Rob Simmons

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and in particular, I thank the gentleman for sharing his expertise on this subject, not only with Members of this body, but with all Americans who are concerned about this particular issue. I represent a small State, Connecticut, which has been fortunate in many ways because over the last 17 or 18 years, the State of Connecticut has benefited from a state-based prescription drug plan, what we call ConnPACE, which is the Connecticut pharmaceutical contract for the elderly, and what this ConnPACE program does is provides prescription drug coverage to those senior citizens and those disabled citizens who are low income, and so it is income based. It is not asset based. It is income based. During the 8 or 10 years that I served as a State representative in the State of Connecticut and I traveled around during election time, knocking on doors, with increasing urgency senior citizens expressed their concern for additional help for prescription drugs. As I said, Connecticut had a program, but because it was income based, an individual who was slightly over the income limit became ineligible and, therefore, could not take advantage of this program. What I felt over those 8 or 10 years was that the Federal Government should play a larger role, and when I was I elected last year and came to Washington, my colleagues may recall that the President offered what he called his Immediate Helping Hand Program, and as I understood it, it was a program where the Federal Government would make a grant to the States to a certain amount to assist them in the programs that they had. I took that idea to heart. I introduced some legislation here on the Hill that reflected that concept, where the Federal Government would help those States, but when I went back to my district and when I talked to the senior citizens at the senior citizens centers and at gathering places across the district, what I discovered was they really wanted to go beyond that. They did not want to have an income-based program. They did not want to have a program that limited the benefit only to those seniors in greatest need. They wanted a broader-based program, and this is where the gentleman's proposal and the proposal that I understand will be coming out of the Committee on Ways and Means hopefully in the near future really fills the bill. It includes all seniors. It provides coverage for all seniors, and it allows them to have some choice, and I think, most importantly, for those States that do not have a state-based program, it gives seniors immediate access. What I hear time and time again is that senior citizens want this coverage now. They have heard the talk. The talk has been going on for a long time, and they feel that it is no longer a time to talk the talk. It is time to walk the walk. So they want to do it now, and they want to do it this year. It is interesting when we think about it. I know the gentleman has a substantial background and experience in medicine, and I respect and appreciate that; and I understand how his expertise is really bringing this legislation to the fore. My background is more in the area of military issues; and so when September 11 came along, it was a traumatic event for me and my citizens, my constituents who died on that terrible fateful day. We can look at national security issues and they are extremely important. There is no question about it. We can look at intelligence and national security issues, and they are extremely important. In the polling in the months after September 11, there was great public interest in that issue, although that polling has now gone down, but think for a moment about a senior citizen on prescription drugs with limited resources. They may not be frightened on a daily basis about a terrorist attack, they may not feel that they are in jeopardy because of international terrorists, but they are in jeopardy because of their prescription drugs. Every day they have to face concern and anxiety and insecurity because they have to make a choice between drugs and food. They are not sure that they have the resources available to buy that prescription drug in the coming months. So we have to put ourselves in their shoes, and we have to be considerate of their concerns. We have to move forward with this program. We have to get it done and we have to get it done now, and I am so happy to be part of the Speaker's task force that addresses this issue. This is a critical issue for senior citizens, for disabled and for those on Medicare, and it is time for us to provide this coverage for them. So I thank the gentleman very much for his leadership, I thank him for his expertise, and I think the time is going to come sooner rather than later when many citizens across this great country of ours, so I am going to thank the gentleman and all those working with him, to bring this critical program to fruition, to bring it to our senior citizens.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for just a moment, he captured the concept so beautifully. We are concerned about retirement security. We are concerned about health security. We are concerned about national security, and these are all interlocked in a way, and we have a responsibility to address them all. When I look back on what I was trying to do, which was to frame a legislative program that would provide block grants to those States that had programs and encourage other States to develop programs, what I realized was and what seniors told me was we are leaving a lot of people out. We are leaving people out in those States that do not have a program, and it is going to take them awhile to implement. We are leaving those people out whose income levels are sufficiently high that they do not get to participate. The point is, when it comes to health security, when it comes to retirement security, when it comes to national security, we do not want to leave anybody out. We want to make sure that everybody is covered. We are all a part of this great country of ours. We need to work together to make sure that everybody participates.