Rob Simmons

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chair and the ranking member and the members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for their bipartisan work on this legislation. Specifically, I want to state my strong support for provisions in section 105 that codifies the U.S. Coast Guard as a National Foreign Intelligence Program agency under the National Security Act. Fifteen years ago, the Coast Guard was primarily a consumer of intelligence. Now and into the future, it can be a collector, a processor and a producer as well as a consumer of intelligence. The Coast Guard is involved in counternarcotics, counterterrorism, illegal alien smuggling, maritime drug interdiction, sea enforcement of immigration laws, port security and waterways security. The integration of the Coast Guard into the intelligence community makes them more responsive to the threats we face, and in particular, to the threats of terrorism. It also enhances the training and activities of the Coast Guard intelligence program and professionalizes their activities. On this basis, I am very pleased to see that this bill codifies the Coast Guard as an element of the intelligence community. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Intelligence Authorization Act of FY 2002. I commend the chairman, ranking member and members of the House Intelligence Committee for their bipartisan work on this important piece of legislation. Specifically, I would like to state my strong support for the provisions in section 105 of this bill that codifies the U.S. Coast Guard as a National Foreign Intelligence Program (NFIP) Agency under the National Security Act. Mr. Chairman, I have the privilege of representing New London, CT, which is the home of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. I also serve as vice chairman of the Coast Guard Subcommittee of the Transportation Committee. These associations have introduced me to some of the unique activities of the Coast Guard. Fifteen years ago the Coast Guard was an intelligence consumer. When I offered a course on the Intelligence Community at the Academy, I was told that it was not necessary. These circumstances are no longer the case today. Now and into the future, the Coast Guard can be a collector, a processor, and a producer as well as a consumer of intelligence. On this basis, including the Coast Guard Intelligence Program (CGIP) into the NFIP is an important and timely initiative. To a certain degree, the integration of elements of the Coast Guard into the Intelligence Community is a formality. The men and women of the Coast Guard have been taking part in homeland protection through the multitude of tasks; tasks that it performs better than any other agency of our Government. The Coast Guard is involved in counternarcotics, counterterrorism, illegal alien smuggling, maritime drug interdiction, and sea- enforcement of immigration laws, port security and waterways security to name a few. Threats to our country are met and thwarted along and off our shores every day through the diligence and professionalism of the Coast Guard. The routine activities of the Coast Guard also place it in a position to collect information, disseminate information and participate in the production of intelligence. This can be a valuable contribution to the Intelligence Community. The integration of the Coast Guard into the Intelligence Community makes them more responsive to some of the threats we face--particularly the threat of terrorist attacks. It also enhances the training and activities of the Coast Guard Intelligence Program, and professionalizes their activities. On this basis I am glad to see that section 105 of this bill codifies the Coast Guard as an element of the Intelligence Community.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I have what I believe is a friendly amendment to the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002. The purpose of the amendment is to require that the Central Intelligence Agency assume 100 percent of the cost of personal liability insurance for certain CIA employees involved in counterterrorism activities. For 10 years, I served with the CIA. During that period, 5 of which were spent overseas, I was engaged in intelligence collection, counterintelligence and counterespionage activities, and on occasion counterterrorism activities. The work was difficult and the work was dangerous; but at no time did I ever doubt that my government would not protect me from personal liability if I encountered a lawsuit as a consequence of my professional duties. Today I understand that CIA officers engaged in counterterrorism activities are virtually required to buy liability insurance, but the CIA only pays 50 percent of the cost. 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 in their professional duties if the government was unwilling to cover the cost of their liability. I realize I served at a different time and in different places, but I still had 100 percent of the backing of my government. And I think it is time that we extend this backing to agents today engaged in counterterrorism activities. Mr. Chairman, it is not a new idea; and it is not an original idea. In fact, it was a recommendation of the same commission that my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), referred to a few minutes ago. That report said, ``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.'' Discourages intelligence personnel from taking bold actions to combat terrorism. The tragic events of September 11 have changed us all, and it is apparent from those events that we must do better in our counterterrorism activities. We must have case officers and agents who are bold in their actions to combat these activities. The least we can do is provide them with the liability coverage they need to ensure that they have the full backing of the government. I believe my amendment provides this backing, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. SIMMONS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. SIMMONS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this