Todd Platts

Mr. PLATTS

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 100th anniversary of the United States Army War College located in Pennsylvania's 19th Congressional District, which I am privileged to serve. President Theodore Roosevelt's Secretary of War, Elihu Root, founded the War College on November 27, 1901. Secretary Root wished to establish a place where senior leaders of our Armed Forces would study and strategize problems of national defense, military science, and responsible command. Among the many graduates of this pristine institute are former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1927; General Omar N. Bradley, 1934; General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, 1973; and General Richard Myers, 1981, our current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In July of 1951, the Army War College relocated to Carlisle, Pennsylvania, where it has continued to serve our Nation, our allies, and the military in the capacity envisioned by Secretary Root. Under the exceptional command of Major General Robert Ivany, the Army War College strives to face the defense challenges of today while adhering to its long time motto, ``Not to promote war but to preserve peace.'' Mr. Speaker, it is a true pleasure and privilege to recognize and commend the United States War College on its 100th anniversary.

Mr. PLATTS

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me and allowing me to share some thoughts. I especially want to thank the gentleman for organizing this delegation trip to Russia, to Rome, and to Turkey, and for including me as a freshman Member. From a personal sense, it provided an exceptional opportunity for me to become much more informed on a number of foreign affairs matters dealing with Russia, dealing with our challenges in Afghanistan, dealing with Turkey in a broad sense but also in a very specific sense. Mr. Speaker, I felt in our nonstop visits throughout the three nations, I received a crash course in the issues of national security and foreign affairs. I also echo my thanks to the ranking Democratic Member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), for his welcoming me into the delegation, and, as a freshman Member, being given this opportunity. Mr. Speaker, before a couple of comments on the stops, I would like to thank the Air Force and Navy personnel who were critical in making this trip happen. Our Navy liaisons were our escorts at all the stops, the Air Force personnel who assured our safe travel abroad and back, the State Department personnel who played critical roles in our meetings being facilitated. There is a tremendous team of public servants throughout the world doing great work on the Nation's behalf. I took away from every meeting we had, whether it be with military officials, with civilian elected officials, with private citizens, every person started their conversation with us first with a deep expression of sympathy to our Nation and the loss of lives that we have encountered as a result of the attacks on September 11; and second, from the civilian and military leaders, a strong commitment of support in our war against terrorism, and a strong commitment of support to ensure that justice does prevail as we track down the murderers of our citizens on September 11. As Americans we have united here at home in this battle against terrorism. Abroad our friends are uniting with us in defeating terrorism and bringing justice to bear against the culprits involved in these attacks. When I look at the three sites of our stops, I will share some quick comments. In Moscow I came away greatly enthused that the good that we look for in all evil in talking about the attacks on September 11, making sure that we find the good; and one of the good is going to be our relationship with Moscow, specifically relating to joining together and fighting terrorism, and the opportunity to build a strong and lasting relationship with Russia on a whole host of issues: agriculture, energy, national security and defense issue, law and justice issues, environmental issues. The opportunity is extremely important that we move forward and develop much further a relationship with Russia for the good of our Nation and our citizens and Russia and her citizens and the world in total. From the elected members of the Duma we met with, I could see their sincere commitment in working with us and have our nations grow closer. The final two stops, Rome, with the Afghan King, King Zahir Shah, his commitment to try to help his people, and to the courageous commitment of the military leaders that came to Rome to meet with the King and with us. Their commitment to return their nation to a nation where their citizens are safe, secure and living in peace, to have an open and free government, returned to that nation; and the King's three-part plan where he wants to lay out and have the tribal leaders come together to pick an interim leader for their state to go forward and replacing the vacuum that will be created when the Taliban government is removed, as it must be removed, for the sake of the Afghan people and for the sake of people around the world being free from the terrorist state that they are harboring in their country. The Turkish vision was overwhelming. The knowledge that they shared in our visit Sunday and Monday morning, I came away very grateful that we have such a strong and loyal ally in that region, as was referenced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), how we need to better appreciate their loyalty and friendship in the issue of foreign military sales, and how we should look at forgiveness of that debt, and that is not something that they asked for. In fact, when it was raised how we can help Turkey, the chairman of their Foreign Affairs Committee in the Grand National Assembly saying in a time of crisis, as we are in today, it would be inappropriate to ask for something in return for our support. We want to help as a friend because it is the right thing to do, not because we will get something for it. We Members brought up that issue as something that they deserve, not just for their support now, but for their loyalty as a great ally of us. Mr. Speaker, the foreign minister, his insights, I think we need to give great weight; and we have recommended them in our report to the administration. Sometimes as Americans we think that we have all of the answers to the world's problems, and we forget that there are a lot of experts that we need to turn to. The foreign minister had a wealth of knowledge on Afghanistan and the relationships between the Northern Alliance, now the United Front, and Pakistan and how we can be effective in working with the citizens. Mr. Speaker, a final comment relating to the war on terrorism and how it applies to Afghanistan specifically, is that the King and the military leaders did not come to us and say, come in and save us and do their work. They came to us and said, help us liberate ourselves. They did not ask us to go into the country to rid them of the evil, but help them in doing it themselves. That is what America has been about, standing up on one's own two feet. That is what they are trying to do. They just need some assistance. I conclude by saying it was a privilege of being included and being given the opportunity to garner such information and knowledge from this trip.

