Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me first point out to those who may be following this debate why we are here today. I am sure people are wondering why we have a resolution on the floor that would withdraw us from the WTO and how that comes to the floor from a recommendation of the committee of jurisdiction that it be reported unfavorably, that is, that we vote against this resolution.

The reason we have this resolution before us is that 10 years ago we passed legislation to gain access to the WTO. At that time Bill Clinton was the President of the United States. Congressman Gingrich thought it was important that because the legislative branch of government is the branch responsible for trade that there be a review process every 5 years as to whether we should remain within the WTO, to give Congress the ability to exercise its constitutional responsibility to oversight and be responsible for trade. At that time, Mr. Speaker, I must tell the Members I had certain concerns as to why we would want to have basically a nuclear option in pulling out from the WTO.

Today, I am pleased that we can review the WTO because I think it is important for us to have a debate as to where we are in the WTO. I would suggest, though, we should have a more sophisticated review process than just to vote to withdraw from the WTO. As the ranking Democrat on the Trade Subcommittee working with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), we very much oppose this resolution and urge the rejection of the resolution. We believe it is in the interest of the United States to be in a rules-based trading system and to withdraw from a rules-based trading system would be folly, it would be wrong. Do we need to improve it? Yes, we do need to improve the WTO. Can we strengthen it? Yes, we need to strengthen it.

Quite frankly, I think that we should be working more aggressively with our trading partners to enforce our existing trade rules. When we see the manipulation of currency by China and we take no action against it, that is wrong. When we see other countries infringe on our intellectual property rights and we do not enforce our existing rules to make sure that we do not allow the stealing of our intellectual property rights, that is wrong. When we see Europe provide subsidies for everything from aircraft to agriculture products and we do not take efficient action against them, that is wrong. When we do not enforce our own anti-dumping laws which are permitted to be enforced to stop the surge of products into this country, that is wrong.

So, Mr. Speaker, I do think we need to strengthen these laws, but it would be wrong for us to withdraw. We want a rules-based system, but we want to strengthen that system.

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I think we should be spending more time talking about the Doha Round. That is the next stage of trying to move internationally under the WTO to expand opportunity for American manufacturers, farmers, and producers. The so-called Doha Development Agenda negotiations have reached a critical phase. It is generally agreed that in order to have a successful meeting of the ministers this December in Hong Kong, the members of the WTO will have to come to a significant level of agreement by July on three key areas.

First, agriculture. I must tell the Members I am concerned we have not made anywhere near the progress on agriculture that we need to do. I welcomed the announcement last week that the next director-general of the WTO will be Pascal Lamy, the former trade commissioner of EU, who comes from France. Obviously, Mr. Lamy will have a special burden to demonstrate that he can make progress in this area where the European Union has been so outrageous in its subsidies. We need to narrow that gap. We will wait to see whether, in fact, that can be accomplished.

The second area is in manufactured goods. There are two challenges here: tariff reductions particularly by the advanced developing countries and the elimination of the so-called nontariff barriers, the NTBs. And in both of these areas, much work remains to be done if we are going to have a successful Doha Round. I am particularly concerned about the negotiations on the NTBs which lie far behind at this time. This is a critical area for U.S. manufacturing, particularly in large markets such as Japan, Korea, and China.

And, finally, in the area of services, we are far behind where we should be in expanding opportunity for services by U.S. companies in other markets. I hope that our negotiators will be able to make up for lost time in the next couple of months so that an ambitious services package will be approved in Hong Kong.

There is one other area I want to mention, Mr. Speaker, as we review our participation in the WTO, and that is the dispute settlement system. The dispute settlement system is absolutely critical to a successful WTO. I must tell the Members I have major concerns as to how the dispute resolution system is working within the WTO. Under the old GATT system, silence in an agreement meant that a country could do what it deemed appropriate.

Under the decisions of the appellate body and the panels of the WTO, silence has been altered to mean that the appellate body and panels do what they think is appropriate. That is just wrong.

The number of cases are disturbing. In 33 cases brought against the United States since 1995, panels or the appellate body have overreached, overreached, in 22 of them. That is two-thirds. We need to have a way to review what the appellate body and dispute resolution panels are doing, and we are not doing that.

The consequences of this overreaching are clear. In 10 years the WTO has not affirmed a single safeguard measure as applied by the United States or any other country. In trade remedy cases involving the United States, anti-dumping duties, countervailing duty measures, and safeguard cases, the WTO has upheld the United States decision in two of 17 cases. That is an 88 percent loss ratio, clearly one that we need to take a better look at.

A growing number of observers are coming to recognize that the extraordinary loss rate is because the WTO panels and its appellate body do not respect the letter of the WTO agreements and are filling in the gaps beyond what the U.S. negotiators agreed to in the Uruguay Round.

Mr. Speaker, I mention this because this is another area that we have to make up for lost ground in our negotiations under the WTO. So make no mistake about it, we should reject this resolution overwhelmingly because it is in the interest of the United States to participate in a rules-based international trading system. I represent a community that includes the port of Baltimore. I want products coming into the United States. I also want products leaving the United States through the port of Baltimore. It is important for our economy. But we have to do a better job in our negotiations within the WTO, and that is what we need to concentrate on. That is what we need to work together on. And if we do that, it will be a win-win for this Nation. We will be able to increase jobs through manufacturing, through production, and through farming.

