Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation which sets into law two very important and straightforward policies:

(1) Congress shall provide no funding to support a permanent military presence in Iraq; and

(2) Congress will not support any policy to exercise U.S. control of Iraq's oil reserves.

These policies are important because they deliver a clear message to the Iraqi people that the U.S. presence is not open-ended, and that the resources of Iraq belong to the Iraqi people.

Today, fully 80 percent of Iraqis believe the U.S. intends to remain indefinitely in their country. This fuels insurgent attacks against our troops and discourages Iraqi security forces from taking control of their communities.

Terrorists use the claim that the U.S. ``occupation'' is a ploy to steal the region's oil, and with it its economic future.

This bill helps to eliminate the deep suspicions which exist and they take an important step forward to change the direction of the Iraq war.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment that Mr. Shimkus and I are offering will provide $5 million for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) with the intent of allowing them to issue grants to upgrade Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), otherwise known as 9-1-1 call centers. Call centers across our country today need to enhance their 9-1-1 technology in order to actually locate where a mobile phone caller in crisis is.

Annually, over 200 million 9-1-1 calls are made, and increasingly those calls are made from mobile phones. According to CTIA, the wireless industry association, more than 10 percent of households now rely on wireless phones as their only telephone service. No wonder it's surprising to many Americans to learn that a 9-1-1 call center may not have enhanced technology to trace an emergency call from a mobile phone in order to dispatch help to exactly where it is needed.

Imagine calling 9-1-1 from your mobile phone at the scene of a car accident or a crime and being told the operator has no idea where you are.

Millions of Americans face this risk every day.

While coverage in many areas is improving, there are significant gaps in the public safety system, particularly in small, rural, and poor communities where federal assistance could be most meaningful.

In 26 states, more than 20 percent of counties have not deployed the latest 9-1-1 technology. In 15 states, well over half the counties haven't deployed this technology. In West Virginia (Chairman Mollohan's home state), nearly one third of the population doesn't have enhanced 9-1-1 coverage. In Ohio, half the state's population lacks this coverage, and in Mississippi, two-thirds.

In 2004, Congress and the President attempted to address this problem by enacting the ENHANCE 9-1-1 Act. The law that Mr. Shimkus and I authored created a grant program to pay 50 percent of the cost for upgrading 9-1-1 call centers and ensure the most precise location (within 300 meters in most cases) of an emergency call from a mobile phone.

The program was authorized to provide up to $1.25 billion in grants over 5 years. Regrettably, 3 years later Congress has yet to fund the program. In fact, the NTIA and National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA), the agencies with responsibility for this program, haven't even established regulations for awarding grants. With only 2 years left in the authorization, it's time to get the program underway.

The modest amount of funding in our amendment will provide grants to approximately 54 smaller counties to upgrade their wireless E9-1-1 capabilities or up to 17 grants to counties with populations over 100,000. This public safety funding is offset by reducing funds from the Justice Department's General Administration.

Our Amendment has been endorsed by the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials and the National Emergency Number Association and I urge my colleagues to join me and Representative Shimkus in voting for it.

Mr. Speaker, first all my thanks to Representative George Miller for his leadership and vision for sponsoring this legislation which I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of.

The legislation authorizes a total of seven new projects, including two in my district: the Mountain View Moffett Area Recycled Water Distribution Project and the Redwood City Recycled Water Project.

Since the 1990's a partnership of 17 local Bay Area governments, water, and wastewater agencies, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the California Department of Water Resources have worked to maximize water recycling around the Bay under the auspices of the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program (BARWRP). They have been found by the Bureau of Reclamation to be feasible or close to achieving feasibility, and they're now ready to move into construction with significant local funding commitments consistent with the Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI water recycling program. Under the bill, the federal government may provide up to 25% of the cost of the planning, designing, and building each project, and the local sponsors will be responsible for securing at least 75 percent.

Despite the significant investments that communities have already made to these projects, they have not been able to secure federal funds because of a lack of investment by the Bureau of Reclamation in the Title XVI program and because of a lack of a specific Congressional authorization for these projects. This legislation addresses the question of authorization so that the funding may follow.

