Rob Simmons

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment to increase funding for the highly successful Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) by $22 million. This modest increase in funding would still be $42 million below the President's request, but it could help thousands of low-income Americans, the elderly and disabled stay warm this winter. This increased investment for our Nation's most vulnerable population would be offset by a $26 million reduction in Departmental Management at the Department of Health and Human Services which would still provide level funding for this program. The Energy Information Administration is predicting that the price of heating oil, natural gas and propane will skyrocket this winter. Compared to average heating costs from 1998 to 2000, consumers are expected to pay 55 percent more for natural gas; 45 percent more for heating oil; and 41 percent more for propane. Heating a home with natural gas will cost an average of $1,049 this winter; heating with fuel oil will cost $1,094; and, heating with propane will cost $1,361. This increased cost in energy couldn't come at a worse time. Since 2001, the number of people living in poverty has increased by 4.3 million, and the average family income has dropped by over $1,500. LIHEAP and WAP are needed now more than ever to make sure that on the richest country on earth, our constituents don't have to make the unacceptable choice between heating their homes and feeding their families. Last March, more than 70 Members of both the House and Senate, including 20 Republicans, co-signed letters in support of $3 billion in funding for LIHEAP. Even if this amendment was signed into law, LIHEAP would still be more than $500 million short of this mark. Simply put, Weatherization and LIHEAP work. WAP has allowed low- income families to save more than $200 a year in heating costs. These modest savings can be used for other important family needs such as food, clothing, housing and other basic necessities of life. And, LIHEAP is a vital safety net for our Nation's low-income families which reduces the percentage of their income spent on residential energy costs. Unaffordable home energy can result in: homelessness; health and safety problems, such as malnutrition, hypothermia and heat stroke; and, lack of educational attainment for children. LIHEAP protects public health and safety by keeping families warm in the winter and cool in the summer. For all of these reasons I support this amendment.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support the conference report on H.R. 2443, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act, a bill to reauthorize Coast Guard operations for fiscal year 2005. I thank Chairman Don Young and Frank LoBiondo, and Ranking Member Jim Oberstar for their hard work and leadership on behalf of our Coast Guard men and women. And I thank my colleagues and fellow conferees for working with me to authorize the establishment of a National Coast Guard Museum in New London, Connecticut--where the Service first came ashore and established the Coast Guard Academy. In 2001, I became one of the founding members of the National Coast Guard Museum Association. Our goal was to fund and construct the museum in New London. The seven-member board included our chairman, James Coleman, Jr., Connecticut State Senator Cathy Cook, Rear Adm. Richard Larrabee, USCG (ret.), Cmdr. Don Chapman, USCG (ret.), Richard Grahn and John Johnson. These civic-minded individuals dedicated their time and talent to make this project work. Connecticut's two Senators Christopher Dodd and Joseph Lieberman, also supported this project and I thank them for their input and support. I am proud to have been part of the effort, which we anticipate will be completed with full support of the community. The bill appropriately directs the Coast Guard Commandant to establish the museum in New London at, or in close proximity to, the Academy. This will ensure that future cadets, commissioned officers, warrants and petty officers attending the leadership school at the Coast Guard Academy will benefit from the collection and programs of the new museum. The people of Connecticut and the New London area are proud of their Coast Guard and maritime heritage, and eager to support the new museum. I am confident that local leaders will support this effort and be diligent in securing a suitable location for the museum. The Coast Guard is our major force in maritime safety and law enforcement, an integral part of our national defense, and an important member of our New London community. It is right to honor the service and sacrifice of the men and women in the Coast Guard by establishing this museum, and it is fitting to locate the facility in New London. A National Coast Guard Museum will be a place to honor, preserve and share the story of our beloved ``Coasties.'' It is the proud story of brave men and women who live and serve by their motto--Semper Paratus. Always Ready. Mr. Speaker, today this body is ready to say thank you. More than 70 museums across the country celebrate our military services, and H.R. 2443 pays a long overdue tribute to the Coast Guard in establishing the first museum dedicated to this Service. I am gratified to have the support of my colleagues in passing this bill.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I will place in the Record the text of U.S. Ambassador Raymond Burghardt's March 4 speech on U.S.-Vietnam relations, a letter from the American Chamber of Commerce Hanoi, and an article from the National Catholic Reporter following my remarks. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today to H.R. 1587, the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2003, and I do so with the greatest amount of respect for my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs. I appreciate his tireless efforts on behalf of human rights and religious freedom around the world; and as a Vietnam veteran, I very much appreciate his courageous leadership on veterans issues. My concern with taking up this legislation at this time regards several issues. First, during this 108th Congress alone we have had already three House resolutions that address alleged human rights and religious freedom issues regarding Vietnam. I cannot think of any other country that has as much negative attention by this body as Vietnam. Surely, there are other countries around the world that deserve a little bit of attention from us. I do not think it is fair that we spend this amount of time and this number of resolutions on Vietnam. Second, Mr. Speaker, I believe we are at an important crossroads in our relationship with Vietnam. As we approach the 10th anniversary of normal relations, I think it is time to examine some of the good things that have occurred between our two countries: tourism, trade, educational exchanges. I think it is time that we begin to send a positive, clear message to the Vietnamese people that we are serious about working together in a positive and constructive fashion on issues of mutual benefit. I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that I am a Vietnam veteran. I served there for 20 months. I spent almost 2 years there as a civilian, and I made a commitment as a Vietnam veteran to my fallen comrades and to their families to bring their remains home to their families. I am holding in my hand a commemorative bracelet that commemorates Army Captain Arnold Edward Holm. Arnie Holm was born and raised in Waterford, Connecticut. He was an outstanding athlete in high school. He lost his life in June 1972 when his light observation helicopter was shot down in the central highlands. The family still lives in my district; and 2 years ago, they asked me to assist them in locating his remains. A year ago, I traveled to Vietnam for the first time in 30 years in an effort to locate Arnie Holm's crash site. Working with both American and Vietnamese officials, we spent hundreds of man-hours in the sweltering jungle looking for Arnie. Although we failed at the time, the search goes on; and the only way we will ever be able to bring closure to the family of Arnie Holm is through the continued cooperation of the Vietnamese government. I have seen firsthand their commitment to this important humanitarian recovery effort, and I thank them for it. My colleagues may be surprised to learn that since the Joint POW-MIA Accounting Command, or JPAC, began recovering American remains in Vietnam, 16 U.S. and Vietnamese officers have died. Eight Americans and eight Vietnamese were killed when a helicopter crashed on April 7, 2001. That is right. Eight Vietnamese officials died while searching for the very men that were killing their own countrymen 30 years before. Up to May of this year, the U.S. and Vietnam have conducted 93 joint missions, resulting in the recovery of 822 remains. They have identified and returned over 500 U.S. personnel remains to their loved ones. That is 500 American families in 43 States that have been provided closure thanks to the Vietnamese, and that includes the family of Major Peter M. Cleary who lives in Colchester, Connecticut, just a few miles from my home. If this program, Mr. Speaker, does not reflect the humanitarian spirit of the Vietnamese people, I do not know what does; and given the long and bitter experience that they had with the American war in Vietnam, their willingness to cooperate in this program merits special attention. Just this past month, Jerry Gennings, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for POW-MIA Affairs, returned and said that the outcome of his discussions in Vietnam is promising and the Vietnam government offers us the opportunity to achieve significant results. Last November, the USS Vandergrift returned to Ho Chi Minh City, the first time in 30 years that a U.S. Navy ship has been to Vietnam, and another ship plans to visit Danang this year. I would also remind my colleagues that President Bush announced just last month that Vietnam would be added as the 15th focus country of the emergency plan for HIV/AIDS. The President said, ``Now, after long analysis by our staff, we believe that Vietnam deserves this special help. We're putting a history of bitterness behind us.'' Then he continued, ``Together we'll fight the disease. You've got a friend in America.'' The President of the United States has said, ``You've got a friend in America.'' This resolution before us this evening conveys no such message. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the intent of this legislation is to promote freedom and democracy in Vietnam; but the question is, does it do it in a useful manner? The State Department has said this bill is a ``blunt instrument that risks inhibiting progress in bilateral trade, counterterrorism, POW-MIA accounting, counternarcotic and refugee processing/resettlement.'' They go on to say, ``Imposition of unilateral sanctions will not lead to an improved GVN human rights record.'' Mr. Speaker, I think we should be concerned that our own State Department does not support this legislation and is concerned that it will damage progress in our bilateral relations. My friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), expresses his concern about the issue of human rights, and this is an important issue; but let us not forget the fact that for many years our country rained devastation upon the Vietnamese people and their country. Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese lives were lost, many more wounded; and the countryside was devastated. Let us not forget that thousands of Vietnamese children are born today with birth defects, perhaps because of the millions of gallons of Agent Orange that we spread across their country, and let us not forget that the remains of tens of thousands of Vietnamese soldiers have not been recovered, even as the Vietnamese people help us to recover the remains of our own servicemen. The issues of human rights cut in both directions. The United States itself must be held accountable for its own moral obligation to the Vietnamese people for our past policies and practices. As the gospel of John says, ``He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone.'' I encourage my colleagues not to judge the Vietnamese too harshly in the realm of human rights lest they judge us harshly in return. Mr. Speaker, I believe we are making progress in our relations with the Vietnamese people and with their government; and I believe this bill, in the words of our own State Department, is a blunt instrument that may do more harm than good. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to show the people that the war is over. It is time to bind up the wounds of the war and to show them, in the words of our own President, that they have a friend in America. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the documentation I referred to earlier on this topic: U.S. Embassy, Hanoi, Vietnam, March 4, 2004. U.S.-Vietnam Relations: 30 Years After the War, 10 Years After Normalization Yesterday afternoon I walked over to the Hong Kong Art Museum and looked at the Asia Society's excellent exhibition of ``Images from the War.'' The exhibition reminded me that today in Vietnam, nearly 30 years after the war, the past still permeates the present. The memory of the war certainly remains among the half of the population that endured it. But, I also was struck by how much those pictures captured a past that most people in Vietnam do not dwell on very much. The Vietnamese people and leaders live in the present and look to the future. They deserve a great deal of admiration for their ability to put the past behind them. I was in Vietnam during the war, not as a soldier, but as a diplomat. I was in Saigon from 1970 to 1973. Now that I am back in Vietnam 30 years later, I am conscious of that history every day. But like the Vietnamese people and their leaders, I keep my focus on the present and the future. Talking about Vietnam while in Hong Kong also evokes memories for me of the tough period in Vietnam's history that immediately followed the war. In 1979, when war broke out between China and Vietnam, I was working at our Consulate here in Hong Kong. Afterwards, thousands of boat people arrived from Vietnam and I spent the better part of a year interviewing them to learn why they had come to Hong Kong or Macau. I also worked with NGOs like Catholic Relief Service to feed and clothe the refugees in the camps. During that period, we came up with what became the Orderly Departure Program as a way to stop the flow of refugees. The ODP was modeled on and named after a program created by the Hong Kong Government to bring ethnic Chinese from Haiphong and Cholon, Saigon's Chinese quarter, to join family members in this city. In the last ten years, a new chapter has opened between the United States and Vietnam. The U.S.-Vietnam relationship is still young. President Clinton only lifted the embargo in 1994. We established a liaison office in January 1995, and we normalized relations in July 1995. We opened our consulate in Ho Chi Minh City in 1997. Our first Ambassador came in 1997 and I am only the second Ambassador to a unified Vietnam. Our presence in Vietnam has grown rapidly, to a medium-sized embassy in Hanoi and consulate in Ho Chi Minh City. And, we will probably grow a little more in the future. Our relationship began by building trust on issues left over from the war, such as the accounting for MIAs, reuniting families of refugees, and humanitarian programs. But then, after normalization, we sought to widen the relationship with strengthened commercial and economic ties that benefit both countries. The fruits of that thinking, the Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA), took four years to negotiate and finally took effect on December 10, 2001, five days before my arrival. During the past year, we have seen further remarkable progress on a widening range of bilateral issues. A year ago, the focus was almost exclusively on the commercial benefits of our bilateral relations, while there was little progress on other aspects of a normal relationship; In mid-year, Vietnam's leadership decided to give greater priority and attention to relations with the United States. The result has been easier access to the leaders for Mission officers and visitors from Washington and progress on many fronts. Last year was a very good year for U.S.-Vietnam relations. In the fall we had an important series of high-level Vietnamese government visitors to the U.S. culminating with Deputy Prime Minister Vu Khoan in December. These included the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Planning and Investment. The November visit to Washington by Defense Minister Pham Van Tra represented the normalization of our military ties and was followed a week later by the first U.S. Navy ship visit to Vietnam in thirty years. My wife and I traveled up the Saigon River on that ship and experienced the excitement of the American sailors at what they knew was an historic journey as well as the excitement of the crowds of Vietnamese who greeted our arrival. Breakthroughs in 2003 enabled us to conclude several agreements that had been underway for years without apparent progress. These were the civil aviation agreement that will permit air service on U.S. or Vietnamese carriers between Vietnam and the U.S. That could include between Hong Kong and Ho Chi Minh City within the next year. Our new counter narcotics agreement will enable the U.S. and Vietnam to work together to stem the flow of illegal drugs through Vietnam, as well as carry out other law enforcement and counter- terrorism training. And our textile agreement established parameters from the import of textiles to the U.S. We now anticipate more dialogue and cooperation with Vietnam in dealing with regional and transnational issues such as fighting against narcotics, trafficking in persons, and terrorism. In the midst of this progress, we do still have differences in our viewpoints on some important areas including human rights and religious freedom. The Communist Party retains a monopoly on political power in Vietnam. Advocacy of a multi- party system is forbidden. Even basic freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion guaranteed in Vietnam's own Constitution are sometimes superseded in the interest of what the Government calls ``national solidarity.'' We've seen several cases over the past year in which people who did nothing more than exchange critical e-mails received heavy prison sentences. We also have raised with the Vietnamese government our concerns about the harassment of ethnic minority Protestants in the Central and Northwest Highlands. This harassment includes cases of forced renunciation of faith, the closing of