Jim Ramstad

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne) for his kind words, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) and the four other Members from his side of the aisle. I want to also thank the 22 Members from this side of the aisle who are co-sponsors of this bill. I think we prove with this legislation that Congress can actually work in a bipartisan common sense way to right a wrong, to pass an important legislation. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining.

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne) and my friends on the other side of the aisle for their kind supportive, kind comments this morning. I appreciate them. Mr. Speaker, we have a chance today to prove that Congress can work in a bipartisan, or as my governor, Governor Jesse Ventura, constantly reminds me, in a tripartisan timely way to right a wrong, to respond to a horrible, horrible antifamily, cruel and heartless ruling by the IRS. Now, as Mr. Cardin stated, and I join in his remarks, this is not a blanket condemnation of the IRS or all the good people who work there, and there are many good people who work there. This is aimed at this particular ruling, which can only bring more pain and devastation than the family of a missing abducted child can bear. We need to right this wrong. And we have a chance, with an overwhelming yes vote on H.R. 5117, to bring relief to these families who have already suffered so much. I want to finally, Mr. Speaker, thank again Patty Wetterling and the Jacob Wetterling Foundation for their work on this legislation and all their work throughout the year, every single day, to help families of missing children. I want to thank Ernie Allen, of the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, for the work they do. I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), and the Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), as well as the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), for putting this important legislation on a fast track. I would also like to thank the tax staff of the Committee on Ways and Means, particularly Chris Smith, who has worked hard on this legislation; my staff, particularly Dean Peterson and Karin Hope, my tax counsel on the Committee on Ways and Means, who have worked late nights getting this bill ready for today. This has been a team effort. Again, we have proven that we can work together and join hands for an important bill on behalf of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise sadly to salute a courageous public servant from my district who passed away recently, a man who changed my life as well as the lives of numerous people with disabilities. Thomas G. (Jerry) Hayes of Excelsior, Minnesota, was confined to a wheelchair since 1976 because of a mysterious virus which left him paralyzed from the waist down. But when it came to issues of importance to people with disabilities, Jerry's mobility and spirit knew no bounds. He was a powerful, articulate and highly effective advocate for people with disabilities right up to his death earlier this month. His son, Tom, called Jerry a ``professional volunteer.'' Jerry was a highly successful business leader as head of Jersey Ice Cream and a food sales company. He viewed his disability not with regret or bitterness, but as an opportunity, an opportunity to help other people with disabilities and the poor. I was a young State Senator when I first met Jerry Hayes, who quickly became one of my role models and a key member of my Disabilities Advisory Committee. Issues important to people with disabilities have been among my highest priorities since entering public service, and Jerry is one of the principal reasons why. Jerry was well liked by everyone he met and his well-researched, heartfelt positions moved many lawmakers to change their thinking when it came to critical issues affecting people with disabilities. Jerry used the very same assets that made him so successful in business--his dynamic personality, boundless energy and tremendous leadership skills--to increase public awareness of the daunting obstacles faced by people with disabilities as they tried to lead more independent lifestyles. Jerry Hayes changed minds, softened hearts and, literally, moved buildings. His relentless hard work led to buildings becoming more accessible for people with disabilities, just one of his many accomplishments. He was particularly interested in making churches more accessible. When then President Bush signed the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act, Jerry Hayes received a personal invitation from the President to attend the event. His life's work and volunteerism on behalf of people with disabilities read like a ``Who's Who'' of Twin Cities organizations which are there to help. Touched by his vision, energy and work ethic were the world famous Courage Center, where he was a member of the board, United Handicapped Federation, Quality Transit Coalition, Regional Transit Board, Catholic Charities, where he was also a board member, Special Olympics, Minnesota Board on Aging, Minnesota Governor's Planning Council on Physical Disabilities and others. Jerry Hayes was also a veteran of the Army. A grateful nation owes him a tremendous debt of gratitude for his dedication to freedom for the people of the world and all Americans with disabilities. I will always be grateful to Jerry Hayes for his exceptional leadership, visionary guidance and treasured friendship through the years. My thoughts and prayers are with his wonderful family: Mary, his wife of 46 years; son Joe and daughters Jean, Molly and Abbie; his eight grandchildren; his sister Mary and brother John.