Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and commend Mr. Paul Allen, Mr. Burt Rutan and all the men and women of Mojave Aerospace Ventures on winning the Ansari X Prize competition. On December 17, 1903, Wilbur and Orville Wright made the first sustained, controlled, powered flight of an airplane at Kitty Hawk, NC. Now, a little over a century later Mojave Aerospace Ventures has followed in the footsteps of the Wright Brothers by designing, building and successfully flying the world's first privately funded spacecraft. Mr. Speaker, the private support of Paul Allen, for the Mojave Aerospace Ventures was critical in reaching this historical milestone. This accomplishment exemplifies the ingenuity on which our Nation was founded and developed. Mr. Allen has shown that the entrepreneurial spirit which has made America great is alive and well and will continue towards even greater achievements in the future.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the Committee on Rules for making this amendment in order. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would split the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and, as has already been stated on this floor, there is some controversy surrounding it. This is an issue that has been discussed for several years, both in the States that are affected by the Ninth Circuit and when I was in the State legislature, I served on the Judiciary and Rules Committee, and we discussed this many times and looked at the Ninth Circuit and the potential need for splitting the Ninth Circuit. Let me state at the outset of this, it is inevitable that the Ninth Circuit will be split. At some point in time, whether it is with this bill or some other bill in the future, the need to split the Ninth Circuit is undeniable. At some point in time, the growth is such that it is growing so rapidly that we will have to split this court. What are the factors that we should look at that should determine when it is time to split this court? I agree with the White Commission and the statements made by the gentleman from California earlier. Looking at the decisions of a judge, there is no reason to split the court. Whether one agrees or disagrees with those decisions, that is not the reason to split a court. The reason to split a court is for administrative purposes, and in the past there has been much debate about the liberal decisions of the Ninth Circuit and so forth; and people have wanted to get out of the Ninth Circuit for that reason. That is not my intention. My intention is because of the administration of the Ninth Circuit. Look at these facts. The Ninth Circuit has 48 judges, a figure that is approaching twice the number of total judges as the next largest circuit. It is twice as big as the next largest circuit in terms of judges, and the Ninth Circuit represents 56 million people, roughly one-fifth of the population of the U.S. This is 5 million more people than the next largest circuit. The Ninth Circuit encompasses nearly 40 percent of the geographic area of the United States. It runs essentially from the equator to the North Pole and from the corners of Montana to Guam. It is an enormous surface area. The Ninth Circuit also has the most number of appeals filed and the highest percentage of increases in appeals filed, the most number of appeals still pending and the longest median time until disposition of those appeals. To address this problem, this amendment creates a new Ninth Circuit featuring California, Guam, Hawaii and the Northern Marianas Islands; a new 12th Circuit, featuring Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, and Montana; and a new 13th, featuring Alaska, Oregon, and Washington. This legislation also allows the President to appoint five new judges to permanent Ninth Circuit seats, along with two other judges who will temporarily fill seats. These additions are consistent with requests made by the Judicial Conference and will ensure that future caseload demands made on the new Ninth Circuit will more closely mirror its new judgeship resources. The amendment further ensures that the duty stations of these judges will be California, where the demand for more judges is highest. The creation of more judgeships in the absence of additional reform will not improve the administration of justice in the United States. This is an instance in which bigger does not mean better. We must distribute judgeships with an eye toward achieving structural coherence within each circuit. This amendment accomplishes that. For just a minute, Mr. Chairman, let me address some of the arguments that have already been made and will be made against this bill: First, that we are doing it just because we do not like the decisions of the Ninth Circuit. While that may have been the case in the past and some of the tactics that has been talked about in the past when this issue has been discussed, certainly that has been one of the premier points of view that some people have raised, that is not the reason to do it. I agree with the White Commission. Second, the cost. The cost, as has been stated here, is somewhat exaggerated, and the reason for that is that it took into consideration the addition of five new additional judges and two temporary judges. Those judges will be appointed whether or not this amendment is adopted because they are in the underlying bill. So the cost of this amendment is substantially overstated by the opponents of this legislation. Third, we have talked about Governor Schwarzenegger of California not supporting this and that we should follow our fellow Republican Governor. I can tell my colleagues that there are Republican Governors that do support this that are affected in the Ninth Circuit. The California Governor is not the only Governor in the Ninth Circuit. The fourth is judges do not want this, that there was a vote taken and it was 30 to nine of the judges of the Ninth Circuit that did not want this split to occur. Let me tell my colleagues how that occurred. That was a straw poll that was taken of the judges. The chief justice of the Ninth Circuit knew exactly how each of those judges voted. It was not a vote in secret, and each one of those judges knew that the chief justice of the Ninth Circuit is adamantly opposed to this split. Did that influence the vote? I do not know, but I can tell my colleagues that of the nine that voted to support the split, they are registered as the nine. Of the 30 that opposed the split, some of them opposed it, some of them were undecided, and they were counted as opposing the split. So to say that it was 30 to nine, I think, is an exaggeration of the case. The fact is we have to look at the facts that I stated here. Is it time to split this court? I think it is undeniable that it is time. Justice in the Ninth Circuit is different than it is in every other circuit in this country. We do things differently in the Ninth Circuit because it is so large. In every other circuit, when there is an appeal of the three-judge decision en banc to the full court, all the judges of that circuit sit and listen to the case, even those on the three-judge panel, so that they can have their points of view inserted into that discussion of the case. In the Ninth Circuit, that is not the case. It is so large that they pull names out of a hat, and 10 members and the chief sit en banc. One may or may not be chosen for it. Individuals that sat on the three- judge panel and listened to it may not even be on the en banc panel; and consequently they cannot have their views inserted as to why they decided the way they did as a three-judge panel. So justice is different in the Ninth Circuit. I think it should be uniform. I think the size of the judiciary in the various circuits should be more closely related than they currently are with the Ninth Circuit; and, consequently, I hope my colleagues will support this amendment, and we will finally do what we have discussed for many years, that is, split the Ninth Circuit, make justice in the West just as it is in the rest of the country. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. While I appreciate the facts from the gentleman from California's comments, the reality is that some people, as I stated in my opening statement, support this because they do not like the decisions of the Ninth Circuit. That is a reality. But as the chairman stated and I stated, that is not the reason to do it. Look at the facts. Do not vote on it based on ideology. I would also state that it is interesting that, from that side of the aisle, there are people who do not want to split it because they do like the decisions of the Ninth Circuit, and so they want them to apply to the entire West. For the same reason that some Members on my side want it split, some people on their side do not want it split. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If you were to follow the arguments of the gentleman from California, maybe we should be combining the smaller circuits into larger circuits, if cost is the issue. And it is the other side talking about judicial activism, not this side. We are talking because of administrative purposes. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the full committee.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter). (Mr. OTTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern for the squabble between the Republicans from California and the Republicans from Idaho. But I can tell the gentleman that some Republicans from California also see the need to split the Ninth Circuit. They also are concerned about not having the rest of us in the pool with them. Let me just say this. The White Commission has been mentioned several times here, and I agree with the White Commission, as I have stated before. Splitting the court because one does not like the decisions is not the right reason to do it. If those individuals here want to split this court because they think that they are going to get better decisions out of a new court that they like better, they are going to be mighty disappointed because I can find decisions on any court anywhere in the land that I am going to disagree with. That is not a valid reason to split a court, even though there are some people who want to do it for that reason. What I am asking the Members to do is to look past that and look at the statistics, look at the numbers, look at the facts that the reality is that it is going to be split at some time. We cannot go on with a court that is twice as large, will some day, looking at the growth rate, be three times as large as any other circuit court. According to the argument of the gentleman from California, what we should have done in 1980 when we split the Fifth Circuit was just add more judges, but we decided to split it, and, yes, all the judges there wanted to split the Fifth Circuit. I would like to know of this 30 to nine vote that is being touted, how many of them were the undecideds that were counted in the 30. How many of them would have voted one way or another if a secret ballot was taken and they did not have to reveal who they were to the chief justice that they knew was opposed to the amendment. I will also tell the Members that the White Commission also recognized there was something wrong with the Ninth Circuit because they recommended not a split in the Ninth Circuit, but to split it administratively, something that had not been done in any other region. They recognized that the administration of the Ninth Circuit was too large and needed to be handled differently. It was not efficient. So they recommended splitting the administration of it. Why they did not recommend splitting the court, I do not know. I think it is because it was always looked at as partisan. And I will also tell the Members that five of the nine Supreme Court Justices have made public comments about the need to split the Ninth Circuit. I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the friends and family of Sarah Pearson Campbell, who recently donated fifty acres of land to the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. With this being the last week of September and there being only five weeks before a very influential election that includes a race for the second congressional district of Idaho, as well as a presidential race, I often find myself with too few hours in my day to accomplish everything that I want to do. But when I was recently made aware of a land donation that had been given to the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, I felt obligated to say thank you to the families that made the donation possible. Doug and Mary Campbell, along with the families of Wes, Bob and Hank Wills recently donated a 50 acre parcel of land in the heart of the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. The land is located within the heart of Boulder City--a present day ghost town that was once a promising mining town in the heart of Idaho's Boulder Mountain range. Historic Boulder City is located north of Ketchum, a rugged and steep six-mile track from Highway 75 up Boulder Creek to the Basin. The city was the second town established in the Wood River Valley and was once home to a store, hotel, post office, corral, saloon, cabins, an ore processing mill and various mines. The land donated contains the remains of the mill, four cabins and other mining structures. The gift was given to pay tribute and honor the Campbell's daughter Sarah Pearson Campbell, who was killed in an avalanche in December 2000 while back country skiing in Teton County, Wyoming. ``By donating this historic site, we will be honoring Sarah's commitment to protecting the beauty and integrity of the area,'' said Doug and Mary Campbell. ``This parcel of land is symbolic of Sarah's work and experiences in, and love for, the mountains here in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area.'' Words such as these make me proud to be both an Idahoan and American. I have the utmost respect and gratitude for these families, who are willing to carry on the legacy of their daughter and friend through a donation they know would have made her very proud. Although Sarah is no longer able to share in the scenic beauty of the SNRA, her friends and family wanted to make sure others would be able to experience the same beauty that Sarah came to know and love. I obviously cannot begin to put into words the sentimental meaning and significance this gift has for the families involved; that is something one would have to ask Sarah's family and friends about. But I can tell you this is only the third land donation to the SNRA since its establishment in 1972, and is critical in helping the US Forest Service preserve an area rich in beauty and history. I would like to extend a personal thank you to all of those involved with this unselfish and generous gift to the SNRA. Although I never had the opportunity to meet Sarah, I can only imagine she shared the same ideals and principals that her family and friends displayed when donating this substantial piece of land.