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

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the former ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Trade, one of the senior members of the committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first let me say that I agree with my colleague that we should be negotiating higher labor standards, at least international labor standards; but I would suggest the way to do that is engagement, not to pull out of the WTO and to do better in our bilateral agreements. I agree with him on CAFTA and to elevate the WTO to do better on international standards.

The withdrawal would leave these countries without any opportunity to improve labor standards.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I once again rise to urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. It is important that we work within a rules-based trading system in order to expand opportunities. Only by working within a rules-based trading system can we raise the international bar on labor standards, on environmental standards. If we were to pull out of the WTO, we would have no opportunity to raise at all the labor standards in other countries or the environmental standards. We need to be within a rules-based trading system to reduce barriers.

The U.S. market is the most open market. We want our trading partners to open up their markets. Staying within the WTO offers us that opportunity. We need effective enforcement of our agreements. We need to work within the WTO in order to accomplish those objectives. And, Mr. Speaker, here is an area where we must exercise more of our responsibility by changing laws and strengthening laws so that we can enforce the obligations that we have negotiated within the WTO. I will be introducing legislation to do that, and I urge my colleagues to work with me so that we can enforce the agreements that we have reached with other countries.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. Let us work together to open up markets.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I believe that is unfair. I agree with my colleague completely. The question is, why are we not negotiating with our trading partners to do something about that?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating the 2005 NCAA Men's Division I National Lacrosse Champions, the Johns Hopkins University Bluejays.

Johns Hopkins University is the cradle of college lacrosse. Their faculty, fans, alumni, students, coaches and players have waited since 1987 to regain their position as the premier lacrosse program in the country. For three out of the last four years, the Hopkins Bluejays have made it to the final four, but the championship has remained just out of reach.

Under the leadership of Coach Dave Pietramala, seniors on the team played all four years never losing a game on Homewood Field at Hopkins, and this year had a perfect season, 16-0.

Coach Pietramala also has the distinction of being the only coach to have won a national championship as a player and a coach. Coach Pietramala was a four time All-American defensive player on Hopkins' 1987 championship team.

Six members of the team are my constituents: Joe Benson, Benson Erwin, Kyle Harrison, Kevin Huntley, Nolan Matthews and Matt Pinto. All deserve congratulations for their contributions to the team. Kevin Huntley and Nolan Matthews, sons of former Hopkins' All-Americans and Joe Benson, brother of a Hopkins All-American will be returning to Homewood Field to carry on the winning tradition. Also returning will be Jesse Schwartzman, who was awarded most valuable player of the NCAA tournament when in the championship game his skill as goal keeper kept Hopkins in the game and eliminated threats by the Duke Blue Devils.

This year's graduates Kyle Harrison and Benson Erwin are best friends, great players and outstanding role models. This year, after being named a Tewaaraton Award finalist for the past two years, Kyle, a three time All-American, won the Award given to the most outstanding male varsity collegiate lacrosse player in the nation. Benson was the unsung hero of the team. His work ethic and reliability

made him the man to turn to when hope seemed lost in the final seconds of the semifinal game. A young man of few words, Benson leads by example.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Johns Hopkins University Men's 2005 Lacrosse Team for their outstanding achievements as players and students. I ask you to join in saying congratulations and ``Go Blue.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to understand why this resolution is before us that brings forward H.J. Res. 27.

We are now celebrating the tenth anniversary of the creation of the World Trade Organization, the WTO. When Congress passed the legislation for us to join the WTO, Bill Clinton was President of the United States, and Newt Gingrich, Congressman Gingrich, thought it was important to have a mechanism in place where the Congress can exercise its independent authority over trade and that we should have an opportunity to carry out that responsibility by evaluating whether we want to stay in the World Trade Organization or not.

Mr. Speaker, I must tell my colleagues that when that issue was before us I had mixed thoughts as to whether we should have a nuclear option of withdrawing from the WTO or whether there are more effective ways for Congress to exercise its constitutional responsibility in an independent way over trade. I must tell my colleagues that I think that this process is going to be helpful.

So let me make it clear. I support the resolution to bring forward H.J. Res. 27 that has come out of the Committee on Rules. I very much oppose the passage of H.J. Res. 27, which would withdraw us from the

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the outstanding accomplishments of the Rev. Dr. Frank Mason Reid III, pastor of Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Baltimore, Maryland.

Dr. Reid is a nationally recognized preacher, teacher and motivational speaker who is dedicated to changing lives and rebuilding communities. Since becoming spiritual leader of Baltimore's Bethel AME Church, membership has swelled to 17,000, making it one of the largest AME churches in the Nation. Bethel AME has 36 active ministries that give hope and comfort to the people of the Baltimore community, including cancer patients, drug addicts, and those who suffer from HIV/

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Robert Bonnell, Jr. in recognition of his outstanding work at the Educational Opportunities Program (EOP). A resident of Baltimore, Maryland, he has worked tirelessly to ensure that Baltimore high school students stay in school.

Robert Bonnell founded the EOP in 1986 with the goal of reducing the high school dropout rate in Baltimore. His program assigns a counselor to individual high school students starting in the 9th grade. The counselor then works with that individual for four years to help them overcome obstacles to graduation. In addition, his program encourages students to further their education by attending college, enrolling in a trade school, or seeking an apprenticeship.

