Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the medical malpractice reforms contained in H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act. This legislation will help prevent frivolous litigation and significantly limit the practice of ``defensive medicine,'' which has contributed to spiraling health care costs. H.R. 5 caps noneconomic at $250,000, but doesn't place any limit on the economic damages which plaintiffs can recover. Excessive jury awards have driven the cost of health care up for everyone, so in my mind, there has to be a limit on how much juries can award victims in non-economic and punitive damages. The HEALTH Act is critical to retarding the explosion in health costs and making insurance more affordable to the 41 million Americans who lack it. The dramatic increases in insurance rates which many physicians have experienced over the past year also prevent them from actually practicing medicine. Many physicians I have spoken to are at wits' end trying to figure out how to maintain their practice and pay these exorbitant costs. On March 4, the American Medical Association added Connecticut to the list of states facing crises in their medical malpractice insurance rates. The organization also cited Connecticut as a state where a large number of physicians have ended their practices because of the high medical malpractice insurance rates. These malpractice reforms, which are based on a proven California law, will make much-needed changes to the federal civil justice system without denying the legal rights of legitimate plaintiffs. It is imperative we move forward on this reform to discourage abuse of our legal system and curb the unsustainable growth of medical costs in our country. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the HEALTH Act because it will bring meaningful reform to a flawed system. I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in celebrating National Peace Corps Day. Since its founding in 1961, the Peace Corps has become an enduring symbol of our Nation's commitment to encourage progress, provide opportunities, and promote world peace and friendship at the grass- roots level in the developing world. To date, more than 168,000 Americans responded to our Nation's call to service by becoming Peace Corps Volunteers in 136 countries. Volunteers serve at the grassroots level in villages and towns around the globe. Living and working within local communities, volunteers serve as teachers, farmers, foresters and small business advisors, dedicated to improving the lives of those around them. In doing so, they make significant and lasting contributions to communities and individuals around the world. Volunteers, enriched by their experiences overseas, return to the United States with a commitment to service, as well as the skills and interest in world affairs needed to be leaders in the global community. I believe I would not be a Member of Congress today were it not for my experience in the Peace Corps and I believe I am a better person because of this service. I would also like to recognize the Peace Corp Volunteers currently serving from Connecticut's Fourth District: Allison R. Ball in Micronesia; Megan Banigan in Guatemala; Dario Borghesan in Togo; Emily J. Bristle in Mali; Camilla A. Brooks in the Philippines; Nkechi N. Eneh in Mauritania; Sondra E. Ganelli in Samoa; Emily R. Hamilton in Paraguay; Timothy Mills in Senegal; Peter T. Nasuti in Uzbekistan; Lindsay B. Nemirow in the Dominican Republic; Matthew G. O'Driscoll in Nicaragua; Brooke J. Oppenheimer in Gambia; David M. Ottaviano in Panama; Aimee E. Petras in Morocco; and Deva N. Rama in Guatemala. National Peace Corps Day honors its Volunteers, past and present, and reaffirms our country's commitment to helping people help themselves throughout the world.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, in our rush to ban human reproductive cloning, we are at risk of also banning the most promising and exciting area of biomedical research in the past thirty years. If passed into law, the overly-broad Human Cloning Prohibition Act would ban not only human cloning but also a laboratory technique that may enable scientists to understand the genetic causes of diseases such as cancer and develop therapies for diseases and disabilities such as diabetes, Parkinson's Disease, and spinal cord injuries. No responsible person, patient advocate or scientist supports the cloning of human beings. Human reproductive cloning is unethical, should be prohibited, and should be punishable under federal law. But in banning human cloning, we should not ban a laboratory technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer, which can be used to derive human embryonic stem cells. With such stem cells, our scientists will gain fundamental insights into cell biology that will lead to new treatments and cures for a host of diseases and disabilities. Prohibiting this basic scientific technique will severely hinder U.S. research. Our scientists have achieved an unparalleled record of accomplishment by employing new technologies to benefit humankind. New innovations in scientific discovery have historically been controversial, but they have proven to save lives and help manage devastating diseases. An example is the use of recombinant DNA technology, which provoked considerable alarm and debate in the 1970's, and has since become the foundation of modern biomedical research and our biotechnology industry. In his speech memorializing the crew of the space shuttle Columbia, President Bush said. ``This cause of exploration and discovery is not an option we choose; it is a desire written in the human heart. We are that part of creation which seeks to understand all creation.'' Mr. Chairman, we should be encouraging our scientists to respond to that desire which is written in their hearts: understanding and ending the suffering of their fellow human beings. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the substitute offered by Mr. Greenwood and, if it fails, against the underlying bill.