Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment I have introduced would require the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a pilot project at an overseas port similar to the Integrated Container Inspection System, ICIS, in Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, the second busiest port in the world behind Singapore, the ICIS program scans every container of cargo at the two terminals of the facility with advanced radiation and gamma-ray screening. In Hong Kong, container trucks pass under two giant portals. The first portal scans for radioactivity. The second portal uses gamma-ray imaging to check for odd-sized objects that might conceal weapons. An optical scanner retrieves the ID numbers on the container while a computer integrates data into a database that could be accessed by ports worldwide. Since late 2004, this program has generated 1.4 million digital profiles of outbound containers at the port. The ICIS system can scan nearly 400 container trucks an hour and provide real-time data to help identify suspicious cargo, all the while keeping detailed records of what passes through the port. It is not my intention, I want to point out, to limit this pilot program to one company. I understand that Science Applications International Corporation designed the ICIS program currently being run in Hong Kong, but other companies have begun to develop similar technology. In the text of my amendment, the language states the program must be similar to the ICIS program, but it does not mandate that it be the program developed by Science Applications International. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank Mr. King, the chairman of the committee, for working with both sides of the aisle and even working with members within his own committee who sometimes have disagreements. He has done an extraordinary job. I also want to thank his staff that has been very patient in working with all of us and then to particularly thank Mr. Lungren, who has kind of taken this bill and marshaled it all along the way, has provided opportunities for us to cosponsor and also to provide input into the bill, to which he has allowed a tremendous amount of input, and I thank him for that as well. This is an excellent bill, and I think Congress should be proud of it.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to thank him for his keen work on the subcommittee that oversees a good part of the issue and to say that it would clearly be the intention of this amendment to do that. I certainly will be advocating that the conference committee do it. I know the chairman would and the main sponsor of this whole bill. So I think we all agree it needs to happen, and I thank the gentleman for pointing that out. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, Israel is one of the United States' greatest allies and I am proud to join my colleagues in recognizing it on the occasion of its 58th anniversary celebration of independence. One of the most remarkable aspects of the U.S.-Israeli relationship is its mutual benefits. For 58 years the United States has assisted Israel diplomatically, financially and militarily, while Israel has proved itself to be a stalwart friend of democracy in a volatile region of the world. Particularly since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Israel has not hesitated to provide technical assistance, intelligence and advice on matters of homeland security, on which it has become, out of necessity, an expert in its own right. Although the history of the Land of Israel stretches back far longer than that of the United States, we share a common history as refuges to victims of persecution, and as nations that never balked to defend freedom, democracy and the inalienable rights of man. The United States is proud of its alliance with Israel--a friendship that officially began 11 minutes after Israel's creation. I look forward to many great years of thoughtful exchange and the promotion of our common interests of world peace and prosperity. Congratulations to the people of Israel as they celebrate the 58th anniversary of their statehood.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe we are losing our moral authority to lead this place. It has been over a decade since my party took over the majority, and I feel like we have forgotten how we got here. Republicans were united on three common issues, and one of them was reforming Congress. It was amazing after the 2004 election we considered repealing the rule requiring a Republican leader to step down if indicted. Next we proceeded to remove the members of our Ethics Committee who had voted to hold our former majority leader accountable for his actions. Then we proceeded to make it more difficult to initiate an Ethics Committee investigation. I think there is a tendency for power to corrupt, and absolute power to corrupt absolutely. We need bold action, and we need bold reform. Regretfully, this bill does not do it, and this rule does not allow us to make it better. I asked the Rules Committee to consider 5 reforms that Congressman Meehan and I and others had proposed. Create an Office of Public Integrity. If you do not think it makes sense, debate it and then explain why. Strengthen lobby disclosure requirements above what this legislation includes. If you do not think it makes sense, allow the amendment and then argue against it and vote it down. Require disclosure of huge sums being spent by professional lobby firms and lobby organizations on grassroots campaigns to stimulate lobbying by Members of Congress. Allow that amendment. If you do not think it makes sense, argue against it and vote it down. Require Members to pay for charter flights they take rather than pay a first-class fare. Allow this amendment, and if you do not think it makes sense, argue against