribute, both intellectually and financially, to many international organizations, including the UN. Clearly, the people of Taiwan should also benefit from any positive work these organizations engage in as well. It is unreasonable for the people of Taiwan to be excluded from full participation in international institutions. Denying Taiwan membership in the United Nations and other international organizations, such as the World Health Organization, is unacceptable. For the past several years, both Houses of the U.S. Congress have consistently introduced and passed legislation supporting Taiwan's meaningful participation and membership into the United Nations and the World Health Organization. This important legislation restates our support and our commitment to the progress of Taiwan's democracy. I believe that Taiwan's full and equal membership in the United Nations and other international organizations is long overdue. Now is the time to right the wrong committed in 1971, by granting Taiwan the status it deserves.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Anna Charlotte Jilg Koslowske who will turn 100 years old on September 29. She was born near Florissant, MS, to the family of Adolf and Caroline Jilg. Her father had immigrated as a child to America from Austria in 1859. The family had a vegetable farm outside of St. Louis, and the eleven children all learned the meaning of hard work and its rewards. They were all expected to help in the fields and in preparing the produce for market. Anna's father would drive the mule-drawn wagon into St. Louis to deliver the fresh produce. This way of life supported the family for many years. Like many people from those days, Anna is pretty much self-taught, as children were needed to help at home or find work at an early age. Her teacher arranged for Anna to complete grades seven and eight in 1 year so the teacher could claim an eighth-grade graduate. After her graduation, Anna was hired by a family in St. Louis to care for the gentleman's terminally ill wife. Her compassionate and caring nature, in addition to her experience of living and working within a large family, made her an excellent candidate. As a young woman Anna journeyed to Zap, ND, to visit her sister and while there, met the Rev. George Koslowske, a pastor in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. They were married on May 17, 1925, and to this union came seven children, all of whom are still living. Anna moved with her husband from North Dakota to Waco, NE, where they served a rural parish, St. Johns, for 20 years. In 1950 they moved their family to Big Springs, NE, answering God's call to Zion Lutheran Church. During his ministry there, George was called home by the Lord in 1958, leaving Anna to provide for the two youngest children, ages 13 and 15. Anna worked then as a cook in the local Dairy King. Once the children were on their own, she served as a nanny for several families until 1974, when she moved to Holyoke, CO where she still resides. Anna has been blessed with 15 grandchildren, 25 great-grandchildren, and 2 great-great-grandchildren. She also has one living sister, Lillian Dueker, who recently celebrated her 102nd birthday. Anna and her children are grateful for the Lord's blessings during her 100 years. She has led a quiet, prayerful life. She was an excellent mother and mentor to her children, always stressing a Christian attitude. Her favorite reprimand was ``If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.'' She continues to be an example and joy to those around her. I am proud to honor Anna on the occasion of her 100th birthday. Anna is a self taught, hard working compassionate Christian mother and grandmother who is the embodiment of all the values that have molded America into the great nation it is today.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Marine Staff Sgt. Brian Ivers for his bravery in the face of combat during Operation Freedom in Iraq. Mr. Ivers is a resident of Fort Collins and is a Police Officer of that fair city. Serving his country on active duty in the Fox 2nd Battalion, 23rd Marine Regiment, 1st Division, his company was ordered to rescue a group of Marine artillerymen who took a wrong turn in the town of Al Gaharraf. Encountering a near blinding sand and rain storm as they entered the town, no air support could be provided. Staff Sergeant Ivers' platoon came under fire as they entered Al Gaharaff. As the first platoon dismounted, they immediately engaged with the enemy. Sergeant Jim Cawley's platoon worked to suppress the enemy long enough to allow Sergeant Ivers' platoon to enter the town. Sergeant Cawley's platoon fought a gun battle while occupying a building. A grenade was launched into the building and leveled many of the marines because of the concussion. Enemy fire had increased all around them while they were returning fire. One of the marines was trapped inside the building. Staff Sergeant Ivers attempted to rescue him. In his own words, Brian said, ``I got up to get him as I thought I could just grab his hand and drag him out. As I moved along the wall, rounds began to punch holes out of the concrete in front of me. I turned to go back to where I had just come from and was struck in the side with a round. The force of it spun me around and at the time I thought I had been hit in the kidney.'' Later, Brian would realize that the bayonet had taken the impact of the round, deflecting it to his flack jacket, thus saving his life. His platoon was in contact with the enemy for over a half hour and was running low on ammunition. They were finally told to pull out because air cover was expected. A tank showed up about 40 minutes later. Brian's ribs were blue with bruises. Months later, Brian found out that he had broken the eleventh rib--a good reminder that their battle had saved a unit of the eleventh Marines. Because he received a wound while in combat, Staff Sergeant Brian Ivers will receive the Purple Heart. Mr. Speaker, we are so fortunate to live in this great country where freedom is something that we rarely have to think about and often take for granted. It is simply a way of life for us, and we are truly blessed to live in a country that honors its citizens for their spirit, their ideas, their individuality, and their courage. I am so proud of Staff Seargeant Brian Ivers. Along with a grateful district, state, and nation, I applaud Brian Ivers for his courage and selfless dedication to duty. He has helped protect our democracy and kept our homeland safe by placing his life on the line.