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4546, the Bob Stump National Defense Act of Fiscal Year 2003 and I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. Chairman, September 11 highlighted the fact that our military must remain the best trained and best equipped in the world. Our ability to stage Operation Enduring Freedom in South Asia is not the result of anything that happened since the attacks but are a result of years of training and management, tens of thousands of man-hours of research and development, and billions of dollars in testing and manufacturing. The defense budget pays not only for the fuel, munitions, and soldiers' salaries, but it pays for the investment in the weapons needed to fight and win the wars of the future, against any potential enemy in any part of the world. For over 13 years, we have downsized our military because of cuts in our defense budget. We have decommissioned vessels rather than upgrade them and retired aircraft rather than build new ones. Our military was asked to do more with less. Our servicemen and women were asked to do more with less. We closed bases and gave up training areas, both irreversible and in many cases at great cost. It is no wonder that several years ago our soldiers and airmen began to leave the services in record numbers. This strong and bipartisan legislation addresses many of these issues and reverses the trend of years past. It looks forward to the challenges of the future. this bill contains a 4.1 percent increase in basic pay with additional increases for mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers and mid-grade officers. It also works to honor the commitment our nation has to its veterans by eliminating current law provisions that cause military retirees who are eligible for veteran's disability compensation to have their retirement pay reduced. Veterans who are 60 percent or greater disabled will begin to receive concurrent pay phased in fully by 2007. As a veteran and having spent 30 years as an Army Reservist, I know that investments in our people are as important as any other aspect of our national defense. This bill also addresses security and quality of life issues. It conveys almost $8.0 million to the Naval Submarine Base in Groton for base security; and $24 million for a 100 units of Navy housing for personnel and their families. This is a wise investment for the future. Mr. Chairman, I have the privilege of representing the Second District of Connecticut here in Congress. The ``Submarine Capital of the World,'' Groton, is in my district. For over a century, designers and manufacturers in Groton have built submarines. Our nuclear ``silent service'' is made up of the most sophisticated and complex systems ever created by man. In the 1980s, workers in my district built on average over 5 submarines a year, establishing American dominance of the seas around the world and providing the backbone of our strategic nuclear deterrence with the Trident-class ballistic missile submarines. My district also is home to an assembly plant for military aircraft engines that power the aircraft that make our air force second to none in the world. Just as important are hundreds of competitive small businesses and high-tech firms that keep our military on the cutting edge. While I worked for a higher level of procurement funding, I am satisfied with what this bill does for our military and what it does for the State of Connecticut. Connecticut fares especially well with the procurement provisions authorizing funds for another Virginia class submarine, the Trident Class to SSGN conversion program, additional engine modifications of F-15s, and F-16 fighter aircraft, and the acquisition of thirty-nine H-60 variant helicopters for the National Guard and Navy. Important research programs at University of Connecticut will continue to bring new technology to the warfighter, and better equipment and medicine to assist and protect our troops in the field. I am also pleased with the language in the bill that authorizes the Department of Defense, pending settlement of an outstanding legal case, to enter into a multiyear contract for the procurement of Virginia Class nuclear attack submarines. Using modern and innovative design and manufacturing techniques, the Virginia Class submarine program is using methods and processes that are likely to make it a model for future large-system acquisition programs. Multiyear procurement promises to save both jobs and taxpayer dollars. Mr. Chairman, testimony received by the House Armed Services committee by both the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, other DOD officials and respected defense analysts have warned us of the impending force structure problem we are heading as our submarines begin to reach the end of their service lives or require refueling overhauls. Without increasing the procurement rate to two per year, our submarine force will not meet the mission and operational requirements determined as necessary by our military. Carrier and amphibious groups will not have the required protection and firepower of our submarine fleet. The smartest and most cost-effective way to rebuild our submarine force is multiyear contracting. It is good for the workforce, it is good for the taxpayer, and it is good for our men and women in the military. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a well-crafted bill to meet many of the needs of our military. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, since coming to Congress in January 2001, protecting the environment has been one of my top priorities. I am proud to have authored the law granting federal ``wild and scenic'' status to Connecticut's Eightmile River; proud of my pro-environment votes, including voting against weakening our nation's arsenic standards; and proud of my appointment as Co-Chair of the Long Island Sound Caucus. Out of all of my efforts to protect Connecticut's environment, nothing is more important than today's vote to establish a permanent high-level nuclear water storage facility at Yucca Mountain, in the Nevada desert. Eastern Connecticut is home to four nuclear power plants--Millstone 1, 2 and 3 and Connecticut Yankee. The Millstone nuclear power plant in Waterford sits on Long Island Sound. On Millstone's 500 acres sits tons radioactive waste. Just north of Millstone, on the banks of the Connecticut River, is the Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plant on Haddam Neck. There, 22 years of spent nuclear fuel sits in a cooling pool waiting to be removed. All told, there is more than 1,500 