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise sadly to salute a remarkable and visionary public servant from my area in Minnesota who passed away recently. By any measure of merit, Robert P. Rascop of Shorewood, Minnesota, was one of our nation's best and brightest--a gifted business leader and a truly remarkable local government leader. He had very special leadership skills, indeed. Bob passed away September 12 after a tragic accident. Bob will be sorely missed by all of us who admired and respected his remarkable public stewardship. Bob lived in Shorewood for a quarter of a century, near the shores of his beloved Lake Minnetonka Bob and his loving wife of 35 years, Carol, raised their children Mary and Larry there. A gifted business leader with NCR for 34 years, Bob still dedicated much of his time, energy and talent to his community. He was a member of the Shorewood City Council and, from 1981 to 1988, Mayor. His leadership was critical during those years as developmental pressures required good planning by city leaders--and strong principles. Bob Rascop was a thoughtful man of the utmost integrity. For fully two decades, Bob was very active with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, an organization which attempts to strike a delicate balance so that both present users and future generations will be able to enjoy Lake Minnetonka. Bob helped the LMCD with its important work with his great intellect, impressive array of people skills and sense of humor. Deliberations were fair, everyone was heard. And, in the end, Lake Minnetonka's environment was the top priority. All of us who love Lake Minnetonka owe Bob Rascop a deep debt of gratitude. His vigilance and environmental expertise have been instrumental in protecting Lake Minnetonka. I will always be grateful to Bob for his exceptional leadership and visionary guidance, and my thoughts and prayers are with his wonderful family.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) for yielding me this time, and for his strong effective leadership in this area. Madam Speaker, I stand before this body today as a personal testament to the fact that chemical dependency treatment works. As a grateful recovering alcoholic of 19 years, I know firsthand the value of treatment and the blessings of recovery. So with deep humility and much gratitude, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution commemorating National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month. For a number of years, several organizations and people dedicated to addiction treatment and recovery have recognized September as National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month. This September, special attention will focus on adolescents, young people dealing with addiction, and the theme will be ``Recovering Our Future: One Youth at a Time.'' As a Nation, Madam Speaker, we must recover our future by addressing addiction. We must recover our youth one young person at a time. The tragic reality is that today in America 26 million people are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol. Twenty-six million Americans suffer the ravages of addiction. This disease, Madam Speaker, is afflicting people of all ages. Among youth ages 12 to 17, an estimated 1.1 million; ages 12 to 17, 1.1 million young people are dependent on illicit drugs. Another 1 million young people ages 12 to 17, are addicted to alcohol. Young people ages 16 and 17 have the second highest rate of drug use in the country today, second only to people ages 18 to 20. And by the time these young people reach 17 years of age, over one-half of all young people know a drug dealer. Madam Speaker, over one-half of all people by the time they reach 17 know some drug dealer in America. In 1999, more than half of our Nation's 12th graders use drugs and more than one-quarter used a drug other than marijuana. In other words, a so-called hard drug. And although alcohol consumption is illegal in this country for those under 21, some 10.5 million juveniles between the ages of 12 and 20 are consumers of alcohol. Madam Speaker, addiction is truly a crisis of epidemic proportions in America. Addiction is the number one health and crime problem facing our country. Alcohol and drug addiction, in economic terms alone, cost the American people last year $246 billion. That is billion with a ``B.'' American taxpayers paid over $150 billion for drug-related criminal and medical costs alone; more than they spent on education, transportation, agriculture, energy, space, and foreign aid combined. But, Madam Speaker, it does not have to be this way. The future of our children and the future of millions of other Americans can be saved, can be recovered. Like other diseases, addiction can be treated and all the empirical data done show that treatment for addiction works. In 1956, the American Medical Association told the American people that chemical addiction is a disease and a fatal disease if not properly treated. In fact, leading physicians at that time found that chemical addiction conforms to the expectations for chronic illness and that relapse rates after treatment for addiction compare favorably with those for three other chronic diseases: adult on-set diabetes, hypertension, and adult asthma. The relapse rates for people treated for chemical addiction is essentially the same as those three diseases. It is well documented that every dollar spent for treatment saves $7 in health care costs, criminal justice costs and lost productivity from job absenteeism, injuries and sub-par work performance. A