it and vote it down. Enact a true gift ban. If you do not think it makes sense, still allow a debate. Debate it, and if you do not think it makes sense, vote it down. Particularly as it relates to charter flights, here we are going to ban Members from potentially flying to deliver a commencement address, but we are going to say to the leaders on both sides of the aisle, you can go on a corporate jet and only pay the first-class rate when it will cost that corporation literally tens of thousands of dollars. I do not understand how we, with a straight face, can say we are cracking down on the abuses of lobbying when we allow the corporations to fund where our leaders go. The bottom line for me is why can we not have debate and vote on these issues and a number of others? I believe we need to defeat the rule and then do what my majority leader and the chairman have said: work on a bipartisan basis on a new bill, on new rules, that will allow some debate. When I was re-elected 10 years ago and Republicans took over, I really believed, Mr. Dreier, that we would be allowed to have debates. Every year I see less and less of it.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, when Iran will have a nuclear weapon is not the right question. Rather, we need to focus on when Iran will have the indigenous capability to produce nuclear fissile materials. This is the point of no return and should be our benchmark regarding the urgency of addressing Iran's behavior. It is an undisputed fact Iran is pursuing nuclear capabilities. It is a fact Iran is the world's must egregious exporter of terrorism. And we all heard for ourselves when Iran's president threatened to ``wipe Israel off the map'' and when Ayatollah Khamenei, just yesterday, told another one of the world's worst human rights abusers, Sudan, that Iran would gladly transfer nuclear technology. When one considers these points together, it becomes clear how important it is we act today. Some residents of Connecticut's Fourth Congressional district have already expressed concern to me about the United States' consideration of the use of force against Iran to eliminate its nuclear weapons program and end its state support of terrorism. Such action, while not off the table, must be an absolute last resort. That is why it is so critical our government utilize the tools at our disposal including economic and diplomatic sanctions and the appropriate distribution of foreign aid as suggested in this bill, to deter the threat Iran poses to global security. It is also appropriate for us impose pressure on the other nations of the world who prop up the Iranian government and the extremists at its helm by investing heavily in that nation. While I understand the concern the Administration has expressed that by passing this bill we are tying its hands to conduct foreign policy, I would be more sympathetic if it were doing more to enforce the laws Congress has already passed. The International Relations Committee states in the report accompanying this legislation that, ``the laws which have been enacted, as enforced, and other steps taken by current and past Administrations, have proven inadequate . . . Specifically with respect to ILSA, the Committee is deeply dismayed that the current Administration, like the prior Administration, has not acted to sanction a single enterprise for investing in Iran, but has delayed its decisions on `alleged' investments well past the point of failing the `laugh test.' '' Given the extreme rhetoric of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, I do not expect this legislation will bring an immediate change to Iran's aggressive and ill-advised march to acquire nuclear capabilities. It does send an important message, however, that the United States will not stand by as Iran pursues its nuclear ambitions and threatens international security. The bottom line is, in defiance of its assurances to the contrary, Iran remains committed to a nuclear weapons program. The United States must be unequivocal in its rejection of these ambitions. I urge support of this legislation and appreciate the leadership of Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos to bring it to the floor today.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. There is nothing funny about this debate. Nothing funny at all. The vast majority of my colleagues to my right voted for campaign finance reform. The vast majority of my colleagues to my left voted against it. The difference is my colleagues to the right, once it passed, looked for loopholes behind the law; and my colleagues here, my Republican colleagues who voted against the law said we will abide by it. The problem is there is one loophole and the loophole is 527s. When we passed the law, we banned corporate money, union dues money and unlimited sums from individuals. We enforced the 1907 law, the 1947 law, and the 1974 law. That is what we did, we enforced it. But the FEC refuses to abide by the law as it relates to this one issue, 527s. We want to close the loophole. Now, the reason is, if we are going to have the law, it better work. So my own Republican colleagues have been very consistent. They opposed the law. But if you are going to have the law, it should be consistent and work. And my colleagues, with all due respect, are being extraordinarily inconsistent. You voted for the law and now you want loopholes to it and you do not want to fix the loopholes. That is an outrage, and I plead with you to remember your rhetoric when you spoke. When you spoke, you supported the law. Now abide by it and make sure the loopholes are taken care of. My colleague, Mr. Meehan, is right. We will win in court. The court has said that the 527s are primarily a campaign expense, and therefore need to abide by the law. So eventually, someday, I think they will be forced to write a rule to do what this bill does, but we are taking care of it now.