legislation; and I commend the chairman, the ranking member, and the staff for their excellent work on this bill. The past week has been one of tremendous challenge for this Nation and for this Congress; and as we stand here today, thousands and thousands of Americans in uniform are moving by land, sea and air to take part in what may be a long and difficult campaign against a vicious enemy. It is with great seriousness and bipartisanship that we work here today. When I served as a young lieutenant in Vietnam, America was divided on the war. This made the war particularly difficult for me and for my generation. Today, I hope we stand with strong bipartisan support for this defense authorization bill. It is my hope that this bipartisanship will continue as we deploy the men and women of our armed services to defend our citizens, our interests, and our values both here at home and abroad. They deserve our unanimous support, and they certainly have mine. The Second District of Connecticut is home to the Naval Submarine Base at New London--the proud home to nearly 10,000 military families and civilians who maintain and support 21 fast attack submarines within Submarine Group Two. The quality of life improvements in this bill have a major affect to many of these hardworking people in the community I have the privilege of representing. Our men and women in the military and their families are this bill's primary focus. The pay raise, the highest single increase since 1982, is a critical element towards improving retention, morale, recruitment, and quality of life. Each day there are thousands of men and women who get up and put on a uniform and serve their country abroad or on the seas. They guard our shores, provide stability in unstable regions, provide security to our allies, and deter our adversaries. These patriots have not experienced the years of prosperity in the same way that civilians have; this bill makes a significant step overcoming this disparity. At the end of this month the Department of Defense will report the Quadrennial Defense Review to Congress outlining the findings of numerous reviews and studies it has conducted over the past months. This is expected to highlight the efforts of this administration to transform our military to meet the threats of the present day and those of the future. Madam Chairman, I was pleased that the President's budget and this bill already contains a significant step towards transforming our military to better meet the needs of the future, and it does so in a cost efficient manner through the Trident Submarine Conversion program. Taking a Trident Ballistic Missile Submarine and converting it into a Guide Missile Submarine with 154 Tomahawk Cruise missiles is transformational. It provides the United States with a massive, stealthy, long-range knock-the-door-down capability, equal to 70% of the firepower of a carrier task force. A Guided Missile Submarine, an SSGN, could be manned by a crew of 120 compared to 7000 for carrier task force. The cost savings in personnel and in operations and maintenance is clear. This bill funds the conversion of two of the four Tridents currently requiring refueling and sets the course for the conversion of the remaining two. Let us now complete this transformational initiative. Finally, I am especially pleased that this bill addresses one of my priorities--solving the problem of American soldiers on food stamps. Last year's targeted sustenance benefit and this year's large pay increase will make great strides toward reducing the numbers of our soldiers on food stamps. In addition, the bill continues to reduce out- of-pocket housing costs by increasing housing allowances to cover 88.7% of housing costs. Military families will therefore not be overburdened by the high cost of opting to live in off-base housing--at a time when DOD itself has deemed that 60% of the military family housing units it maintains are ``substandard.'' While the bill will reduce the need for soldiers to use the food stamp program, I am especially pleased that the bill includes language that will work to prevent soldiers from going on food stamps in the future. This bill directs the services to examine and evaluate their financial management training and supplementary programs to prevent financial mismanagement--a condition that not only can lead to military personnel needing food stamps, but also leads to marriage and family dissolution, service separation, and professional decline. At a time when personal bankruptcy filings are at near-record levels, I believe this is a smart, pro-active rather than reactive approach to meet the needs of our service men and women. I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and the subcommittee staff for their assistance on the food stamp and financial management issues. I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the committee staff for putting together this legislation, and look forward to working with you in the future on these important issues.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this joint resolution. As someone who has seen the face of war for almost 4 years in Vietnam, I do not relish the idea of returning to this state. But yesterday I traveled to the Pentagon and today I flew with my colleagues to New York to visit Ground Zero, my military colleagues and my constituents who have been killed and are missing in what can only be called an act of war. So we have no choice but to respond to these acts with ``all necessary and appropriate force.'' In the names of the dead and of the missing, we can do no less. God bless America.