number of studies have shown that health care costs alone are 100 percent higher for untreated alcoholics and addicts than for people like me, recovering people who have received treatment. Madam Speaker, the goal of this resolution is to increase awareness about alcohol and drug addiction and promote treatment and recovery for more people, more people who are suffering the ravages of alcohol and drug addiction. Increasing awareness about the ravages of addiction is absolutely critical. How can it be that among 12th graders in America, less than two-thirds find anything wrong with smoking marijuana? Equally alarming, only 47 percent of adolescents between 12 and 17 believe that having five or more drinks once or twice a week is any risk at all. Only two-thirds believe that having four or five drinks every day is a problem. We must increase awareness as well as access to treatment for young people. Despite the benefits of treatment, a significant gap in this country exists between the number of adolescents who need chemical dependency treatment and those who actually receive it. According to a study done in my home State of Minnesota, a State that has led the Nation in the treatment and prevention of addiction, only one-fourth of youths ages 14 to 17 who need treatment actually are able to access treatment. Madam Speaker, let me close by saying that commemorating recovery month gives all of us an opportunity to recognize the tremendous strides taken by those who have undergone treatment and the professionals in the treatment field who have dedicated their lives to helping others. By celebrating recovery month, we celebrate the lives of the millions of people and their families in recovery today. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 371. Madam Speaker, I again thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) for yielding me this time and for his strong, effective leadership in combating addiction and in recognizing and promoting treatment and prevention of addiction.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan prescription drug plan. It is bipartisan. I want to pay special tribute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), a member of the other side of the aisle, a Democrat who worked hand-in-hand with all of us on the Prescription Drug Task Force to craft this truly bipartisan, pragmatic plan. I thank the gentleman for putting the interests of Minnesota seniors ahead of politics. We should all put the interests of America's seniors ahead of politics and pass this bipartisan plan today. It truly is, Mr. Speaker, all about choices. The question we must ask ourselves, if health care choices are okay for Members of Congress, why are some so opposed to expanding choices for our seniors? Let us not try to have it both ways. Let us expand choices for seniors. Seniors deserve choices in their health care just like younger Americans, just like Members of Congress. This bill, this bipartisan bill, guarantees all seniors access to at least two different health plans. Do not take choices away from seniors. Let us give them the choices, the access, to prescription drugs that they deserve.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1309, a bill to clarify the status of church-sponsored employee benefit plans under state law. Currently, church-sponsored employee benefit plans are exempt from ERISA and therefore are not exempt from state insurance laws like other employer-sponsored plans. Even so, these plans have generally operated as if they were exempt from state law. It is unfair for church plans to be potentially subject to greater regulations than other employer- sponsored plans, and it does not make sense to subject church employee benefit plans to state insurance laws that are not designed or equipped to deal with these unique plans. My home state of Minnesota is one of four states that already provides an exemption for church plans. However, church plans have no legal certainty when they provide benefits in the remaining 46 states. This has caused many insurers to refuse to do business with church plans because these plans could be considered unlicensed entities. Last year, I heard from the Board of Pensions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, headquartered in Minneapolis, about the need to clarify the status of church benefit plans. I especially appreciated the advice and counsel of Bob Rydland and John Kapanke about this urgent problem affecting more than one million clergy and lay workers across the United States. Because the rules affecting church plans are found in the tax code, I asked Chairman Archer of the Ways and Means Committee, with the support of 13 bipartisan colleagues, to support a legislative correction to this problem. I am pleased this legislation before us today accomplishes our objective. S. 1309 will clarify that church employee benefit plans are not insurance companies under state insurance laws. This bill was crafted with the help of state insurance commissioners, and it does not prevent states from enacting legislation targeted at these plans. I am also grateful to Chairman Boehner and Ranking Member Andrews of the Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations for their work on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to protect the employee benefits of America's church workers.