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor America's stenographic court reporters and captioners as they celebrate the 105th anniversary of their association. For centuries, scribes have captured the spoken word to record major and everyday events in recorded history. Shorthand reporters were vital to the preservation of our Nation's founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. We use them every day in Congress to record the proceedings of our body. They also provide a valuable service in reaching the hearing-impaired by providing broadcast captioning through Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART). This service benefits millions of Americans every day. Mr. Speaker, I join with other Members of Congress in honoring and celebrating the efforts of all stenographic court reporters and captioners on July 30, 2004, as they celebrate the 105th anniversary of their association.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 257, expressing the sense of Congress that the President should posthumously award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Harry W. Colmery. Harry Colmery is truly an American treasure. In December of 1943, Mr. Colmery sat in room 570 of the Mayflower Hotel drafting what arguably became our most successful domestic program ever, possible even more remarkable than the Homestead Act. I believe Mr. Colmery simply wanted a decent opportunity for the 14 million GIs we brought home after World War II. The GI bill provided veterans with opportunities that were limited only by their own aspiration, ability and initiative. The VA provided the opportunity; the veterans provided the initiative. On June 20, 2002, I joined Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Chairman Christopher Smith, former Senator Bob Dole, former House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Chairman G.V. Sonny Montgomery, Congressman Jim Ryun--who authored the legislation we are considering today--author Michael Bennett, and National Adjutant Robert W. Spanogle of The American Legion, at the Mayflower Hotel to dedicate room 570. This was our first step to recognize the man who authored legislation which, unbeknownst to him, would create the modern middle class. After the ceremony, this distinguished group of individuals wrote letters in support of honoring Mr. Colmery with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. This was followed by Congressman Ryun introducing H. Con. Res. 257, of which I am proud to co-sponsor. Harry Colmery was a visionary and deserves the Nation's highest honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The GI bill transformed America. Former President George Bush put it best, ``The GI bill changes the lives of millions by replacing old roadblocks with paths of opportunity. And, in so doing, it boosted America's work force, it boosted America's economy, and really, it changed the life of our Nation.'' Mr. Speaker, let us honor the man who redefined our way of life. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, every visitor who comes to my office is greeted by a plaque that bears the inscription of Ronald Reagan's signature and this quote, ``There's no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit.'' These words are characteristic of the great man that served as the fortieth President of the United States of America. I am involved with politics today because of the inspiration I received from Ronald Reagan. I believe he was the true example of what a statesman can be, and I hold that example close to my heart as I carry out my own duties. President Reagan will always be remembered as an unabashed patriot. He was convinced of the ability of the United States to provide the hope of freedom to those enslaved by totalitarianism and communism. President Reagan's vision of the world and the future of this country would not be dimmed or daunted by ideological threat, and he was not afraid to stand up to tyranny and aggression. From the beginning of his presidency, President Reagan realized the potential cost of inaction and weakness in the face of Soviet defiance and nuclear threat, and he took action. Through a series of defense budgets, he increased defense spending 35 percent during his two terms, ensuring the country the resources necessary for security. Additionally, President Reagan managed to negotiate the first U.S.-Soviet treaty to reduce the number of nuclear weapons through a series of four summits with Mikhail Gorbachev. President Reagan was always clear about what he expected and never more so than when he pleaded at the Brandenberg Gates, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!'' President Reagan planted democracy in regions of the world that have never tasted the joys of freedom. He taught newly liberated people across the globe that hard work and faith in God could result in prosperity, a sense of satisfaction in one's own legacy, and a better outlook for tomorrow. He wanted the American dream to be a reality throughout the world. President Reagan will also be remembered as a man of humble beginnings. He proclaimed America as a place where ``everyone can rise as high and as far as his ability will take him.'' Born in Tampico, Illinois, President Reagan used his abilities to establish a career in Hollywood. He continued to work and learn as he rose through California politics and went on to serve two successful terms as the leader of our nation. He wanted all Americans to have the same freedom and opportunity to pursue success, and he consistently promoted that ideal through policies of limited government. He said, ``Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.'' What makes Ronald Reagan most unforgettable was his unfailing optimism. Even as our nation mourns, we cannot help but smile at the thought of his cheerful and radiant personality. President Reagan possessed a sense of humor strong enough to withstand even the pain of an assassin's bullet. Demonstrating his trademark good nature, he said to the doctors about to operate on his bullet wounds, ``I hope you're all Republicans.'' It was this characteristic sanguinity that swept up a downtrodden America and reenergized its faith in freedom, the Presidency, and our military. Ronald Reagan was many things. He was a man of reason, a man of sincerity, a man willing to listen. And he is a man whose character, grace, and wisdom will be deeply missed by this nation.