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Howard and Rieta Park, a couple from my hometown of Stonington, CT, who, on June 10, 2001, concluded a 31,000-mile sailing journey around the world. Traveling on their 53-foot Sparkman and Stevens yawl, named COMET, the Park's odyssey took them across the Caribbean, through the Panama Canal to the Galapagos Islands, across the Pacific to the French Marquesas, the Cooke Islands, Tonga, Fiji, New Zealand, and New Caledonia. They trekked to the Great Barrier Reef along the Australian coast, across the Indian Ocean, around the tip of South Africa's Cape of Good Hope and through the southern Atlantic Ocean on their way to St. John, the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Parks finally came home to Stonington, where they began their journey in November 1998. To plan to undertake such a daunting journey is impressive enough--to complete the journey is truly remarkable. The trip was not without danger. Howard Park spoke of one day when he saw what he believed to be a whale alongside their craft. As COMET neared the submerged figure it rolled and dove under the boat, lifting the entire vessel out of the water for a moment. As the tail of the creature rose behind the yawl's rear, Howard Park did not see a whale's tail but the back fin of a shark. The 60-foot beast was a shy, basking shark, and the silently moving boat had startled it. Howard Park said the image of this giant tail rising out of the water would remain with him forever. There were also sites of extraordinary beauty. The Parks had not seen land for 19 days when they approached the Marquesas Islands. They waited until dawn to pull into port, giving them the opportunity to watch the sunrise over the volcanic peaks of Hiva Oa. Describing what they saw, Howard Park said, ``There were high, high mountain peaks and indescribably beautiful vegetation.'' Why undertake such an intimidating journey? The answer lies within the heart and soul of mankind. We are inquisitive, and we dream. Throughout history men have sought to find out what lies beyond the next hill--what waits to be discovered beyond the horizon, and they have followed their dreams into reality. That we might know the unknown we have traveled to the depths of the oceans and have reached far beyond our own globe to the distant stars. It is our nature to dream--and to try and satisfy that dream. The Parks have experienced the journey of a lifetime. And why not! Life is a finite adventure. There is only one, certain end. We should make our voyage as sweeping, as productive, as positive, and as exhilarating as possible. Reflecting on life's adventure, Theodore Roosevelt said, ``He must long greatly for the lonely winds that blow across the wilderness and for sunrise and sunset over the rim of the empty world. His heart must thrill for the saddle and not for the hearthstone. The joy of living is his who has the heart to demand it.'' I commend Howard and Rieta Park on their exceptional achievement. As we go through life, may we, like the Parks, treasure images that will remain with us forever. And like Theodore Roosevelt, may we realize that the joy of living is his who has the heart to demand it.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2888, an immediate congressional response to one of the most despicable acts of terrorism this country has seen. Tuesday's attacks were just the beginning of a new and lethal terror campaign against the United States. Thousands of mothers and fathers; husband and wives; sons and daughters of all faiths and diverse nationalities: murdered. No warning, no explanation, no cause. On September 11, Americans from every walk of life were taken from us by an act of terrorism. An act of murder. An act of war. This tragic event dramatically changed the lives of many close to home. On Tuesday night my wife spent the evening watching television with neighbors in my hometown of Stonington, Connecticut. Their young grandson, Josh Piver, my daughter's friend and classmate, had a new and exciting job on the 105th floor of the World Trade Center. He was energetic and intelligent, living the American dream in the ``Big Apple.'' He is missing, like many others from eastern Connecticut. I found that the most important thing I could do as a Member of Congress was to keep working. To get to work on Wednesday and demonstrate that the people's work will go on, and that no matter how badly we hurt, our democracy remains as strong as ever. And it is here on the House floor where the work--vitally important work--continues. Today we are taking the first step toward providing the President the necessary tools to rebuild what has been destroyed, restore what has been taken and react to those who have inflicted such unspeakable damage on our great nation. Republicans and Democrats have stood side-by-side in an unprecedented manner to craft a bill that will provide $40 billion in emergency spending for the recovery from the recent terrorist attacks and for providing the long overdue resources for the investigation that will enhance our national security. Specifically, the bill appropriates $10 billion immediately to the Emergency Response Fund for federal activities such as preparedness for mitigating and responding to the attacks; support to counter, investigate and prosecute domestic and international terrorism, increased transportation security; repairing public facilities and transportation systems damaged by the explosions; and supporting national security. Additionally, the bill makes another $10 billion available 15 days after a Presidential disaster relief plan is submitted and an additional $20 billion will be made available through the normal appropriations process. These are the first installments of a long-term recovery plan for the disaster areas. I want to thank the Speaker of the House, the Minority Leader, and all the members of the Appropriations Committee for coming together during these trying times and putting forth a bill that will immediately respond to this week's terrible events. These are times that try our souls. But America is strong and flexible. We will survive this latest test of our freedom, our values and our democracy. I am proud to vote for this much-needed relief and proud to be a Member of this legislative body.