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel at those two sites. Establishing Yucca Mountain will begin the process of removing nuclear waste from these two facilities. Why is that important? Imagine an accident involving the spent fuel pools at Millstone in Waterford. Imagine nuclear water seeping into the Long Island Sound. What would happen? Connecticut's shellfish industry--decimated; Water skiing and recreation in the Sound--forget about it. The entire Long Island Sound ecosystem would be destroyed for generations. This is why a vote for Yucca Mountain is a vote to protect Connecticut's environment. What about an accident at Connecticut Yankee? what would happen to the Connecticut River if spent fuel spilled into it? Connecticut's largest fresh water river--contaminated; Salmon and shad, which are just beginning to replenish the river waters--gone and never coming back. And all of this flowing south past Interstate 95 and the Amtrak Northeast Corridor into Long Island Sound. Nuclear waste dumped into the Connecticut River would destroy New England's largest river ecosystem and one of the Nation's first American Heritage Rivers. This is why a vote for Yucca Mountain is a vote to protect Connecticut's environment. Mr. Speaker, clearly, establishing Yucca Mountain is critical to Connecticut's environmental needs. But if you have another reason to support H.J. Res. 87, let's look at the issue from a national security perspective. Make no mistake--spent fuel in a permanent repository for storage is less susceptible to terrorist attacks than spent fuel in temporary sites, especially when the Yucca site is isolated and the temporary storage facilities are often close to population centers and waterways. In fact, today more than 161 million people currently live within 75 miles of one or more nuclear waste sites, all of which were intended to be temporary. These sites are also located near 20 major waterways that supply water to more than 30 million Americans. Highly radioactive nuclear waste is currently stored in more than 131 sites in 39 states. A coordinated attack, similar to those on September 11, on two or more of these sites would be catastrophic. There is no question that keeping this hazardous waste in miles of tunnels beneath solid rock in the arid desert provides better security for storage and monitoring than leaving it along our undefended rivers and watercourses. Access to the Yucca site is already restricted due to its proximity to the Nevada Test Site and Nellis Air Force Range surrounds the site on three sides, providing an effective rapid-response security force. Establishing one spent fuel site will protect our environment and strengthen our national security. Yucca Mountain is one of the few issues that brings together environmentalists and defense hawks. Any issue that can do that is worthy of this body's support. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.J. Res. 87.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of House Resolution 392, in which we express America's solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. The truth is, the United States and Israel are engaged in a common struggle against terrorism. It is a war that neither nation sought; it is a war that both nations must win. The resolution also calls upon the Palestinian leader, Yasir Arafat, to choose peace and to fulfill his commitment to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure that threatens the Israeli people. If we had a dollar for every time a U.S. official had sent this message to Mr. Arafat we would be able to fully fund the war on terrorism. It is my prayer, for the sake of Israel and all the Palestinian people who would like nothing more than to live in peace, that Mr. Arafat finally honors the pledge to peace that he has repeatedly made. The recent Israeli incursions into the West Bank have occurred only because Mr. Arafat has not lived up to his responsibilities. This resolution we are considering today places the obligations to ending terrorism where it belongs--on the shoulders of Mr. Arafat. All reasonable people begin their discussions of the violence that shatters the Middle East from the same position--it is horrible and many people on both sides have suffered greatly. The question revolves around how it can be revolves so that the people of the region can live in peace and build a secure future based on democratic principles. The burden has always been placed on Israel to do something for peace. For example, it has often been said that if Israel would simply move back to its pre-1967 borders there would be peace. But history shows there were wars against Israel in 1948, 1956 and 1967--and during that time Israel was within the borders that we are today told hold the key to peace. Absent a clear, forceful and enduring commitment on the part of Mr. Arafat to end terrorism there is no reason to believe those borders would produce peace today anymore than they did in the past. All this being said, I am not convinced that today's resolution will have much of an effect on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In fact, it may bring other members in this body to this very House floor with resolutions in support of Mr. Arafat. That is their right. However, America must speak with one single voice and that voice should belong to the president, not members of Congress. It is my hope that we can stop the resolutions and allow the administration to work toward establishing an atmosphere in which Israel and the Palestinians can begin learning how to live side by side in a land where they both have long-standing interests.