There's a clear federal interest in these water recycling projects since other federal water projects already contribute significant portions of the water supply to communities throughout the Bay Area. Taken together, the projects authorized in H.R. 1526 will conserve 5,000 acre-feet of potable water per year in the near-term (the first five years of operation) and more than 9,000 acre-feet per year over the long term (10 to 15 years). This represents 9,000 acre-feet which will not have to be extracted from the San Francisco Bay Delta, the Hetch Hechy system, and other sensitive areas.

Mr. Speaker, in coming years water supplies in California are going to be stretched and stressed by population growth, environmental stress, and supply reductions in water caused by the loss of snow pack due to global warming. If we're going to meet the challenge and relieve the stress on the existing system, we're going to need projects like these.

I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1526.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman, Mr. Obey, in a colloquy regarding strengthening of the Children's Graduate Medical Education Program, as well as enhancing Federal support for health information technology.

parliamentary inquiry

I do.

I am sorry, I didn't hear.

I will be as brief as possible so that we can get back to what was being debated.

I want to thank Mr. Obey for including $307 million for the Children's Graduate Medical Education Program. While this amount is less than the $330 million authorized by Congress last year, it is obviously a good improvement over the levels proposed by the President, which is $110 million, and the Senate Appropriations Committee, which is $200 million.

The reason I wanted to have the colloquy is to go on record, urge the chairman to do everything he can to not only maintain the House's funding level when the bill goes to conference, and perhaps even be able to do more.

I think that we all have a healthy understanding of what the Children's Hospitals GME represents. It has been an outstanding success. It is important to note that Children's Hospitals receive 80 percent of what other teaching hospitals receive on average from Medicare's Graduate Medical Education Program.

In recent years, Children's Hospitals have been able to sustain and improve their training programs so that the shortages of pediatric specialists in our country can be addressed. The program has also indirectly strengthened Children's Hospitals as premier pediatric

centers of excellence. They are the safety net for low-income children in their communities and they are the centers of pediatric research as well.

So I want to thank the chairman for everything he has done to fully fund the program this year, and I would be happy to yield to him.

I thank the chairman. I also want to raise the issue about my strong support for increased funding for Health Information Technology, often referred to as Health IT.

The adoption, I believe, of electronic health record systems I think will have a profound effect on the health care delivery in our country. I believe it will enhance patient safety, reduce medical errors, and improve the quality of care.

For several years, the administration and the Congress have not committed enough funds to make this promise a reality in our country. I recognize the continued commitment to HIT that is in this year's Labor- HHS bill, $61 million, and I think we need to make a greater investment to make this a reality because it not only needs to be launched effectively, because we have to have interoperability, and without it we really won't have a Health IT system.

So I want to thank the committee, most especially the chairman, for weeding through what is really a difficult bill to put together because we are constrained moneywise. But if there is any opportunity at conference, I want to urge optimizing that possibility.

I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for the very good work that he has done, all the members of the committee, because I know that you have to make difficult choices.

I am pleased to speak on the floor today about this investment in new technologies. As so many Members of the House know, I have the privilege of representing a congressional district that is the home of innovation and technology, high technology, biotechnology in our Nation. So perhaps the gentleman from Texas should come to visit because he would quickly come to respect what our country has come to rely on as well as our national economy.

I believe that this is a small but very important investment, and it will make vehicles more fuel efficient. I think this is not only a value of the people of my congressional district but of the entire Nation.

Our country today is paying too high a price for not being fuel efficient, not being energy efficient; and to add insult to injury, we are depending upon our opponents and in some cases our enemies to supply us. That is a policy that I believe is on its head, and so I was pleased to request of the committee that we make an investment in this technology.

Now, what does it do? It develops a new type of cost-effective, energy-efficient fuel cell for automobiles. Now, fuel cells, we know that they can dramatically improve mileage per gallon, but the downside is that they require platinum, and platinum is expensive and it is in short supply. But it is needed because it is the catalyst for these fuel cells.