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, last night my wife spent the evening hours watching television with a neighbor in Connecticut. Their grandson, my daughter's friend and classmate, had a new job in New York City on the 105th floor of the World Trade Center. He was bright and energetic, a young man from a small town living out the American dream in the Big Apple. Repeated cell calls went unanswered. He is missing. We fear the worst. So what do we do? We gather here to demonstrate that the people's work will go on and that our democracy is strong. We gather here to say that terrorism is not speech, it is murder, and terrorist acts are not political acts, they are acts of war. In the name of Josh Piner and in the name of so many, many others, it is time to fight back. May God bless him, his family, and may God bless these United States.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Joint Resolution 61 expressing the sense of the Senate and House of Representatives regarding terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. We are gathered here on the floor of the people's House 1 day after the worst attack on American soil in our Nation's history. We are gathered here to demonstrate that the people's work must go on. And that we will not be intimidated away from performing the people's work. We are gathered here to show the world that you can take our people's lives, and you can destroy their property; but you can never destroy their values of freedom and the institution of democracy. And so, as the people's representatives, we must act in the face of turmoil, confusion, and danger to do the peoples' work; to show our enemies that the people cannot be intimidated, and that our democracy cannot be shut down. Today is a day that we must demonstrate to the world that terrorism is not free speech, it is murder; and that terrorist acts are not politics, they are war. It is time for us to realize that the perpetrators of these acts are not trying to capture our attention to make a point. They are trying to destroy us; and it is time for us to respond in kind. The resolution before us says that we ``commit to support increased resources in the war to eradicate terrorism.'' It also provides that we ``punish the perpetrators of these attacks, as well as their sponsors.'' These are appropriate responses to what has happened over the past 24 hours. In the coming weeks, I do not want to see terrorist faces on the covers of our national newspapers. I do not want to hear the pundits talk of this group or that. I want our intelligence community and military forces to hunt them down like the murderous cowards they are. And I want this Congress to use its ``power of the purse'' to ensure that they have the resources they need to accomplish this task. That is what this resolution says we will do. That is what we must do. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I will share with the Chamber that last night, my wife spent the evening hours with beloved neighbors in our hometown of Stonington, CT. Their young grandson, my daughter's classmate and friend, had a new and exciting job in New York City located on the 105th floor of the World Trade Center. He was a bright and energetic young man; a smalltown boy pursuing the American dream in ``the Big Apple.'' Following yesterday's attack, calls to his cell phone went unanswered. He is missing. We fear the worst. Today in eastern Connecticut we have learned of four others who are missing, and we mourn the deaths of three loved ones who were on two of the aircraft involved. This distress among our fellow citizens demands that we respond with strong and unequivocal action. This resolution is just the first step. I expect that it will be followed by authorizations and appropriations. In the name of the missing and the dead, we can do no less. This is the people's house. In their name, this is what we resolve to do.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, a year ago the Mystic Seaport, which is located in my district, constructed and launched a replica of the freedom schooner Amistad. Today, I rise to salute some of the craftsmen and the contractors who participated in the construction of that craft and helped to make it seaworthy. Most of us know the story of the ship and of its history, which was the subject of a movie by Steven Spielberg. The Amistad was a Spanish schooner traveling the coast of Cuba in 1839 with a cargo of 53 men and women on board, men and women of African origin who had been enslaved. Under the leadership of Joseph Cinque, they rose up against their captors, seized the ship, and attempted to sail back to Africa. The ship eventually made landfall off of Long Island and was brought to new London, Connecticut, where the Africans were taken prisoner. They eventually went on trial and won their freedom after John Quincy Adams argued their case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Today, a replica of the Amistad, constructed by the Mystic Seaport, is a living museum of this part of our Nation's history; but we would not have this replica, we would not have this educational tool, if it were not for the hard work of many individuals who donated their time and resources to the effort. A notable example of this cooperation are the members of the Southeastern Connecticut chapter of the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association who donated over $100,000 of time and resources to install the plumbing, heating and cooling systems as the ship was built at Mystic Seaport. Under the leadership of Walter Woycik, more than 20 volunteers from 11 Connecticut firms made sure that all the heating, cooling and plumbing equipment was installed and up to the stringent Coast Guard standards. This, in turn, assured that the Amistad can put to sea as a living, working, sailing classroom to teach this important story of our people's struggle for freedom. What these individuals constructed is more than simply a replica of a ship. The Amistad is a symbol of the struggle for human rights and human dignity, and it is a reminder that all people deserve to be and want to be free. More than a century after the Amistad incident, this replica is a symbol of America's values, as spelled out in our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that these include, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As we celebrate our freedom, let us also thank those volunteers who made possible the construction of this replica of the freedom schooner Amistad.