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I join as the second sponsor of this answer to prevent the devastating 54-percent cut in Legal Services Corporation funding. Mr. Chairman, every Member of the House before voting on this Draconian 54-percent cut in Legal Services should walk across the way and read the words etched on the Supreme Court of the United States. They say, ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Because if this amendment is defeated, there will be no equal justice in America. Our poorest people, our most vulnerable people, will be shut out of the courts if we wipe out Legal Services. Congress has already cut Legal Services 30 percent since 1995. If we enact this cut on top of that, thousands and thousands of domestic violence victims, neglected children, vulnerable senior citizens, and people with disabilities would have absolutely no access to civil justice. As a sponsor of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to restore Legal Services funding to the same level funding as this fiscal year. Unfortunately, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) explained, we were only able to find offsets to bring the funding up to $275 million, which is $30 million less than current funding and $65 million less than the request. So even if we pass this amendment today to restore partial funding, we are still experiencing a real cut, a reduction of 11 percent over this year's funding. Last year, critics of Legal Services were down here on the floor, and I am sure we are going to hear the same songs sung out of the same hymn book today, arguing that Legal Services should be cut because some local programs were confused about the proper method of case reporting. Remember the arguments? Well, my colleagues, that problem has been fixed. That problem has been resolved. Legal Services has educated the local programs about the proper method of reporting cases, and it as is vigorously ensuring there is accuracy and consistency in reporting. So there is no more problem in reporting cases. Also, it is time to set the record straight about the misleading, outdated charges by Legal Services critics, and I am here sure we are going to hear more of that here today, who ignore the fact that the Legal Services Corporation was already reformed by Congress in 1996. Remember in 1996, those of my colleagues who were here, we enacted tight restrictions on Legal Services. So there are no class action suits anymore, no lobbying, no legal assistance to illegal aliens, no political activity, no prisoner litigation, no redistricting representation, no collection of attorney's fees, and no representation of people evicted from public housing due to drugs. Although I am sure we are going to hear critics complaining about Legal Services attorneys bringing those cases, it does not happen. I hope we have an honest debate on the merits today of Legal Services. Those restrictions, Mr. Chairman, are in permanent law and are restated once again in this bill. And these tight restrictions are not limited just to Legal Services Corporation funds. Legal aid programs cannot even use State or private funding on these purposes if they receive just one penny from the Legal Services Corporation. So there is no argument about a fungibility any longer. If they violate these restrictions, in fact, attorneys can be disbarred and programs lose their LSC funding and their ability to apply for funding in the future. So I think we have taken care of those extracurricular activities that we limited back in 1996. Some critics also continue to point to a few isolated cases that appear to be abusive, and may have been in the past, but in these cases the facts show that no LSC program was generally involved or the LSC is enforcing sanctions against the abuses. But even if those alleged abuses are true, and we are going to hear about that again today, these are only a mere handful of aberrations in a program with countless success stories of service to people who need access to civil justice, domestic violence victims, children in need of support, and seniors, people with disabilities in danger of losing services that they need just to survive. Now, in my home State of Minnesota, I am thankful support for legal aid by the Bar Association, the State Bar, the general public, and the legislature is strong. But even in Minnesota, local programs last year had to turn away 20,000 people because of the scarce resources and another 58,000 did not even file a claim, did not even pursue their case because there are not enough resources. So we all know what is going on in this country. There are not enough resources at the current level of funding to help people and to make those words on the Supreme Court meaningful, ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' So, Mr. Chairman, let us not shut the courthouse door to poor people in America. Let us give the most vulnerable Americans their day in court like every other American.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). My state of Minnesota benefits greatly from the NEA. Federal- and state-supported arts events in Minnesota stimulate growth in business, tourism and a healthy economy. Most importantly, though, the arts help our children perform better in all subjects at school. A Minnesota Center for Survey Research poll at the University of Minnesota found that 95% of Minnesotans believe that arts education is an essential or important component of the overall education of Minnesota's children. I would like to share with you some of the many exciting arts activities that take place in my district. NEA funding supports arts programming and artists-in-residence programs in schools throughout my district, including Hopkins High School, Orchard Lake Elementary School in Lakeville, Zachary Lane Elementary School in Plymouth, Wayzata High School, Excelsior Elementary School and the North