Mr. PLATTS

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this resolution authorizing our Commander in Chief to bring the full weight and fury of our armed services against the evil parties responsible for the heinous attacks against our citizens. Just off the rotunda here in the Capitol Building stands a statue, a fellow Pennsylvanian by the name of John Muhlenberg. In January 1776, this 29-year-old Lutheran minister gave a sermon about the fight for independence in which he quoted Ecclesiastes: ``There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven; a time for war and a time for peace.'' Pastor Muhlenberg then concluded his sermon by casting off his clerical robes to reveal the uniform of a Continental Army officer. Mr. Speaker, as in the founding days of our great Nation, the time for war is upon us. God bless our Nation, and God watch over our citizens who will be going into harm's way.

Mr. PLATTS

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, our prayers today certainly go out to the victims of yesterday's horrific acts of terror. May the families and friends of those lost, military and civilian; firefighters, police and other rescue personnel, receive comfort and peace today. And may the entire Nation be entrusted to the merciful care of God as we move forward from a day that America will not forget. I join my colleagues here today to demonstrate the resolve of the United States of America to see to it that no act, however unspeakable, however despicable, will be allowed to halt our democracy. I commend President Bush for his words yesterday committing our Nation to bringing to justice those responsible for these attacks, and for recognizing that those who harbor evil, are evil, and must be dealt with as such. America should follow the admonition of David to his son, Solomon: ``Be strong and of good courage, and act.'' From tragedy, unity; from unity, strength; and from strength, justice. For the victims, for their families, for our Nation, God bless America.

Mr. PLATTS

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise in support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, passage of this joint resolution will make it clear to the world that the Members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike, are united in our prayers and concerns for the victims of these terrible and heinous attacks, and that we are united in our resolve to see justice done on their behalf. The divisions between us over other issues in past months pale in comparison and now seem very trivial. The horrific events of yesterday, September 11, 2001, have united us all. As we move forward, let us not forget the victims. Let us not forget their families. Let us not forget the heroes. Let us not forget our united resolve to see that justice prevails.