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the chairman for his support as he completes his term as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. I add my congratulations to those that have already been stated for the great job that he has done for America and for our military. I appreciate the Chairman's raising the important issue of Japan's contributions in Iraq and join with him in acknowledging their historic role. As he mentioned, this operation is unprecedented and has been severely tested during the recent hostage crisis. However, Tokyo's commitment has not changed. In fact, Japan has just dispatched the 2nd Contingent of its Ground Self-Defense Forces to Iraq. I also understand the Japanese forces have recently commenced airlift operations between Iraq and Kuwait. Other humanitarian and infrastructure projects include food and medicine and construction or repair of seaports, power plants, hospitals, and schools. In fact, on May 26, Japan played a leading role as the chair of the second meeting of the Donor's Committee of the International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq at Doha. Prime Minister Koizumi has been a key ally on the war on terrorism. On June 8, Prime Minister Koizumi and President Bush had a bilateral meeting on the occasion of the Sea Island G-8 Summit meeting. During the meeting, the Prime Minister announced Japan's full support for the U.S. policy on Iraq through the continued dispatch of Self-Defense Forces as well as financial assistance through the government's official development assistance. We highly value the contribution of Japan and other allies. I hope that all Members will read the Fact Sheet from Japan's assistance that I will insert into the Record at this point. Japan's Assistance for Iraq The attached Fact Sheet outlines Japan's very significant, and continuing, efforts in providing critical assistance to Iraq. Following are some of the highlights of the fact sheet: The total number of Japanese Self-Defense Forces (SDF) participating in the reconstruction of Iraq is approximately 1,000, including nearly 600 ground troops. Several naval vessels and aircraft are also present. This is an historic operation, the first of its kind for SDF since World War II. Japan has decided to fund both bilateral and multilateral projects as part of the implementation of the $1.5 billion grant out of the $5 billion Japan pledged in Madrid last fall. Such humanitarian and infrastructure projects include food and medical assistance, employment, and construction or repair of key seaports, power plants, hospitals, schools and other facilities. Japan's Self-Defense Forces have commenced airlift operations between Iraq and Kuwait, and are now providing humanitarian assistance in Samawah, Iraq. Japan's commitment was severely tested during the recent hostage crisis. Fortunately, that crisis was resolved favorably. Here is what Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said on April 22 on the subject: ``This hostage taking has not undermined Japan's firm resolve to engage in humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in Iraq. It is precisely because the situation in Iraq makes the activities of ordinary individuals impossible that the Self- Defense Forces (SDF) have been dispatched to engage in humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in Iraq.'' On April 15, the Embassy of Japan in Baghdad reported that the three Japanese were released in Baghdad and were under secure custody of Embassy officials. The Embassy of Japan would like to extend its sincere gratitude for the efforts of those concerned in Iraq and for the support from all over the world. Foreign Minister Kawaguchi's statement can be found on the following website: http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/ announce/2004/4/0415.html japan's assistance for iraq (fact sheet) (Note: All number are approximate.) 1. Humanitarian and Reconstruction Assistance to Iraq (total: $846.35 million). (A) Assistance in cooperation with international organizations ($91.4 million). (1) Humanitarian Assistance for Iraq ($29.5 million) (2003 March 20 and April 9). (a) World Food Programme (WFP): food supply. (b) United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF): child protection, education, water/sanitation. (c) International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): medical assistance, provision of food and life supplies, restoration of water supply facility. (d) United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR): assistance for refugees. (2) Protection and Preservation of Cultural Heritage, Education ($2 million) (2003 April 23). (a) Restoration and preservation of cultural heritages ($1 million, in cooperation with UNESCO). (b) Education ($1 million, in cooperation with UNESCO). (3) Umm Qasr Port Project ($2.5 million) (2003 April 25). Activities: carry out an emergency dredging of Umm Qasr Port (In cooperation with UNDP). Impact: realize effective port operations and smooth delivery of humanitarian assistance. (4) Humanitarian and Reconstruction Assistance in Iraq ($57.4 million) (2003 May 16, 21, July 4, Oct 17; 2004 Jan 16, Jan 26). (a) Iraq Reconstruction and Employment Program ($6 million, in cooperation with UNDP). Activities: employ Iraqis in Baghdad to perform functions such as debris removal, garbage collection and rehabilitation of buildings. Impact: creation of 35,000 jobs, improvement of the sanitary conditions in Baghdad. (b) Project for Reactivation of Primary Education in Iraq ($10 million, in cooperation with UNICEF). Activities: rehabilitate schools and provide school supplies in Baghdad, Mosul, Najaf and the surrounding areas. Impact: 1 million children in 3 cities and their suburbs will benefit. (c) Rehabilitation of the National Dispatch Centre ($5.55 million, in cooperation with UNDP). Activities: rehabilitate the National Dispatch Centre and provide it with necessary equipment and materials. Impact: improve provision of electricity to the institutions such as hospitals which are essential for humanitarian needs by proper control on the power distribution. (d) Project for Emergency Rehabilitation of Al-Kadhimiya Teaching Hospital ($3.64 million, in cooperation with UNDP). Activities: rehabilitate the Al-Kadhimiya Teaching Hospital and provide materials and equipment. Impact: improve the hospital's medical services and the lives and hygienic conditions of the people. (e) Project for the Emergency Rehabilitation of the Hartha Power Station ($8 million, in cooperation with UNDP). Activities: rehabilitate the Hartha Power Station and transmission in Basra region. Impact: increase electricity supply and improve the life and hygiene of the civilians in Basra region. (f) School rehabilitation Project ($6.1 million, in cooperation with UN-HABITAT). Activities: rehabilitate 271 schools in Basra, Samawa, Nashiria and Amarra. Impact: resume lessons and create job opportunities. (g) Community Rehabilitation Project ($2.7 million, in cooperation with UN-HABITAT). Activities: rehabilitate a total of 3,000 damaged houses and/or community facilities in Baghdad, Samawa and Kirkuk. Beneficiaries will be selected from vulnerable groups particularly from households headed by women. Impact: improve community neighborhood through rehabilitation of infrastructure and create job opportunities. (h) Iraq Reconstruction and Employment Program ($15.4 million, in cooperation with UNDP). Activities: hire local Iraqi people for restoration of water/sewage systems, garbage collection, clean-up activities etc. Impact: hire local Iraqi people etc. (B) Direct Assistance to Iraq ($227 million). (a) Provision of 1150 Police vehicles to be deployed in 27 cities. 