Hennepin Community College in Brooklyn Park. Several other organizations in my district provide additional educational opportunities for both adults and children. Stages Theatre, Inc. in Hopkins is a theater company dedicated to giving young people a professional setting in which to develop their theater performing skills, as well as an outstanding venue for young audiences. The Bloomington Art Center, an art school and gallery, offers classes, exhibition spaces and theatrical experiences to both vocational and professional artists of all skill levels and ages. The Minnetonka Center for the Arts is a community arts education facility that employs professional artists and educators to teach the arts to people from ages three to 90. Without these and many other NEA-sponsored facilities, my constituents would have far less access to the arts. We in Minnesota are fortunate to have a healthy and vibrant community, both artistically and economically. For the third year in a row, Minnesota was named the ``Most Livable State'' by Morgan Quitno Press, in large part due to our citizens' access to the arts. Again, I ask my colleagues to support an increase in NEA funding to continue this trend of excellence in education, community development and quality of living.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor and strong supporter of the measure before us to eliminate the unfair Death Tax. The Death Tax destroys a fundamental American dream--being able to pass on the success we have earned to our children. Currently, more than 70 percent of family businesses do not survive to the second generation, and 87 percent do not make it to the third. My own family worked to build a family-owned car dealership, and we felt the punitive blow of the Death Tax. How can we continue to impose a tax that forces the sale of family businesses and throws Americans out of work? How can we continue to tax the very values we should be encouraging--work and saving for our families? Mr. Speaker, the American people understand that this tax is unfair and should be eliminated. The Death Tax forces families to expend resources on burdensome estate planning. Small businesses understand that it forces them to cut back operations, sell income-producing assets, lay off workers and sometimes liquidate the business. Conservation groups understand that the Death Tax damages the environment by forcing families to sell land to developers to pay the onerous tax. Mr. Speaker, the Death Tax deserves to die. This bill will kill the anti-family, anti-job and anti-environmental tax, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank my chairman for yielding me the time and for his strong, effective leadership on this historic issue. Mr. Chairman, it is a great day in Congress when we can do something this positive for the American people. It is a great day in Congress when we can work together, both sides of the aisle, Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike, in a bipartisan, pragmatic, and common sense way on something so important to America's future. My governor, Jesse Ventura, is not one to mince words; and he talks plain talk. When I invited him to testify before the Committee on Ways and Means on this important issue, he put it like this: he said, ``This will be one of the most important votes of the century in Congress. And by passing permanent normal trade relations with China, Congress will be doing more to expand our economy and create jobs than anything else we could possibly do.'' Mr. Chairman, the governor of Minnesota got it right. I just hope we get it right. Under the terms of the agreement, China's tariffs will fall from an average tariff of 25 percent to 9 percent. That is what it means to knock down trade barriers so that we can export more goods, expand our economy, and create more jobs. As cultural tariffs will fall from an average of 32 percent, it is no wonder our farmers cannot sell grain to China, fall from an average of 32 percent to 15 percent by the year 2004. Well, what do these tariff reductions mean? They mean that members of Minnesota's Medical Alley, America's Medical Alley, from big companies like Medtronic to small manufacturers like American Medical Supplies can improve and save and better Chinese lives. It means Minnesota's companies, America's companies, like Cargill, Pillsbury, General Mills, Jennie-O, Hormel, and others can sell more food and other products in China. That means that efficient Minnesota farmers, America's farmers, corn growers, pork producers, soy bean farmers can export more food to the growing population in China. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line, it means a better quality of life for the Chinese people and a better quality of life for the American people. What some critics do not understand is that trade is not a zero-sum game; it is a win-win for both economies, for both countries. It means Minnesota's jobs, America's jobs will continue to grow, our economy can expand, good jobs. So I urge our colleagues to support this historic, momentous, critical issue. Vote ``yes'' on permanent normal trade relations with China.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, severe weather today seriously delayed several flights into Reagan National Airport, including my own. Due to this inclement weather, I missed rollcall votes 211, 212, and 213. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on all three.