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a truly outstanding part of this nation's defense--the 137th Space Warning Squadron based in Greeley, Colorado. For the second time in three years (an unequaled achievement), that unit has won the Distinguished Mission Support Plaque given by the National Guard Association of the United States. This national award is given to only five outstanding units throughout all the Guard both Army and Air. In addition to Colonel William Hudson, I would like to recognize the leadership at the 137th of Major Daniel Salgado and Major David Simmons for their outstanding work, as well as Brigadier General Mike Edwards (at the 140th Wing, Buckley AFB) and Major General Mason Whitney (the Colorado Adjutant General). The award shows the outstanding ability, competence, and potential of our Colorado Guardsmen at the Greeley location. Additionally, the 137th in 2002 received many accolades for inspections, conversions, support, and community service. I am so proud that this unit is in the Fourth Congressional District and going above and beyond in its defense of the United States of America. May God bless them for their service.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise to oppose this amendment. I have a great deal of interest in education. I have been married to a public school teacher. He taught for 24 years. When I was a graduate of college, I taught public school for a time before I started raising our four children. When I first started being interested in public policy, I ran for our local board of education, and I served there for 4 years before I went into the State legislature in Colorado. One of my committee assignments that I requested right away was the education committee because I feel very strongly that a good education is one of the best tools that we can give a child in order that they might have a successful life. I have faced the challenges that public school teachers face. I am very appreciative of the job that they do. I am, most of all, however, very respectful of parents. You birth a child, you nurse a child, you get up with them in the middle of the night when they are sick, you try to instruct them on what they should eat, you try to instruct them on how they should behave, you instruct them in the moral arena; but somehow or another when it then comes to education, some people think that parents do not have the ability to make a good choice for their child. Well, of course they have the ability. But most of all they love that child, and they have a very strong desire for that child to be successful. So who are we, who is anybody to tell parents that they cannot make a choice for their child? And as parents, one of the things that we want to do is we want to have hope for our child's success. We all know our children have different learning styles. Even within a family, children are very different; and parents make various choices for the different children. And I think that we should trust parents to know what is best for their child. I think that we need to empower parents to make an educational choice for their children. Again, a quality education is one of the best things that we can give a student. It empowers them to make choices in their life. It empowers them to have a realization of success. I think that when parents are seeing their children fail in a school that it is very important that we empower them to make a selection for their child that will give them hope, that will empower them. When I was on the school board, when I was a teacher, when I was involved in my children's education, one of the things that the educational community continually asked for was parental involvement. Everybody knows that one of the best predictors of a child's success in education is the involvement of their parents. Let us let these parents in D.C. be involved in their children's education.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address one of the most important issues we will debate during the 108th Congress, the reauthorization of TEA-21. TEA-21 funding ends on September 30, 2003, less than 30 days from now. So far, this Congress has failed to even introduce a reauthorization bill. As our highways, bridges, and city streets fall apart, this House has failed to act, and time is running out. Tragically, instead of seeking out creative transportation reforms, it seems that many in this body have decided that raising taxes and indexing them to inflation is the best way to be good stewards of taxpayers' money. This idea is not only counter to our Republican ideals, but it also is irresponsible, regressive, and counterproductive to our efforts to pass meaningful tax cuts earlier this year. When Coloradans sent me to Congress, they did so knowing that I am a fiscal conservative who wants to make government smaller, not bigger. I will not stand idly by while their taxes are being raised. What Member of this body ran on a promise to increase taxes by almost 50 percent? Not one of us. The majority of my colleagues ran on promises of smaller government and lower taxes. It is time to see a TEA-21 reauthorization bill with meaningful reforms.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2210. While the resources spent for Head Start have been very significant, hard-earned dollars of our taxpayers, the results have been mixed. Studies indicate that children who are enrolled in Head Start make some progress, but are still lagging far behind the national average in school readiness. Let me share some research from Health and Human Services. In 1997, Head Start children entered the program at an average of the 19th percentile in early learning knowledge areas and graduated in the 23rd percentile. That left Head Start students 27 percentile points behind the national average. In the 1997-98 school yard, Head Start students actually decreased performance in letter recognition. In 2000, Head Start children entered the program at an average of the 21st percentile in early learning knowledge areas and graduated in the 24th percentile. That left these Head Start children more than 25 percentile points behind the national average. Sadly, in the 2000-2001 school year, the Head Start students made no gains in letter recognition. A recent publication by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services again concludes that both higher- and lower-achieving Head Start children have low scores overall and show limited progress after completion of the Head Start program, another way of saying they enter and leave the Head Start program with below average skill and knowledge areas. We know that disadvantaged children need all the help they can get because in order for them to succeed in school, well before they enter school they have to have this knowledge base. We can predict how they are going to do in school by the progress they have made when they enter. The importance of all children achieving academic parity upon entry into kindergarten is critical, because children who start behind have been shown to never catch up. I am very much in support of this bill, and I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the staff and members for their hard work. The stakes are high with these disadvantaged children. We need to do everything we can to prepare them for school.