This particular investment actually will go a long way to dramatically increase the surface area of the platinum in a fuel cell. In other words, it will bring down the price. In fact, this project that I have requested funding for promises to produce a one-third cut in the overall cost of the fuel cell.

Now, we are respected around the world for the investments that we have made collectively, public and private, in new technologies. It seems to me that this is cutting edge, that it is smart, and that it is wise.

I would like to make two broader observations. Number one, when I listen to the gentleman from Texas, he registers the complaints from his constituents.

You know what? You don't have a corner on the market of constituents that care about how we spend money. Of course these things should be scrutinized. I welcome it.

But when there is an overall public good here where all of the American people win, not just my constituents from the 14th District in California or the gentleman's district in Texas but all Americans, that is a good investment.

Number two, my constituents pay taxes, just like yours. And guess what? Californians don't get back everything that they send here. So are some things appropriate, good investments? We have to scrutinize that. But mine pay a fair share just as everyone else's do. As a matter of fact, California sends more than it gets back, which includes my constituents.

And I would like to add a final point, and my mother used to say this, and now her words, I think, are truer than ever: ``There are some that know the cost of everything but value nothing.''

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to Mr. Barton's amendment. I believe that it will perpetuate a system of winners and losers in the allocation of Federal resources for AIDS.

When Congress reauthorized the Ryan White AIDS program last year, we included language to allow the historic epicenters of the disease to continue providing care to those in need. The language was specifically intended to protect against drastic cuts that would destabilize the existing infrastructure for HIV/AIDS care.

Now, my friend from Texas has been absolutely consistent, and so have I. He's always been opposed to what I've just described, and I have supported it. So it's gone back and forth. But we've both been consistent in terms of our positions. I obviously respectfully disagree with his amendment, because I think it's important to understand, number one, A, that you have to protect the infrastructure. This isn't simply, when we say the care of people, you have to have infrastructure for it. And I think, underlying the gentleman's amendment is the notion that dead people are being funded, and that simply is not the case. We are both on the Energy and Commerce Committee. We've debated it there, and that's why I'm bringing some of the flavor of what we've debated there.

Over 20,000 people have died from AIDS in San Francisco's EMA. That's the eligible metropolitan area.

Now, the gentleman from California that spoke just a few moments ago talked about his time on the Board of Supervisors. That's where I came from in San Mateo County. And San Mateo and the City and County of San Francisco have been partners in this. And it's what has really held up and helped to build the infrastructure to take very good care of people. We take it seriously. Every dollar in this, every dollar in this has an effect on human beings. So this is not some tidy formula that somehow is not going to affect the infrastructure. So that's another reason why I oppose this.

San Francisco's award for fiscal 2007 was cut by 31.4 percent, or $8.6 million. Now, in Federal money, $8.6 million, unfortunately, is not considered serious money. This is devastating in this EMA. I know of what I speak. I've been there on the ground. I see where the dollars go and what people get.

Now, several other jurisdictions also have received larger than anticipated cuts. So I don't believe that the HRSA properly interpreted these provisions and that this bill, very importantly, corrects that error.

The stop loss language does not prevent cuts. Instead, it reduces losses to levels that can be reasonably absorbed in one fiscal year. And that's really a very important operational phrase, ``reasonably absorbed in one fiscal year.''

Any Member of Congress want to take a 31.4 cut in what their income is to help them take care of what they have to take care of their responsibilities and obligations? It's absurd. It's absurd. So that's why we are rising in opposition to the amendment.

So the language caps losses for the EMAs at 8.4 percent. And I think that this represents the 5 percent hold-harmless loss that was agreed to in last year's reauthorization.

I think the Barton amendment would prevent us from responding to the real needs of people that suffer from HIV and AIDS, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Madam Speaker, I'm proud to introduce a resolution to establish a National 9-1-1 Education Month.