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in extending my condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of the seven Columbia crew members. Many of us watched with awe and pride as the Space Shuttle Columbia lifted off on its first mission on April 12, 1981. It made history as the first shuttle to orbit earth, a tangible expression of human aspiration. The destruction of the Columbia is a tragedy for our country, for the families of the lost astronauts and for the nation of Israel. These brave men and women deserve our admiration and respect and their families deserve our love and support. Forty years after President Kennedy challenged Americans to reach the moon, this disaster is a sober reminder that space travel remains a daring and dangerous endeavor. The Columbia crew willingly braved those dangers to help improve the lives of all mankind. As we celebrate their courageous spirit and mourn their death, we must dedicate ourselves to conducting a complete and thorough investigation of what went terribly wrong at the outer ring of the Earth's atmosphere, forty miles above Texas. Our history, our thirst for knowledge and our curiosity about what lies beyond demands that we learn from this tragedy and ensure the safety of future missions.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, following the terrorist attacks of September 11, the Committee on Financial Services moved quickly to study the lack of availability of terrorism insurance. Under the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), we held hearings, met with financial experts, and alternately passed legislation to create a Federal insurance backstop to cover losses in the event of future terrorist attacks. The legislation we are considering today is consistent with the bill passed by the House last November. Like its predecessor, it addresses the availability and affordability of terrorism insurance while protecting taxpayers and policyholders. It gives insurance companies the assistance they sought without giving them a blank check. Mr. Speaker, the economy may be growing, but it sure does not feel that way. This bill is truly one of the keys to getting our economy back on track, spurring development, and creating jobs. I urge all of my colleagues to approve this measure and send it to the President, because it is not a question of if but when, where, and what magnitude we will face a terrorist attack using conventional weapons or, just as likely, weapons of mass destruction. The casualties could be large and the liability beyond comprehension.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, we have been given a great opportunity to protect our countrymen and the world. The Bremer Commission, the Gilmore Commission, the Hart-Rudman Commission, all warned us to wake up to the terrorist threat. Unfortunately that call came on September 11. We need to know, as these commissions urged, what is the threat, what is our strategy? And how are we going to reorganize to deal with implement this strategy? The threat is real. We are at war with terrorists to shut them down before they use weapons of mass destruction against us. This threat requires a new strategy. It requires detection and prevention. It requires us to be proactive and in some cases preemptive. This new strategy requires us to reorganize, to take various government departments and bring them together in a focused, unified approach under the four pillars outlined by the President. The first has a border and transportation focus. The second is emergency preparedness and response; one place for first responders to come to in our government and one place for resources to go out to them. The third pillar provide chemical, biological, and nuclear countermeasures. And the final pillar is information analysis, the plug into the intelligence community. We need to reorganize our government to be able to implement our new strategy and confront the new terrorist threat facing this Nation and the world. We need to wake up and do it now.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support S. 1533, a bill which will reauthorize the Community Health Center program. This legislation ensures that community health centers will continue providing high- quality care to the medically underserved and neediest populations. I have always been impressed with community health centers and have supported increasing the resources available to them. These centers have made wonderful contributions to the urban areas in the Fourth Congressional District, and the care they provide is as good or better than the care many patients with more comprehensive coverage receive. Last year, these clinics served over 12 million people, 66 percent of whom live below the poverty level. Community health centers are located in 3,000 rural and urban communities throughout the country and provide quality cost-effective primary and preventive care for low-income, uninsured and underinsured patients. By preventing costly hospitalizations and reducing the use of emergency care for routine services, it is estimated community clinics save the health care system over $6 billion annually. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support passage of this legislation so community health centers can continue providing high-quality, cost- effective care. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, based on all we have learned during 4 years of hearings by the Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security and International Relations, it cannot be disputed, Saddam Hussein had a robust chemical, biological and nuclear weapons program before the Gulf War. He had a robust program after the war. And he ejected United Nations inspectors when we had successfully begun to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction, particularly when we got below the weeds to the real roots, the engineers and scientists who sustain the program. No credible source, public or classified, has met the burden of proof on Iraq to demonstrate Saddam Hussein has stopped pursuing weapons of mass destruction and disarmed. Having learned the hard lesson that we cannot be defeated in conventional combat, he is more determined than ever to deploy chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons against us. His support of terrorist groups also means he is likely to deploy these weapons using surrogates. Some say until Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States and until he both has a nuclear weapon and threatens to use it, or until we have smoking-gun evidence Saddam Hussein launched the planes into the World Trade Center, we should be content to contain and deter an Iraqi regime openly amassing weapons of mass death. I could not disagree more. Saddam Hussein will not be deterred, and he will not be contained. Testifying before our committee all three national commissions on terrorism stressed the need for a real-time threat assessment, a new strategy to confront the threat, and a restructured Federal Government to implement the strategy. Containment, deterrence, and mutually assured destruction no longer assure our national security. Our policy, and the structure of government to carry it out, must be proactive and preemptive. As a free and open society, we are vulnerable to catastrophic attack by those who see no moral or political ``red line'' to constrain them. As former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reminded us, September 11, 2001, was a wake-up call from hell. We need to wake up. On that day, quaint Cold War doctrines justifying action only against clear and present dangers died with those 3,000 innocents in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania. The dangers we face may never be clear again. The mere existence of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of despots, tyrants, and terrorists constitutes an imminent threat to our security. That threat must be addressed before it manifests itself full-blown in a smallpox epidemic or a mushroom cloud. Ironically, only the possibility of unilateral action by the United States will draw our allies into effective multilateral action. So we must maintain the right to act in our sovereign security interests, with our allies whenever we can, alone if we must. Over the course of 41 hearings and briefings since 1999, our Subcommittee on National Security has learned that weapons of mass destruction proliferation possess a grave threat to the United States. Iraq is both a producer and potential consumer of illicit weapons and materials. Dr. Hamza, a former head of the Iraqi nuclear program, told us recently Saddam Hussein will never yield access to the scientists who sustain his weapons programs. Dr. Alibek, former deputy director of the Biopreparat, the civilian arm of the Soviet Union biological weapons program, testified he considered it inevitable biological weapons will fall into terrorist hands. According to the British Government's recent analysis of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and a similar dossier by the respected International Institute for Security Studies, Saddam Hussein need only acquire a core of highly enriched uranium the size of a single softball to become nuclear capable within a matter of months. With uncertain controls over the weapons grade material in the former Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein has already tried to go shopping for the missing core of his malevolent nuclear aspirations. Lucky for us, he has fallen prey to black market scam and bought atomic junk. But we cannot base our fundamental security on his continued bad luck. As proposed, U.N. inspections will never succeed in disarming an Iraqi regime determined to hide or reacquire weapons of mass destruction capability. We heard testimony from former UNSCOM inspectors and U.S. nonproliferation experts who concluded nothing short of utterly unfettered, that is anytime, anywhere unannounced, inspections would ever get close to discerning Iraq's true capabilities. Even then, without a powerful incentive for Iraq to point inspectors in the right direction, most conclude even those inspections would not guarantee complete disarmament. Only the option of force authorized in this resolution can provide the incentive for the Iraqi regime to step out of the way and allow the civilized world to assert its rights to security and peace.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. We appreciate what our chairman has done in regards to the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation and his strong support of H. Con. Res. 476. I also thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for his pursuing this effort, and, particularly, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) who has rightfully identified that the volunteer firefighters and the paid firefighters are a unique group within our country, that captures the soul and camaraderie of the spirit of America. I do say and acknowledge that after September 11, I think all of us thought a little longer and a little harder about how much we owe to our firefighters, how much we appreciate what they do for us and how grateful we are to them. I was reading in preparing for today to think that 446 firefighters lost their lives in the line of duty during the past year. And even if you subtract out the incredibly large number of 343 whose lives were taken on September 11, it is amazing to me to think that over 100 firefighters sacrificed themselves for the protection of their community. I am very grateful to them. I am very grateful to our other service industry providers, our police, our EMS and others; but tonight we are recognizing the firefighters, and this is a resolution that clearly will have 100 percent support and for very good reason. We owe a debt of gratitude to our firefighters and appreciation as well to the National Fallen Firefighters Association.