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2210 and in opposition to the substitute. I wish to emphasize the important work that religious organizations do and to support their right to staff on a religious basis. The landmark Federal law prohibiting religious discrimination in employment includes an explicit exemption for religious employers in section 702(a) of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and nothing in title VII provides that a religious organization loses its exemption because it receives Federal funds. Any Federal legislation governing Federal social service funds should continue to protect the rights of religious organizations to hire and staff on a religious basis when they take part in Federal social service efforts. To do otherwise would deny religious organization rights they have enjoyed for decades under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As the New Republic's legal critic, Jeffrey Rosen, has made clear: ``Preserving churches' ability to fire or refuse to hire people who reject their religious values is . . . necessary to protect religious autonomy and State neutrality.'' Faith-based organizations cannot be expected to sustain their religious drive without the ability to employ individuals who share the tenets and practices of their faith, because it is that faith that motivates them to do the good work they do. Faith is an idea, not an immutable characteristic. Faith is not tied to the color of one's skin, to one's genetic makeup, or to one's ethnic ancestry. It is a unique blend of emotion and intellect that can be shared by anyone. I strongly support a religious organization's right to staff on a religious basis, and I commend them for the good work that they do and the good work they will do in regard to Head Start.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, it was nearly 5 decades ago in the spring of 1954 that Reed Larson went on what he believed to be a temporary leave from his job as an engineer for the Coleman Company in Wichita, Kansas, in order to lead a new grass-roots advocacy group called Kansans For Right to Work. Larson and his group members were determined to pass a State right-to-work law protecting employees from being forced to join or pay dues to a labor union in order to get or keep a job. Because they first had to deal with a hostile Governor, the job took longer than originally expected. By the time Kansas's right-to-work law was finally passed in November of 1958, Larson had been on temporary leave from the Coleman Company for 4\1/2\ years. After the Kansas victory, Larson was quickly recruited to lead the then 4-year-old national Right to Work Committee from its headquarters right here in our Nation's Capital and his temporary leave from the Coleman Company became permanent. For the next 44 years Larson stood at the helm of this organization, which has aptly been hailed as the Nation's preeminent defender of workers' freedom. I rise today to pay tribute to Reed Larson because of his long, selfless commitment to the right-to-work cause and because late last month at Mr. Larson's own recommendation, the board of directors of National Right to Work Committee appointed then executive vice president Mark Mix as the new Right to Work president and Larson as executive committee chairman. Reed Larson is still fighting for the right-to-work cause, but his role in the coming years will be in a different capacity than during the last 5 decades, marking the end of an era for the National Right to Work Committee and for opponents of forced unionism nationwide. Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for Mr. Larson's continued involvement with the right-to-work cause. Almost anyone else who had accomplished what Reed Larson has over the past 49 years would be content to rest on his laurels. During the 1950s, roughly 30 percent of private sector employees nationwide were forced to join and remain in a union. If they refused, they would be fired. Today it is 7 percent of private sector employees who are compelled to pay union dues or fees in order to keep their jobs. One major reason it is now possible to envision the day when every American private sector employees enjoys the personal freedom to decide whether or not to affiliate with the union is the invaluable assistance Reed Larson and the National Right to Work Committee has given to State right-to-work efforts. Thanks largely to the sound advice of Reed Larson and the committee, the number of State right-to-work laws has grown to 22, with the most recent law being approved less than 2 years ago in the State of Oklahoma. Furthermore, not a single right-to-work law that was in effect when Mr. Larson took over the committee in January of 1959 has been repealed or rendered inoperative through court action, although Big Labor has spent countless millions of dollars on bids to destroy such laws. The most notorious of these schemes was union officials' Capitol Hill campaign to eviscerate all State right-to-work laws through repeal of Taft-Hartley section 14(b) in 1965 and 1966. Under Reed Larson's leadership the committee saved State right-to-work protections by convincing Senate minority leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois to lead a filibuster against 14(b) repeal. Mr. Speaker, I proudly salute my good friend Reed Larson and the National Right to Work Committee's 2.2 million members. I applaud their unwaivering dedication and tireless action on what should be every American's birthright, not to be forced to pay tribute to a labor union in order to get or keep a job. May God bless you, Mr. Larson and his wife. He is a true American hero and many Americans owe him a debt of gratitude.