house churches, and a very slow process of allowing churches to legally register. The U.S. House of Representatives has now twice passed versions of a Vietnam Human Rights Act that would cap non-humanitarian assistance from the USG at current levels. Although neither bill passed the Senate, Congressional concerns remain strong. Senator Brownback held Foreign Relation Committee Meetings just a little over a week ago which focused on human rights. These human rights issues certainly do affect the pace at which we can develop bilateral relations. But I nonetheless remain confident that we will be able to deal with those issues while further developing our overall relationship. We speak frankly about our disagreements while recognizing that the longer-term trend since the beginning of Vietnam's economic renovation policy in 1986 has in fact been a dramatic expansion of personal freedoms. The foreign community in Vietnam, both multilateral agencies and bilateral donors like the U.S., are actively involved in helping Vietnam carry out its economic reforms. The U.S. assistance program in Vietnam predates our formal diplomatic relations. The two largest parts of it today are to counter the spread of HIV/AIDS--where we are the largest bilateral donor--and to provide technical assistance in helping Vietnam to implement the BTA and to prepare for accession to the WTO. Our assistance programs promote civil society development, rule of law, advocacy for persons with disabilities and those living with HIV/AIDS, environmental management, and trade reform. In working with Vietnam to create a more genuine system of rule by law, to train judges and lawyers, and to build new standards of transparency and accountability, we are having a major impact, not only on bringing Vietnam up to the level of international trading norms, but also fundamentally changing, for the better, the relations between the citizens and the State. As the scope of our relationship with Vietnam broadens, mutual understanding becomes even more critical. Because of the legacy of war and Vietnam's long period of isolation, understanding can be particularly difficult for both countries. Our cultural and educational exchanges have grown dramatically. We have the largest U.S. Government- funded Fulbright program in the world, training economists, businessmen, public policy experts, English- teachers, and professors in the Social Sciences and Humanities. We now have a new program unique to Vietnam called the Vietnam Educational Foundation, which is focused on scientific training. The combined budgets of the Fulbright Program and the Vietnam Education Foundation total nearly $10 million per year--more than the U.S. contributes towards higher education in any other country in the world. In our burgeoning economic relationship, the Bilateral Trade Agreement--the (BTA)--is a key foundation and presents enormous opportunities for expanded cooperation. This agreement binds Vietnam to an unprecedented array of reform commitments in its legal and regulatory structure and has become an important catalyst for change. The BTA eliminates non-tariff barriers, cuts tariffs on a number of U.S. exports and gives Vietnam MFN access to the U.S. market. It also provides for effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, opens Vietnam's market to U.S. service providers, and creates fair and transparent rules and regulations for U.S. investors. Vietnam is lagging behind in some of its BTA commitments and enforcement remains weak, but the country has made progress in opening its markets to many U.S. products, such as aircraft, machinery and cotton. Unfortunately, its market still remains relatively closed to U.S. intellectual property industry products despite some progress in revising legislation related to intellectual property rights. The BTA has had a significant impact on our bilateral trade, which has grown sharply in the first two years. In 2003, two-way trade soared again by over 100%, reaching an estimated $6 billion. As a result of our tariff reductions, Vietnam's exports to the U.S. have risen by about 125% each in the first two years, while our exports to Vietnam, boosted by the sale of some Boeing aircraft, have also risen markedly. Vietnam's official figures on U.S. investment in Vietnam has also risen to a current total of just over $1 billion, but this seriously understates the true figure. This data does not include investments by U.S. subsidiaries in Singapore and elsewhere in the region, such as nearly over $800 million by Conoco-Phillips alone. Our deepening economic, commercial, and assistance relationship with Vietnam promotes civil society, encourages economic reform, draws the country further into the rules- based international trading system, and promotes interests of American workers, consumers, farmers, and business people. We strongly support Vietnam's decision to adopt WTO provisions as the basis for its trade regime. The Vietnamese government must now demonstrate that it is prepared to undertake the commitments that are necessary to become a WTO member. Vietnam's implementation of a rules-based trading system based on WTO principles of transparency and its continued pursuit of structural economic reforms should accelerate the development of the private sector, enhance the rule of law, and improve the atmosphere for progress in democracy and human rights. So, let me conclude my comments on the past and the present with a word about the future. Vietnam today is a dynamic, rapidly developing economy, an increasingly popular tourist destination, and an attractive site for foreign investment. I expect that Vietnam will continue its journey towards a more efficient economy with greater individual freedom and that today's children will be better off than their parents. And I hope--and fully expect--that U.S.-Vietnam relations will continue to broaden and deepen mutual understanding to the benefit of both of our nations. Raymond F. Burghardt, Ambassador, Asia Society, Hong Kong Center.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing H.R. 4768, the Veterans Medical Facilities Management Act of 2004. This legislation will help address needs in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to modernize health care facilities, make better use of VA's existing portfolio of properties and dispose of unneeded properties over the next several years. In legislation I introduced last year that was included in Public Law (P.L.) 108-170, the Veterans Health Care, Capital Asset, and Business Improvement Act of 2003, a three-year program of delegated authorizations was established to allow the Secretary to update, improve, establish, restore or replace major VA health care facilities. Congress delegated authority to the Secretary to approve individual facility projects based on recommendations of an independent capital investments board and on criteria that places a premium on projects to protect patient safety and privacy; improve seismic protection; provide barrier-free accommodations; and improve VA patient care facilities in specialized areas of concern. Many VA community based clinics operate in leased facilities. P.L. 108-170 did not provide the Secretary any new authority concerning execution of major medical facility leases. The Department has identified the need for authorization or renewal of major medical facility leases under title 38, United States Code, section 8104(a)(2) at a cost of approximately $24 million in fiscal year 2005. This legislation would authorize leases in the Department's recommended locations as follows: Site Annual lease cost Wilmington, North Carolina Outpatient Clinic.................$1,320,000 Greenville, North Carolina Outpatient Clinic..................1,220,000 Norfolk, Virginia Outpatient Clinic...........................1,250,000 Summerfield, Florida Marion County Outpatient Clinic..........1,230,000 Knoxville, Tennessee Outpatient Clinic..........................850,000 Toledo, Ohio Outpatient Clinic................................1,200,000 Crown Point, Indiana Outpatient Clinic..........................850,000 Fort Worth, Texas Tarrant County Outpatient Clinic............3,900,000 Plano, Texas Collin County Outpatient Clinic..................3,300,000 San Antonio, Texas Northeast Central Bexar County Outpatient C1,400,000 Corpus Christi, Texas Outpatient Clinic.......................1,200,000 Harlington, Texas Outpatient Clinic.............................650,000 Denver, Colorado Health Administration Center.................1,950,000 Oakland, California Outpatient Clinic.........................1,700,000 San Diego, California North County Outpatient Clinic..........1,300,000 San Diego, California South County Outpatient Clinic..........1,100,000 This bill would also provide that the Department may enter into a long-term lease of up to 75 years for land to construct a new medical facility on the Fitzsimons Campus of the University of Colorado, in Aurora, Colorado. It is anticipated that this new VA facility will be a significant shared facility with the University. The extended lease authority will enable all parties to the relationship to obtain a higher level of confidence in planning and constructing an important health care facility for veterans throughout the intermountain west. Mr. Speaker, this legislation would facilitate the Secretary's authority to transfer unneeded real property