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Joint Resolution 36, the Constitutional Amendment to prohibit flag desecration. Our flag is the strongest symbol of the American character and its values. It tells the story of victories won--and battles lost--in defending the principles of freedom and democracy. These are stories of real men and women who have selflessly served this nation in defending that freedom. Any many of them traded their lives for it. Gettysburg, San Juan Hill, Iwo Jima, Korea, Da Nang, Persian Gulf--our men and women had one common bond: the American flag. The American flag belongs to them, as it belongs to all of us. Supreme Court Justice Paul Stevens reminded us of the significance of our flag when he wrote: A country's flag is a symbol of more than nationhood and national unity. It also signifies the ideas that characterize the society that has chosen that emblem as well as the special history that has animated the growth and power of those ideas . . . . So it is with the American flag. It is more than a proud symbol of courage, the determination, and the gifts of a nation that transformed 13 fledgling colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill for other peoples who share our aspirations. Critics of the amendment believe it interferes with freedom of speech. I disagree. Americans enjoy more freedoms than any other people in the world. They have access to public television. They can write letters to the editors to express their beliefs, or call in to radio stations. Americans can stand on the steps of the nation's capitol building to demonstrate their cause. They do not need to desecrate our noble flag to make their statement, and I do not believe protecting the flag from desecration deprives Americans of the opportunity to speak freely. And let us be clear: speech, not desecration, is protected by the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers protected free speech and freedom of the press because in a democracy, words are used to debate and persuade, and to educate. A democracy must protect free and open debate, regardless of how disagreeable some might find the views of others. Prohibiting flag desecration does not undermine that tradition. The proposed amendment would protect the flag from desecration, not from burning. As a member of the American Legion, I have supervised the disposal of over 7,000 unserviceable flags. But this burning is done with ceremony and respect. This is not flag desecration. Over 70 percent of the American people want the opportunity to vote to protect their flag. Numerous organizations, including the Medal of Honor Recipients for the Flag, the American Legion, the American War Mothers, the American G.I. Forum, and the African-American Women's Clergy Association all support this amendment. Forty-nine states have passed resolutions calling for constitutional protection for the flag. In the last Congress, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed this amendment by a vote of 310- 114, and will rightfully pass it again this year. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.J. Res. 36 and ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this important resolution that means so much to so many.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague from Massachusetts, Richard Neal, to introduce the ``Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Protection Act of 2001.'' The bill would provide for the implementation of a management plan for the Corridor to protect resources critical to maintaining and interpreting the distinctive character of the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor. Created by Congress in 1999, the Quinebaug-Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor (QSHC) encompasses about 695,000 acres in northeastern Connecticut and south-central Massachusetts. Called ``the Last Green Valley'' in the sprawling metropolitan Boston-to-Washington, D.C. corridor, the QSHC has successfully assisted in the development and implementation of integrated cultural, historical, and recreational land resource management programs that has and will continue to retain, enhance and interpret these significant features. But much more needs to be done, which is why Mr. Neal and I introduced this legislation. The QSHC will embark on two very significant projects. The Green Valley Institute is an expansion of the successful natural resource education program that will serve as a key educational tool for the scores of volunteers who work on the municipal boards, committees and commissions making those important decisions regarding land use and natural resource conservation. The program will also provide much needed information in estate planning, forestland management, and technical assistance in GIS training and other important technology. The Green Valley Institute may be the single most important program that the QSHC can provide its 35 towns. The other significant project is the planning and consideration of the Gateway Center proposed for I-395 in Thompson, Connecticut. Many entities in northeast Connecticut and south-central Massachusetts are looking to the QSHC as the unifying element to carry the project forward. The Gateway Center will fill a significant need for the communities, businesses, attractions and recreational facilities in the region. It's imperative that the Quinebaug-Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor be given the resources to continue to conserve, celebrate and enhance the significant historical, cultural, natural and scenic resources in the region while at the same time promoting a quality of life based on a strong, healthy economy compatible with the region's character. The Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Protection Act will go a long way toward accomplishing these important goals. I hope my colleagues will join Rep. Neal and me in support of this worthy initiative.