40 vehicles will be deployed to Samawa. ($29 million) (04 Jan 16). (b) Provision of 27 mobile substations throughout Iraq ($72 million) (04 Mar 26). (c) Rehabilitation and provision of equipment to 4 hospitals (Nasiriyah, Najaf, Diwaniyah and Samawah) $51 million) (04 Mar 26). (d) Provision of 30 compact water treatment units to the city of Baghdad ($55 million) (04 Mar 26). (e) Provision of 70 firetrucks to Baghdad, Al Basra and Muthanna ($20 million) (04 March 26). (C) Assistance through funds ($500 million). (a) International Reconstruction Fund Facility For Iraq ($490 million). $360 million to the Fund administered by the UN. $90 million to the Fund administered by the WB. Additional $40 million will be also available to the Fund administered by the WB after the approval of FY2004 budget. (b) IFC small business finance facility ($10 million). (D) Assistance in cooperation with NGOs ($27.9 million). (1) Assistance for the emergency medical activities of NGOs ($3.3 mil) (2003 March 20). (a) Japan Platform Joint Team operating in Jordan. (b) Peace Winds Japan operating in Northern Iraq. (2) Assistance to the following NGO activities ($21 million) (2003 May 16, 21, Dec 11, 2004 Feb 8, Feb 20 and March 4). (a) Medical projects and distribution of emergency supplies in Iraq carried out by Japan Platform (Japanese NGOs, 2003 May 21). (b) Project distributing medical supplies including antibiotics in Iraq run by Hashemite Charity Organization (Jordanian NGO, 2003 May 16). (c) Project distributing medical equipment such as Infant Intravenous Kits run by CARE International (International NGO, 2003 May 16). (d) Emergency Rehabilitation of public facilities by Japan Platform (Japanese NGOs, 2003 Dec 11). (e) Cultural Grassroots Projects to the Iraq Football Association (Iraqi NGO, 2004 Feb 8). (f) Emergency Aid of Medical Equipment to Samawa Maternity & Children Hospital (Japanese NGO, 2004 Feb 20). (g) Emergency aid for Iraq to the NGO unit of Japan Platform (Japanese NGOs). (3) Humanitarian and Recovery Assistance ($3.6 million) (Grassroots Assistance). (a) The Project for Humanitarian Operation in the Umm Qasr Community $90,000. (b) The Project for the Equipment Supply for Rashid RF Community Council $73,000. (c) The Project for Improvement of Schools in the Rashid District $206,000. (d) The Project for Improving Hibatoallah Institute for Down Syndrome $42,000. (e) The Project for Reconstruction of Mustakbal Secondary School in Mosul City $375,000. (f) The Project for Construction of Wastewater Treatment Plants in Mosul City $460,000. (g) The Project for Rehabilitation of Water Treatment Plants in Nineveh Governorate $230,000. (h) The Project for Improvement of Medical Transportation in Nineveh Governorate $620,000. (i) The Project of supplying Water Tankers to the Governorate of Al-Muthanna $800,000 (for 12 water tanks). (j) The project for Provision of Emergency Medical Supplies to Al Samawaha General Hospital $770,000. (E) Others. (a) Assistance for supplying TV program ``Oshin'' by Japan Foundation (the broadcast started from 2003 Oct 27). (b) With regard to the friendly football match between the Japanese national team and the Iraqi national team hosted by the Japan Football Association, GOJ provides approximately 10 million as the travel expenses of the Iraqi team through the Japan Foundation. (c) Provision of Judo equipment to the Iraq Judo Foundation and its transportation ($50,000). (d) Provision of football equipment to the youth and sports department in the governorate of Muthanna ($41,000). ((e) Dispatch of research missions for grant aid projects formulation to Jordan and other surrounding countries (from Jan 2004). (f) Provision of 240 tents to the Governorate of Al- Muthanna to counter the flooding of the Euphrates River in Al Muthanna. 2. Consolidating broad based solidarity among the International Community. (a) GOJ believes that an international conference for assisting Iraq should be organized with broad participation of countries and international organizations. To this end, GOJ has urged relevant international organizations such as the UN and others, to take an active role in organizing such a conference. As a result, the International Donors' Conference for the reconstruction of Iraq was held in Madrid, Spain, in 23-24 October. The Conference was able to send a united and strong message of the international community that the international community should actively implement the assistant to Iraq in order not to make Iraq the ``failure state.'' (b) Former Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto visited France and Germany last December, as Prime Minister Koizumi's special envoy, and emphasized to the leaders of the both countries the importance of broad based solidarity among the international community on assisting reconstruction of Iraq. As a result, France, Germany, and Japan have agreed with pursuit of cooperation among the three countries regarding reconstruction assistance to Iraq. GOJ is consulting with France and Germany through the framework of trilateral consultations on reconstruction assistances to Iraq in such areas as cultural affairs and police personnel training. 3. Cooperation under the Special Measures Law for Humanitarian and Reconstruction Assistance for Iraq. GOJ dispatched Self Defense Forces to Iraq and surrounding countries and areas to provide humanitarian and reconstruction assistance for people of Iraq. 4. Coordination with CPA. GOJ extends personnel cooperation through the Coalition Provisional Authority. 5. Cooperation with Arab and neighboring countries. GOJ will promote such cooperation, for example, by promoting medical assistance through the Hashemite Charity Organization of Jordan, and Japan-Egypt Joint Medical Cooperation. As for the Japan-Egypt Joint Medical Cooperation, it is planned to start training of approximately 100 medical related Iraqi personnel in Egypt. 6. Cooperation under the International Peace Co-operation Law. (1) In-kind contribution to UNHCR (2003 March 28). Tents for 1,600 refugees were transported by 2 special government aircraft, and handed over to UNHCR in Jordan. (2) Transportation cooperation. Operation of JSDF Aircraft (C-130H) between Brindisi (Italy) and Amman (Jordan) for transportation of humanitarian relief materials (140 tons) of UN from 17 July 2003 till 12 August 2003. 7. Assistance for neighboring countries and others ($322.25 million). (1) Jordan: grant assistance ($100 million) (2003 March 23). (2) Palestine: food aid ($4.2 million) (2003 March 23). (3) Palestine: announcement of a new assistance package ($22.25 million, including the above-mentioned food aid) (2003 April 29). (4) Egypt: loans and grants (over $200 million) (2003 May 24).

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that would improve access to dental coverage for our Nation's most precious commodity, children. As a former practicing dentist in my home state of Idaho, I have long been concerned about access to dental coverage for our most vulnerable citizens. While most Americans have access to the best oral health care in the world, low-income children suffer disproportionately from oral disease. Even as our Nation's health has progressed, dental caries or tooth decay remains the most prevalent chronic childhood disease. Millions of Americans, adults and children, lack access to dental care. In many parts of Idaho, as in many rural States, there simply aren't enough dentists within reasonable distance of some communities. For people who don't have access to dental care, oral disease is almost 100 percent inevitable--albeit 100 percent preventable. This is particularly heartbreaking when it affects children. Recent demonstration projects have shown that with some Federal support, a little funding can go a long way toward ensuring that low-income children have access to good oral health care. My legislation, H.R. 4622, cosponsored by Congressman John Dingell, would assist States in doing just that. H.R. 4622 would not issue Federal mandates, but rather would provide support to States as they determine how best to improve access to dental care in their communities. I believe that States are the best arbiters of how to enhance access to care for their residents, with the understanding that for any