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) for yielding me this time. I rise today and join all of my Connecticut colleagues to honor the 2002 NCAA women's basketball champions, the University of Connecticut Huskies. This resolution recognizes a team that my home State is so proud of, a group of young women who have excelled both on and off the court. Led by NCAA Player of the Year and WNBA number 1 draft pick, Sue Bird, along with her senior teammates, Asja Jones, Tamika Williams, and NCAA most outstanding player Swin Cash, the Huskies capped a perfect 39 and 0 season by beating the University of Oklahoma 82 to 70; 82 to 70. Mr. Speaker, 3\1/2\ million viewers, including all of Connecticut, watched with pride as the Huskies claimed their place as the undefeated national champions and one of the all-time greatest basketball teams in history. Founded in 1881, the University of Connecticut has a rich history of providing educational opportunities for undergraduates of diverse interests, abilities and backgrounds, and the Huskies now add another national championship title to their world class academic reputation. So many outstanding young women helped make the 2001-2002 season a smashing success, and I mentioned 4 seniors. But in addition to these, we have the fifth Huskie starter, Diana Taurasi, and other players on the team, all of whom could have started just about anywhere in the country. There were Jessica Moore, Ashley Battle, Maria Conlon, Morgan Valley, Ashley Valley, and Stacey Marron. A special ``Way to go, Huskies,'' goes to head coach Geno Auriemma, associate coach Chris Daily, and coaches Tonya Cardoza and Jamelle Elliott, as well as to athletic director Lou Perkins, and the parents of this team. Finally, I commend UConn President Phillip Austin and his administration for fielding such a fine team of scholar athletes. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to standing on the floor next year, hopefully, to commend yet another UConn women's NCAA basketball champion. But for today, it is the 2002 team.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise here today on the floor of the House to commend and congratulate the 2002 NCAA women's basketball champions, the University of Connecticut Huskies. This past Saturday in my home State of Connecticut and the State capital, over 150,000 men and women and children, enthusiastic fans, gathered for an hour-long parade in freezing temperatures to congratulate and cheer on these young women who not only have excelled on the basketball court but have excelled academically as well. The UCONN Huskies team were led by Most Outstanding Player Swin Cash; and they capped a perfect 39-0 season, beating the University of Oklahoma 82 to 70 in what was a closely contested competition. All of the State of Connecticut watched with pride as the Huskies claimed their place as undefeated champions and one of the great all-time women's basketball teams in NCAA basketball history. The University of Connecticut was founded in 1881 and has a rich tradition of academic excellence as well as athletic ability. The Huskies now add another national championship to their title and their world-class academic reputation. The pride of Eastern Connecticut and Storrs is now the pride of Connecticut and the pride of the United States of America. It is with great joy, Mr. Speaker, that I commend and honor the UCONN team because I was a teaching assistant at that university for 4 wonderful years. And I want to say to all of those here present and to those listening and to the Huskies, way to go, Lady Huskies. I especially would like to congratulate the players, Sue Bird, Swin Cash, Asjha Jones, Diana Taurasi, and Tamkia Williams, and Head Coach Geno Auriemma, and Associate Head Coach Chris Dailey, the staff, as well as Lou Perkins, the head of the athletic department. In the words of the cheerleaders of the UCONN Huskies, U-C-O-N-N, UCONN, UCONN, UCONN.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Billie Ward in recognition of her dedication and commitment to her community. Billie Ward is retiring on April 17 as the executive director of the Pawcatuck Neighborhood Center--capping a lifetime of community service in southeastern Connecticut. Billie has left a mark on southeastern Connecticut like few others have. As its executive director, Billie led the PNC through a period of unprecedented growth. She also played a pivotal role in organizing the PNC's Senior Summit, an important brainstorming effort that laid the groundwork for the formation of the Tri-Neighbor Transportation coalition--a collaborative effort to provide transportation for the elderly and handicapped and ensure that these individuals arrive to their medical appointments safely and on time. In addition to her work with the PNC, Billie has been actively involved with numerous professional associations and has received numerous awards. Groups like the Rose City Land Trust, the Thames Valley Council for Community Action, MASH, the Basic Needs Network, the Rotary Club, the United Way of Southeastern Connecticut and the Southeastern Connecticut AIDS Project are just a few organizations that have been blessed with Billie's hard-work and service. Mr. Speaker, Billie Ward embodies the spirit of kindness and sacrifice that we all should strive for in our daily lives. She has helped many individuals in need over the years and I am proud to represent her in my district. Billie is a model citizen to the community and I extend my thanks to her and her efforts, and am proud to bring her accomplishments to the attention of this Congress. Keep up the good work Billie, and good luck in your future endeavors.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to congratulate the gentleman on his brilliant articulation of the topic.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I believe most of us agree that the modernization of the Medicare program must include prescription drug coverage for seniors. Senior citizens are right to be concerned about having to pay for prescription drugs out of their own pockets and they are right to wonder when lawmakers will take action. Congress seems poised to take action. But what if? What if Congress doesn't pass a Medicare reform bill that includes a drug benefit? What if partisan politics cause inaction? Then what? I believe the solution lies in my legislation, the ``Immediate Helping Hand Prescription Drug Assistance Act of 2002,'' which closely mirrors the plan President Bush put forth in early 2001. My bill will provide $48 billion over seven years to states to help seniors afford prescription drug coverage. This national program is similar to the state of Connecticut's ``ConnPACE'' program and other state-funded prescription subsidy plans that help seniors purchase medication at a low cost. Under my legislation, states would receive block grants to provide a drug benefit for low-income Medicare beneficiaries, either through the creation of new state drug assistance programs or through the expansion of existing programs. With this targeted approach, states would be able to provide much-needed dollars to drug programs, allowing more of our nation's seniors to afford prescription drugs. While I would prefer adding a prescription drug benefit to a modernized Medicare system, election-year politics may make this task virtually impossible. We cannot wait any longer--we must act now to provide seniors with a ``helping hand'' toward providing real prescription drug coverage. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce this bill with three of my colleagues--Mrs. Hart, and Messrs. Kolbe and Manzullo. I urge others who truly care about providing prescription drug coverage to our low- income seniors to cosponsor my Immediate Helping Hand legislation.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, our Federal Indian recognition process is broken. Recognition decisions don't take months to decide, they take years--and sometimes decades. Towns and other interested parties-- sometimes forced to spend millions because of federal recognition policies--rightfully believe their concerns and comments are often ignored. Criteria for recognition has been overlooked rather than upheld under previous BIA administrators. In short, the public and Indian tribes have lost faith in the current recognition process. A new administration has brought some hope in fixing this important process. To this end, I am rising today to introduce legislation that lays out a seven-point plan for reforming the federal Indian recognition process. Specifically, my bill would first require the BIA to notify states whenever a tribe within them files for federal recognition. The state must in turn ensure that notice is given to towns adjacent to that tribe. Second, the legislation would require the BIA to accept and consider any testimony--including from surrounding towns and others--that bears on whether or not BIA recognizes a tribe. Third, under my measure, the BIA would be required to find affirmatively that all recognition criteria are met in order to confer federal recognition and any decision conferring recognition must be accompanied by a written set of findings as to how all criteria have been satisfied. Fourth, I put forth language that would double--from $900,000 to $1.8 million--the resources for the BIA's Branch of Acknowledgment and Research Division to upgrade its recognition process. To help localities adversely affected by federally recognized tribes, my bill provides $8 million in grants to local governments to assist such governments in participating in certain decisions related to certain Indian groups and Indian tribes. These grants could be applied retroactively to any local government that has spent money on decisions related to certain Indian groups and/or tribes. In addition, my legislation also creates a grant program of $10 million to be made available to federally impacted towns for relevant infrastructure, public safety and social service needs directly related to tribal activities. And lastly, the measure would institute a ``cooling off period'' of one year, in which any high-level BIA official could not appear before their former agency. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce this bill with three of my colleagues from Connecticut--Mrs. Johnson and Messrs. Shays and Maloney--and the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green. I urge others who care about federal Indian recognition issues to join us in working toward a recognition process that is fair, open and respectful to all parties involved.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce legislation that I have introduced to request that the Secretary of the Navy name a U.S. Navy warship the ``U.S.S. Bluejacket'' in honor of the courageous Americans who have served as enlisted members in the United States Navy. My resolution also requests that this vessel bear the hull designation number ``1776'' to reflect the freedom and independence protected and preserved by the millions of enlisted men and women who have proudly served in the United States Navy. Our Navy, as well as for the nation, would be well served to have a ship bearing the hull number 1776. Mr. Speaker, the Second District of Connecticut, which I have the privilege of representing, has a long and proud Naval and seafaring history, We are home to the ``The First and Finest,'' the Naval Submarine Base New London, homeport to Submarine Squadron Two, Four, and Development Squadron Twelve, the Naval Submarine School, and Naval Submarine Support Facility. Thousands of men and women in my district are part of the ``silent service'' and its support and training structure. They are dedicating their lives, risking their lives everyday in our great Navy. I believe that we should honor their service and sacrifice by naming a ship the ``U.S.S Bluejacket.'' I urge all of my colleagues to join me in this effort to forever honor the bravery, dedication and service of the millions of men and women who have fought to defend this country in our Navy. Finally, I would like to thank the efforts of Mr. John Thor Newlander of Gales Ferry, Connecticut. Mr. Newlander has served this country in several of our military services, both active and reserve duty, and has worked tirelessly on behalf of our enlisted military personnel and on this resolution. I thank him for his service and his commitment to this worthy endeavor.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3507, and thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) for his hard work on this legislation and for allowing this colloquy. The United States Coast Guard Academy is in my district in New London, Connecticut, and it is the only service academy in America that does not have a proper national museum for the service. For over 210 years, the Coast Guard has served as our Nation's guardian of the seas, and over the years, the Coast Guard has established a rich history, but this history cannot be properly told. That is why earlier this year I introduced legislation to create a national Coast Guard museum in New London as part of the academic program of the Academy. A lot of things have happened, and I am mindful of the many challenges that we face; but I am hopeful that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) will work with me on this legislation next year to further explore the issue of a national Coast Guard museum.