Mr. PLATTS

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents and my late father, Dutch Platts, an army veteran who felt very strongly about protecting the American flag from desecration, I rise in support of this proposal. House Joint Resolution 36 is important for many reasons. The American flag is of great importance not only to the men and women of the United States of America but also to the citizens of the world. Every time we raise or lower the many flags flown all over the world, we have given thanks and shown appreciation not only to the veterans who fought and gave their lives to ensure the freedoms we know today, but to the many citizens who work daily to preserve those freedoms. Desecration of this commanding symbol, whether it is by burning, tearing or other mutilation, undermines the powerful sense of patriotism Americans feel whenever they see the red, white and blue. To many, desecrating the American flag not only destroys a cloth, it also destroys the memories and devotion thousands of veterans and others carry with them throughout their daily lives. In this day of world conflict, we must remember that the Stars and Stripes has been a force that holds communities together. I agree with the gentleman from California, Mr. Cunningham, that, ``The American flag is a national treasure. It is the ultimate symbol of freedom, equal opportunity and religious tolerance. Amending our Constitution to protect the flag is a necessity.'' In looking to whether our Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment right to freedom of speech to include burning of the American flag, I look to how our Founding Fathers treated the flag: When the Founding Fathers would go into battle, one soldier would carry the flag. If that individual fell in battle, another soldier would give up his weapon to pick up the flag. Those actions tell us pretty clearly how much our Founding Fathers respected and were willing to sacrifice themselves for the flag and how they did not intend the First Amendment right to freedom of speech to include desecration of the American Flag. I am hopeful that this bill will pass with broad bipartisan support.

Mr. PLATTS

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents and my late father, Judge Platts, an Army veteran who felt very strongly about protecting the American flag from desecration, I rise in full support of this proposal. House Joint Resolution 36 is important for many reasons. The American flag is of great importance not only to the men and women of the United States of America but also to the citizens of the world. Every time we raise or lower the many flags flown all over the world, we have given thanks and shown appreciation not only to our veterans who fought and gave their lives to ensure the freedoms we know today but to the many citizens who work daily to preserve those freedoms. Desecration of this commanding symbol, whether it is by burning, tearing, or other mutilation, undermines the powerful sense of patriotism that Americans feel whenever they see the red, white and blue. To many, desecrating the American flag not only destroys the cloth, it also destroys the memories and destroys the memories and devotion thousands of veterans and others carry with them throughout their daily lives. In this day of world conflict, we must remember that the Stars and Stripes has been a force that holds communities together. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) that ``The American flag is a national treasure. It is the ultimate symbol of freedom, equal opportunity, and religious tolerance. Amending our Constitution to protect the flag is a necessity.'' Mr. Speaker, I look to our Founding Fathers and how they treated the flag as to whether they thought the first amendment should protect burning the flag, desecrating the flag. When they went into battle, a soldier would carry the flag; and if that soldier fell, another soldier would put down their weapon and pick up the flag. That is a pretty clear indication that they did not intend the first amendment to protect desecration of the flag. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote and hope that we will have a very strong bipartisan vote in favor of this proposal.