such effort to succeed, it must begin by reimbursing dentists who participate in Medicaid and SCHIP at market rates. H.R. 4622 would: Provide financial incentives and planning grants to help States improve their Medicaid programs. States must first create a comprehensive plan for improving the delivery of dental services, and they must also adequately reimburse dentists for children's dental services; Offer grants to expand the availability of dental services in health professional shortage areas. Grants would be made available to dentists who practice in federally designated dental shortage areas if at least 25 percent of their patient-base receives assistance under Medicaid or SCHIP. Grants would also be available to qualifying community health centers, State public health departments, Indian tribes/tribal organizations and accredited dental education programs; Ensure that States provide some level of dental benefits through SCHIP; Offer States the option to use their SCHIP funding to provide dental coverage to children in families who have medical but not dental coverage and meet SCHIP income-eligibility requirements; Expand School- Linked Dental Sealant Programs to include eligible school-linked public or non-profit organizations and Indian tribes that are under contract with an elementary or secondary school to provide dental services to school-aged children. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is but a small step forward toward the goal of ensuring that every child in America has good oral health, but it is a necessary first step. I ask all my colleagues to join with me in supporting H.R. 4622.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) engage me in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I do not have an amendment to offer at this time, but since this bill has provisions dealing with mineral leasing and permits, I want to make an observation about the administration's budget request and the fact that the Office of Management and Budget is increasing the Federal maintenance fees for hardrock mining claims from $100 to $126 per claim based on a cost-of-living adjustment from 1993 to 2004. While the provision allowing them to do this is in current law, neither the Forest Service nor the Bureau of Land Management, the Federal agencies that oversee and approve mining operations on Federal lands, maintain a tracking system capable of determining how long a mining permit has been pending. This simple data management tool is necessary to more accurately track these permits. These agencies need a system that does more than merely determine on a yearly basis the number of plans and notices that are submitted and approved each year. These agencies need a system that lets the department, Congress, and the public know how long these applications are pending. Such a system should alert these agencies to where additional attention or resources are needed. Delays in processing mining permits have impacts far beyond any particular mining project. A ripple effect occurs. Delays impact investment, lack of investment results in less exploration, less exploration results in less development of domestic resources, less development of domestic resources leads to greater reliance on foreign sources, greater reliance on foreign sources impacts our economic and national security, not to mention loss of jobs and economic impact on local communities. The U.S. mining industry is modern, high-tech and environmentally responsible and overall has a solid record of compliance with the world's more rigorous State, local, and Federal laws and regulations. It should not take 4 to 10 years to obtain the permits necessary to commence operations. The government needs to find ways to improve permitting and expediting mining permits before it increases fees for holding the land involved in these permits. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this issue can be addressed in the near future.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Mr. Anthony Chung Yi Ho, Senior Officer with the Taipei Economic Council and Cultural Representative and Senior Assistant to the Honorable C.J. Chen, Taiwan's chief representative in the United States. Mr. Ho has been with the Washington, DC, office of the Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs for 6 years, and his presence will be sorely missed when he returns to Taiwan later this year. Mr. Ho is a true asset to the Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs. His leadership and expertise have been invaluable in working with my Washington, DC, staff and many other congressional offices as well. Traditionally, Idaho maintains a close relationship with the Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Idaho State University has developed a strong partnership with the Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in large part because of ISU's English and Professional Development Program. This unique program, the only program of its kind in the United States, provides a language and cultural education program for junior diplomatic officers in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Over 40 students have completed the program since its inception in the early 1990s, and many of these graduates now serve their country in diplomatic postings throughout the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs Language and Culture Training Program at ISU is an excellent collaborative relationship that is strengthening our countries through a better understanding of each of our cultures. While serving as a Senior Officer, Mr. Ho has worked closely with my office. Largely thanks to his efforts, I have been able to meet and work with many of Taiwan's junior diplomatic officers attending this program at Idaho State University. They are an intelligent, energetic group who are eager to serve their country. They are very interested in gaining as much knowledge and insight as possible during their stay in America and look forward to using what they have learned as they progress in their diplomatic careers. Under Mr. Ho's guidance, our office has cultivated a valuable relationship with the Taiwan Foreign Ministry. He arranged a dinner among the junior diplomatic officers and myself in Pocatello, and he has also worked with our office to arrange the stay of a junior officer from ISU in our Washington, DC, office. For 2 years, I have had the privilege of hosting a junior officer from the ISU program in the Capitol. Mr. Ho's excellent collaborative relationship with my office plays a critical role to strengthening relations between the United States and Taiwan through strong communication and a better understanding of each of our cultures. I commend Anthony Ho for his dedication and guidance. It has been an honor and a pleasure to work with him, and we will greatly miss him when he leaves Washington, DC.