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is a surreal debate because it is a debate that has consequences and yet it seems to almost be like a game. When we passed campaign finance reform, it passed primarily with Democratic support and there wasn't any talk about free speech because Democrats made the proper argument. They made the argument that this was about letting people have their speech and not being drowned out by the wealthy. That is what the Democrats said: Don't let the wealthy drown out people who don't have a lot of resources. So what the Democrats are now arguing is that for instance 25 individual donors should be able to contribute $142 million, or 56 percent of all of the individual contributions to 527 groups in the 2004 election. That is what Democrats are saying. They are saying we want the wealthy to be able to dominate. But that was not their argument when they voted for campaign finance reform, and it was not my argument. Our argument was that we wanted to have a level playing field. Our argument was we wanted to enforce the 1907 law that banned corporate treasury money, we wanted to enforce the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act that banned forced union dues money, and we wanted to support the 1974 campaign finance law that said you could not make unlimited contributions to federal campaigns. That is what Democrats argued for and supported. And they blamed Republicans for being against campaign finance reform. The amazing thing is once the campaign finance reform bill passed Democrats immediately started to break the law. They were looking to get around the very law they voted for. And when Mr. Soros, who helped fund the campaign finance movement, argued that he should be able to contribute unlimited funds to 527s and that he should be able to bring his $20-plus million to the table, just this one individual, Democrats wanted to protect him and allow him to do that. And Republicans who were against the law said this is the law, we are going to abide by it. The amazing thing is the very people who did not vote for the law were willing to abide by it, and the very people who voted for the law are trying to get around the law. That is what I find so amazing about this debate. So what this amendment does is it just enforces the law that you, my fellow colleagues on the other side of the aisle, voted for. It enforces the Campaign Finance Act, the McCain-Feingold bill, the bill you all supported. Now why do we have to pass this bill before us? Because unfortunately when we gave it to the Federal Elections Commission, the FEC, who does not believe in the law, decided not to enforce the law. They are happy to have loopholes. They are the ones who introduced the whole soft money issue in the first place. So what do we have? We have a loophole that needs to be closed, and the way you close it, is to pass this bill that requires 527s to come under the campaign finance law. This is because their primary activity, in fact their only activity, is campaigns. And the law is clear. Mr. Meehan and I brought forward a case against the FEC. We threw out 14 of their regulations because they did not abide by the law, and then we proceeded to take a court action against them on enforcing the law and put 527s under their jurisdiction. The court made a decision that Mr. Meehan and I were right, that 527s should be under the law. In fact, the judge said not putting them under the law circumvented the law. So what we are doing is simply making the law consistent. And frankly, this talk of (c)(3)s, (c)(4)s and (c)(5)s, is not on point. Their primary responsibility and activity is not campaigns. And because of that, you are not going to have the same problem that you have with 527s. If in fact their primary activity becomes campaigns, then they will come under it. This bill is consistent to the law. It is imperative it passes. It is consistent with what my colleagues voted for, and I applaud my side of the aisle for, in spite of the fact of not voting for the law, be willing to live by the law.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I want to salute tonight the brave men and women who are fighting in Iraq to bring democracy to the Middle East and hopefully help turn around nations, particularly Arab nations, that the U.N. has said when you add up the gross domestic product of all 22 Arab nations, their gross domestic product is smaller than Italy's. This is a U.N. report that pointed out that in the last 10 years these Arab nations collectively have had declining productivity and that they have not brought forward any inventions or innovations to contribute to world prosperity. We are in Iraq to help the Iraqi people have a new beginning and hopefully change the face of the Middle East. I have been to Iraq 11 times, and I have had good visits and I have had bad visits. I have had visits where I have had tremendous hope and then the recognition that we have made some mistakes. In April, 2003, there was tremendous hope. But then we proceeded, unfortunately, to disband their army, their police, and their border patrol, and that resulted in the requirement of American troops and British troops and very few coalition forces to defend 24 million people in a country the size of California. So what I saw when I went back after April, 2003, when I went in August and then in December and then early in the spring of the next year, things were getting worse. But I began to see it turn around in June of 2004 as we transferred power to the Iraqis. A significant decision. It took it away from Defense and gave it to State Department, and State Department had a better sense of how to help this government, not how to fight the war. The war is still being fought by our own troops. But