Mr. PLATTS

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, as a freshman Member of this Chamber, and as one who has supported campaign finance reform and fought for campaign finance reform for close to 10 years, I need to express my great disappointment in the vote that occurred earlier today in which we defeated the rule on campaign finance reform legislation and, thus, have disallowed that legislation from coming forward. Before I share exactly how I voted, though, I think it is important to share some of my history on this issue and how I live campaign finance reform and not just talk about it. Over the last 9\1/2\ years as a candidate first in the State House and now in Congress, I have never accepted political action committee money. I have limited the amount of money I have spent; I have limited the amount of my personal money I have spent. In fact, in my campaign for Congress a year ago, I limited my expenditures in the primary to less than $150,000; and I was outspent five to one by one opponent, three to one by another, two to one by a third opponent. We did grass- roots campaigning; and thanks to the people of my district, we were successful. I ran in that fashion because I believe money is wrongly influencing the governing process, and I think it is time we do better by the people we are elected to represent. Unfortunately, we did not get that opportunity today; and despite my strong support for campaign finance reform; in fact, in the June 30 reports of this year, I imagine I will probably pretty easily be the Member with the lowest amount, with $7,000, maybe $8,000 in my campaign treasury, compared to hundreds of thousands of dollars, because I am not interested in being a fund-raiser, I am interested in being a public servant. But despite that history, despite that I seek not just to preach about campaign finance reform, but to try to practice campaign finance reform, citizens may be surprised to learn that I voted against the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the maker of the underlying bill that was to come before the House; I voted against the position of the distinguished Senator from Arizona who wanted a vote against the rule. I think it is important that we discuss why I voted that way, even as an adamant supporter of campaign finance reform. I would contend that the defeat of the rule and, thus, the disallowance of the bill coming up for a vote is a huge step backwards. What we have done is send the bill back to committee where it may never come out of for the rest of the session; and under the best-case scenario under the rules of this House, it will at least be several months before we get another opportunity to bring it to the floor. What was the alternative if we had supported the rule and brought it forward? Was it perfect? No. In fact, if I had my druthers, I would go one heck of a lot further than we were proposing to do in the underlying legislation and the amendments. But if we had allowed it to come forward, if we had approved the rule, we would have had the gentleman's bill before this House, a very comprehensive campaign finance reform piece of legislation. We would have had 17 amendments before this House, 12 of which the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) was preparing to offer. We would have had the opportunity for two substitute campaign finance reform bills to be discussed, debated, and openly voted on in this House. What did we get? Nothing. Not one vote. We got a rule denial that sent it back to committee, and we have lost tremendous ground. The worst-case scenario that could have occurred if we had supported the rule, that we would move a piece of legislation forward either that was in such good form and in such similar form as the Senate legislation, as the McCain-Feingold legislation, that the Senate would have concurred in it, and we would have taken a huge step to eliminating soft money, to reducing the influence of money on the process. Under the worst-case scenario, we move forward and come out with a bill that the Senate did not like, we go to conference. So we are in conference where we can hammer it out between the Senate and the House. Instead, we are still in a committee in the House, a long way from getting to a final piece of legislation. What was the grounds for defeating the rule, those who voted against the rule. Why? What did they not like about the rule? It came down to this. This is important for the citizens of this Nation to understand. It came down to procedure over substance. It was not a question of whether each and every one of the gentleman's amendments was going to get a vote. All 12 of them under the rule would get a vote. It is that he and others wanted them all to be voted as one, in one lump sum, they had to take it or leave it, one lump sum. Do I not think that was a good approach? I think the 12 amendments was fair, was reasonable. Each and every amendment would have gotten a vote on the floor; it would have been openly discussed and debated. Instead, none of them came to the floor and the underlying bill did not. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day, I think. As one who has fought for this reform, and we got so close to getting a substantive vote, and instead, we are back in committee. All 228 members who voted against the rule, if they so strongly believe the rule was flawed, I would encourage each and every one of them and I would hope that each and every one of them will bring forward a discharge resolution with what they think we should do and that all 228 are on that discharge resolution. Mr. Speaker, I urge that we as a House do campaign finance reform once and for all and do it right.

Mr. PLATTS

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary have until 6 p.m. on Friday, July 13, 2001, to file a report on the bill, H.R. 7.

Mr. PLATTS

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time. As a member of the committee, I rise in full support of H.R. 1. I would like to commend the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for working so diligently with each other, as well as with other members from both sides of the aisle, to help craft a bipartisan bill that I believe all of us can enthusiastically support. I certainly want to also commend President Bush for his efforts in this area. He has brought the issue of education reform to the forefront through the depth of his commitment to improving America's schools. I have had the honor to speak with the President regarding this issue on a number of occasions now. Each time, he has demonstrated to me his genuine, heart-felt belief in the importance of closing the achievement gap in America's education system. The bill we are about to consider is numbered H.R. 1 for a reason. It is considered by the administration and appropriately by Members of this House as the top priority for our Nation. There is no more important challenge before our Nation than ensuring that the next generation of schoolchildren is fully equipped with the skills and knowledge that they will need to succeed in work and life. Books and chalk boards, good teachers, and a safe learning environment, these are the ingredients to a better future. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1 consolidates education programs. It increases flexibility for local schools and, most importantly, and a corner stone of the President's plan, it requires accountability through annual testing. It treats literacy as a new civil right by proposing an investment of $5 billion in literacy programs to guarantee every student can read by grade 3. An area I have particular interest in is preschool education, and the Early Reading First program proposed by H.R. 1 will help to advance the debate in this area. Too many children, because they come from broken families and shattered communities, first arrive at the schoolhouse already at a tremendous disadvantage. Quality pre-K programs, such as those envisioned in Early Reading First, can do much to ensure that these kids will not have to spend their entire elementary years merely trying to catch up. I look forward to these and other considerations of the provisions in the bill, and I certainly join with the chairman of the committee and with other Members of the House in fully supporting the President's education plan so that we leave no child behind.