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Charlie, we are certainly going to miss you. Sometimes that does not seem like enough, but all of the Members of the House and the fellow staff members here in the House are certainly going to miss you. Sometimes simple words are the best. Parliamentary procedure, as has been stated here, the Rules of the House equally and uniformly applied to all, are what make this emotional and sometimes polarized place work. Charlie and I have sometimes disagreed about the interpretation of those rules and we have debated it a little bit. Yielding to the superior wisdom of Charlie, I found out that you can end debate with a nondebatable motion here in the House, but if we were back in Idaho, you could not do that. We have had some very interesting debates. I always found, when I practiced dentistry, that when I was hiring a new chairside assistant, it was sometimes often easier to hire somebody that had no experience because then you did not have to untrain them before you retrained them. Sometimes I think Charlie's toughest job here is to take some of us who have been presiding officers in State legislatures and untrain us of the rules that we learned in our State legislatures before he retrained us about the Rules of the House. I know that you have done a fantastic job. We have all enjoyed working with you. Sometimes the measure of an individual's performance is what those around him think about the job that he has done. As I have talked to other staff members here, I can tell you one of the things that was said yesterday, someone said, ``If I had to think of one word to describe Charlie, it would be `integrity.''' That is not a bad legacy to leave. Thank you, Charlie. We are going to miss you.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, recently I had the honor of visiting with the Corps of Cadets, faculty, and staff at the United States Military Academy. I am very grateful to Lieutenant General William Lennox, Jr., Superintendent; Colonel Russell Howard, Social Sciences Department Head; Colonel Robert Gordon III, Director, American Politics Program; and, of course, to the Cadets for having me. In addition to being able to visit with cadets and their world-class faculty, I had the opportunity to learn of West Point's Service America Program. Serving one's nation can take many forms. I found it especially inspiring that as the West Point cadets, America's sons and daughters, are preparing to defend our freedoms, they have created still another way to serve our great nation. Under the leadership of Colonel Gordon and many others, since 1997, cadets have been serving young people during the summer months through the Academy's Service America Program in Bremerton and Spokane, Washington; Chicago, Illinois; and Austin, Texas. The cadets have partnered with state and local AmeriCorps programs, America's Promise, the National Civilian Community Corps, and private foundations. In the past six years, 161 cadets have participated in West Point's Service America Program. The cadets have spent almost 8,000 hours teaching children in the classroom and have tutored or mentored over 1,000 youngsters. Their total community service exceeds 20,000 volunteer hours. Cadets say Service America helps prepare them to become better officers. Cadets are refining their leadership skills through positions of authority in community projects, are working cooperatively with AmeriCorps volunteers in solving problems, and are mentoring young persons from diverse backgrounds and ages. Mr. Speaker, I commend West Point and the cadets for their selfless service to our country, both on and off the battlefield. I knew that West Point was a national treasure long before I visited there. Now more than ever, I know why.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate AMI Semiconductors on their initial public offering of common stock on the Nasdaq National Market. AMI Semiconductors began trading publicly on the Nasdaq on September 24, 2003, under the name AMIS. AMIS is a leader in the design and manufacture of customer specific integrated mixed signal semiconductor products. The company focuses on the automotive, medical and industrial markets, which have significant analog interface requirements for real world applications. Two years ago, AMI Semiconductors moved its headquarters from San Diego, California to Pocatello, Idaho, where it opened a new engineering and research center in the city. In 2001, the company appointed Christine King as its CEO and President. AMIS forged new territory by making Ms. King the first woman in the world to be named as the president of a semiconductor company. While its headquarters are located in Idaho, AMIS maintains a global presence. It keeps sales offices and technical support centers throughout Asia, Europe and the USA. AMIS employs over 2,400 people worldwide, and about 1,100 of those employees work at their company headquarters in Pocatello. AMI Semiconductors has been a real asset to Idaho's local economy and business development. It is now the largest private employer in Pocatello, bringing new jobs and new economic growth to the area. In the past six months alone, they have created 130 new jobs in the region. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate AMI Semiconductors on their initial public offering. I look forward to following their accomplishments in the business world and working with them over the coming months and years.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer some perspective on the amendment offered by my colleague from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. As all of us know and acknowledge, Mr. Rohrabacher's amendment seems like a no-brainer and something everyone would support. To suggest that our Nation's veterans who were held prisoner by the Japanese in World War II should be prevented from filing a lawsuit for compensation seems outside the realm of what any politician would argue. But if my colleagues will allow, I am here to do just that. While I do acknowledge the difficulty of arguing my position, I believe it's a sound position and one any member of this body could support if only they were made aware of the history surrounding this matter and the facts behind our international obligations. America is indeed indebted to our former POWs--whether they are World War II POWs or those, including Jessica Lynch, who were held captive by Saddam Hussein. That debt our Nation owes these men and women is not just one of gratitude, but one of compensation for their time in enemy hands. This amendment, however, is neither the best nor a wise approach to ensuring we meet our Nation's obligations to our former POWs and I would like to explain why. If passed by the House of Representatives and adopted in conference in its current form, this amendment would almost certainly invite a veto by the White House. I firmly believe that the President would be using sound judgment in vetoing the amendment because it would violate our treaty obligations under the treaty we signed with the Japanese at the end of World War II. Some of us in this chamber may take those treaty obligations lightly or might suggest that we should ignore commitments made over 50 years ago. I say we must abide by those treaty obligations because that treaty is what set the foundation for the 50 years of friendship and cooperation our Nation has had with Japan. Great nations do not violate their treaty obligations nor do they go back on their commitments to their friends. Great nations abide by their commitments and stand with their friends in easy situations and in difficult situations. I believe there is another compelling reason why this amendment should be rejected and why we should choose another course. The amendment offered by my colleague from California only addresses those POWs who were taken captive during World War II. What about the POWs from the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iranian Hostage Crisis, the Persian Gulf War, or our most recent war with Iraq? These POWs have suffered extraordinary hardships and, due