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I want to first say that I was deeply impressed by the presentation made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), and I could feel his pain as he spoke on this legislation and against it because I believe he is a deeply religious man. And this is an awkward issue for us, but we need to speak plainly about it. I too strongly oppose H.R. 2357, the House of Worship Political Speech Protection Act, because I believe it flies in the face of our campaign finance laws and more importantly would create a large soft money loophole. I also have serious concerns the legislation would erode the separation of church and State, a bedrock value of our Nation and one I strongly support. Religious institutions should be able to speak out on issues, and current law already gives these institutions the absolute right to use their pulpit to address an issue they wish. One has to wonder, therefore, why this legislation is necessary. What religious institutions cannot do is use their tax-exempt donations to contribute to a candidate's political campaign. H.R. 2357 would allow religious organizations to maintain their 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, which allows them to receive tax- deductible contributions while permitting them to contribute to politicians and political campaigns. This legislation does not extend the same privilege to nonreligious 501(c)(3) organizations. In February, this body demonstrated a strong commitment to reforming our campaign finance laws when it voted to ban the use of soft money, corporate treasury money, union dues money, and unlimited sums from individuals. H.R. 2357 would be a major step backward. This legislation, if enacted, would permit big-dollar political donors, corporate, union, or individual, to funnel soft money through partisan incorporated religious organizations and fund sham issue ads, really campaign ads with these funds. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2357. We should not allow tax-exempt institutions to make campaign contributions.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Patsy Mink was a thoughtful, passionate, kind, strong, gentle, and lovely person who bravely and courageously fought and spoke out for those who could not always do it for themselves. She fought undeterred for social and economic justice in our country and around the world, and she never gave up. She is, in my eyes, Winston Churchill's ideal model when he spoke to a group of young men, young boys during the war, the Second World War, and told them ``Never, give up. Never give up. Never, never, never give up.'' She was a giant. I did not even know that she was small in figure. She always, to me, was a giant, a champion and someone I wanted to know better. I loved her passion, but I loved more understanding why she felt so passionate. She wanted to make a difference in this place. I want her family to know her efforts were worth every minute. She did make a difference, a huge difference. I loved, no, I want to say I love Patsy Mink.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 4691, the inappropriately named Abortion Non-Discrimination Act, which would radically alter current law by allowing health care entities to exempt themselves from any federal, state or local law that assures women have access to abortion services, including basic information. This sort of preemption contradicts local policies espoused by this Congress. This legislation flies in the face of a woman's right to choose as well as her basic right to be informed about her reproductive options. Moreover, H.R. 4691 has the potential to pose a severe threat to efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies, thus leading to more, not less, abortions. The sweeping nature of this supposedly narrow legislation is staggering. Family planning programs have been instrumental in helping millions of American women obtain reproductive health care for three decades. H.R. 4691 could essentially ``gag'' clinic staff from giving pregnant women information and referrals for all their legal options, including adoption, carrying the pregnancy to term and abortion. There is currently no federal requirement that a health care entity provide abortion services against its will. Furthermore, there is no federal statutory requirement that any individual participate in the provision of reproductive health services if he or she objects. This legislation is therefore not only without merit but completely unnecessary. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4691.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I support the inclusion of Section 213 in H.R. 1646, the Department of State Authorization Act Conference Report. This section of the conference report repeals Section 738 of the 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Act, which gave unwarranted special treatment to foreign agriculture attaches. Both the State Department and the Office of Management and Budget support repealing Section 738, and H.R. 1646 does just that. In 1978, Congress, with the support of the Office of Management and Budget, endorsed the State Department as the sole manager for overseas property. In 1990, Congress directed State to implement a uniform housing policy for and with the input of all agencies overseas. That system worked. It has the support of OMB, the General Accounting Office, and apparently had the support of Congress. But last year, a little-noticed section of the Agriculture Appropriations Act changed the system for one agency: the Foreign Agriculture Service. The provision required the State Department to obtain FAS approval to sell property originally purchased to house FAS employees overseas. Moreover, FAS gained the right to occupy new residences permanently. That provision created an exception for one agency, an exception that if copied by other agencies would disrupt the equitable management of overseas property. Overseas property management would lose much needed flexibility and make the housing of overseas personnel more difficult and costly. At my request, GAO looked into this matter. In a July 11th letter, GAO concluded the ``restrictions on the sales of residences purchased for agricultural attaches do not appear