Mr. PLATTS

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 109, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PLATTS

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, as we all are well aware, on the morning of April 20th a Peruvian Air Force fighter jet erroneously shot down a single engine Cessna owned and operated by the Association of Baptists for World Evangelism based in York County, Pennsylvania and located in my District. In so doing, one American missionary was severely injured and two were tragically killed. I want to express my profound sympathy to James Bowers and his son Cory upon the tragic and untimely loss of their wife and mother, Veronica ``Roni'' Bowers and seven-month-old daughter Charity. I also want to express my sincere gratitude to the pilot of the plane Kevin Donaldson, who despite severely injuring both legs was able to land safely in the Amazon River. In addition, I want to urge the Association of Baptists for World Evangelism (ABWE) to continue to pursue their critical outreach efforts in the Amazon region and around the world. As a matter of background, the ABWE supports 1,300 missionaries in 65 countries worldwide. The missionary group has worked in Peru since 1939 establishing Baptist churches, schools, camps, and centers for pregnant women, as well as providing medical care throughout the Peruvian Amazon. More than 8,000 churches in the U.S. and Canada contribute money to support the mission of the ABWE. But what makes ABWE's mission so successful are the countless American men, women, and families from all walks of life who willingly sacrifice their precious time and effort, and unfortunately sometimes their lives, to do God's work. The untimely death of Roni and Charity Bowers has brought to the forefront a significant, but little known operation that takes place as part of our overall anti-drug policy. Since the mid 1980's, the Department of Defense has led an inter-agency air interdiction effort to close the ``air bridge'' between coca fields in the Andean region of Peru and Bolivia and the production facilities in Colombia. The idea was that the United States would provide intelligence and other assets to the host nations for the detection and elimination of drug smuggling operations, while staying out of the host nation's respective internal affairs and chain of command. Although an innovative approach to drug policy, this helping-hand policy is in obvious need of review, especially with respect to Peru. Mr. Speaker, as you know, Section 1012 of the 1995 Defense Authorization Act requires that U.S. intelligence and related assets can only be used if the President determines whether drug smuggling comprise an ``extraordinary threat to the national security of'' the foreign country and that ``that country has the appropriate procedures in place to protect against the innocent loss of life . . . which shall at a minimum include effective means to identify and warn an aircraft before the use of force'' is authorized. After temporarily suspending air interdiction flights in early 1994, former President Clinton made the determination that Peru fulfilled Section 1012 These straight-forward procedures include checking the flight plan of the observed aircraft, establishing radio communications, making visual contact to check the aircraft's registry and to give it visual instructions to land, getting permission to fire warning shots, then disabling shots and finally, when all else fails and the aircraft refuses to comply, then and only then can permission be granted to shoot down a civilian aircraft. All reports indicate that on that fateful Friday morning, over the strenuous objection of U.S. personnel, Peruvian officials either moved too quickly through these procedures, or did not implement them fully. The result was that a bullet fired from a Peruvian Sukhoi--25 jet fighter passed through the fuselage of the tiny missionary plane, through the heart of Roni Bowers and into the head of baby Charity, killing both instantly. The air interdiction effort in Peru and the overall policy itself is mired in questions. President Bush has requested $882 million for his Andean Regional Initiative in next year's budget. This program will substantially increase the investment in drug interdiction and eradication efforts in Peru and surrounding countries. Before Congress appropriates another dollar toward counter drug efforts in Peru, I believe it is imperative for us to review and rethink our interdiction policy. I urge Congress to look into tightening intercept procedures in drug trafficking areas, as well as strengthening the important role they have in the oversight of our drug policy. The United States should not expend taxpayer dollars to provide intelligence to a country that apparently violates straight-forward, internationally recognized interception procedures. Every effort must be made in our interdiction policies and procedures to ensure against the innocent loss of life. We cannot undo the horrific personal tragedy that James and Cory Bowers have endured with the loss of their wife and daughter, mother and sister. We can, however, do our utmost as a nation to ensure that through procedural reforms of the interdiction program, this private tragedy is transformed into a public good, so that no other family will suffer a similar heartache and loss in the future.