Mr. Bonnell's efforts have resulted in a 73% high school graduation rate for participants in the program. Sixty percent of EOP students are accepted into college after matriculation. Other participants actively seek postgraduate employment.

His commitment to his country did not begin with the EOP. He served in the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Marine Corps from 1942-1953. He is a successful businessman, philanthropist, and patriot. He and his wife Barbara have a large, loving family that includes five children, ten grandchildren and six great grandchildren.

I urge my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the work of Robert Bonnell, Jr. His commitment and dedication to educating America's youth has been an inspiration to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his leadership on this issue and so many other issues that are important to human rights around the world, and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her leadership on the committee and in bringing this resolution forward and dealing with human rights issues in the Middle East.

I also want to identify myself with the statements made by my colleagues, including the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

The rise of anti-Semitism globally is undisputable and it is unacceptable. As the ranking Democrat on the Helsinki Commission, I have worked with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), our chairman, to bring up anti-Semitism and fighting anti-Semitism as one of the highest priorities of our Helsinki Commission. I am pleased that as a result of the priority of our delegation, we are now having our third international meeting on anti-Semitism. That will be taking place this week in Spain.

In the second meeting that took place in Berlin, we were able to come out with a Berlin document, a declaration which stated unequivocally the condemnation by all 55 countries in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to condemn anti-Semitism and develop an action plan to fight anti-Semitism. It deals with law enforcement and sensitizing law enforcement. It deals with educating our children in Holocaust education. It deals with respect and understanding of people who have different religious beliefs.

Mr. Speaker, it is very wrong when individuals commit anti-Semitic actions. It is even worse when it is sponsored by a government or by international organizations. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we have the resolution before us today that speaks to the United Nations and to the actions within the United Nations. It must clean up its act in regards to its actions of discrimination and anti- Semitism. It is unacceptable, and this resolution speaks to that. And I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 282, regarding manifestations of anti-Semitism by United Nations member states, and urging action against anti-Semitism by United Nations officials. We must not allow anti-Semitism to become a part of the leading international organization that proclaims ``the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world''.

I commend the International Relations Committee for acting on this resolution condemning the resurgence of anti-Semitism around the globe. As Ranking Member of the Helsinki Commission, I believe we must recognize that despite great achievements with respect to human rights around the world, much more can still be done.

The history of anti-Semitism is indisputable. Today, though, I want to discuss trend of a growth of anti-Semitism throughout the world today.

In the last Congress, to address this new wave of discrimination, I was pleased to join with Congressman Lantos and Helsinki Commission Chairman Chris Smith in working to enact the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004. The State Department then issued its first-ever global report on anti-Semitism, giving us a roadmap to build upon for the future.

Last year I traveled as part of the U.S. Delegation of the Helsinki Commission, with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, to attend a special conference in Berlin addressing anti-Semitism, held under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). During the course of the trip I went to visit Auschwitz for the first time. That factory of death reaffirmed to me how we must tirelessly work to build understanding and respect between different communities to prevent future acts prejudice, discrimination, and ultimately violence.

At the Berlin Conference, I gave the official U.S. statement in the session on tolerance, and the meeting ended with the issuance of the Berlin Declaration of Action. The Declaration laid out a number of specific steps for states to take to combat the rising tide of anti- Semitism, including specific actions regarding Holocaust education, data collection and monitoring of hate crimes against Jews, and improved coordination between non-governmental organizations and European law enforcement agencies.

As the leading international organization in the world, the United Nations must make it clear that anti-Semitism has no place within its walls. It must condemn anti-Semitic statements made at all meetings and hold accountable the United Nations member states that make such statements. This is the first step of many that will discourage anti- Semitic sentiment from having any place with United Nations members.

Unfortunately, the United Nations has a long history of failing to aggressively combat instances of anti-Semitism within its institution. In 1975, the U.N. General Assembly concluded that ``Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination,'' and this resolution was not revoked until 1991, after strong leadership from the U.S., and Israel's refusal to participate in the Madrid Peace Conference unless the resolution was repealed.

Until the year 2000, Israel was denied membership in any regional grouping of the United Nations. It continues to be denied the opportunity to hold a rotating seat on the Security Council, making it the only member to have never served on the Security Council despite being a member of the UN for 56 years. Lastly, Israel continues to be denied the opportunity to serve as a member of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. These anti-Israeli actions must cease if we are serious about stopping anti-Semitism.

However, I am glad to note that the United Nations Secretary General has recently spoken out on the issue of anti-Semitism. In addition, in 2004 the General Assembly's Third Committee adopted a resolution on religious tolerance for the first time, which states in part its ``deep concern the overall rise in instances of intolerance and violence directed against members of many religious community . . . including . . . anti-Semitism.'' As Israeli President Moshe Katsav reminded us at our Berlin conference last year, anti-Semitism should indeed receive special attention from the civilized world.

While I welcome these recent steps forward, the United Nations still has a long way to go to combat anti-Semitism. As this resolution states, we must implement awareness programs about the Holocaust throughout the world. This will promote more than just tolerance; it will help the world to achieve racial, religious, cultural, and ethnic acceptance and diversity, leading to a more peaceful and just society.