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, since colonial days my home town of Stonington has been tied to fishing. Today it is the home to Connecticut's only commercial fishing fleet, and I am proud to be its congressional representative. Commercial fishing continues to rank as one of the most hazardous occupations in America. According to the United States Coast Guard and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the annual fatality rate for commercial fishermen is about 150 deaths per 100,000 workers. In order to increase the level of safety in the fishing industry, the U.S. Coast Guard requires all fishing vessels to carry safety equipment. Required equipment can include a life raft that automatically inflates and floats free should the vessel sink; personal flotation devices or immersion suits; Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRB); visual distress signals; and fire extinguishers. When an emergency arises, safety equipment is priceless. At all other times, the cost of purchasing or maintaining life rafts, immersion suits, and EPIRBs must compete with other expenses such as loan payments, fuel, wages, maintenance, and insurance. Meeting all of these obligations is made more difficult by a regulatory framework that uses measures such as trip limits, days at sea, and gear alterations to manage our marine resources. Commercial fishermen should not have to choose between safety equipment and other expenses. That's why I am introducing the ``Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2001,'' which would provide for a tax credit equal to 75 percent of the amount paid by fishermen to purchase or maintain required safety equipment. The tax credit is capped at $1,500 and includes expenses paid or incurred for maintenance of safety equipment required by federal regulation. Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and John Kerry (D-MA) have introduced identical legislation in the Senate. The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act Of 2001 could improve safety by giving commercial fishermen more of an incentive to purchase and care for safety equipment. I ask my colleagues to join me in helping commercial fishermen protect themselves while doing their jobs.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name from H.R. 1613.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1291. This bipartisan bill greatly increases the Montgomery GI bill as a recruitment tool for our military services. Based on recent testimony provided to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs by the college board, the monthly benefit needed to meet current average costs for a 4-year college is $1,025. Yet the current GI bill benefit is only $650. Madam Speaker, $650 per month is just not enough. As a consequence, America's youth and their families no longer see military service as a path to education. They see it as a detour away from their college plans. As a Vietnam veteran and somebody who spent 30 years in the Reserves, I know that quality personnel are the backbone and the brains of our military, and one way to attract quality personnel is to provide an enhanced education benefit. If my colleagues believe as I do that an improved education benefit is going to serve as an enlistment tool and is also going to provide for an educated citizenry, then support this bill. Let us help our young citizens, let us help our military, let us help America. Vote for this bill. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1291, the 21st Century Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act, and I commend Chairman Smith and subcommittee Chairman Hayworth for their leadership in introducing the bill we are considering this afternoon. This bipartisan bill greatly improves the Montgomery GI Bill as a recruitment tool for our military services. Based on recent testimony provided to the Veterans' Affairs Committee by the College Board, the monthly benefit needed to meet the current average cost for a four-year college is $1,025. Yet the current GI Bill benefit is only $650 per month. Madam Speaker, $650 per month is just not enough. As a consequence, America's youth and their families no longer see military service as the path to education; they see it as a detour away from their college plans. This, in turn, makes it more difficult to recruit young high school graduates into the services. As a Vietnam veteran, and as someone who has spent 30 years in the U.S. Army Reserve, I know that quality personnel are the backbone and the brains of our military. One way to attract quality personnel into the military is to provide an enhanced education benefit through the GI Bill; and H.R. 1291 does just this. Under the provisions of this legislation, the monthly educational benefit for someone who commits to a standard three-year enlistment will go from $800 in October of this year; to $950 in October 2002; to $1,100 on October 1, 2003. A two-year enlistment with a four-year commitment to the Reserves also carries an improved benefit. Testimony before the Veterans' Affairs Committee shows that the majority of recruits, across all branches of service, list money for education as their primary reason for enlistment. It is clear that an increase in that money would provide a greater incentive for high school graduates to join the military. On May 24th of this year, the personnel chiefs from all of our military services testified that H.R. 1291's enhancements to the Montgomery GI Bill would be ``very effective'' as a recruitment and retention tool. If my colleagues believe, as I do, that an improved education benefit will not only serve as an enlistment tool, but will also provide a more educated citizenry, then I urge them to join me in supporting this bill. Let's help our young citizens. Let's help the military. Let's help America! Let's pass this bill.