Mr. PLATTS

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of the South Mountain Restoration Center in South Mountain, Pennsylvania, and to pay tribute to a century of service provided to the people of south central Pennsylvania. Nestled in the heart of Pennsylvania's Blue Bridge Mountains and straddling the Adams and Franklin County lines, the South Mountain Restoration Center was established at the turn of the 20th Century as a hospital dedicated to the treatment of tuberculosis. The devoted medical staff at the Dr. Samuel G. Dixon Tuberculosis Hospital, as it was known until the mid-1960s, have cared for tuberculosis patients, World War I soldiers who were victims of poison gas, and the mentally ill. The tuberculosis epidemic in the United States necessitated the state-of-the-art medical care that the hospital provided. At the peak from 1938 through 1940, there were over 1,200 TB patients residing in the hospital on any given day. Prior to the discovery of antibiotics, the only treatments for tuberculosis were fresh air, sunshine, and exercise--three things the hospital provided in abundance. The 300 acres of land also housed a children's hospital or ``preventorim.'' Established in 1938, the ``preventorim'' sought to prevent the full-blown development of tuberculosis in children who had been exposed to the disease by their families. Many of these children came to the hospital underweight and malnourished, increasing their chances of contracting tuberculosis. By removing them from environments in which tuberculosis was prevalent, and providing them with nutritious food, fresh air, and excellent care, these children were spared the devastating effects of this terrible disease. After the introduction of antibiotics in the 1950s, TB was largely eradicated in this country. In 1968, The Dr. Samuel G. Dixon Tuberculosis Hospital was renamed the South Mountain Restoration Center. Since that time, it has provided nursing home-care to the mentally ill. It is called a ``restoration center'' because of the facilities' dedication to a philosophy of rehabilitating individuals before they rejoin the community. Today, the South Mountain Restoration Center serves as a long-term care facility for almost 200 mentally ill patients and shares its extensive grounds with a residential training program for young first- time offenders. Saturday, May 12, 2001 will mark the centennial of the South Mountain Restoration Center. I know that the tradition of excellence in care that has been established over the last 100 years will continue well into the 21st Century. As we celebrate this momentous occasion, I would like take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to the men and women through out the Center's history who have selflessly dedicated their lives to caring for those in need.

Mr. PLATTS

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the calender Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. PLATTS

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Tuesday, May 1, 2001, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, May 2, for the purpose of receiving in this chamber former Members of Congress.

Mr. PLATTS

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, with my remaining time, I just want to touch on one other issue, a very important issue, completely separate, and that is to voice my pleasure at the support of this House in the passage of H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of that legislation, was proud to vote in favor of it with the majority of my colleagues. I can so well remember 5\1/2\ years ago seeing the first ultrasound of my son TJ, who will turn 5 next month, at 10 weeks in utero; and that picture from that ultrasound remains on my desk today as the first picture of our child; not of a fetus but our child. I am delighted with the success of H.R. 503.