Forty years ago President Johnson's Commission on Law Enforcement and Justice recommended that a single, nationwide telephone number be established for reporting emergencies--9-1-1. Since then, 9-1-1 has been used by millions of people across the country to quickly and efficiently contact their local fire and police departments, as well as report emergencies in their communities. Over 200 million emergency calls are made each year through 6,000 9-1-1 public safety answering points serving more than 3,000 counties.

As the connection between the eyes and ears of the public and the emergency response system in the U.S., 9-1-1 answering points are often the first to know of emergencies caused by natural disasters to national security threats, making 9-1-1 a vital homeland security asset.

Educating people of all ages and backgrounds about 9-1-1 is crucial to the effectiveness of our emergency response system. It is especially important for vulnerable populations . . . children, the deaf and hard of hearing, and those with limited English skills . . . to understand and feel comfortable with using 9-1-1.

A National 9-1-1 Education Month will encourage the development of public awareness events, advertising to the public, targeted outreach to schools, and training activities for parents and teachers. The deaf and hard of hearing are increasingly using text, video and instant messaging to access 9-1-1 operators. With such an effective and comprehensive emergency network, everyone deserves to learn how to access it.

As co-chairs of the E9-1-1 Caucus, Mr. Shimkus and I understand the importance of the 9-1-1 emergency network to the public safety and security of our country and this resolution will help to ensure that all Americans can access these critical services in an emergency. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a National 9-1-1 Education Month.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of H.R. 2900, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. An extraordinary amount of time was put into negotiating this bill and the fact that it's coming to the floor without contention is a testament to the leadership of our Committee and Subcommittee Chairmen, Ranking Member, and Majority and Minority staffs.

The bill is important for ensuring the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals and medical devices available to the American public. It includes necessary funding for vital FDA functions, such as drug and device review and approval, and also enhances post-market surveillance activities for these products.

I want to focus my remarks on the sections of the bill that renew the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA), and the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA). I championed the original enactments of these successful programs which have helped to increase the number of drugs tested and labeled for use in children, and I'm proud these programs will be renewed and further improved under this bill.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, only about 25% of drugs administered to children have been appropriately tested for use in kids. Pediatricians often have to prescribe drugs for ``off-label'' use, because the drug has not been studied in appropriate FDA-approved pediatric clinical trials. Children have specific medical needs that have to be considered when drugs are used. Children have died or suffered serious side effects after taking drugs that were shown safe for use in adults but had different results in children.

I've worked with stakeholders on all sides of this issue to update BPCA and PREA to increase the amount and quality of pediatric information available to doctors, parents, and researchers. I've also enhanced labeling and post-market safety requirements. The bill also makes permanent the FDA's authority to require pediatric studies of drugs, which is consistent with its permanent authority to require studies of adult formulations. Together, these changes will help to generate important new information about the safety and efficacy of drugs prescribed to children.

A coalition of children's groups has endorsed H.R. 2900. The bill was unanimously passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee before the July 4th Recess and I urge my colleagues to support it.

In closing I want to thank the staff members who have worked exceedingly hard to bring this bill to the Floor today: John Ford, Bobby Clark, Pete Goodloe and Jack Maniko of the Energy and Commerce Committee Majority staff, Ryan Long and John Little of the Minority staff, and Jennifer Nieto from my office.

I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 2900 and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Madam Speaker, the following remarks were delivered by Peter Kovler, Chairman of the Board of the Center for National Policy in Washington, DC, on June 19, 2007, on the occasion of Speaker Nancy Pelosi being the recipient of the Center's prestigious Edmund Muskie Award.

In the entire history of the United States, I believe there

have been three powerful Speakers of the House during moments

of war. Henry Clay in the nineteenth century, Sam Rayburn

during World War II and now Nancy Pelosi during our

simultaneous wars on terror and the war in Iraq.

But there is one stark difference between Speaker Pelosi

and Speakers Clay and Rayburn; and that is she has an

opposing view to the contemporaneous President of the United

States on how those wars should be run; and her courage and

her steadfastness in those views arguably make her the single

most significant Speaker in our Nation's history.