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Amtrak Good Neighbor Act of 2001.'' The purpose of this bill is to build a better relationship between Amtrak and the local municipalities along the Northeast Rail Corridor. As recently as last week, some concerned citizens in the great city of New London, Connecticut gave a much needed paint job to a railroad bridge owned by Amtrak, covering up years of graffiti. I called this a great act, reflecting the pride that New London residents have for their city. Amtrak called this trespassing and conducted a criminal investigation. There needs to be a better relationship between Amtrak and local municipalities. This is why I have introduced the Amtrak Good Neighbor Act of 2001. This bill directs Amtrak to work with local municipalities, whose citizens would like to provide improvements to Amtrak-owned property. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1699, the ``Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001.'' I have the honor of representing the Second District of Connecticut, home of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. Through the years, I have had the opportunity to witness first-hand the excellence of the Coast Guard. On any given day, on the average, our U.S. Coast Guard saves 14 lives. It conducts 180 search and rescue missions. It keeps $7 million worth of illegal drugs out of our country. It responds to 32 oil spills or hazardous chemical releases. It stops hundreds of illegal aliens from entering our country. So in a year, that is over 4,000 lives saved, over 65,000 rescue missions, $2.6 billion in illegal drugs stopped from entering America's streets, over 11,000 environmental cleanups or responses to pollution, and the stopping of tens of thousands of illegal aliens entering our country. Indeed, in addition to this, it also is involved in conducting local boat safety courses, port inspections, support of U.S. military and humanitarian missions, and more, all with the stewardship of the resources that should make taxpayers very proud of their investment in the world's finest Coast Guard. The bill before us today will allow the Coast Guard to continue its unique, multimission capabilities that are characterized so well by its motto, ``Semper Paratus--Always Ready.'' I want to complement Chairmen Young and LoBiondo for moving this bill forth and for their long-time commitment to, and support of, the U.S. Coast Guard. As vice chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee and a die-hard supporter of the U.S. Coast Guard, I urge my colleagues to support this authorization bill.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 155, I was the speaker at my son's high school graduation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. Improving special education is on the minds of millions of Americans. Our Governors, school boards, education professionals, and families of children with disabilities identify full funding for special education as their number-one priority. The nearly six-and-a-half million students with disabilities have a right to a free and appropriate public education. They deserve to participate in the American dream. Today this Congress has an opportunity to help these students fulfill that dream. I am pleased to introduce the ``Keeping Our Promise to Special Education Act of 2001'' to provide for mandatory increases in special education funding each of the next ten years. My effort sets the course to achieve full funding for Part B of IDEA by fiscal year 2011. The enactment of this bill will give relief to school districts, resources to teachers, hope to parents, and opportunities to children with disabilities. It will free up State and local funds to be spent on such things as better pay for teachers, more professional development, richer and more diverse curricula, smaller class sizes, making needed renovations to buildings, and addressing other needs of individual schools. To me, fully funding IDEA will provide the ultimate in local educational flexibility. I am proud to say that the Keeping Our Promise to Special Education Act has received the support of the National Education Association, the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents and the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, Incorporated. Mr. Speaker, twenty-six years ago, Congress made a commitment to fully fund the Federal Government's share of special education costs. If in this era of economic prosperity and unprecedented budgetary surpluses we cannot meet this commitment, when will we keep this pledge? School districts in the Second District of Connecticut and other congressional districts are demanding financial relief. Children's needs must be met. Parents expect accountability. There is no better way to touch a school, help a child, or support a family than to commit more spending for special education. It is time to fulfill our promise. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Keeping Our Promise to Special Education Act.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 182, which is a bill to study the inclusion of Connecticut's Eightmile River into the National Wild and Scenic River System. Eastern Connecticut has a wealth of natural beauty, such as the Eightmile River. The river and the watershed it supports are an outstanding ecological system. The streams are free-flowing, they display excellent water quality, and they contain a diversity of fish species, including native trout. The Eightmile River is also an important recreational asset and contributes to the character of the communities that surround it. That is why on January 3 of this year, on my very first day as a Member of this body, I introduced H.R. 182, to study the Eightmile River for wild and scenic status. I was particularly pleased to be joined in this initiative by all of my House colleagues from Connecticut across party lines. I was also pleased to be joined by Senators Dodd and Lieberman, who have introduced companion