This resolution also requests that the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations continue working toward further reduction of anti-Semitic language and anti-Israel resolutions. It also asks the Department of State to include information on activities at the United Nations relating to anti-Semitism in its reports on Human Rights Practices and International Religious Freedom. Finally, it asks the Secretary of State to fund projects

that educate Arab and Muslim countries about religious intolerance.

We must combat this rising tide of anti-Semitism in all of its forms, and ensure that it has no place anywhere in the world, especially the United Nations. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Dr. Steven S. Sharfstein on his installation as President of the American Psychiatric Association. Dr. Sharfstein is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Sheppard Pratt Health System in Baltimore, where he has worked for nearly 20 years. Located in Towson, Maryland, Sheppard Pratt Health System is a private, non-profit behavioral health organization with over 1,500 employees. Founded in 1891, Sheppard Pratt is the area's largest behavioral health care organization. The hospital's reputation as one of the leading organizations in the field of mental health is known not only in Maryland, but throughout the national and international mental communities.

Dr. Sharfstein is also Clinical Professor and Vice Chair of Psychiatry at the University of Maryland. A practicing clinician for more than 30 years, he is best known for his research and writing on the economics of practice and public mental health policy. Over 13 years, he has held a variety of positions at the National Institute of Mental Health, including Director of Mental Health Service Programs. This month, Dr. Sharfstein completes on May 27th his one year term as President-Elect of the American Psychiatric Association and begins his term as the 132nd President of the APA, the country's oldest national medical specialty society.

Dr. Sharfstein has established himself as an active leader in his profession and has worked to eliminate the stigma associated with mental health treatment. Throughout his years at Sheppard Pratt, Dr. Sharfstein's work has been truly inspirational in advancing the fight for mental health parity.

Dr. Sharfstein has served the American Psychiatric Association as chairman of the Budget Committee, the Committee on Managed Care, and the Ethics Appeals Board. He has also served as co-chair on the Committee on Psychiatric Reimbursement, as well as vice-chair of the Joint Commission on Government Relations.

A graduate of Dartmouth College and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Dr. Sharfstein trained in psychiatry at the Massachusetts Mental Health Center in Boston from 1969 to 1972. He also received a Masters in Public Administration from the Kennedy School of Government in 1973 and a certificate from the Advanced Management Program at the Harvard Business School in 1991. He was Secretary of the American Psychiatric Association from 1991 to 1995 and its Vice President from 2002 to 2004.

Through his outstanding leadership at Sheppard Pratt Health System, Dr. Sharfstein has already made numerous invaluable contributions to the quality of psychiatric care. I look forward to continuing to work with him to advance the cause of quality mental health treatment, and I congratulate him on this achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the St. Mary's High School girls' lacrosse team of Annapolis, Maryland in honor of its 2005 Interscholastic Athletic Association of Maryland (IAAM) A1 Conference Championship.

This remarkable team, the Saints, culminated a season of phenomenal play by defeating Anne Arundel County rival Severn School in a tightly contested game by a score of 7 to 6 to bring home the championship for the first time in 9 years. This season these young ladies played some of the best high school lacrosse teams in the Nation.

In just her third year as Head Coach of the Saints, Sue Chittim is to be congratulated along with her assistant coaches, Megan Lewis and Steve Clarke, for their ability to motivate and inspire their players with a positive attitude to play unselfishly as a team. The success of the Saints' lacrosse program is a true credit to Coach Chittim's vision and ability as a coach. As the IAAM tournament began, Coach Chittim's mantra for her team was, ``Don't tell me how rough the waters are . . . just bring in the ship.''

The Saints 4 seniors, Kelly Gaudreau, Bri Gauthier, Mindy Jones, and Bridget Noon, played their final high school lacrosse game as true champions and undoubtedly all season long were role models for their underclass teammates.

The remaining players, Sarah Beckstead, Alex Bertrand, Christian Carr, Caroline Cochran, Laura Ford, Devon Kelly, Morgan Kelly, Alex Kuntz, Jessica Liberto, Stephanie Murtha, Erin O'Donovan, Allison Perkins, Jackie Proch, Kelly Reid, Mary Ruttum, Kim Schindel, Samantha Schrum, and Erika Welck, contributed immensely to the success of the Saints

season and all deserve recognition for their exceptional achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in congratulating the St. Mary's High School girls' lacrosse team on its exceptional season and 2005 IAAM A1 Conference Championship.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 810. This bipartisan legislation will enhance existing stern cell research and help our nation's scientists make significant progress toward the development of treatments for conditions affecting more than 100 million Americans.

But this is not just about Americans. For years, our country has led the world in medical advancements, and people from around the globe travel here for medical education as well as for lifesaving care. Today, the House is considering opening new lines of research--research that will help the United States retain its place as a world leader in this burgeoning new field, while helping to alleviate the pain and suffering of many around the world.