Mr. SIMMONS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report and commend the conferees and the professional staff for their hard work. Specifically, I wanted to express my appreciation for the inclusion of the language I offered as an amendment that requires that the Central Intelligence Agency assume 100 percent of the cost of personal liability insurance for certain CIA employees involved in counter- terrorism activities. Mr. Speaker, for 10 years I served with the Central Intelligence Agency. I spent five years overseas engaged in intelligence collection, counter-intelligence and, in some cases, counter-terrorism. The work was difficult and dangerous. This fact has been reaffirmed by the terrible death of CIA operations officer, Johnny Micheal Spann, who was the first American to die in combat in Afghanistan in the fight against terrorism last week. But at no time did I doubt that my government would protect me from any personal liability if I encountered a lawsuit as a consequence of my professional duties. Today, I understand that CIA officers engaged in counter-terrorism activities are virtually required to have personal liability insurance; but the CIA pays only half of the premium. What incentive does a CIA Case Officer have to do the job if he or she is subject to liability lawsuits? Why would they take any risks if the government were unwilling to cover the cost of liability? I understand that I served in a different time. But I did have the backing of my government--100 percent. It is time to give this assurance back to our Case Officers, many of whom are on the front lines of the war on terrorism. This is not an original idea. In fact, it was a recommendation of the Report of the National Commission on Terrorism, titled ``Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism'' submitted to Congress in June of 2000. The report states, ``The risk of personal liability arising from actions taken in an official capacity discourages law enforcement and intelligence personnel from taking bold actions to combat terrorism.'' Following the tragic events of September 11th, it is apparent that we must do better in our counter-terrorism effort. The least that we can do is guarantee that any CIA officer participating in the war on terrorism will have the full backing of the federal government. They deserve no less. Passage of this conference report will provide this full backing. It also maintains the authority of the Director of Central Intelligence to designate those CIA employees who qualify for this benefit. Again, I thank the Members and staff of the House and Senate Intelligence committees for their hard work on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation, and I commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) for their support of this important bill. I also thank Heather French Henry, who has worked tirelessly to bring the plight of homeless veterans to the attention of our Nation. This bipartisan bill sets a new national standard to end chronic homelessness for veterans in 10 years. It has been estimated that 345,000 veterans will benefit from this legislation with assistance in housing, health care, mental health services, job training, dental care and so on and so forth. As a Vietnam veteran, I know firsthand the importance of helping military personnel who are returning from a war zone. They have to deal with the issue of reintroducing themselves to society. For many, the emotional strains of war are more than they can bear. Many veterans have found themselves unable to cope with the expectations of returning to civilian life. They have problems on the job, they have problems with their family, and they get into a downward spiral that ultimately ends up with homelessness. Under the provisions of this legislation, government agencies and private agencies will provide these veterans with the support they need. It will provide them with per diem payments, greater access to outreach programs, mental health services, dental services, and so on and so forth. Ending chronic homelessness will not be an easy task, but this is a piece of legislation that will bring us much closer to that important goal. Madam Speaker, our veterans were there when we needed them. Now it is our turn. We should be there when they need us.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution to honor Johnny Micheal Spann, a Central Intelligence Agency officer who was the first American killed in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan. He was killed on November 25, 2001, during an uprising of Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners in northern Afghanistan. Yesterday he was buried with full military honors in the hallowed ground of Arlington National Cemetery. Micheal Spann's life began in a small Alabama town and ended tragically on the other side of the world in an ancient fort near the city of Mazar-e Sharif. His death is a loss for his family, for the Central Intelligence Agency, and for our country. But his memory will live on as an example to all Americans of the values of patriotism, courage, and sacrifice. Although I never knew Mike Spann, I knew many like him. He was a paramilitary officer with the Central Intelligence Agency. I also served as a paramilitary officer with the CIA from 1969 to 1974. He served in a war zone. I too served in a war zone with the CIA for 2 years in South Vietnam. I believe that he and I shared the view that operations officers for the CIA, and especially paramilitary officers, should serve on the front lines of freedom. We know that the work there is difficult and dangerous, even deadly. The stakes are high. But that is where a paramilitary officer needs to be if he or she is going to get the job done. Mike knew what the risks were. He was willing to take those risks. A grateful Nation now thanks him for his dedication and his sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, I represent the second district of Connecticut. Over 200 years ago, a young man named Nathan Hale was born and raised in my district in the town of Coventry. He graduated from Yale College, taught school, and joined the Revolutionary Army as a captain. He volunteered for a dangerous espionage mission at the request of George Washington, was caught by the British, sentenced and hanged as a spy. Before his death, he is reported to say, ``I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.'' Nathan Hale is now the official State hero of Connecticut. He is also the first intelligence hero in American history. Johnny Micheal Spann is the most recent intelligence hero in American history. They both lost their lives in defense of freedom, democracy and the values of our great Nation. May God bless them and keep them, now and forever.