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of four of my constituents from back home in Pennsylvania who were recently recognized for their outstanding achievements. The first two constituents are young women who have demonstrated true educational excellence in the areas of science and engineering, while the second two constituents are gentlemen who have dedicated most of their lives to community service. It brings me great pleasure to bring the accomplishments of these four individuals before the United States House of Representatives and our Nation. Earlier this year, two students, Jessica Brillhart, a sophomore at Dallastown Area High School, and Anne Jensen, a sophomore at York Suburban High School, my alma mater, were named co-grand champions in the York County Science and Engineering Fair. Jessica Brillhart won her prize for a project called ``The Sound of Music.'' Jessica picked ten categories of music ranging from classical to heavy metal in 20 noises, such as a dog barking, a chandelier tinkling, and water rushing. She matched each musical style with the noises possessing similar sound waves. A survey of 35 individuals then proved that there was, in fact, a correlation between the noises that people found pleasing and their favorite music. Anne Jensen won the co-grand champion status for her project called ``Haze and Ground Level Ozone.'' Anne constructed a haze monitor to measure the amount of sunlight that filters through the atmosphere. She determined through calculations based on the results of the monitor that haze and the amount of ground-level ozone were not directly proportional, contrary to her original hypothesis. Nevertheless, the haze monitor turned out to be a very impressive and complex piece of machinery. Both Jessica and Anne will now be going to California to compete in an international science fair against 1,200 other students from throughout our Nation, as well as 40 other nations around the world. Jessica's and Anne's ingenuity, inventiveness, and imagination are certainly worthy of much praise. I proudly congratulate these outstanding young citizens on their grand champion success at the York County Science and Engineering Fair. Mr. Speaker, I also recently had the honor of attending the Delta- Cardiff Volunteer Fire Company's annual banquet. At that event, I was pleased to join with the fire company's president, Mr. Bill Griffith, and many other citizens there that evening in honoring two dedicated individuals, Mr. John Williams and Mr. Ralph Morris, for going above and beyond the call of duty. John Williams, a retired Federal employee, has served as a member of the volunteer fire company for 65 years. That is correct, he has been a member of that volunteer fire company for 65 years. During that time, he has held just about every office possible: ambulance captain, chief, treasurer, and has served as a member of the board of directors. He also served as president of the fire company for 20 years. Mr. Williams currently serves as an administrative adviser and is every bit as active today in the operation of the fire company as he has been in the past. He resides in Delta, Pennsylvania, with his wife and two grown sons, who are also active volunteers. Mr. Speaker, I am also proud to recognize the dedicated service of Mr. Ralph Morris, a member of the fire company for 42 years. Mr. Morris was born and raised in Delta and has given back many years of service to his community. A small business owner for much of his life, Mr. Morris also served in various capacities at the fire company. He was chairman of the board, captain, and assistant chief. It is my understanding that Mr. Morris remains very active and often drives the fire truck in responding to emergency calls. I know his wife and daughter are very proud of his long record of dedicated public service. All four of these individuals I have recognized this afternoon would probably never ask for this sort of individual attention and recognition, but I was moved by the common theme they all share: dedication, dedication to reaching a goal and dedication to their various efforts. In today's fast-paced world, we so often overlook giving such deserving citizens who have distinguished themselves through hard work a pat on the back. I am pleased to have the opportunity to do just that here today in paying tribute to their service to our community and their success in their academic endeavors. Passage of Unborn Victims of Violence Act

Mr. PLATTS

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Friday, April 27, 2001, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 1, for morning hour debates.

Mr. PLATTS

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the call of the Private Calendar be dispensed with on Tuesday, May 1, 2001.

Mr. PLATTS

Mr. PLATTS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 59, as amended.

Mr. PLATTS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PLATTS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 59) expressing the sense of Congress regarding the establishment of National Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week, as amended.

Mr. PLATTS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. As the parent of two young children, I especially commend and appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for introducing this important resolution and for his efforts to bring it to the floor to raise the awareness of the public of the need to protect our children. Most of the time, shaken baby syndrome occurs because a parent or caretaker is frustrated or angry with the child. Other times children become victims when a parent or caretaker, not realizing how seriously this behavior can harm, throws a child into the air vigorously or plays too roughly or hits an infant too hard on the back. Anyone who takes care of a baby or small child, parents, older siblings, baby-sitters, child care professionals, grandparents and others, should be reminded to never shake babies or small children. There are organizations in each of our communities that can provide help to parents whose patience has been strained by the burden of caring for an infant who cries continually or who might need more help with parenting or coping skills. I want to add my words of thanks to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the committee and subcommittee chairmen, and ranking members for working expeditiously to bring this important resolution to the floor. I urge all Members to lend their support to this resolution which seeks to protect our Nation's most precious resource and our Nation's most innocent citizens, our children.

Mr. PLATTS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.

Mr. PLATTS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).