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the author of the amendment, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Luther), for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Luther-Ramstad amendment to end production of the Trident II D-5 submarine launch ballistic missile. The appropriations bill before us today includes, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Luther) stated, almost $473 million for the purchase of 12 Trident II D-5 missiles. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that our amendment would save taxpayers $2.6 billion through 2007 and $4.7 billion over the next 10 years, money much better spent on our enlisted families in the military who are on food stamps. The Navy already has a surplus of missiles, 25 more missiles than it says, the Navy says, are necessary to support its submarine force. We should not be spending scarce military dollars on a Cold War relic that is not needed to effectively support our military's mission. As a strong budget hawk and fiscal conservative, I believe that each and every area of the Federal budget must be scrutinized for savings. This Trident missile program has outlived its usefulness. It is time to save taxpayers from being forced to fund it. This important amendment would save taxpayers money without, in any way, jeopardizing national security, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I urge a vote for fiscal sanity. Vote yes on the Luther- Ramstad amendment.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for yielding me the time and for his leadership as subcommittee chairman on this important House resolution. Madam Speaker, I rise as the proud sponsor, along with my good friend, our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), of this important resolution, H. Res. 501, to honor those brave police officers who have given their lives to keep our communities safe. Unfortunately, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) is not able to be here today, as a personal tragedy has struck his family. I know the thoughts and prayers of every Member in the House of Representatives are certainly with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and Laurie and their family. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) was the impetus for this legislation, and he has done absolutely stellar work on behalf of our Nation's law enforcement officers during his time in Congress. As co-chair, along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, I applaud the courage and dedication to duty of all police and peace officers serving our communities. These officers put their lives on the line for us and our families every single day they put on the badge. Their courage and sacrifice was demonstrated in a very dramatic way, as the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) just described, during the summer of 1998 when shots rang out not far from this chamber and two brave and loyal U.S. Capitol Police officers lost their lives. It is fitting that we consider this resolution during National Police Week. Earlier today, thousands of officers gathered on the west front of the Capitol for the 19th Annual Peace Officers' Memorial Service. The names of 134 police and peace officers killed in the line of duty this past year alone have been added to the Law Enforcement Memorial wall, just steps from the Capitol at Judiciary Square. That is right, Madam Speaker, 134 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 1999; and over 15,000 officers killed since our Nation started keeping records of their deaths. My home State of Minnesota has lost over 200 police and peace officers over the years. On average, a law enforcement officer in the United States is killed every other day in America. Each year one in nine officers is assaulted and one in 25 is injured while on duty. These sacrifices are made every day to fight crime and protect our citizens. These law enforcement heroes and their families deserve our deepest gratitude and respect during National Police Week and every other day of the year. We must never forget their sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice paid by too many law enforcement officers in the United States. We must work for a day when no more names will be added to the Law Enforcement Memorial and a resolution like this will never be necessary. Madam Speaker, I urge heartfelt support for this resolution honoring our Nation's fallen law enforcement officers, America's true heroes. Again, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for his leadership.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4055, the IDEA Full Funding Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation. It is high time the federal government kept its statutory commitment to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). In 1975, the Federal Government mandated that all states provide Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to all children with disabilities by 1978. This law established a federal commitment to provide funding aid at 40 percent of the average pupil expenditures to assist with the excess costs of educating students with disabilities. Unfortunately, annual appropriations for IDEA have not even come close to the 40 percent level! Before Republicans took control of the Congress in 1995, the federal government was only paying 7 percent of the average per pupil expenditure. We are now paying 12.6 percent of the cost, but this still is not enough. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates that almost $16 billion would be needed to fully fund Part B of IDEA. The FY2000 appropriations for Part B was $6 billion, leaving State and local governments with an unfunded mandate of nearly $10 billion. Local school districts currently spend on average 20 percent of their budgets on special education services. Much of this goes to pay the unpaid Federal share of the mandate. Passing H.R. 4055 would be a giant step closer to our goal of fulfilling the promise. If the federal government would keep its commitment, this money could be used to hire and train more high quality teachers, reduce class size, build and renovate classrooms, and invest in technology. We must improve the education our children receive. A good way to do this is to show a strong federal commitment to education by fully funding IDEA and passing H.R. 4055, the IDEA Full Funding Act.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to the Edina, Minnesota, School District, which was recently recognized by the National Sleep Foundation as the 2000 Sleep Capital of the Nation. My good friend, Dr. Kenneth Dragseth, the Superintendent of Edina Schools, came to Washington to accept the award on behalf of the parents, students and teachers from Edina. This national recognition is well-deserved and is a great way to celebrate National Sleep Awareness Week. Four decades after President John F. Kennedy urged all Americans to take a 50-mile hike, Americans are once again waking up to the benefits of healthy living and the need for a well-balanced diet and regular exercise. But we too often neglect the importance of sleep. Thankfully, not Edina. This school district, which is recognized universally as one of the finest public school systems in the nation, truly gets it. They recognize that the future competitiveness and strength of our country depends on improving our education system. That's why the Edina School District took concrete steps to make sure its students get enough sleep by starting school one hour later each day. A recent National Sleep Foundation poll confirms that teens stay up too late and wake up too early. Another new study noted that on average, teens are getting about 2 hours less sleep a night than they need. This puts them at risk for car accidents, falling asleep in class, moodiness and depression. To improve education, we must promote healthy learning environments. Stressing the need for enough sleep is essential for such environments. The bottom line is this: adequate sleep is a key component of a quality education. I am also including for the Record a special ``Bill of Nights'' by the National Sleep Foundation which outlines the important suggestions by this group for improving sleep habits for everyone. Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly applaud the Edina schools and their leadership to ensure that young people come to school healthy and ready to learn. They know it's time for America to ``wake up'' to this critically important problem. Congratulations again, Edina Schools. You are ahead of the curve and I am proud to represent you! Preamble to the Bill of Nights of the National Sleep Foundation-- Presented March 28, 2000, Washington, DC Whereas, science and medicine have determined that obtaining a sufficient amount of quality sleep is just as essential for good health as maintaining a balanced diet and getting regular exercise; Whereas, obtaining a sufficient amount of quality sleep can also help to ensure personal safety, increase productivity and add to the enjoyment of life; Whereas, the National Sleep Foundation is dedicated to improving public health and safety, this organization encourages all People to understand the importance of sleep and to make obtaining sufficient quality sleep a priority in their lives; Therefore, the following Articles, created by the National Sleep Foundation and supported by its constituents, champion the right of all People to enjoy restful sleep for healthy, safe, and productive lives. The Bill of Nights of the National Sleep Foundation Article I All people should have the opportunity to fully understand the essential role of sleep in maintaining optimum mental and physical function. Article II All People should have the opportunity to obtain the amount of sleep they require to maintain their optimum mental and physical function and to enjoy the benefits that sleep provides, including positive mood, alertness, enhanced memory and cognitive capabilities, and a sense of well-being. Article III All people should have the opportunity to obtain sufficient, quality sleep free from disruptions due to environmental factors (i.e., light, noise, etc.), irregular sleep schedules, and underlying mental and physical conditions. Article IV All People should have the opportunity to obtain accurate, scientifically validated sleep information and education in order to understand and improve their sleep. Article V All People should have the benefit of a well- rested workforce and be secure in the knowledge that those who are depended upon to perform critical functions in society--including healthcare, transportation, public safety, hazardous materials management, and others--are attentive, alert and well-rested. Article VI All People should be safe from the danger posed by drowsy drivers. Every driver is responsible for keeping the nation's roadways safe and free from the hazards posed by sleepiness and fatigue. Article VII All People who experience problems sleeping should have the opportunity to obtain proper, informed diagnoses and treatment by healthcare providers who understand sleep disorders. Article VIII All People should have reasonable access to affordable, quality treatment for sleep disorders. Article IX All People should have the opportunity to benefit from the knowledge and advancements resulting from ongoing scientific research on sleep, which should be maintained as a national research priority. Article X All People should have the opportunity to benefit from public policies that consider the importance of sleep in all aspects of our lives, including policies affecting the workplace, transportation, education, and healthcare.