currently in VA's portfolio and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary. The bill would require fair market value for any such transfers, except when transferred to a provider of homeless veterans services receiving a grant under section 2011 of title 38, United States Code. This bill would also repeal the defunct Nursing Home Revolving Fund, in section 8116 of title 38, United States Code. It would establish a new fund to be known as the Capital Asset Fund, to help defray VA's cost of transferring real property, including demolition, environmental restoration, maintenance, repair, historic preservation and administrative expenses. VA controls the fourth-largest inventory of owned, leased, and operated federal real property. It is estimated that more than half of VA's facilities are over 50 years old. Many date from the 19th century and many more were constructed in the late 1940s and early 1950s. A large number of properties are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Given this rich array of heritage assets, H.R. 4768 would also allow the Secretary to enter into partnerships or agreements with public or private entities dedicated to historic preservation and to use resources from the Capital Asset Fund to facilitate the transfer, leasing or adaptive use of these properties. The bill requires a series of reports, beginning with a complete inventory of historic properties, followed up with an annual update of the status of each property for two subsequent reporting cycles. The bill would require in the Department's annual budget submission inclusion of information on each proposed and completed transfer. The Department also would report to Congress the annual deposits and expenditures from the Fund. This bill includes a provision to permit the construction of surface parking when incidental to an authorized major medical facility construction project. Also, the bill would provide the Secretary additional flexibility in using funds to develop advanced planning for major construction projects previously authorized by law. VA major medical facility projects are already exempt under section 8166(a) of title 38, United States Code, from State and local laws relating to building codes, permits, and inspections unless the Secretary consents to participate in such state and local regulation. The bill would exempt VA from State and local land use (zoning) laws. Mr. Speaker, I trust that my colleagues will agree with me that this is a bill worthy of their support. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill and help enact it as a high priority to assist the Department of Veterans Affairs with its capital asset needs.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, on July 1, 2004, my home state of Connecticut saw the dawning of a new political era. The cloud of controversy that had covered Connecticut in recent months was lifted as Lieutenant Governor Jodi Rell was installed as Connecticut's 87th Governor. I have known our new governor for many years. We served together in the State Legislature and she has been lieutenant governor for nine and a half years. Jodi Rell understands government at both the legislative and executive levels. She is a leader and a hard worker. She understands that among her primary responsibilities is to bring high standards and confidence back to the office of governor. I have no doubt she will succeed. On a sunny day last week, Governor Rell took office with a pledge of honor, respect and modesty. She spoke of the ``culture of corruption'' that has infected Connecticut's state government and she acknowledged that her predecessor's ethical problems had shaken the public's faith in government and belief in the dignity of public service. Governor Rell said, ``Today, we begin to restore faith, integrity and honor to our government. It is our solemn obligation. It will be our lasting legacy.'' Governor Rell was gracious towards her predecessor. She said, ``These have been very difficult and trying times for everyone, including Governor Rowland and his family. My thoughts and prayers are with them.'' It was the proper tone for the day. It was heartening to see officials from both sides of the aisle rally in support of the new governor. They understand that when faith in government is shaken and when our belief in the intrinsic virtue of public service is called into doubt, it is the business of everyone-- regardless of political affiliation--to raise the level of dialogue and conduct. Truly, as Governor Rell stated, ``The time to heal has begun.'' The public deserves absolutely nothing less than the meritorious and disinterested public service of our elected officials. Connecticut's newest governor understands this and I am proud to offer her my full support.

Mr. SIMMONS

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

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I thank the Committee on Rules and the distinguished chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for endorsing this amendment. It is quite simple. It directs the Director of Central Intelligence to prepare over a 6-month period a report on the progress of open sources of intelligence. Open-source intelligence refers to an intelligence discipline based on information collected from open sources, generally available to the public. In the mid-1990s, it was my honor to command the 434th Military Intelligence Detachment, a U.S. Army reserve unit affiliated with Yale University and located in New Haven, Connecticut. With the active participation of Chief Warrant Officer Tompkins and Sergeant Eliot Jardines, our unit wrote the first handbook for open-source intelligence for the U.S. Army. Today, Mr. Jardines has provided me with some interesting photographs that at first look like highly classified aerial photographs of the uranium enrichment facility in Iran, and it shows here the enrichment facility being built; and then in this photograph, it has been covered with dirt, and you can see a large security or perimeter fence around it. A closer look at this aerial image again shows the construction of the enrichment facility and then how it has been buried in Iran, presumably to keep it a secret from the rest of the world. These are not classified. These images were obtained from open sources; and the beauty of open source in this particular instance, Mr. Chairman, is that these images can be e-mailed around the country and around the world for others to look at them and to assist in the analysis process. Why is open source so important? It is important because there is a vast amount of information available in the public sector. It can be shared. It can be shared with other countries. It can be transported without concern about classification. Recently, the Joint Military Intelligence Training Center published an open-source exploitation guide. A few years previously, the ``Open- source Quarterly'' published additional information on how we can enhance our intelligence capabilities with open source, but this May the U.S. Army distributed FM 2-0 on intelligence, and they left open source out altogether. That is unfortunate, at a time when our intelligence performance is being questioned. At a time when every scrap of information is needed to piece together the puzzle presented by terrorist operations, there could be no better time than to incorporate the value of OSINT to our overall intelligence product and make it available to our policymakers and our military forces. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), who is also a naval intelligence officer.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his very appropriate comments, and I am glad to hear that we share a mutual interest. In closing, I would simply like to draw attention to a book called ``The New Craft of Intelligence,'' which focuses on open source. The distinguished chairman of the Senate committee made the comment in the preface, ``Secret intelligence alone cannot protect America.'' This amendment is designed to address that issue. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the distinguished chairman of the committee.