Current federal policy, put into place by President Bush on August 9, 2001, allows federal funds to be used to support research from the stern cell lines that existed on that date, but it bans the creation of additional stern cells from embryos that are stored at in vitro fertilization clinics. To many observers, this policy seemed a reasonable compromise at the time, as many scientists believed that the existing 78 stern cell lines would be available for use. In fact, only 22 lines are available and some of these were found to have been contaminated from contact with mouse ``feeder'' cells. In addition, the 22 available lines were developed using science that has since seen significant improvements. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health report that these lines also lack the genetic diversity necessary to perform extensive research for diseases that disproportionately affect minorities. These deficiencies decrease the overall number of opportunities available for our scientists and undermine potential progress in the stern cell field. In essence, our policy has discouraged scientific exploration by restricting the extent of research. It is wrong for Congress to tie the hands of our scientists while millions of Americans suffer.

Since the President's policy was implemented, I have heard from hundreds of Marylanders who have been diagnosed with debilitating illnesses, including leukemia, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and spinal cord injuries. They are grateful for the federal research funding that Congress has provided in past years, particularly the doubling of the NIH budget over a five year period, and they look to the future with hope that more effective treatments and someday, cures, will be forthcoming.

I have also heard from the academic medical centers across the country. These are the places where the most complex medical procedures are performed, where medical school graduates from around the world are trained, where our most groundbreaking research is conducted. Two of the finest academic medical centers are located in Baltimore--the University of Maryland Medical Center and the Johns Hopkins University Medical Center. This bill presents an opportunity to expand their ability to make life saving and life extending discoveries.

Some of my colleagues have raised ethical concerns about stem cell research, and I believe that this bill effectively addresses these concerns. The authors of this bill, Mr. Castle and Ms. DeGette, have written this legislation so as to not encourage the creation of human embryos for research or for any other purposes. This bill stipulates that all embryos used for research must have been originally created for in vitro fertilization and are in excess of clinical need; it requires that the embryos would not have been implanted and would have otherwise been discarded; and it requires donors to provide written consent before embryos may be donated for research. These guidelines are ethically sound; they help ensure that enhancing stem cell research policy will not come at the expense of respect for human life.

It is not certain that stem cell research will result in cures, but it is fairly certain that if we close off promising avenues, such as stem cell research, finding those therapies and cures will take much longer.

In 2001, two months before President Bush issued his stem cell policy, Sue Stamos and her daughter, Faith, came to visit me in my office. At the time, Faith was three years old--a very brave little girl who had been diagnosed with juvenile diabetes. Sue asked for my support for federal research to help find a cure for Faith, and I promised to do everything I could to help. Back in June of 2001, our knowledge of stem cell research's potential was nowhere near what it is now, and we did not yet know what the President would propose. Today, we have much broader and deeper knowledge about the scientific possibilities of stem cells, but much less capacity to research stem cell lines than we had anticipated. Today, I will vote to keep my promise to Sue and Faith Stamos and to the thousands of other Marylanders who are waiting for cures. I will vote to expand the stem cells lines available for federally funded research.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I must note that stem cell research is a controversial and emotional subject. It touches on questions of human suffering, medical ethics, scientific potential, the role of government, moral considerations, and life itself. H.R. 810 strikes the right balance. It encourages research, but it does not encourage the creation of embryos for research purposes. It allows us to support the efforts of the brilliant scientists in our research institutions who have dedicated their careers to alleviating the suffering of others. It allows us to honor the wishes of in vitro fertilization donors who want to make a contribution toward medical advancement. It was right for the leadership to allow a vote on this important bill, and it is right for the House to pass it.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 810.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 191 and I commend Mr. Lantos and Mr. Tancredo for bringing the issue of property restitution in Romania before the Congress.

More than 15 years since the fall of the communist regime in Romania, tens of thousand of claims for the restitution of, or compensation for, property remain unresolved. This situation is a source of anger and resentment for many citizens and, in my view, a destabilizing factor in Romanian society.

To date, more than 200,000 individual claims for property restitution have been filed with only 15,000--or 7 percent--resolved. The situation for religious and communal properties is equally as dismal. Of the more than 7500 claims for communal properties, less than 600 have been approved for restitution.

The resolution before us addresses the plight of religious and communal properties in Romania.

Jewish citizens of Romania suffered the appropriation of all of their personal and communal property by the fascist regime that ruled the country during World War II, only to have these confiscations confirmed by the post-war communist government that ruled Romania until the fall of Ceausescu in 1989. To date, the status of more than 1700 Jewish communal properties remains unresolved.

Romania's Greek Catholic (Uniate) Church has essentially been caught in a ``catch twenty-two'' for the past decade and a half. The Greek Catholic Church was banned by the communist government in 1948 and more than 2,000 churches and other buildings seized from them were given to Orthodox parishes. In 1989, the government of Romania annulled the earlier decree, yet to date, fewer than 200 of the Greek Catholic properties have been returned to the community. Successive Romanian administrations have maintained that even though it was a government decree that confiscated the Greek Catholic property, the government has no responsibility to secure the return of those properties to the community.

I am advised that the new government of Romania under President Basescu is taking administrative steps to resolve this crisis as soon as possible and that draft legislation to rectify the shortcomings of current law will be introduced in the near future. I urge the government of Romania to act expeditiously and to ensure a fair and equitable property restitution regime for all of its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, as our soldiers face a time of war and strife across the globe, we must be mindful not only of the risks that they face in combat, but also the barriers that they face to planning a secure future here at home after the battle is done.