as well, we started to train their police, their border patrol, and their army, and they have become very confident. And what I then saw in 2005 were three elections in Iraq. I was there for the first one. I remember asking if I could stick my finger in that ink jar, and this Kuwaiti woman looked up at me and she said, No. She said, You are not an Iraqi. That gave me a chill because she did not say I was not a Kurd. She was a Kurd. She said I was not an Iraqi. And then what I saw was another election. I was there a week before, after now creating a government that was elected, creating a constitution and ratifying this constitution. This constitution was ratified with 79 percent favoring it, and then they proceeded to elect a government at the end of last year. I can tell you why I know it was a success. The press did not talk about it. Seventy-six percent voted of 100 percent. In other words, of all adults, not the two-thirds that bothered to register, not 76 percent of two-thirds; 76 percent of all adults. And now we have seen a very dicey moment. The Sunni insurgents are playing their trump card. Not their last straw, not their final gasp. They are playing their trump card, and they may succeed if the Shiias give in to sectarian violence. And we are trying to make them understand that they are the majority and they can run this country. Do not allow the Sunni insurgents to get them to do what would be the stupidist thing, to give in to the violence, to give in to a civil war, and then fail. We are going to leave Iraq when the Iraqis ask us to leave or if they give up. If they give up to the sectarian violence, we will move our troops away from harm's way and we will take them out. But they are so close and they have done so much. I have met such brave Iraqi men and women. Quickly, one Iraqi man, Al-Alusi, after the election he lost his two sons. His security had been taken away because he had gone to Israel, and he came to visit me later in 2005, and I said, You cannot go back. You are a marked man. You are a dead man walking. He looked at me with some surprise and said, I have to go back. My country needs me. Which is to introduce one point I would love to make: When I ask Iraqis what their biggest fear is, it is not the bombing. Their biggest fear is that you will leave us, that you will give us a taste of democracy and then you will leave us. Let me just conclude by saying this: That very man who went back to Iraq is now an elected member of the assembly. He is a very brave man, and he is typical of the Iraqis who are grasping very hard to have a democracy and to have a better future.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would designate $10 million of economic support funds for the Community Action Program, also known as CAP, in Iraq. That is what this amendment does. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that a real hero in this House is Mr. Kolbe who has made sure that these programs have flourished. In my 11 trips to Iraq, I am absolutely convinced the best thing we have done in all of our expenditures on the economic side of the table has been to support these CAP agencies. There were five NGOs, nongovernment organizations. There are still four left. They stand potentially to lose money in June or July and not have the carry-over into the next fiscal year. What this amendment ensures, with Mr. Kolbe's help, is that that money will be extended so that we can keep them in place. When we talk about keeping them in place, for instance, one of these nongovernment organizations, and it is typical, has about 130 employees who are all Iraqis throughout Iraq and only seven who are not Iraqis, one or two Europeans, one or two eastern Europeans, and one or two Americans; and when you add up the others we are talking about over 600 Iraqis. And what are they doing? They are rebuilding schools, they are repairing water and sewer lines, building health clinics, helping what takes place in the schools. Just a host of other infrastructure and development projects. In the report that was done by the Appropriations Committee, and I would like to read from it, it expresses my sentiments better than I could. This is what the report says, ``The CAP program has generated a network of more than 1,300 community associations across 17 governorates in Iraq, and has trained 17,281 community association members.'' The January, 2005, audit by the Office of Inspector General USAID found that the CAP, ``achieved 98 percent of its intended outputs, including citizen participation, inner-government cooperation, local government cooperation, local employment generation, and consideration of environmental concerns.'' The bottom line is, these programs are working extraordinarily well. And I thank Mr. Kolbe, and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee as well, for ensuring that these organizations do not have to close up shop, and fire a whole host of Iraqis. I would like to just say, in addition, I am a strong supporter of making sure that we do everything we can to have the Iraqis succeed. It is astounding that last year they had three elections. They established a government. That government established a constitutional convention. They created a constitutional convention. Then we had a second election, ratified by 79 percent of the Iraqis who voted. And then, once the constitution was established, December of this last year, 76 percent of all Iraqi adults voted, not 76 of those who registered, 76 percent. And 30 percent of their new assembly is made up of women. That is extraordinary progress on the political side. We are training their police, their border patrol and their army. I wish we had not allowed it to disintegrate. But now they are getting to critical mass, so we are seeing the military side, we are seeing the political side. This is the economic side that Mr. Kolbe is focusing on.