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reflect on the recent visit of Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan, to Washington, DC. In his address before Congress on Tuesday, June 15th, President Karzai spoke movingly about the troubled past, the current progress, and the promising future of Afghanistan. He called upon Congress to continue aiding Afghanistan in rebuilding a society that has been caught in an ideological crossfire for the past 25 years. The United States was duly congratulated for completed work toward rebuilding Afghanistan and admonished for ignoring the Taliban's oppression until the regime's extremism was manifested so tragically in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In his speech, President Karzai affirmed the importance of our presence in Afghanistan. We are in Afghanistan today not to dictate what Afghanistan will become, but to ensure an environment of stability and freedom that fosters democracy and true self-determination. I commend President Karzai for the progress that already has been made--most recently the opening of the International Press Centre, which marked an important step toward the development of a free press. Today, five million Afghan girls and boys are attending school. The economy is estimated to have grown by 20 percent this year, and 3.8 million people have registered to vote, of which 35.4 percent are female. Health centers have been developed to provide basic services, especially to women and children. The national army and the national police are being rebuilt. Three million refugees have returned to the country. Girls are returning to schools where their presence was once forbidden. Women, invisible under Taliban rule, are returning to the public sphere, where they can once again be productive members of society, contributing to cultural and economic growth. In the parliament, 25 percent of the seats have been reserved for women. Slowly but surely, Afghanistan is being rebuilt. Despite this progress, our job is not yet complete. Our presence is needed until fair elections under a democratic system can be guaranteed to the people of Afghanistan. Private militias must be disarmed and disbanded. The production of narcotics must cease. Clean water and electricity must reach the Afghan people and health care must improve. ``Afghanistan is open for business and American companies are most welcome,'' Karzai stated. ``Together, we will make Afghanistan a great success and an enduring example of a prosperous democratic society. Our shared success in Afghanistan is vital to achieving victory over the greatest menace the world faces today--terrorism and extremism.'' Afghanistan deserves to make its goals a reality. We must ensure that Afghanistan has the dignity that is afforded by democracy and that is the right of every human being. As someone who served in a war zone, I was most struck by President Karzai's gratitude to the American people: ``I thank you and the people of this great country for your generosity and the commitment to our people. You have supported us with your resources, with your leadership in the world community, and most importantly with the precious lives of your soldiers.'' He recognized the sacrifice and valor of the American soldiers who volunteered their lives so that an oppressed people in a distant land could be free. Upon hearing President Karzai's words, I was reminded of Pat Tillman, the National Football League recruit who gave up a multi-million dollar contract to serve as an Army Ranger and lost his life in Afghanistan. Tillman refused interviews on the grounds that he was no better than any soldier who had volunteered to serve in the Armed Forces. His humility, his willingness to give up a comfortable life for a difficult one, his commitment to protecting American values and fighting tyranny proved him to be a true American hero. I congratulate President Karzai on the progress he has made toward rebuilding Afghanistan. Our troops will continue to serve in that land so that a long-suffering people can prosper freely. I offer my whole- hearted support to him and the people of Afghanistan in building a nation where power lies once again in the hands of its people.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time. I rise in support of the amendment. As my colleague from Michigan mentioned, I spent 10 years in the Central Intelligence Agency. For all of those 10 years, I was a case officer. Five of those 10 years I served abroad on what I feel are difficult and dangerous missions. We have people today overseas serving under similarly difficult and dangerous conditions. The life of a CIA officer operating undercover overseas is not easy. They are required to penetrate a host government, a terrorist organization, or some other entity that may do harm to our Nation. Of definition, you are going to be dealing with unsavory characters. Of definition, you are going to have to do things that you would not normally do to accomplish your mission. This is stressful and this is dangerous, and so you can imagine what it must be like to operate in this environment when the DCI in 1995 issues the Deutch Guidelines, where cumbersome legal impediments are placed upon the clandestine operative in his or her effort to accomplish their mission. I think this resolution correctly points out some of the difficulties that we have encountered over the last 3 years, and I would argue that some of those difficulties were encountered on both sides of the aisle, no question about it. But I think it is also incumbent that we use this opportunity, this Intelligence authorization bill to discuss some of these issues so the American people better understand how regulations like the Deutch regulations, which sound good on the surface, which restrict us from dealing with unsavory characters, in fact, work to defeat the fundamental mission of our intelligence men and women operating undercover overseas. I thank the gentleman for his amendment.

Mr. SIMMONS

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

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment because we have an obligation to preserve the Coast Guard's research and development dollars, especially as its mission has expanded to meet the challenges of the post-September 11 period. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, of which I am a member, authorized $18.5 million for research and development activities for fiscal year 2005. This is the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the level identified by the Coast Guard for its need. Both the House and the Senate Coast Guard authorization bills for fiscal year 2005 authorized this level of funding. Unfortunately, the bill before us today to fund the Department of Homeland Security does not explicitly protect a single dollar for the Coast Guard's R&D activities. Instead, as I understand the legislation, H.R. 4567 transfers these dollars to the Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate. I remind my colleagues that when we voted to create the Department of Homeland Security we mandated that all authorities, functions and capabilities of the Coast Guard be maintained intact under the authority of the service and that the Coast Guard be maintained as a distinct entity within the Department. I have serious concerns about asking the Coast Guard to compete with the other science and technology demands of the Department of Homeland Security. Furthermore, the Coast Guard has the experience and knows best how to use its R&D funding to support its core missions. We should not transfer that authority to a new entity. My amendment to preserve the Coast Guard's R&D funding within the Coast Guard is consistent with current law and honors the commitment of this body to transfer the Coast Guard intact. I would ask the chairman to work with me on this issue in conference.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, it was my intention to withdraw the amendment based on the assurances that I received from the distinguished chairman.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the passing of Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States of America. As a Vietnam veteran and an officer with the CIA from 1969-1979, my world was changed dramatically and for the better when Ronald Reagan won his historic presidential race in November 1980. At the time I was serving on the staff of Senator John H. Chafee (R- RI). Politically, it was a watershed year. Not only did the Senate go from Democrat to Republican control for the first time in 26 years, but also some very well known Democratic Senators were swept from office in the ``Reagan Revolution.'' They included Senator Frank Church, former Chairman of the Committee to Investigate the Intelligence Activities of the United States, and Birch Bayh, second Chairman of the newly established Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The Senate Intelligence Committee, where I went on to serve for four years as staff director, gained new leadership under Chairman Barry Goldwater and Vice Chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Goldwater had a long-standing and close political relationship with Ronald Reagan. In fact, many have said that a speech delivered by Reagan during Goldwater's historic 1964 presidential campaign propelled Reagan into the national political spotlight. Goldwater was excited to work with President Reagan and CIA Director William Casey to institute a new approach to intelligence oversight. First, it focused on bipartisan consensus in intelligence where Vice Chairman Moynihan was a valued partner. It also departed from the adversarial process of Senators Church and Bayh, and focused on rebuilding the morale and intelligence capabilities of American intelligence. Rather than adopting Church's belief that the CIA was a ``rogue elephant,'' Goldwater expressed his supportive feelings by talking about the ``intelligence family.'' Sadly, in 1984 these positive developments were disrupted when the CIA was discovered to have been covertly involved in the mining of Nicaraguan harbors, without proper notification to Congress. In the ensuing firestorm, Barry Goldwater wrote a pointed note to CIA Director Casey expressing his concern over the lack of communication. The letter was quickly leaked to an eager press, excited that Senator Goldwater was at odds with the Reagan Administration. At the time these events were unfolding, President Reagan was scheduled to appear at the Washington Hilton for the White House Correspondents Association annual black-tie dinner. Many observers felt that the press would use the opportunity to embarrass the president over the intelligence ``flap.'' But, in what was to become a classic response of the President to a difficult situation, Ronald Reagan opened his remarks by saying: ``What's all that talk about a breakdown of White House communications? How come nobody told me?'' Laughter. ``Well, I know this: I've laid down the law, though, to everyone there from now on about anything that happens, no matter what time it is, wake me, even if it's in the middle of a Cabinet meeting.'' Laughter. The official presidential documents recorded that the President received twenty-six more laughs. [Bob Woodward, Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981-1987, p. 333] It was to the point. It was funny. It was self-deprecating. It defused for a moment what was a gathering storm for the Administration. It gave everyone the opportunity to step away from a potentially explosive moment and get on with the challenging business of government. Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of President Reagan, the United States rebuilt her intelligence and national security structure from 1980-1988. This was not done without controversy, but it was done. Morale was restored at the Central Intelligence Agency and elsewhere in the Intelligence Community. Capabilities were improved. The military, too, regained a new pride and strength following the disasters in Vietnam and Iran. Members of the armed forces felt their service was respected by the Commander in Chief, and they valued his support. They loved his patriotic speeches, and were eager to follow his lead. And yet for all of his accomplishments as a national and world leader, President Reagan never lost the personal touch. When I departed Washington, DC in early 1985, I left with a personal letter of thanks signed by the President. This letter hangs in my office even today as a proud reminder of what President Reagan and Congress were able to accomplish during those difficult but historic years. It is also a clear symbol of a man who never allowed the trappings of high office obscure his view of the ``little people'' who constitute the strength of our government and Nation. Now as we remember the life of Ronald Reagan, and as his casket lies with honor under the Capitol dome, it is my turn to thank him for his distinguished service to our country and to the world. He left us a better people and he left the world a better place. The man will be missed, but the memory lives on in all of us who were touched by his life and his leadership. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to introduce The No Child Left Behind Reform Act, which will make three basic changes to the No Child Left Behind Act. This bill was originally authored by my distinguished colleague from Connecticut, Senator Chris Dodd was recently introduced in the Senate. The legislation I rise to introduce today is a House companion to this bill. No Child Left Behind was passed in 2002 with bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate in an acknowledgement that the achievement gap among our nation's children must be closed. Since its passage, I have made very deliberate efforts to communicate with educators who will be responsible for implementation of the law. Like most of them, I remain committed to the goals and the general strategy of the policy. Toward this effort, I have established an Education Roundtable with whom I have met numerous times to discuss this reform. Through this Roundtable, I have met with more than 100 educators over the course of the last two years and have discovered that there are several common concerns. As a result, I am introducing this legislation in an effort to make the No Child Left Behind Act and even stronger educational tool. The legislation will meet the challenges brought to my attention by educators, administrators and parents who deal with these issues every day at the local level. First, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act will allow schools to consider measures other than test scores when determining achievement. Currently, the law holds schools accountable for student achievement measured solely by scores on two tests administered on one day. It gives schools no credit for progress on other academic indicators, such as dropout rates, the number of students who participate in advanced placement courses, and measures of individual student improvement over time. This legislation will allow schools to be recognized for succeeding in these areas. Second, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act will allow schools to target school choice and supplemental services to those students whose group fails to make AYP. Under implementation of the current law, if a school is in need of improvement it is expected to offer school choice and supplemental services to all students. This does not allow a school to target its resources to those who are most in need. By targeting those students in groups that fail to meet AYP, this legislation presents the most efficient way to maximize the effect of these resources. Finally, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act provides flexibility to teachers looking to meet ``highly qualified'' standards. As it is, the law requires teachers to be ``highly qualified'' to teach every subject that they teach. This is certainly a necessary component to the law but some of the educators with whom I have met have expressed concerns. The problems arise for those teachers in the fields of math and science who are now required to become certified in various disciplines such as biology, earth science and chemistry. It also applies to teachers in rural middle schools who teach multiple subjects and are struggling to become certified in all of those subjects. The legislation I am introducing today will allow middle grade level teachers who teach multiple subjects as well as math and science teachers to take one assessment test for all of the subjects they teach. Each state will determine what the test will consist of based on the needs of their state. Mr. Speaker, these changes will provide significant assistance to schools in Connecticut and other states across the country currently struggling to comply with the No Child Left Behind Act. Clearly, we have encountered some unintended consequences of No Child Left Behind. If we are not able to restructure the law to address these issues we run the risk of losing the worthwhile goals that motivated the passage of this important legislation. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of the No Child Left Behind Reform Act.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for H.R. 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005. As a Member of the Armed Services Committee, I wish to thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton, as well as our subcommittee chairmen and ranking members for their tireless work in crafting this fine piece of legislation. These are not easy times for the Department of Defense. The brave men and women of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are serving us proudly around the globe. They are daily putting their lives on the line to defend the liberties we take for granted. In the last 2 years these men and women have overthrown two terrorist regimes and liberated over 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq. The least we can do for our troops is provide good wages, adequate armor and ammunition, and new aircraft, ships and fighting vehicles. This legislation meets and exceeds these goals. I am pleased that this bill will provide a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise, eliminating out-of-pocket housing expenses and increasing retention incentives and hazard duty pay. Hearing of inadequacies in body armor and up-armored HMMWVs from family members of soldiers in the field, I made force protection my number one priority. Earlier this year I traveled to Ohio to see first- hand the manufacturing process and capabilities of up-armored HMMWVs. I thank the chairman and ranking member for fulfilling their commitment by providing $704.7 million to increase and sustain production of the vehicles at a rate of 450 per month. I also applaud their forward vision in providing $358.2 million for add-on armor kits for the Army's truck fleet. The add-on armor provides critical protection against anti-personnel projectiles and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Earlier this year the 1109th AVCRAD, a Connecticut National Guard aviation repair unit, returned from a year deployment in Kuwait and Iraq. Conversations with the CO made clear to me that the Blackhawk helicopters in theater are wearing out rapidly. Therefore, I am pleased to see that many of the funds originally authorized in the Comanche program have been redirected to the procurement of much needed Blackhawk Helicopters. The eight helicopters added by the committee brings the grand total in the bill to 63. Our soldiers specifically asked for more Blackhawks, a workhorse helicopter for our Army and Navy, and this is now provided in this bill. For our sailors, this bill provides funding for the next Virginia Class submarine. Virginia Class will also be seeing critical research and development funding for both payloads and sensors and the critical Multi-Mission Modules. Additionally, I am pleased that this legislation addresses the security needs of Naval Submarine Base New London, in Groton, Connecticut, by providing $4.42 million for security enhancements and upgrades to entry gates 3 and 5. These upgrades are necessary to protect the submariners stationed at Subase New London, as well as protecting our investment in the submarine fleet, including the new USS Virginia that will soon call the Subase home. Mr. Chairman, in December 2003, Time magazine named their ``Person of the Year'' as the American Soldier. This year's defense authorization bill has been named ``The Year of the Troops.'' We praise the men and women of the Armed Forces for their service. I am pleased to support a piece of legislation that sends a clear message from this Congress that we support their service and sacrifice.