There are currently about 180,000 Americans serving in Iraq, and another 18,000 in and around Afghanistan. It is estimated that there are 1,652 Maryland national guard and reservists serving in combat today.

This bill is important, because it shows our commitment to the future of our troops, to the future of their families. Today soldiers do not pay taxes on their combat pay, as our way of saying that they are paying more than their fair share in the gift of service they bestow on their country. This is only right, and we owe our soldiers our gratitude. But we also owe them the gift of a future, and this bill allows soldiers to plan for that future even as they are protecting ours.

This bill gives soldiers the opportunity to save for their retirement by including combat zone pay as earned income in calculating the tax deduction for contributions to retirement savings plans.

I think we should go further. In my bill, the Pension Preservation and Savings Expansion Act, I included a provision that allows National Guard members and military reservists called up on active duty to continue contributing to their workplace retirement plans where their employers pay them their salary differential during their active duty service. This important provision should also be brought to the floor for a vote.

We have an obligation to ensure that our soldiers have a secure present and a secure future, and this bill takes one important step in that direction. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Heroes Earned Retirement Opportunities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to help fulfill the promise made by Congress and the President to our seniors. This year, Congress may consider a multifaceted approach to programs that affect the security of our seniors. Any discussion about ensuring the financial security of retired Americans must also take into account their ability to access meaningful prescription drug coverage.

In November 2003, Congress passed legislation to provide limited coverage for prescription drugs. I opposed that legislation because it contained serious flaws that will result in more harm than help for Medicare beneficiaries. The bill that I am introducing today, the Preserving Medicare for All Act of 2005 corrects the legislation's structural defects and provides additional beneficiary protections.

Over the past several years, I have met with thousands of seniors in my district about Medicare and their need for prescription drug coverage. They brought me their empty pill bottles and their pharmacy receipts. With the highest out-of-pocket costs of any age group in the country, they and millions of other seniors across the nation were looking to Congress for real prescription drug coverage that would give them substantial help with their drug costs. They wanted their drug benefit to be provided like other benefits covered by Medicare-- administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, with a guaranteed benefit, universally available regardless of where they live, for it not to jeopardize existing coverage, and yes, they wanted the choice of their own doctor and hospital and the freedom to choose a private health plan if they prefer that option.

I believe that a clear majority of the House and Senate wanted to enact legislation that met our seniors' needs. Unfortunately, the bill that moved through Congress failed to provide seniors with what they needed or expected. The plan that became law will not be administered by CMS but by private insurers.

Under the 2003 law, the government is prohibited from using the purchasing power of 40 million beneficiaries to lower drug prices. There will be no guaranteed benefit, but rather an ``actuarially equivalent'' benefit whose components insurance companies can manipulate to discourage high-cost seniors from enrolling. It will not be universal, because these insurers can offer different coverage in different areas of the country. It will jeopardize existing coverage: the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 2.7 million retirees--half of whom have annual incomes of less than $30,000--will lose the drug benefits they now enjoy as a result of insufficient subsidies to employers. Late last year, 14 months before the drug coverage provisions of the law are to take effect, hundreds of seniors in my district began receiving notices that their employer-based drug coverage would be dropped as their benefits are ``coordinated'' with Medicare.

Under the guise of ``choice'' and ``competition,'' this bill gives billions of extra dollars to managed care plans, which are already reimbursed at rates one-fifth higher than fee-for-service Medicare. This so-called ``stabilization fund'' and a premium support demonstration project are not designed to offer choice, but instead to lure younger, healthier seniors away from traditional Medicare and into private plans. These features of the bill do not save money, according to the Congressional Budget Office's estimate. Instead, scarce dollars that could be used to provide a better drug benefit are used to increase health plan profits. Those beneficiaries who remain in fee- for-service Medicare will be isolated in an underfunded program and they will see their premiums skyrocket as a result of phony ``competition.''

Finally, the new law includes a ``cost containment'' provision that actually shifts rather than contains costs. By combining the Part A and Part B Trust Funds and creating a new definition of insolvency that caps Medicare's use of general revenues at 45 percent of total Medicare costs, this provision would force government to cut benefits or raise payroll taxes if this limit is exceeded. More than any other element of the new law, this provision would undermine the entire Medicare system as we know it, shifting the burden of the program onto those least able to afford it.

The bill I am introducing today will modify these damaging aspects of the new Medicare law. First it will authorize the HHS Secretary to use the purchasing power of 40 million seniors and disabled Americans to negotiate lower drug prices. Second, it will guarantee seniors the choice of a nationally available, defined benefit within Medicare. The premium, deductible, copays and stoploss will be set by law, not by private insurers. Third, my bill will fully reimburse employers for the cost of qualified retiree drug coverage and it will permit their costs to count toward seniors' catastrophic limits. Fourth, it will repeal the premium support demonstration and help ensure that Medicare remains a national program with equal access for all seniors. Fifth, it will eliminate the ``stabilization'' fund for private health insurers and dedicate these funds to strengthening the traditional Medicare program for seniors. Finally, it will eliminate the ``cost containment'' provision of the bill, which will harm both working families, seniors, and health care providers.