How did Nancy Pelosi get to this point; and how this nation

is so fortunate to have her; and how an award named for Ed

Muskie is so appropriate are a few of the points I would

quickly like to address.

In my view Nancy Pelosi has come to be our most important

foreign policy Speaker in part because of how she served in

the House before her rise to this position. As a 10 year

member of the House Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence, she was its longest continuous serving member.

The experience and knowledge gained there has made her able

to deal with these issues in a sophisticated way, rather than

just guessing or speculating at what might be important. No

wonder she had the knowledge and skepticism that comes

with knowledge to oppose initially the Iraq invasion and

occupation, even when that kind of vote was so difficult

in those political and cultural circumstances. And no

wonder she knew so much about terrorism issues that she

would have the confidence to make implementation of the 9/

11 Commission recommendations her very first piece of

legislation in her first five months.

How fortunate are we to have her as the Speaker of the

House is one way to pose a question, but a second way is to

ask what it would be like if we had a speaker who had no

background in foreign policy analysis or in intelligence

analysis and not even any curiosity about the subject. I

think the answer is obvious, and we would have a House of

Representatives that was at best disinterested, but most

likely passive in the face of the Executive Branch and

passive in the face of an American public that is crying out

for better alternatives.

Finally, I would like to address why the Muskie Award is

especially appropriate for Speaker Pelosi.

For those of us in this room of a certain age, we know that

Ed Muskie's public life was inextricably tied to the Vietnam

War. He wrestled with that as the vice presidential candidate

in 1968. It happened again in his seeking the presidential

nomination in 1972. And though not getting wide public

notice, he did so again in the 1980s when as chairman of this

organization he ran numerous meetings on Vietnam policy, led

a delegation to Hanoi and, though still controversial,

advocated a new policy towards that country that included

their recognition.

I bring this up because the Vietnam War has played such an

enormous part in our thinking on the Iraq War. For better or

worse, it is the single most significant historical parallel

we use in trying to come to grips with the Iraq War.

And I believe that I can say with enormous confidence that

Ed, first a believer in the Vietnam mission and then a

skeptic about the choices we made, would have been so very

proud to have Speaker Pelosi as the recipient of an award

named after him.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you this year's winner

of the Center For National Policy's Edmund Muskie Award,

Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Madam Speaker. I was not present during rollcall votes Nos. 444-447 on June 7, 2007, and rollcall votes Nos. 492-498 on June 14, 2007.

On rollcall vote No. 444 I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 445 I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 446 I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 447 I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 492 I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 493 I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 494 I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 495 I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 496 I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 497 I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 498 I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the House Intelligence Committee for yielding.

I rise in support of H.R. 2082.

First, I want to make a comment about a requirement that is in the bill that has been made fun of, made fun of by our friends on the other side of the aisle, and that is that the bill requires a National Intelligence Estimate on the national security implications of global climate change. I take issue with their diminishment of this issue.

The American people are ahead of us on this and so are people in the intelligence community, including three and four star admirals and generals who recently issued a report on the national security impacts of global climate change. I will submit their names for the Record.

* General Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret.)

* Admiral Frank ``Skip'' Bowman, USN (Ret.)

* Lieutenant General Lawrence P. Farrell Jr., USAF (Ret.)

* Vice Admiral Paul G. Gaffney II, USN (Ret.)

* General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.)

* Admiral T. Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.)

* Admiral Donald L. ``Don'' Pilling, USN (Ret.)

* Admiral Joseph W. Prueher, USN (Ret.)

* Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

* General Charles F. ``Chuck'' Wald, USAF (Ret.)

* General Anthony C. ``Tony'' Zinni, USMC (Ret.)

As they noted, the geopolitical effects of global warming are likely to intensify instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world as people fight over access to water and food, creating humanitarian disasters and failed states that facilitate the establishment of terrorist safe havens.

The intelligence community agrees, and they are already preparing an assessment on how our enemies could use global climate change to degrade our security interests. This NIE will not divert collection assets from other priorities. That's hogwash.