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, there is a concern obviously with continuing resolutions. Is there a way to deal with that issue?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, if I can just add, reclaiming my time, evidently not one of these projects done by these organizations have had to deal with assaults by Iraqis, have had a building or something which was then destroyed by insurgents. They have all survived. I thank Mr. Kolbe from the bottom of my heart for his help in this effort.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on March 9, I was in Connecticut and, therefore, missed six recorded votes. I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on recorded vote No. 33, ``aye'' on recorded vote No. 34, ``aye'' on recorded vote No. 35, ``no'' on recorded vote 36, ``aye'' on recorded vote 37 and ``aye'' on recorded vote 38.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I strongly support the PATRIOT Act, which plays an instrumental role in the detection and prevention of terrorist attacks. Terrorists will strike again. It is not a question of if, but of when, where and of what magnitude. We are in a race to stop the terrorists before they use weapons of mass destruction against us. The PATRIOT Act empowers our intelligence and law enforcement communities to play vital roles in helping the United States win this race. To fight the war on terrorism, our intelligence agencies must have the right tools. However, with these added tools, there must be added oversight. The protection of our civil liberties is of utmost concern to me. For this reason, Congresswoman Maloney and I have offered H.R. 1310, the Protection of Civil Liberties Act, which would reconstitute the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board as an independent agency within the Executive Branch. The establishment and adequate funding of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board was a crucial recommendation by the 9/11 Commission. In its Final Report on 9/11 Commission recommendations, the commission notes ``very little urgency'' and ``insufficient'' funding as it relates to the establishment of the Board. The bottom line is, we can no longer think in terms of the Cold War paradigm of containment, reaction and mutually-assured destruction. The modern threat requires us to detect and prevent attacks. The PATRIOT Act improves our anti-terrorism capabilities by focusing on intelligence gathering, immigration, criminal justice and the financial infrastructure.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support House Concurrent Resolution 335, which honors the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for their many achievements on their anniversary. For 97 years, the NAACP has led the fight for racial equality in America. Although considerable progress has been made, there is still so much more to be done. The NAACP has battled for decades in order to change many negative aspects of American society. They have helped people of all races, nationalities and faiths unite on one premise, that all men and women are created equal. From W.E.B. DuBois to Thurgood Marshall to Bruce Gordon, the NAACP has played an instrumental role in helping eliminate racial prejudice and removing barriers of racial discrimination through the democratic process. H. Con. Res. 335 underscores the importance of the NAACP and how big of a role they have played in evening the playing field for all citizens, regardless of their race. I support of this important resolution.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H. Con. Res. 341, condemning Iran for violating its international nuclear nonproliferation obligations. Mr. Speaker, the United Nations Security Council must quickly consider Iran's repeated violations of international nuclear norms, impose a comprehensive sanctions regime and send an unequivocal message that the world rejects its nuclear ambitions. In addition to its refusal to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has drawn considerable attention for his heinous calls for the United States' greatest ally, Israel, to be ``wiped off the map'' and his bold denial of the Holocaust. When offered a number of reasonable solutions to avert an international standoff, the Ahmadinejad regime has unwisely refused. It is a positive sign that Russia and Iran are continuing discussions on a proposal the U.S. and others have endorsed. This plan would have Russia enrich Iran's uranium and remove it once it's spent, thereby maintaining safeguards on the nuclear fuel. I am hopeful an agreement will be reached, but have no qualms about this body sending a resolute message to Iran that its breaches and failures to comply with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations will be met with strong resistance.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this resolution being brought to the floor so quickly and urge its passage. The Hamas victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections is of great concern to me and many others and presents a major challenge to the peace process. There is simply no way our government can meet with or provide assistance to a government led by a terrorist organization. Hamas ran a campaign based on cleaning out the corruption of the Fatah party. The Palestinian people responded to this pledge, but sadly in the process elected a terrorist government. Unless Hamas recognizes the State of Israel's right to exist, ceases incitement and permanently disarms and dismantles their terrorist infrastructure, the United States will not work with this government, nor can we expect Israel to.