to the inequity in this amendment, would be left without any long-term compensation for their sacrifices. I think it's important to point out that our Nation is currently home to an estimated 42,781 surviving ex-POWS: more than 39,700 from World War II, 2,400 from the Korean War, 601 from the Vietnam War, one from Somalia and three from Kosovo--and these numbers don't include the POWS from our actions against Iraq. That is why I have offered an alternative--one that would accomplish everything this amendment does not. My legislation, H.R. 850, would create a new compensation system for former POWs delivered through the Department of Veterans Affairs. Under the new system, POWs detained 30 to 120 days would receive $150 per month, those detained 121 to 540 days would receive $300 per month, and those detained for 540 or more days would receive $450 per month. Payment would be made without regard to any other compensation under the laws of the United States. In addition, the bill contains a provision to provide outpatient dental care for all POWs. Current law requires a period of internment of not less than 90 days in order to qualify. Further, I have already agreed to eliminate the 30 day requirement to be eligible for benefits under the bill to ensure POWs who were held for a shorter period of time, including those who have returned from Iraq, would in fact be eligible for monthly compensation. Mr. Chairman, my legislation offers this body an alternative to breaking our treaty obligations and failing to meet our commitments to 50-year-old friends and allies. World War II ended nearly 60 years ago and throughout the last half of the twentieth century, Japan proved time and again that it is one of our most trusted allies and a nation upon whom we could count for lasting friendship. If anything, the last year has shown this Nation the value of trusted friends and our need for close allies around the globe. We have the chance today to do something noble. We can both be a good friend to Japan and meet our commitments to the men and women who have worn our Nation's uniform and been held captive during foreign wars. We can do this by rejecting the path chosen by my colleague from California and by, instead, choosing an approach such as that offered in H.R. 850.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I urge my colleagues to oppose this roadless amendment because it is also a mindless amendment. The gentleman from New York suggests roadless areas are only in remote areas. Let me show my colleagues. This is an inventoried roadless area in Idaho. Below the line these red dots are structures which will, if this catches on fire, burn, and we will spend millions and millions of dollars trying to save them. These are not simply remote areas. Without this roadless rule, these communities in these areas are helpless to protect themselves. As a judge in Idaho said, ``Such restrictions will prevent local officials from accessing the vital tools necessary to prevent the spread of disease, insect infestation, and catastrophic wildfires.'' While the proponents of this amendment claim they care about species habitat, the reality is this will damage species habitat. I was at the Clear Creek fires in Idaho in the year 2000 that burned 1.8 million acres, and we destroyed more salmon habitat with that fire than all the logging in the history of this country. Vote against this mindless amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and the great work he has done on this, the most difficult, I believe, of the appropriation bills. We have continually heard today during this debate that 302(b) allocations were insufficient or inadequate, and, consequently, we do not have enough money to spend on this appropriation, and it is all due to the tax cuts. If I remember correctly, during the debate on tax cuts, we could not do those tax cuts because of the increase that they would cause in the deficit. And now we see the truth. They were never concerned about the increase in the deficit. They were concerned that there would not be enough money to spend on the variety of programs that they want to spend money on. Well, the distinguished minority whip said that we cannot wash our hands, like Pontius Pilate, of the debate on the deficit and the tax cuts and on the budgets because they are all interrelated, and he is absolutely right. There is one thing that should be clear from the past decade. We cannot raise taxes enough to eliminate the deficit that has occurred. Another thing should be clear is that we cannot cut spending enough to eliminate the deficit that has occurred. The only way to eliminate the deficit is to have a growing economy. We learned that in the 1990s. The only way to have the resources to spend on the programs that today you complain about as being inadequately funded is to have a growing economy. And we on this side of the aisle believe that one way to help that economy is to stimulate it by reducing taxes to put more money into people's pockets to grow the economy. That is why we supported the tax cuts, not because we care more about millionaires than we care about children or anything else. It is so in the future, in the long term, we have the resources for these programs that we all believe are vitally important. Yet, in spite of the economy, we have produced a bill which continues the improvements we have made in education and health funding over the past 8 years. Now, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) continually says, and quite emphatically, that the only reason we have been able to increase the funding for education or double it over the last 8 years is because he brought us across the line kicking and screaming. And I guess that may be true. I do not know. I have not been here 8 years. All I want to know is who was he bringing across the line kicking and screaming when his party controlled the House, the Senate and the White House? I am not sure who was doing the kicking and screaming, but you have been much more successful with our party than you were with your own party. The distinguished minority leader last year on the debate on the rule went through a litany of programs in education and health that were cut. What the distinguished minority leader did not say is that in each and every one of those programs that she mentioned, I believe every one of them, there is actually an increase in spending. She was talking about a decrease from the authorized level, and I do not know of hardly any program in the Federal Government that is actually funded at the authorized level. Yet we have continued to improve funding for these programs. As an example, in special education grants, $1 billion more than last year. That is not a cut. In Title I, $660 million above last year. That is not a cut. Improved teacher quality, $49.4 million. For transition to teaching to assist eligible members of the Armed Forces and midcareer professionals to obtain certification of teachers, $2.93 billion, an $81 million increase above the budget request for professional development. Math and science partnerships are funded at $150 million, an increase of $50 million. That is not a cut. In Impact Aid, $1.238 billion, $50 million over last year's level. That is not a cut. In Head Start, $148 million over last year's level. That is not a cut. The list goes on and on. Only in Washington, D.C., can an increase in spending be considered a cut. This is a good bill, and I compliment the chairman for his work on it.