to be in the government's best interests. As the single manager for overseas property, State is responsible for implementing cost-effective decisions about the sale of unneeded overseas real estate and using sales proceeds for the government's highest priorities. . . . [T]he restrictions weaken efforts to improve management of the government's overseas properties and conflict with congressional and executive branch efforts to establish State as the single real property manager.'' The properties at issue are not just regular old houses. In Cairo, the residence is a 4,200-square-foot, two-level house with four bedrooms, three bathrooms, two living rooms, a dining room, two kitchens, a sunroom, a breakfast room, and terraces. In Vienna, the residence is a 3,500-square-foot, three-story villa with six bedrooms, three bathrooms, a terrace, breakfast room, basement, and garage. Both houses exceed established housing standards. This unsound FAS exception is delaying the sale of these valuable properties, a sale that could net at least $2.1 million. The provision may also complicate the sale of other properties, such as an underutilized property in Bangkok worth $50 million. The State Department manages 3,500 properties in more than 220 locations overseas and has had the authority to sell those properties since 1926. Proceeds from sales are used to acquire and maintain other properties. In the wake of the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and other terrorist attacks, proceeds from these sales are used to ensure the safety of our embassies and personnel abroad. Providing special treatment to FAS prevents the State Department from implementing some of the measures necessary to protect our diplomatic personnel. Mr. Speaker, the letter from GAO, ``Current Law Limits the State Department's Authority to Manage Certain Overseas Properties Cost Effectively'' (GAO-02-790R, July 11, 2001) follows. A more complete version of the letter is available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ d02790r.pdf. U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC, July 11, 2002. Hon. Christopher Shays, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives. Subject: Current Law Limits the State Department's Authority to Manage Certain Overseas Properties Cost Effectively Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of State is the central manager for real estate at U.S. embassies and consulates and has the statutory authority to sell properties and use the sales proceeds to acquire and maintain other overseas properties. Section 738 in the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Act prohibits State from selling residences purchased to house agricultural attaches without approval from the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) and requires the department to use the proceeds from such sales to purchase residences for these attaches. Legislation currently before the Congress would repeal section 738. At your request, this report discusses the effect of section 738 on State's management of overseas properties. We examined this issue as part of our review of the Department of State's performance in identifying and selling unneeded overseas real estate. In conducting this assignment, we interviewed officials and analyzed records at the Department of State, FAS, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Results in Brief Section 738 limits the Department of State's authority to implement cost-effective decisions about sales of unneeded overseas property and the use of sales proceeds. Because of section 738's restrictions, State has delayed two property sales valued at nearly $4 million that appear to be in the government's best interests. FAS is concerned that if section 738 is repealed, selling these properties will result in increased costs for FAS since it would have to lease housing for attaches who previously lived rent-free in government- owned housing. State acknowledges that this could occur but save its financial analysis shows that selling the houses benefits the government as a whole. Although section 738 applies only to residences purchased for agricultural section 738 applies only to residences purchased for agricultural attaches, OMB and State are concerned that it could lead to fragmented and less cost-effective management of overseas property if other agencies seek similar treatment for their senior representatives. In our view, section 738's restrictions do not appear to be in the government's best interests. This report suggests that the Congress may wish to consider repealling section 738. State officials, commenting on a draft of this report, said they agreed with the report's information and conclusions regarding the negative effects of section 738 on overseas property management. FAS officials reiterated their view that repealing section 738 could result in increased costs for FAS. We believe that if the section's repeal and sale of residences used by agricultural attaches increases FAS costs, the Department of Agriculture can request that the Congress consider providing additional funds for FAS operations. Background The Foreign Buildings Act of 1926, as amended, authorizes the Secretary of State to sell overseas properties that are used to support diplomatic and consular operations in foreign countries. The Department of State manages about 3,500 government-owned properties--including embassy and consular office buildings, housing, and land--at more than 220 overseas locations. The law authorizes the Secretary to use the proceeds from the sale of overseas properties to acquire and maintain other overseas properties and requires the Secretary to report such transactions to the Congress with the department's annual budget estimates. The Secretary has delegated this authority to State's Bureau of Overseas Building Operations. Over the years, as a result of congressional and OMB actions, overseas property management has been consolidated under State. In 1978, the Congress endorsed State as the single manager for overseas property and asked