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and I rise in support of any effort to increase dollars to the Coast Guard. As the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, I have worked very closely with the gentleman from New Jersey, and I am intimately aware of the difficulties that the Coast Guard is facing under its current fiscal constraints. I also host the Coast Guard Academy in my district and have for many years been involved in those issues. Now more than ever, we need resources to defend our 95,000 miles of shoreline and our hundreds of ports. Also, for those of us who have nuclear power plants in our districts, along rivers and on the coastal waters, defense of those littoral shores is critically important, and that even as we speak and even as we have deployed over 30 percent of the Coast Guard Reserves, we cannot provide adequate security along those shorelines for those facilities. So as I understand the conversations of the distinguished chairman, we are going to be addressing these issues in the future. I certainly hope so.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and pay tribute to Commander Vincent Wilczynski, an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut. A resident of Old Lyme, he is a Commander in the U.S. Coast Guard, an educator, an administrator and civic leader in our community. Joined by various members of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, the U.S. Coast Guard, friends, and family, he was honored today by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education and the Carnegie Foundation who recognized CDR Wilczynski's achievements throughout the years by honoring him with the ``2001 Professor of the Year for a Baccalaureate Institution'' award presented at the National Press Club. He was chosen from a group of over 400 extremely qualified nominees. CDR Wilczynski is a 1983 U.S. Coast Guard Academy graduate, and received his masters and doctorate degrees from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Catholic University. He has served in the Department of Engineering for the United States Coast Guard Academy for almost nine years. During this time he has introduced innovative and creative techniques to the classrooms and laboratories. He was instrumental in establishing the mechanical engineering major at the academy, and earning its accreditation, and has been a mentor to hundreds of cadets--many of whom are now commissioned officers. CDR Wilczynski has also extended his dedication to teaching beyond the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. He has been a tireless proponent of community service programs that are helping to motivate elementary and high school students to pursue technical educations. He has also been teaching today's youth in high schools across the country through the FIRST (For Inspiration of Science and Technology) Robotics Competition. Mr. Speaker, CDR Wilczynski has reached out and touched the lives of many individuals throughout the nation through his innovative teaching. He has given us 18 years of service as an officer in the U.S. Coast Guard, and continues to serve the nation faithfully. Commander Wilczynski has truly distinguished himself and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy as the 2001 Professor of the Year. And he is the first member of the faculty of any of our service academies to be so honored in the 20-year history of this award. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of the House of Representatives to join me in heartfelt appreciation for the service this dedicated man has provided to our country.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3240, the Reservists Education Protection Act of 2001, and I commend Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Evans for their leadership in introducing this bill today. This bipartisan bill restores important Veterans Administration education benefits to those active duty, reserve and guard personnel who have been called up for Operation Enduring Freedom. It has been estimated that up to 10,000 of the 50,000 reservists and guard members recently called up to active duty by President Bush as a result of the September 11th attacks on the United States will lose educational assistance benefits if they are forced to withdraw from school. Many of these men and women will also lose the tuition they have already paid for their education to date. As a Vietnam Veteran, I know the value of educational benefits to military personnel returning from a war zone and trying to develop their skills to get a decent job. As someone who has spent over 30 years in the U.S. Army Reserve, I also know that educational benefits are one the most popular tools we use to retain and keep quality personnel in military. It is critically important that we preserve and protect the Montgomery GI Bill benefits that are offered to our service members. Under the provisions of this legislation, those military personnel who are using their Montgomery GI Bill benefits and who are called up for Operation Enduring Freedom will have their monthly benefits restored. Active duty service members, reservists, guard personnel and veterans enrolled in the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance Program, and the Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance Program, will also be included within this legislation. Service members will regain essential time to attend school by extending their Montgomery GI Bill date by the time of their mobilization tour of duty, plus four months, to the 10-year period of eligibility they already have. Congress provided similar relief during the War in the Gulf. I urge my colleagues to support those patriotic service men and women who are responding to the call of duty at this challenging time. Preserve and protect their educational benefits while they are off fighting international terrorists who have viciously attacked our Nation. Pray that they get back safely and help them get back to school when they do return.