Mr. Speaker, the Medicare prescription drug provisions of this bill will not take effect until 2006. We have time to fix the structural problems that prevent this law from benefitting today's beneficiaries and those who will depend on Medicare in future years. If this Congress is serious about the financial security of older Americans, it will make every effort to keep the promises we have made to our seniors. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I have some grave concerns about several provisions of this bill. Among the most important concerns to Marylanders is the fact that this bill cuts clean water funding by $241 million from last year's appropriated level--bringing our financial commitment to clean water down to 1989 funding levels. This money--in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund--pays for sewage system upgrades across the country. We in Maryland know how incredibly important this money is to protect the health of our people.

Fifty million gallons of waste will spew from Baltimore's crumbling sewers in May. Nitrogen pollution is the most significant environmental hazard facing the Chesapeake Bay. The so-called ``dead zones'' in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries (in which there is too little oxygen to support a healthy ecosystem) are a direct result of nutrient pollution, principally nitrogen. In July of 2003, data from the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program shows one of the largest areas of oxygen- depleted water seen since the program began monitoring 20 years ago.

The Clean Water Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to issue permits for all sewage treatment plants that will protect water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, yet the EPA routinely fails to include restrictions on nitrogen pollution in these permits. The EPA has not updated the standards on nitrogen pollution in almost 20 years.

We need to commit more money--not less--to enforce the Clean Water Act.

No issue united the people of Maryland and our region as well as the effort to ``Save the Bay.'' Rather than fulfill the obligations of the federal government to serve these people and protect the Bay, this bill reduces the federal government's commitment to enforcing the Clean Water Act.

We have an obligation to ensure that our estuaries nationwide are there for future generations, and to do that we must restore funding to enforce the Clean Water Act.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, by way of brief background, this legislation creates an Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity, a much-needed high-level position in the Department of Homeland Security. We need one person in our government to serve as the point person on cyber security issues.

The legislation also tasks the Under Secretary for Science and Technology with support, research, and development, including long-term research, into cybersecurity issues with a particular focus on preventing and responding to large-scale, high-impact attacks.

This bill would require the Under Secretary to coordinate their activities with the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and three other named agencies: NSF, DARPA, and NIST. My amendment would bring to the table one agency in addition, which would be the National Security Agency, or NSA. NSA is most well known for its signals intelligence and interception of messages. However, NSA has a long and distinguished history of working in the field of information assistance. Indeed, NSA is responsible for safeguarding the privacy and security of military communications as well as many other civilian communications of our government.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the committee for working with me on this amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for working with me on this amendment to improve it.

Today, I am offering an amendment to H.R. 1817, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Bill for fiscal year 2006, that would require DHS to conduct a study of the feasibility and desirability of modifying and updating the existing boundaries of the National Capital Region of DHS.

My amendment would require DHS to issue a report within 6 months to Congress on whether modifying the National Capital Region would, one, improve coordination among State and local governments within the region, including regional governing bodies, and coordination of the efforts of first responders; and, two, enhance the ability of State and local governments and the Federal Government to prevent and respond to a terrorist attack within the National Capital Region.

We passed nearly an identical amendment in October 2004 when the House considered the 9/11 Commission recommendations bill. This amendment clarifies that DHS will ultimately make a recommendation on whether to make any changes in the NCR subject to the approval by Congress.

The National Capital Region was defined by Congress in a statute in 1952 as part of an effort to coordinate a comprehensive planning responsibility for the national capital and surrounding areas. The 1952 act, the National Capital Planning Act, created the National Capital Planning Commission and defined the NCR to include the District of Columbia; Montgomery and Prince Georges' counties in Maryland; Arlington, Fairfax, Loudon, and Prince William counties in Virginia.

The NCR also includes all cities within these counties. Unfortunately, when Congress created the new Department of Homeland Security in 2002, it simply referred to the 1952 definition of NCR. It is clear to me that in order to effectively prepare our capital region for first responders, for the terrorist threats of the 21 century, we need to have a 21-century definition of the National Capital Region, not a definition based on a post-World War II and early Cold War America.

Washington, D.C. remains the highest-profile target for terrorists who successfully attacked the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, and failed to complete their attack against the White House or the U.S. Capitol.

Therefore, we need to take extraordinary steps to improve the coordination between governments and first responders in Washington D.C., Virginia, and Maryland in order to prevent and respond to attacks in the National Capital Region.

In the event of a terrorist attack in Washington, D.C., for example, local and State and government officials in Maryland and Virginia would be expected to provide immediate resources to assist in the recovery.

Maryland and Virginia would be asked to help in the evacuation of thousands or even over a million people from the Washington, D.C. metro region in certain circumstances.

Such an event would place an extraordinary strain on our existing first responder community and may overwhelm the ability of local, regional, State, Federal, military, public health, and non-profit agencies and personnel.

So this amendment simply asks that we do the study to see what is the appropriate definition for the purposes of homeland security. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), for his leadership on this issue.

Again, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for working with me on this amendment in order to make it an effective study for Congress.

I would urge my colleagues to accept this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague, Representative Clay Shaw, to introduce the ``Preserving Patient Access to Physicians Act of 2005.''