legislation in the Senate. For more than 30 years, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has safeguarded some of our Nation's most precious rivers. The act intends to select rivers of the Nation which possess exceptional scenic, recreational, geologic, fish, wildlife, historic, cultural and other values, that they be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they be protected for the benefit of present and future generations. Designated rivers receive Federal protection to preserve their free- flowing condition, the water quality and other conservation values. Currently, only one river in Connecticut has this status, the Farmington River. I believe that the Eightmile River also possesses all of these qualities, and I believe these protections should be considered and extended to this river by the National Park Service. I am very proud to submit this legislation on behalf of my constituents in East Haddam, Lyme and Salem. I particularly thank East Haddam First Selectman Sue Merrow and Nathan Frohling of the Connecticut Nature Conservancy for their hard work, and I especially express my deep thanks and gratitude to the gentleman from Colorado (Chairman Hefley) and to the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) for moving this legislation forward so quickly. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 6 and against an unfair tax. The issue before us is the marriage penalty tax. But clearly the deeper issue here is fairness--and from whatever angle you view the marriage penalty tax it is unfair. It is unfair to impose different tax burdens on couples of equal income simply because one of those couples chose to get married and begin a life together. Isn't it enough that we tax their wages, their automobile, their gasoline and nearly everything else they will purchase or acquire? Must we also ask couples to write a check simply because they say, ``I do'' to each other? This tax is bad public policy and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the bill that will once and for all eliminate the marriage penalty tax. This bill not only benefits married couples; it benefits families with children as well. H.R. 6 doubles the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000 and expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), allowing families in Connecticut's Second District to keep more of their hard- earned income. That's more money for a mortgage payment, a new home computer, an electric bill or shoes and clothing. When I came to Congress, I pledged to work toward the elimination of the marriage penalty tax. I made a promise. And I am proud to join my colleagues in keeping this promise and providing a long overdue element of fairness to the way that our nation taxes married families. The institution of marriage represents important values to our culture. We need to support our values, not tax them. It's time to end this tax and support America's families.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Madam Speaker, I stand here today in a Chamber that has for centuries witnessed on a daily basis the dreams and the fruits of American independence. Today, we remember that it was March 25, 1821, that the Greeks rose up to seek their independence. As has always been the case, the price of that independence was high. Greek independence is a matter of special interest to me because of my family and, in particular, my wife, Heidi. My wife, Heidi, is the great, great granddaughter of a young 4-year-old survivor of the Battle of Missolongi. For those of my colleagues who recall those events, it was Missolongi that rose up against Ottoman rule. It was Missolongi that captured the attention of Lord Byron, and it was Missolongi where some of the harshest battles of Greek independence were fought. When Missolongi finally fell, the survivors numbered only a few thousand women and children, one of them the 4-year-old great, great grandmother of my wife, Catherine, or Haidine, ``the forsaken one,'' as she was known. She was impressed into the household of an Egyptian admiral and relocated to Alexandria, Egypt, where 3 years later, at the age of 7, she came to the attention of a British diplomat. The British diplomat offered to buy her out of slavery, but the offer was refused, until a few months later, she became sick, at which point the offer was accepted and the sick little girl was delivered to the diplomat's family. He and his wife nursed her back to health, they relocated to England where she was adopted, educated, raised up, and eventually married to the son of an admiral. They relocated to Canada and eventually to the United States. So, Madam Speaker, the story of Greek independence is also the story of America and of Americans and of our families. It is a story of the struggle for freedom, the struggle for democracy, and the struggle for a better life for our families, our friends, and our neighbors. As we gather in this great Chamber, this cradle of democracy here in these United States, we should never forget the lessons of Greeks and the lessons of Greek independence.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act of 2001. For too many years, the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds have been raided to pay for other government programs. This long-standing practice has jeopardized the solvency of two programs that millions of Americans depend on. Today this practice will end. Today, Republicans and Democrats will come together to stop the raid and commit to protecting 100 percent of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund surpluses, providing retirement and health security for our parents, our grandparents, and hopefully some day for our children. All Americans deserve a Medicare and Social Security system that rewards their hard work, increases their independence and secures their future. H.R. 2 is a step toward this important goal. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act and ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this important piece of legislation.