I would also like to note that we have a growing crisis in our overhead architecture. Over the past several years, the intelligence community has chosen to take more risk in its management structures that have failed. The consequences of these failures are extremely serious, threatening our overhead capability and wreaking havoc on the industrial base. Some of these risky decisions were made without the appropriate congressional notification, and now we have to clean up the mess.

Finally, last September the President acknowledged that the intelligence community had kept prisoners in undisclosed detention sites and reserved the right to do so in the future. I, as one Member of Congress, strongly object to any policy which does so. Generations of people, Americans, have come to this Nation to escape regimes that make people disappear. We have commitments under the Geneva Conventions, international laws and treaties. If we don't live up to these standards, we weaken protections for U.S. citizens abroad. I think our Nation stands for a higher standard of treatment, and I don't think we should ever engage in such practices.

I am proud to support this bill, Madam Chairman. This is the largest single intelligence authorization in the history of our country. And for anyone to say that we are shortchanging the people that are working so hard to protect our national security is simply and plainly wrong.

I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, as I said when I was speaking a little bit ago, and I am going to make some comments about this amendment, I want to set something else down which I think is really important, and that is, that it's not debatable that this is the largest single intelligence authorization in the history of our country.

Now, we are hearing a lot from the other side, hearing a lot from the other side, not enough money, not enough money, not enough money. When did you make any amendments to increase anything in this authorization, with the exception of an earmark with three States specified? That's what you offered, and that's the only thing that you offered.

So I think it's important for the people of our country to know what's going on.

Now, on this amendment that Mr. Hoekstra offers, this is not a study of climate change. This is a directive to the intelligence community to assess the impacts of climate change; and most frankly, I would go with the former Army chief of staff, Retired General Gordon Sullivan, who said the national security consequences of global climate change should be fully integrated into the national security and national defense strategies, including a National Intelligence Estimate. Climate change is a national security issue.

Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Madam Chairman, I believe our time has expired?

Madam Chairwoman, let me just close out this very important debate, and it is important to have a debate. It's very important to have a debate.

In listening to it, I see two things: one, a rearview mirror, looking to the past, people that are sincere, but nonetheless I think are sticking their heads in the sand. When we see whole populations, massive movement of populations, moving across borders because of drought, moving across borders because of disruption, they cause national security issues. We know that.

This debate is about the future, and I understand why some have trouble seeing the future and even embracing it, much less harnessing it.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my colleagues, Mr. Baca, Mr.

Becerra, Mr. Berman, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Costa, Ms. Susan Davis, Mr. Farr, Mr. Filner, Mrs. Harman, Mr. Honda, Ms. Barbara Lee, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. McNerney, Mrs. Matsui, Mr. George Miller, Ms. Napolitano, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Ms. Linda Sanchez, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Sherman, Ms. Solis, Mr. Stark, Ms. Tauscher, Mr. Mike Thompson, Ms. Maxine Waters, Ms. Watson, Mr. Henry Waxman, Ms. Lynn Woolsey, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to honor our long-time friend and colleague, the Honorable Lou Papan, who passed away at his home on Saturday, April 28, 2007, in Millbrae, California, at the age of 78. He was a distinguished American, a dedicated public servant, a forceful legislator, and a devoted husband, father and grandfather.

Lou Papan was born Elias Papandricoupolos in Springfield, Massachusetts, the son of Greek immigrants, John and Flora Papandricoupolos. He earned a Bachelor's Degree in Economics from Syracuse University and studied at Georgetown Law School. He served as a Sergeant in the Army during World War II and as a Lieutenant in the Air Force during the Korean War.

After Korea, he joined the F.B.I. and was transferred to San Francisco, where he met the love of his life the late Irene Damis, his wife of 42 years. Irene hailed from Portland, Oregon and studied at Mills College in Oakland. They had three children: John, Gina, and Diane. Gina is a member of the Millbrae City Council, and Diane is a practicing attorney in San Francisco. John passed away from a rare congenital illness at age 21, and in the wake of their profound loss, Lou and Irene founded an extraordinary scholarship and not-for-profit clothing bank to honor John's memory known as John's Closet, which has helped hundreds of low-income late-blooming students.