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House to introduce the Reverend Benjamin K. Watts of the Shiloh Baptist Church in New London, Connecticut. Reverend Watts is known in the community as a preacher, a teacher, and a community leader. It is a reputation that is well deserved and is well documented. He is vice-president-at-large of the Connecticut Missionary Baptist State Convention. He is on the board of directors of the Lawrence and Memorial Hospital. He heads up the Shiloh Development Corporation, the United Way, and he is a member of the Hartford Seminary. He is also a member of the New London Rotary Club and a member of the New London Chapter of the NAACP. Reverend Watts is a leader in using faith-based initiatives to help his fellow man and his community. Working through the Shiloh Development Corporation, which was established in 1992, he provides community assistance and food, housing, education, and many other social services. On behalf of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I thank the Reverend Watts for leading us in prayer today, I welcome him to this House of Representatives, and I appreciate very much his presence, his guidance and his blessing on this House as we begin our critical work today and into the future.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full and complete support of the Homeless Veterans Assistance Act. First and foremost, this is a bipartisan bill. I think that is incredibly important. During consideration of this bill and its various parts within the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, there were some occasional disagreements, but these were all resolved on a bipartisan basis and all of the various elements of this bill came together so that when this bill ultimately was marked up and reported out of committee, my recollection is that it was unanimous and in fact, I am certain it was unanimous. I think that is an important part of why this is a good bill and why this bill deserves our support. I believe that all bills dealing with veterans should be bipartisan, because their service to their country is not based on a partisan consideration. When you are in the field, when you are on the frontline, when you are in a foxhole, when you are flying an airplane, when you are on an aircraft carrier or submarine, you do not ask the party affiliation of your comrade in arms. It does not matter. What matters is that you are serving a great Nation and you should be rewarded for your service because you did serve a great Nation, and that should be bipartisan. I will also note that this bill, in addressing the issue of homelessness, sets a national goal to eliminate homelessness among veterans in 10 years, in 10 years. I think that is an important goal, and I think that is a goal that we should work towards. It also provides veterans and homeless veterans, especially those with mental issues, priority when it comes to the benefits of this bill. I think that is a very important thing to consider. I left Vietnam in 1972. My last tour in Vietnam ended in 1972. That was almost 30 years ago. Here we are 30 years later, and there are still Vietnam veterans on the streets of our cities homeless in our communities across this country. Thirty years after the war is over, and there are still homeless veterans. The problem is that the issue of homelessness with veterans goes beyond simply providing a house, a place to live, a structure. One cannot be happy in a house if one is not happy in one's own heart or in one's own head. For many of these veterans, we have to get to the issues of their heart and their head before we can find a home for them. That is exactly what this legislation does. It partners the veteran with people in various bureaucracies, various elements of the administration, various aspects of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs so that this veteran can actually come home in his heart and in his head to a home. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of our committee, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member, and the members of the committee for their fine work on this bill.

Mr. SIMMONS

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

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor an individual, a friend, and pay tribute to the late William Martinelli, from Mystic, Connecticut, a veteran and a civic leader in our community. Bill was a pillar of the Martinelli family. From his humble beginning in Norwich, Connecticut, Bill received great success in business and in life, but Bill's greatest satisfaction came from helping others. Recently I received a letter from his wife, and she said that one of the most important things about Bill was that he hated to see people in need. He would always provide a helping hand during numerous community programs including the Tootsie Roll Drive, Special Olympics, the Mystic Art Festival, the Sunshine Committee and the Used Medical Equipment Committee, for which both he and his wife earned the Connecticut Treasures Award in 2000. Bill touched the lives of many individuals in the community by giving unselfishly. Bill Martinelli's efforts throughout the years earned him the ``Citizen of the Year Award'' by the Mystic Chamber of Commerce and had Dec. 2, 1999 proclaimed ``Bill Martinelli Day'' by the Stonington Board of Selectmen in appreciation for his many volunteer efforts. Mr. Speaker, Bill Martinelli reached out and touched the lives of many individuals in eastern Connecticut, contributing to a variety of causes. He gave his service to our country in World War II and continued to serve our nation as a pipe fitter at Electric Boat in Groton. Best of all, Bill served my local community faithfully. We will miss him. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the Members of the House of Representatives to join me in heartfelt appreciation for the service this great man provided my community. I would also like to ask the House to join me in extending our deepest condolences to Bill's wife, Liz and her four children, Robert, Gary, Gene, and Terry Ann.