This is an issue of great importance to Medicare beneficiaries and to the providers who care for them. Under current law, physicians are reimbursed according to a payment formula that uses the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR). This formula led to a 5.4 percent cut in payments in 2002. Additional cuts in 2003, 2004, and 2005 were averted only after Congress intervened. The most recent short term intervention--in the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act--will expire in seven and a half

months on January 1, 2006. If Congress does not act soon, a 4.3 percent across-the-board cut will be imposed for 2006 and between 2007 and 2012 cuts would total approximately 30 percent. To restore predictability and stability to providers, Congress must devise a permanent solution that will stave off this impending crisis and its potential impact on beneficiaries' access to care.

The current physician payment formula is flawed for two primary reasons: first payment rates are calculated by using the SGR, which is in turn tied to our Nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). When the economy softens and GDP declines--unless physician volume and costs decline correspondingly--physician payment updates will be decreased. But this is a faulty measure of appropriate utilization, because the health care needs of our seniors do not decline during economic downturns. We faced such a situation in 2002, when the economy faced a downturn, yet the rising costs of caring for beneficiaries continued to rise. As a result, CMS cut the physician update by 5.4 percent.

Furthermore, the SGR system fails to recognize that several factors driving volume and cost increases are beyond providers' control. These include administrative coverage decisions that promote greater use of physician services, increases in the cost of the physician-administered drugs, and the addition since 1997 of valuable, life-saving preventive benefits, including mammograms, pap smears, colorectal and prostate cancer screening, and bone mass measurements for osteoporosis. In addition, the 2003 MMA added a physical examination for new beneficiaries, cholesterol and lipid screenings, and limited prescription drug coverage.

As a result of these initiatives, beneficiaries will visit their physicians more often-to get prescriptions for newly-covered drugs, to be monitored for drugs' side effects, to receive newly-covered preventive services, or to receive follow-up care for conditions diagnosed by these services. These costs must be taken into account in determining payment updates for physicians. Physicians should not be penalized for increases in volume resulting from Congressional initiatives.

The volatility of Medicare reimbursement jeopardizes the ability of physician practices to make sound long-term financial decisions. Many physicians in my home State of Maryland are beginning to limit the number of Medicare patients they treat. Cuts in Medicare payments also jeopardize access to care for our military families and retirees, because the TRICARE program sets its rates based on Medicare's. In addition many State Medicaid programs and other third party payers rely on Medicare's system to set their rates.

Congress must replace the SGR with a methodology that assures adequate and appropriate payments as well as a stable updates for Medicare providers. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in its March 2005 report and recommends implementation of a system where updates are based on a fair assessment of practice costs and adequacy of payment rates.

The Preserving Patient Access to Physicians Act of 2005 would set the Medicare physician payment update for 2006 at no less than 2.7 percent, in accordance with MedPAC's recommendation. For 2007 and beyond, it would replace the flawed physician payment formula with a new formula that increases the update to reflect changes in the cost of providing care. There is bipartisan agreement that Congress needs to fix the physician payment formula permanently. Unfortunately, budgetary constraints have limited us to only short-term fixes. Our nation is facing a $7 trillion debt, and this year's budget deficit exceeds $500 billion. Given our Nation's fiscal situation and the budget rules on Congress, the likelihood that Congress will enact a permanent fix this year is diminished. But each year that we delay increases the ten-year cost of the bill, and Congress must move beyond a band-aid approach to a more comprehensive, responsible and permanent solution to this flawed payment system. This is an ambitious bill, but one that I believe is necessary to initiate serious debate on this matter. Congress must make sure that the enactment of a solution for physician reimbursement is done in a fiscally responsible manner.

MedPAC's March 2005 report also notes that neither the SGR nor any previous mechanism has been successful in moderating growth of physician services through the use of volume targets. Specifically, according to MedPAC, ``volume has continued to grow and legislated targets have not succeeded in differentiating between beneficial volume growth and increases in inappropriate services. The current sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula has resulted in both budgetary and policy problems.'' Congress must devise a way to control unwarranted growth in services without compromising the delivery of needed medical care.

I also want to address an issue of great importance to our beneficiaries--rising Medicare premiums and copayments. Increases in Medicare Part B premiums are set by law based on the actuarial value of the coverage. Increases in Part B costs in turn increase the monthly premiums and copayments that beneficiaries must pay. I recognize that this bill is no exception to the rule. CMS has just reported that monthly premiums for Part B will rise to an estimated 14 percent to $89.20 in 2006, largely because of an unexpected 15 percent increase in spending on physician visits and other outpatient services in 2004. According to CMS, the higher spending levels can be attributed to longer office visits, more services provided, an increase in laboratory tests and imaging services, and higher use of physician-administered drugs. CMS also reported that enrollment growth and a 1.5 percent increase in Medicare physician reimbursements last year were not significant factors in the overall spending increase.

The annual cost-of-living increases in our seniors' and disabled persons' Social Security checks are not sufficient to cover rapidly increasing Medicare premiums. Furthermore, because the prescription drug coverage enacted in 2003 will be administered by private plans that will set their own premiums, seniors do not know what they will have to pay for a drug plan premiums next year or in the years to come. So, in addition to fixing SGR, Congress must also act to protect beneficiaries from sharp increases in premiums. We must make sure that seniors do not pay the price for appropriate increases to health care providers. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I will continue to work with my colleagues and with all groups who want to preserve access and affordability for beneficiaries while achieving fairness in our reimbursement system.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.