Lou began his political career in 1970 when he was elected to the Daly City Council. He was elected to serve the people of California's 19th Assembly District in 1972. He was appointed Speaker Pro Tempore in 1974, and became Chair of the powerful Rules Committee in 1976. He also chaired the Public Investment and Finance Committee.

In his many years in the Assembly, Lou Papan worked on behalf of California's working class, and was a tireless advocate for disabled children. He authored legislation that strengthened child and elder abuse reporting requirements and improved Worker's Compensation benefits. He promoted independent banking institutions and was an early supporter of e-commerce, an environmental champion who helped to purchase land in Pacifica for the State Park System, and protected endangered species on San Bruno Mountain. He improved government accountability by placing legislative records under the State's Open Records Act.

Lou retired from the Assembly in 1986 to run for the State Senate. He lost that race but was elected again in 1996 to his former Assembly seat where he served until 2002. In 1997, he received the Ellis Island Medal of Honor, given by the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations in recognition of significant contributions made by immigrants to our country.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our deepest sympathy to Mr. Papan's daughters, Diane and Gina, his son-in- law, Dan Latini, and his beautiful granddaughter, Alexa Papan Latini, as we honor the life of this proud American. We take comfort in knowing that he is now reunited with his angels, Irene and John. Lou gave our nation many years of devoted public service and we are better for them.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Education Committee.

Madam Speaker, today is a very exciting day. I don't think there is any feeling that beats coming to the floor and knowing that success awaits us and the American people. I think that's the case today as we gather to support the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, known as GINA.

Many times over the course of American history in this Chamber, discrimination has been struck down. I believe that is what we are doing here today with this bill. When the sequencing of the Human Genome Project was completed in April of 2003, it was a great, great victory in the scientific community. So many of us understood what the implications were for our constituents, for the people of our Nation, and people in the world.

Researchers identified genetic markers for a variety of chronic health conditions. When they did, they threw open the doors to increase the potential for early treatment and prevention of numerous diseases.

But there was something that stepped in the way, and that was the threat of discrimination against anyone that subjected themselves to the test, found that they had a gene that wasn't perfect, which I think is the potential of every single one of us, and as a result of that, that their job would be threatened, and that their health care insurance could be dropped. What this bill does today is to throw the doors open with a guarantee by making it illegal for health plans and health insurers to deny coverage to a healthy individual or charge a higher premium based solely on genetic predisposition to a specific disease.

I could go on and on about the bill, but the fact of the matter is, it has well over 200 cosponsors. It is a real bipartisan bill. Thank you to Congresswoman Louise Slaughter for her tenacity and her belief in the effort. Twelve years, that is a long time.

I would also like to say what a difference a new majority makes, because this bill was really blocked from coming to the floor for full consideration. To Representative Biggert, she has been just as tenacious as Louise Slaughter, to all of my colleagues that have worked on this, to the chairman, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Rangel, for making sure that they saw this through and, Ms. Slaughter, of course, she slaughtered us all, I tell you, on this, she made sure, and to the inspirational Dr. Francis Collins, who testified over and over again what the possibilities were that awaited the American people.

I pay tribute to all of you. It's a great day here in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, today we are living up to the promise we made at the beginning of the new Congress to bring discipline to the federal budget.

By passing this Resolution, we will take an important step toward balancing our nation's budget, begin generating a budget surplus by 2012, and provide resources for critical undertakings in our country.

It's been a long time since we've talked about budget surpluses. Back in 2001, a $5.6 trillion surplus was projected by 2011. In two short years, that surplus disappeared and instead $2.8 trillion was added to the national debt. It now stands today at more than $8.8 trillion.

Today we're turning the corner by upholding the principle of pay-as- you-go. Any new spending has to be offset by cuts to other parts of the budget and new tax cuts must be paid for.