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the speakers on both sides of this issue. This truly is a defining moment in a 30-year effort to fight illegal drug use in America. We can continue down the road of a failed policy by spending another $1.7 billion for more eradication, more interdiction efforts that have been proven futile, that have been proven not to work; or we can prioritize treatment for addiction, which has been proven cost effective in study after study, in addict after addict, in alcoholic after alcoholic lucky enough to be treated. This is not a political issue, my colleagues. This is a life or death issue for five and a half million addicts in America who need treatment and cannot get it today. This amendment is also fiscally responsible. I want to thank the National Taxpayers Union for endorsing this amendment. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for cosponsoring the amendment. Let us save the taxpayers $1.7 billion. Let us begin the process of reordering our priorities in the war against drugs. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote to delete funding for the Colombia boondoggle. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike title I, the entire $1.7 billion in counternarcotics funding for Colombia. We have already spent over $600 million to eradicate drugs at their source in Colombia, and what has been the result? A recent study on our effort in Colombia shows that both cocaine and heroin production in Colombia have more than doubled. That has been the result. Colombia is now the source of 80 percent of the cocaine and 75 percent of the heroin coming into the United States, both significant increases, the $600 million spent notwithstanding. That is what $600 million in Colombia has done, Mr. Chairman. Now, tonight, we are being asked to spend almost $2 billion to escalate the war on drugs in Colombia. This is misdirected public policy; and it is simply wrong, when 58 percent of drug addicts who seek treatment here in our country are being denied treatment. Let us face it, our drug eradication and interdiction efforts have been a costly and a colossal failure. As a former United States Navy lieutenant commander, Sylvester Salcedo, who was involved in the Colombia effort as the Navy intelligence officer for 3 years, said today right outside this Capitol, ``The $1.7 billion,'' and I am quoting now, ``proposed for drug eradication and interdiction in Colombia is good money thrown after bad.'' Lieutenant Commander Salcedo also said, and I am quoting, ``We cannot make progress on the drug problem by increasing our failed effort in Colombia.'' Let me repeat that. Somebody who was there 3 years in the Colombia effort, Lieutenant Commander Salcedo, said, ``We cannot make progress on the drug problem by increasing our failed effort in Colombia.'' Instead, he said we should confront the issue of demand here at home by providing treatment to our addicts in our own country. Mr. Chairman, we need to listen to this veteran of the war on drugs who added, ``Washington should not spend its money on more helicopters but on treatment for addicts. The $400 million cost of the helicopters alone in this bill would provide treatment for 200,000 Americans addicted to drugs.'' Mr. Chairman, when President Richard Nixon first declared war on drugs in 1971, he directed 60 percent of the funding to treatment. To date, we are down to 18 percent for treatment. That is right. Sixty-six percent on the supply side, eradication, interdiction, border patrol. Sixty-six percent on the supply side; 16 percent for education and prevention; and 18 percent for treatment. That is why over half the treatment beds available 10 years ago are gone. That is why 58 percent of the addicts seeking treatment last year were denied access. Our priorities in the war on drugs are wrong, and they are not working. Instead of spending two-thirds of our resources on the supply side and one-third on the demand side, those should clearly be reversed. The bottom line is this, Mr. Chairman, we will never curb the drug epidemic until we curb the insatiable demand for drugs here at home. The drug problem goes much deeper than illegal drugs coming into our Nation. The fundamental problem is the addiction that causes people to crave and demand drugs. Mr. Chairman, this is a defining moment in the 30-year effort to curb illegal drug use in America. We can keep pumping money into the eradication and interdiction dead end; or we can get serious, and we can shift our focus and resources to the drug addiction problem here at home. It is time to reject the $1.7 billion for the failed policy in Colombia. It is time to redirect those dollars to drug treatment here at home. Congress needs to just say no to this Colombia boondoggle. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). I just want to repeat this. The bottom line is this: We will never curb the drug epidemic until we curb the insatiable demand for drugs here at home. We can put up all the fences on our border, hire all the border patrol money can buy, go after the source, spend all the money in crop eradication, interdiction, but until Congress realizes that the fundamental problem is the addiction that causes people to crave and demand drugs, not the supply, we will never put a dent in this problem. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the cosponsor of the amendment.