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from New Jersey, for extending to me time; and I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 91, which supports the recognition of the 60th anniversary of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, more popularly known as the GI bill, which transformed our country immediately after World War II and brought the American dream to life. It is my understanding that during an emergency meeting of the American Legion leadership in 1943, Harry Colmery, a former national commander, crafted the initial draft of the GI bill on hotel stationery at the Mayflower Renaissance Hotel. President Franklin Roosevelt signed the GI bill on June 22, 1944. The bill put the dream of a college education within grasp of all of the veterans who came back from World War II who had served 90 days or more, and they qualified for up to $500 per term for vocational school or for college. In my home State of Connecticut, at the University of Connecticut, over 8,000 students enrolled during the period 1946 to 1947, four times the number registered in the period shortly preceding the war. When we think, Mr. Speaker, of the GI bill, we should not just think of the Greatest Generation. We should think of the many tens of thousands of veterans who since that time have taken advantage of the GI bill; veterans, like myself, returning from service in Vietnam and seeking additional education and then also my wife and I coming here to Washington, D.C., in the early 1970s and looking for a house to buy and appealing to the GI bill to assist us so that not only the dream of an education and the dream of a better job but the dream of homeownership came home to us because of the GI bill. It makes me proud, Mr. Speaker, to be a life member of the American Legion, knowing that it was the American Legion that initiated this incredible transforming program for America's veterans. I am excited to join my colleagues from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs here today to celebrate the 60th anniversary of this wonderful piece of legislation, and I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), specifically for introducing this resolution.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time, and I associate myself with the remarks of the chairman and of the ranking member. I also have a heavy heart. As someone who served as a U.S. Army military intelligence officer for more than 30 years on active and reserve duty, I am appalled and disgusted by the images of U.S. soldiers mistreating prisoners in Iraq. Not only is the abuse of prisoners repugnant to our moral values as Americans, but it has little to no utility in eliciting useful intelligence from hostile elements. Army Field Manual 34-52 clearly defines interrogation as the art of questioning and beaming a source to obtain the maximum amount of usable information. The goal of any interrogation is to obtain usable and reliable information in a lawful manner, in a lawful manner. It goes on to say, ``The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor condoned by the U.S. Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results.'' This is Army Field Manual 34-52. I am outraged to think that the stupid and insulting behavior of a very few soldiers and officers could undercut the honorable and the courageous service of so many American soldiers in Iraq. A full investigation is in order. Punishment for the guilty parties is required, and we must send a clear message to the world that the action of a very few does not represent the values of most American soldiers and most Americans.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding me the time. I rise today in support of the Middle-Class Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2004, a bill that will prevent millions of middle-class, middle-income Americans from paying higher taxes next year. Mr. Speaker, when the IRS's national taxpayer advocate Nina Olsen presented her annual report to Congress at the end of last year, she deemed the AMT, or the alternative minimum tax, as ``the biggest problem taxpayers face today.'' She did not say upper-income taxpayers. She did not say top tax brackets. She did not say wealthy taxpayers, but simply taxpayers. In fact, middle-class families with children are becoming increasingly liable to come under the AMT for several reasons. First, the baseline exemptions in this tax were never exempted for inflation. So as more and more Americans have entered into the middle class over the past 25 or 30 years, they have outrun the exemption and, therefore, fallen into the AMT trap. Secondly, the AMT has begun to fall especially hard on middle-class families with children, the very people we in this body have aimed to help, not hurt, with our tax laws. These Americans work hard, they play by the rules, they pay their taxes year after year and are now sending more of their earnings to the Federal Government because this tax does not allow them to take the standard deduction for married couples, and it does not allow them to enjoy individual exemptions for themselves and their children. What is more, as my colleague from New York has indicated, high-tax States such as New York and Connecticut are much more likely to be caught because the State, local, and personal property taxes are not deductible. Connecticut is the most taxed State in the Nation; and this year, around April 15, I heard from many of my constituents about the AMT tax. Just last week, on a radio call-in show, I heard from a constituent, Rose Curran. She called in to complain about the AMT. Rose and her husband, Dan, did not have to pay it this year, but they anticipate that if we do not act they will pay it in the next couple of years. Rose is a retired State employee whose only income is Social Security. Dan is a Vietnam veteran, disabled, a retired sailor from the U.S. Navy who now works as a civilian at the submarine base in Groton. I do not consider Rose and Dan Curran what I would call wealthy or rich people. They do not either, and yet they are concerned that if Dan keeps working at the submarine base they will fall into this trap. This is one of the reasons why I introduced the Middle-Class Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2004, to extend through 2005 the AMT relief provided in the 2003 law. This measure will ensure that taxpayers who are currently exempt from the AMT will continue to be protected because AMT will be indexed for inflation over the next year. If this legislation is not enacted, Mr. Speaker, the number of working families affected by the AMT will increase from over 3 million this year to over 11 million in 2005. Here is a chart that illustrates what will happen. We will go from 3 million to 11 million. If we enact this legislation, we will remain at the 3 million. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me today in support of middle-class Americans like Dan and Rose Curran of Norwich, Connecticut. I urge their support for this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support my ``Middle-Class Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2004,'' a bill that will prevent millions of middle-class Americans from paying higher taxes next year. In 1969, the Treasury Secretary testified before Congress that 155 individual taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 paid no Federal income tax on their 1967 tax returns by taking advantage of the many exemptions and deductions in the tax code. This revelation sparked an immediate backlash from the American people. That year Congress received more constituent letters regarding those 155 taxpayers than on the Vietnam War. Following this outburst from taxpaying constituents, legislation was passed that created a minimum tax designed to ensure that wealthy individuals could not escape income tax liability. It was termed the alternative minimum tax or ``AMT,'' for short. The AMT is a parallel tax system. You calculate your taxes under the normal tax system and again under the AMT. Whichever one yields a higher tax is the one you pay. The difference is that when calculating the AMT you cannot take the standard deduction, child exemptions, or deduct state, local, and personal property taxes. Without these important deductions, the AMT often carries the higher price tag of the two. Over three million American families discovered this just last month when calculating their taxes. For them, the AMT became their income tax. Mr. Speaker, when the IRS's national taxpayer advocate, Nina Olsen, presented her annual report to Congress at the end of last year, she deemed the AMT to be the ``biggest problem taxpayers face today.'' I would urge my colleagues to note that Ms. Olsen said ``taxpayers.'' Not upper-income, not top bracket, not wealthy taxpayers, but simply taxpayers. In fact, middle-class families with children are increasingly liable to come under the AMT for several reasons. First, the baseline exemptions in this tax were never indexed for inflation. So as more Americans have entered the middle-class over the past 30 years, they have ``outrun'' the exemption and therefore fallen into the AMT trap. Second, the AMT has begun to fall especially hard on middle-class families with children--the very people who we in this body have aimed to help not hurt with our tax laws. These Aemricans--who have worked hard, played by the rules, and paid their taxes year after year--are now sending more of their earnings to the Federal government because this tax does not allow them to take the standard deduction for married couples and it does not allow them to enjoy individual exemptions for themselves and their children. The more children a family has, the more likely they will be forced into the AMT. What's more, if families hail from high-tax States like Connecticut they are much more likely to be snared, as State, local, and personal property taxes are not deductible under the AMT. I represent the most- taxed state in the nation. This time of year I am hearing more and more about the AMT. Just last week while participating on a call-in radio program I heard from a constituent of mine from Norwich, Connecticut. Rose Curran and her husband, Dan, did not have to pay the AMT this year, but they did owe Federal taxes for the first time in years. In going over their return, they discovered the AMT and were curious about what it was. Upon learning more about its current exemption levels, they realized that this supposed ``tax for the rich'' may well affect them in future years. Rose is a retired State employee whose only income is social security. Dan is a disabled Vietnam veteran and retired sailor who works now as a civilian at the Subase in Groton. Mr. Speaker, I don't think Dan and Rose Curran would call themselves ``rich.'' But they are concerned that if Dan keeps working at the base they will fall into this tax trap. During my conversation with Rose I urged her to follow up with office and I promised that I would look into this matter. When I did I was stunned. As one publication put it, this problem is ``growing like the monster from the tax lagoon.'' Today, the AMT exemption amount for a married couple is $58,000. However, this relief is scheduled to expire at the end of the year. Without action, the exemption amount will drop from $58,000 to $45,000 in 2005--raisinig taxes on millions of hard-working, middle-income families beginning next year. The exemption for individual payers will drop from $40,250 to $33,750 with the same result. Therefore I have introduced the ``Middle-Class Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2004,'' to extend through 2005 the AMT relief provided in the 2003 law. This measure will also ensure that those taxpayers that are currently exempt from the AMT will continue to be protected from the AMT because it will be indexed for inflation over the next year. If my legislation is not enacted, Mr. Speaker, the number of working families affected by the AMT will increase from over 3 million this year to over 11 million in 2005. Let me repeat that--over 11 million Americans will face this surtax next year without action on my bill today. What's more, the 8 million new families paying the AMT will face an average tax increase of $1,520 according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. I'm sure that many of my friends here today will say that this won't solve the greater structural problems of this tax and that this is just a temporary fax. There is some truth to that. Thanks in part to the diligent work of people like my colleague from just next door, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Neal, we all recognize the seriousness of this issue and the need for a long-term solution. But lets not get so mired in debating how to address the long-range consequences of this problem that we fail to provide this critical extension. Mr. Speaker, what began as a way to make sure that high-income Americans payed their fair share has today become little more than an unfair surcharge on people who choose to get married, have children and work their way into the middle class. My friends, the fireman and the teacher making around $65,000 together are not rich. They work hard every day to put food on the table, pay the mortgage, and save for their children's education. They cannot afford high-priced accountants to help them reduce their tax bill. But if this couple has three children and takes the standard deduction, they WILL--according to CRS--pay the AMT next year if we don't act. Lets make sure--with this legislation--that next April people like Rose and Dan Curran do not pay the considerable price of the alternative minimum tax because we failed to act on their behalf today. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of middle-class Americans like Dan and Rose Curran of Norwich, Connecticut and support the ``Middle-Class Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2004.''

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 599) congratulating the University of Connecticut Huskies for winning the 2004 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I men and women's basketball championships.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) from Connecticut's District 4.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Earlier in my comments, I mentioned the fact that I would not be naming individual members of the team because I wanted to make the point that for Coach Auriemma and for the Lady Huskies, individual performance is less important than team performance. But my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from the First District of Connecticut (Mr. Larson), and my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), have also pointed out the historic nature of the accomplishment, the historic nature of the accomplishment, that, until this year, the men's and women's championships have not been won by any single college or university in history, in history. On that basis, I think it is appropriate that I include for the Record the full roster of the men's team and the full roster of the women's team. 2003-04 Winter Women's Basketball Roster Number, Name, Year, Position, Height, Hometown High School: 2, Ashley Valley, Jr., G, 5-9, Colchester, VT/Rice Memorial. 3, Diana Taurasi, Sr., G/F, 6-0, Chino, CA/Don Lugo. 4, Kiana Robinson, Fr., G, 5-8, Brandon, FL/Laurinburg Institute (NC). 5, Maria Conlon, Sr. G, 5-9, Derby, CT/Seymour. 12, Stacey Marron, Jr., G, 5-9, Albuquerque, NM/La Cueva. 20, Morgan Valley, Sr., G, 6-0, Colchester, VT/Rice Memorial. 21, Nicole Wolff, So., G, 6-0, Walpole, MA/Walpole. 22, Ashley Battle, Jr., F, 6-0, Pittsburgh, PA/The Linsly School. 23, Willnett Crockett, So., F/C, 6-2, Harbor City, CA/Narbonne. 31, Jessica Moore, Jr., C, 6-3, Palmer, AK/Colony. 33, Barbara Turner, So., F/G, 6-0, Cleveland, OH/East Technical. 34, Liz Sherwood, Fr., C, 6-4, Castle Rock, CO/Highlands Ranch. 43, Ann Strother, So., G, 6-2, Castle Rock, CO/Highlands Ranch. 2003-04 Women's Basketball Coaching Staff Head Coach: Geno Auriemma 19th Season at Connecticut (West Chester '81). Associate Head Coach: Chris Dailey 19th Season at Connecticut (Rutgers '82). Assistant Coach: Tonya Cardoza 10th Season at Connecticut (Virginia '91). Assistant Coach: Jamelle Elliott 7th Season at Connecticut (Connecticut '96). Director of Basketball Operations: Jack Eisenmann Third Season at Connecticut. 2003-04 Winter Men's Basketball Roster Number, Name, Year, Position, Height, Weight, Hometown High School: 31, Rashad Anderson, So., G/F, 6-5, 190, Lakeland, FL/Kathleen. 11, Hilton Armstrong, So., F/C, 6-10, 210, Peekskill, NY/Peekskill. 24, Jason Baisch, Jr., F, 6-6, 250, Southbury, CT/Pomperaug. 21, Josh Boone, Fr., F/C, 6-10, 230, Mt. Airy, MD/West Nottingham Academy. 33, Denham Brown, So., F, 6-5, 205, Toronto, Canada/West Hill Collegiate. 12, Taliek Brown, Sr., G, 6-1, 200, Queens, NY/St. John's Prep. 40, Justin Evanovich, Sr., G, 6-3, 195, Ann Arbor, MI/E.O. Smith (CT). 4, Ben Gordon, Jr., G, 6-2, 195, Mount Vernon, NY/Mount Vernon. 32, Ed Nelson, Jr., F, 6-8, 265, Fort Lauderdale, FL/Georgia Tech. 50, Emeka Okafor, Jr., F/C, 6-9, 252, Houston, TX/Bellaire. 2, Ryan Swaller, Sr., F, 6-5, 208, Milford, CT/Foran. 13, Ryan Thompson, Jr., F, 6-6, 215, Gold Coast, Australia/W. Nebraska C.C. 30, Shamon Tooles, Sr., G/F, 6-5, 225, Coatesville, PA/Coatesville. 3, Charlie Villanueva, Fr., F, 6-11, 230, Brooklyn, NY/Blair Academy (NJ). 23, Marcus White, So., F, 6-8, 215, Chicago, IL/Whitney Young. 5, Marcus Williams, Fr., G, 6-3, 200, Los Angeles, CA/Oak Hill (VA) Academy. 2003-04 Men's Basketball Coaching Staff Head Coach: Jim Calhoun 18th Season at Connecticut (American International, 1968). Assistant Coach: Tom Moore 10th Season at Connecticut (Boston University, 1987). Assistant Coach: George Blaney 3rd Season at Connecticut (Holy Cross, 1961). Assistant Coach: Clyde Vaughan 2nd Season at Connecticut (Pittsburgh, 1984). Director of Basketball Operations: Andre LaFleur 3rd Season at Connecticut (Northeastern, 1988).