This budget addresses several important national priorities: It provides relief to the middle-class from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) which is causing an increasing number of Americans to absorb a higher tax burden, as well as imposing an enormous paperwork burden on taxpayers who must determine whether or not they have to pay this tax. In my Congressional District, 11 percent of taxpayers are subject to the AMT. On average, they pay $8,000 in additional taxes each year because of it. This budget allows for the extension of expiring middle- class tax provisions, including the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, the 10-percent bracket, and the deduction for state and local sales taxes; it provides up to $50 billion to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover a million more uninsured children in our country.

Because we're committed to fiscal responsibility, each of these priorities will be paid for.

The budget also provides funding for priorities that have been neglected for too long: it provides $3 billion in additional funding for education, including the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; it provides funding for the victims and communities devastated by Hurricane Katrina; it provides $5.4 billion for health care for veterans.

This Budget Resolution provides funding to carry forward the Innovation Agenda that House Democrats under Speaker Pelosi developed last year, a commitment to keep America #1 competitively by making major investments in education and research, and the Resolution delivers on this commitment: it puts us on the path toward doubling the funding for the National Science Foundation and basic research in the physical sciences; it supports important initiatives to educate 100,000 new scientists, engineers, and mathematicians and to ensure that highly qualified teachers are instructing elementary and secondary school students in science and math.

This budget is supported by a wide-array of scientists and innovators, including:

American Electronics Association (AeA)

American Chemical Society (ACS)

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)

Association of American Universities (AAU)

Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA)

Council on Competitiveness

Electronics Industry Association (EIA)

Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)

Information Technology Association of America (ITAA)

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)

National Venture Capital Association (NVCA)

National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC)

Science Coalition

Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International (SEMI)

TechNet.

Technology CEO Council

Mr. Chairman, I know it is not easy to create a budget that satisfies every need, but for the first time in years we have a budget that acknowledges fiscal realities and addresses our national priorities in a balanced and responsible manner. It is a worthy statement of our national values, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, our country has just begun the fifth year of war in Iraq. By overwhelming numbers, the American people want a new direction and I believe this bill contains the policy and the plan to help bring an end to the misguided policies of the Administration.

Military leaders, Generals Abizaid, Odom and Powell, as well as former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, have all come forward to observe that the Administration's war-without-end policy is not a strategy for success.

Today's legislation directs itself to important change. It sets a new course for ending the war.

The bill requires accountability: It puts the Iraqis in charge of Iraq. If they cannot or will not bring their country under control, if conditions continue to worsen and political and military benchmarks are not met, beginning in July 2007 (less than four months from today), our troops will begin an immediate redeployment.

The bill begins a redeployment: It sets a firm timeline to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq and in legally-binding terms declares that all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by August 31, 2008, if not sooner.

It requires the Iraqis--not our soldiers--to reign in the militias, aggressively pursue the insurgents and provide ``evenhanded security for all Iraqis.''

The bill prohibits the establishment of any permanent military bases. It bans the use of torture. It redirects resources back to the fight against terrorism and Al-Qaeda, and recommits us to creating a stable state in Afghanistan.

The bill takes care of our troops. It provides over $3 billion more than the President's request to meet the neglected needs of our returning soldiers and veterans around the country.

The following are quotes from respected national leaders:

Retired General William Odom, former Director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan and member of the National Security Council under President Carter stated recently: ``Getting out of Iraq is the pre-condition for creating new strategic options.''

According to former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski:

``The United States cannot afford an open-ended commitment to a war without end. A means must be devised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq and reduce our troop levels, so that we can begin to rebuild our military and reclaim our position of leadership in the world. The bill the House will consider this week does that in an effective and responsible way.''

Former NATO Commander Wesley Clark:

``The conflict must be resolved politically--military efforts alone are insufficient--and this legislation strongly promotes that political solution.''

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this supplemental legislation. For the first time the debate about Iraq is not ``if' or ``how.'' It is about ``when'' . . . when our troops will come home.

It is binding language.

It is sensible language.

It is language that will change the direction of the war.

It is language that will help to heal our wounded troops.

It is language that will help heal our Nation.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.