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 657 to honor the contributions of Catholic schools. Catholic schools provide students with a wonderful education and, in many cases, a quality alternative to overburdened public schools. I am grateful for the work of the 39 Catholic schools which serve 10,395 students from diverse backgrounds, run by the Diocese of Bridgeport. These schools offer elementary and secondary education, as well as after-school programs. They provide a wonderful environment for learning and a strong sense of faith and discipline. I commend the teachers, administrators, students and parents for their role in Catholic education, and the key role they play in creating a brighter, better-educated nation.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleague and cochairman of the bipartisan Congressional Arts Caucus, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) in cosponsoring House Resolution 389 to recognize 2006 as The Year of the Museum. Today on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the American Association of Museums, we recognize the importance of museums, which have been serving the American public since 1773, encouraging curiosity and providing a source of enjoyment and education for every generation. Our resolution recognizes The Year of the Museum as a celebration of great American culture, history and traditions. Having grown up in an arts family, my mom and dad met in the theater and had a lifelong commitment to the arts. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to experience the value of the arts and humanities throughout my childhood. Today, families in southwest Connecticut enjoy a wide range of institutions like the Barnum Museum, the Discovery Museum and Museum of Art in Bridgeport, the Bruce Museum of Arts and Science in Greenwich, and the Aldrich Museum of Contemporary Art in Ridgefield, to name some. Nearly all of us in the House of Representatives are fortunate enough to have at least one museum, obviously many more in our district. Think of the impact museums have across our country, providing environments for learning and sharing where children, their parents and their grandparents can work together to connect ideas and experiences in direct, vivid and meaningful ways. Museums teach the stories of the struggles and accomplishments of different cultures and unfamiliar people and achieve a deeper understanding of their own families, neighborhoods, the country in which they live, and the world at large. I obviously urge my colleagues to join us in recognizing the vast public service provided by the museums in their own communities by supporting The Year of the Museum Resolution.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there has been some confusion about Congress's intent regarding the new section 1937 of the Social Security Act, as added by the Deficit Reduction Act. This provision will give states the flexibility they need to provide benchmark benefit packages for Medicaid beneficiaries. Congressional intent is clear, however, that a State may not fail to provide Medicaid Early and Periodic Screening Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) services for children. To address this confusion, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a statement that clarifies section 1937 to specify that States requesting benchmark benefits will be required to provide EPSDT services for children. I submit for the Record the CMS statement to help clarify Congressional intent regarding this provision. Statement by Mark B. McClellan, M.D., PH.D., Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Questions have been raised about the new section 1937 of the Social Security Act (SSA) (as added by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005) that permits states to provide Medicaid benefits to children through benchmark coverage or benchmark equivalent coverage. If a state chooses to exercise this option, the specific issue has been raised as to whether children under 19 will still be entitled to receive EPSDT benefits in addition to the benefits provided by the benchmark coverage or benchmark equivalent coverage. The short answer is: children under 19 will receive EPSDT benefits. After a careful review, including consultation with the Office of General Counsel, CMS has determined that children under 19 will still be entitled to receive EPSDT benefits if enrolled in benchmark coverage or benchmark equivalent coverage under the new section 1937. CMS will review each State plan amendment (SPA) submitted under the new section 1937 and will not approve any SPA that does not include the provision of EPSDT services for children under 19 as defined in section! 905(r) of the SSA. In the case of children under the age of 19, new section] 937(a)(1) is clear that a state may exercise the option to provide Medicaid benefits through enrollment in coverage that at a minimum has two parts. The first part of the coverage will be benchmark coverage or benchmark equivalent coverage, as required by subsection (a)(1)(A)(i), and the second part of the coverage will be wrap-around coverage of EPDST services as defined in section I905(r) of the SSA, as required by subsection (a)(J)(A)(ii). A State cannot exercise the option under section 1937 with respect to children under 19 if EPSDT services are not included in the total coverage provided to such children. Subparagraph (C) of section 1937(a)(1) permits states to also add wrap-around or additional benefits. In the case of children under 19, wrap-around or additional benefits that a state could choose to provide under subparagraph (C) must be a benefit in addition to the benchmark coverage or benchmark equivalent coverage and the EPSDT services that the state is already required to provide under subparagraph (A) of that section. Subparagraph (C) does not in any way give a state the flexibility to fail to provide the EPSDT services required by subparagraph (A)(ii) of section 1937(a)(1).