OMB to prepare a proposal for implementing this concept. In 1979, OMB issued a report that supported the concept of single management and acquisition planning for overseas property under State. OMB noted that the Congress was strengthening and broadening State's existing role as the central manager for overseas property. In 1990, the Congress directed State to establish and implement a uniform housing policy for agencies' overseas personnel. Resulting new overseas housing regulations, issued in 1991 and 1992 with the agreement of the foreign affairs agencies and the Department of Defense, reinforced State's authority to act as the single manager for overseas property. These authorities show that the Congress and the executive branch had intended that State should manage overseas property in a consolidated, integrated manner and that doing so would be in the government's best interests. We have supported this concept since the 1960s because it is more effective, efficient, and economical than having multiple property managers. Since 1997, State has increased efforts to identify and sell unneeded overseas real estate in response to congressional direction and our recommendations. As part of this effort, State sold two residences occupied by agricultural attaches for about $855,000 and proposed selling three others for more than $4 million. FAS argued that these properties were purchased to house its attaches; and consequently, FAS should have a say in approving the sales and in determining how the sales proceeds should be used. As a result, FAS sought and the Congress enacted legislation that requires State to obtain FAS approval to sell residences purchased to house agricultural attaches. Additionally, State must use the proceeds from such sales to acquire other suitable residences for agricultural attaches (not necessarily at the same post), and FAS has the right to occupy these properties permanently. According to FAS, State manages 13 properties purchased for agricultural attaches. Section 738 Limits State's authority to make cost-effective decisions on certain properties Section 738 of the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Act limits State's authority to sell unneeded property by making sales decisions contingent on FAS approval. Proposed sales of residences in Cairo, Egypt, and Vienna, Austria, illustrate the potential limitations. Although selling these properties appears to be in the U.S. government's best interests, State has postponed these sales because of concerns about section 738. In October 1998, the State Inspector General reported that the Cairo and Vienna residences were larger than housing standards allow, were underutilized, and should be sold. According to State records, the Cairo residence is a 4,200-square-foot, two- level house with four bedrooms, three bathrooms, two living rooms, a dining room, two kitchens, a sunroom, a breakfast room, and terraces. The Vienna residence is a 3,500-square- foot, three-story villa with six bedrooms, three bathrooms, a terrace, breakfast room, basement, and garage. These residences are larger than the housing standards allow. Figures 1 and 2 show photographs of the Cairo and Vienna residences. State financial analyses suggest that selling the Cairo and Vienna residences would yield net benefits for the government of at least $2.1 million. In addition, using a measure of investment performance, State determined that selling the two residences was a substantially more efficient use of government resources than continued ownership. In February 2001, FAS informed State that it approved the sale of the Vienna residence on condition that the sales proceeds were used to purchase a replacement residence in Vienna and new residences for agricultural attaches at two other posts. Because FAS's proposed use of the proceeds would not address the government's highest priority overseas property needs, State officials decided to postpone the Vienna sale pending repeal of section 738. State subsequently postponed the Cairo sale for the same reason. State and OMB believe that the sales proceeds should be used to meet the government's highest priority needs. According to its long-range facilities plan, State seeks to reinvest sales proceeds where there is the greatest need or the most opportunity to reduce government operating costs. This plan notes that, in recent years, most sales proceeds have been earmarked for specific capital construction projects, such as building secure embassies. In future years, State plans to use sales proceeds to purchase additional residential housing. Within this broad priority, State plans to direct these proceeds to several objectives: (1) Buying residential properties in locations that offer the greatest rent savings to contain leasing costs, (2) buying earthquake resistant residential properties in seismic areas to address safety issues, and (3) buying key diplomatic properties. Although we did not assess State's priorities or use of proceeds from property sales, its approach is consistent with recommendations we made in 1996 regarding using sales proceeds for the highest priority overseas facility needs. FAS believes that the sales proceeds should be used to purchase replacement and additional residences for agricultural attaches--not to purchase properties according to State's priorities. FAS said that past sales had displaced two of its attaches from government-owned housing, forcing it to pay about $400,000 over the past 5 years to lease replacement residences. FAS is concerned about having to cut its program budgets to fund additional leases for replacement housing. In addition, FAS complained that it had insufficient advance notice of the proposed sales and had difficulty freeing up funds to pay for replacement housing for displaced attaches. State acknowledged that FAS may have to lease replacement residences if section 738 is repealed and the two residences are sold. However, financial analyses of the proposed sales considered these costs in determining that they were cost effective for the government. State also acknowledged that unanticipated sales could cause short-term budgetary disruptions. As a result, in June 2001, assuming repeal of section 738, State offered to pay for leasing replacement housing until FAS could build these costs into its budget in cases where State disposed of the properties with less than 2 years' advance notice. In January 2002, FAS responded that, before agreeing to any sales, it would require State to provide appropriate government-owned replacement housing within 2 years and expect State to make every effort to ensure that sales did not affect FAS's budget. FAS's letter did not address the repeal of section 738. In April 2002, FAS officials told us they were reluctant to accept State's offer because it did not address the long- term budgetary effect of the sales and allowed State to retain control over the use of the sales proceeds. According to State, if section 738 remained in effect, it could be a complicating factor in the future sale of a compound in downtown Bangkok that could be worth as much as $50 million. In 1998, the State Inspector General reported that the compound--a 15-acre wooded site located in a prime commercial area that contains five executive residences (one occupied by the agricultural attache) and several other facilities--was underutilized and should be sold. Before the 1997 Asian financial crisis, State had planned to sell the compound and use the proceeds to finance the construction of new facilities at the post, including housing for more than 200 embassy families that would reduce post lease costs by about $73 million over 10 years. Recognizing the changed economic conditions, State reported that further study is needed to determine the appropriate time to sell the compound and the appropriate use of the sales proceeds. State and OMB Support Repealing Section 738; FAS Opposes Its Repeal State and OMB support legislation currently before the Congress that would repeal section 738. They argue that its restrictions on State's authority seriously weaken centralized management of overseas properties because they essentially establish a separate executive housing program for FAS and subordinate governmentwide priorities to agency priorities. For example, FAS could disapprove the sale of oversize or high-value residences purchased for agricultural attaches while State was selling residences purchased for ambassadors, deputy chiefs of mission, consuls general, and senior representatives of other foreign affairs agencies. State reported that, between 1997 and 2002, it sold 17 executive residences for about $38 million and is planning to sell 15 additional residences for about $20 million. Additionally, State and OMB pointed out that other foreign affairs agencies and Defense have experienced budgetary effects from the sale of such residences. In these cases, agencies must weigh housing costs in deciding whether to station their employees overseas. State and OMB are also concerned that unless section 738 is repealed, other agencies may seek similar legislation, leading to more fragmented property management and unequal and uneconomical housing policies at taxpayer expense. FAS opposes repealing section 738. FAS argues that section 738 maintains Agriculture's entitlement to residences purchased to house its attaches. FAS believes that repealing section 738 would allow State to ignore what FAS believes was the Congress' intent in providing funds to purchase these residences, while imposing substantial budgetary costs on

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, I was in the 4th Congressional District to honor the heroes and victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on recorded vote number 384.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) for this legislation, for their perseverance, and for listening to their constituents and the people who suffered from September 11 who helped design this bill. When we had the first hearing on H.R. 4687, the National Construction Safety Team Act, I thought, ``what am I really going to learn.'' Two large airplanes filled with fuel crashed into two buildings, and the buildings came down; end of story. Well, as soon as the hearing began, I learned there was so much more to the story. First, who was in charge. What happened to the evidence, not like it was a crime, this was a terrorist act, but what happened to the materials that would help us understand how these buildings collapsed and how it might have been prevented. As others have pointed out, where the location of the stairs were. I have a constituent who spoke to her loved one, her husband, for almost an hour as he went to the top of the building, went down to the fire, tried to find a way to get out, asked for her help as she looked at the building on the cameras, on the TV, to see if she saw any opportunity. That was the last time she spoke with her husband, trying to help him deal with this catastrophe. We have a good model in the NTSB. We know that we have the ability when there are airplane crashes to look at the NTSB and see what they do. They take control. They have subpoena power. They have the ability to look at every aspect of the disaster, the people involved, what they did, what they did not do, the materials involved, what happened. With this legislation, NIST has the same authority, with all the same powers. When there is a major catastrophe, when there is loss of life, they are going to step in. I was particularly intrigued by the fact that not only were we talking about these two incredibly large buildings, but we are talking about a 40-story building that caught on fire and there was no way to put that fire out, no water, no ability to put it out, so it was allowed to burn for nearly 7 hours, this 40-story structure. Think of all that we could have learned about building material. Think what we will learn in the future and just think of how important it is for those who have lost loved ones to know that there is an organization like NIST that will take charge just like the NTSB takes charge in the disaster of an air flight. We are at war with terrorists. They are going to use conventional, biological, and possibly chemical weapons. Heaven forbid that they will someday have access to nuclear weapons and try to use them. We know that we cannot always prevent a disaster, but when there is one, we need to learn from it. Again, I want to just thank both the chairman of the Committee on Science, who has brought science to the discovery of why things happen, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) for his incredible help. I appreciate the work of both of them.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion offered by the gentleman from New York and the gentlemen from North Carolina. Now and then, a proposal comes before Congress that makes such good sense, it's a wonder no one though of it sooner. We have just such a proposal before us today. Under Section 11 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, Americans who are victims of cowardly terrorist acts will get the justice they deserve--not just an IOU. Allowing victims to enforce judgments against terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism will serve two vital purposes. First, it will compensate the victims of terrorism and their families. These brave men and women have suffered unimaginable losses, and they shouldn't have to worry about whether the State Department will release frozen terrorist assets in the event they prevail in a lawsuit and be awarded funds. Second, this provision will cut financing for terrorism off at the knees. The assets of terrorist states shouldn't simply be frozen--they should be seized. That's what we're doing here today. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Mike Oxley for his commitment to this legislation, and urge all of my colleagues to vote for this common-sense motion to instruct.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to point out that before 9/11, we could not cite certain instance of terrorist activity. The bottom line is the Morella amendment restricts the President's ability under national security to take action. We are qualifying her restriction. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds, to just point out that what we want is for the President to have the same powers and collective bargaining issues when national security is involved that past presidents from President Carter have had, and yet we are taking the gentlewoman's amendment and adding an additional test so we are making it a little more difficult for this President. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon.) (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just respond to the gentleman. We are not trying to do anything with collective bargaining that does not exist in present law. In fact, we are even restricting in some ways the power of the President. Collective bargaining still exists. But like with Jimmy Carter all the way down, if there is a national security issue, the President has the right to take action. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a matter of absolute national security. In creating the Department of Homeland Security, it would be dangerous to leave the President with less authority to act in the interest of national security than he has under current law. Management powers afforded every President since Jimmy Carter must be available to this President and to future Presidents to preserve the safety and defend the security of this great Nation. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses the heartfelt concerns of the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), our colleague, and others who feel current authority to exclude Federal employees from coverage under the labor laws could be used overbroadly in a department with so broad a security mission. So we have included the Morella amendment adopted by the Committee on Government Reform, but with a safety valve. The Morella amendment would limit use of current exclusions that might otherwise apply to some Homeland Security Department employees. Existing exclusions could not be used unless the mission and the responsibilities of the affected agency or unit have changed materially and a majority of employees have as their primary duty intelligence, counterintelligence or investigative work directly related to terrorism investigation. But our amendment also provides an essential safety valve. And safety is the reason we are creating the new Department. Subsection C would allow the President to apply existing exclusion authority in those special circumstances where he determines in writing that labor law coverage of the agency in question would have, quote, ``a substantial adverse impact,'' end of quote, on homeland security. This puts a new tough new standard on the top of already rigorous tests the President must meet under title 5, chapter 71. To exercise his national security authority under this provision, the President must pass through three gates. First, he must determine that the Department's ability to protect homeland security will be significantly and adversely affected. Then, the current law tests must be met: Employee's primary function is in intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative or national security work; and, there is an incompatibility between labor law coverage and national security in the particular agency. We believe this approach represents a sensible and workable compromise between permanently diminishing Presidential national security authority, as the Morella amendment alone would do, and providing no new standards for exercise of that authority in the new Department. This amendment preserves the President's ability to act in the interest of national security while acknowledging the unique circumstance of employees being transferred into this new Department. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I will have the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) to close, and I might make a comment after the next speaker. But between me and the gentleman from Ohio, that is it.