Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 121, of which I am a cosponsor, which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the Government of Japan should formally acknowledge, apologize, and accept historical responsibility in a clear and unequivocal manner for its Imperial Armed Force's coercion of young women into sexual slavery, known to the world as ``comfort women,'' during its colonial and wartime occupation of Asia and the Pacific Islands from the 1930s through the duration of World War II.

As a co-chair of the Human Trafficking Caucus, I am all too familiar with the terrible problem of sexual slavery. H. Res. 121 reminds us that women throughout history have faced this type of inhumane treatment. According to the resolution, some textbooks used in Japanese schools downplay this tragedy, and public and private officials wish to rescind a 1993 statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono, which expressed the Government of Japan's sincere apologies and remorse for the ordeal faced by the ``comfort women.'' I believe that if we are going to successfully combat this problem worldwide, nations must come to terms with their pasts so that such practices do not happen again in the future.

Human trafficking is a $10 billion worldwide industry and one of the largest organized crime rings in history. According to the State Department, approximately 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders for labor and commercial sex purposes each year; the number is in the millions when trafficking within borders is counted. While we have a lot of work ahead of us to end human trafficking, I believe that through our collective efforts, we can make a difference.

I want to commend Representative Honda for sponsoring this legislation and for his tireless efforts to get this bill to the floor today. I am committed to ending modern-day slavery, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, on August 2nd and 3rd, the American Society of Business Publication Editors (ASBPE) will be holding its national editorial conference in New York City for the first time in its almost 40-year history. I wanted to use this occasion to congratulate ASBPE for its outstanding efforts to increase the professionalization of our nation's trade press editors.

The work of trade publication editors is vitally important to not only our democracy but to the commercial success of our country as well. Each and every industry in the United States is served by an array of magazines, newsletters, newspapers, and Web publications whose only mission is to facilitate the free exchange of information among professionals in an industry. As the knowledgeable and highly trained specialists who create the content for and manage those publications, business editors are the key to the continued free flow of news, best practices, and technical research that's so critical to ensuring the continued success of American professionals and industry in a rapidly globalizing world. Trade editors are the indispensable knowledge workers who help shape the environment in which businesses and nonprofit organizations operate. These knowledge workers combine expertise in their subject matter with their skills as writers and editors to tell the stories that professionals in an industry rely on to grow their own expertise. Without our trade press editors, companies and organizations would operate in a black hole, devoid of information and unable to grow. In our post-industrial world, information is the currency of success.

It's especially fitting that ASBPE be acknowledged at this time, because it has recently released its revised Code of Ethics, which is unique in the scope of its effort to come to grips with the rapidly changing digital environment in which editors must work. Professionals throughout the world of business journalism have appropriately acknowledged the thoughtful, balanced approach taken by ASBPE to set guidelines for editors struggling to understand what's appropriate, and what's not, in today's highly digitalized world. Already ASBPE has received kudos from publishers and editors for balancing the needs of advertisers and the inviolable need for journalism objectivity in our brave new world of digital media, but I'd like to add my own congratulations for its admirable work in this area. ASBPE's Code of Ethics truly represents one of the first comprehensive efforts to give editors the same level of guidance in the digital world that they have had in the print world.

I have been very involved in many issues considered by this Congress that impact the job of journalism professionals like those who belong to ASBPE. As you know, as a member of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Finance, and Accountability, I have tried to ensure the rights of journalists to maintain access to government information, as intended in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Among other things, I recognized early on the impact of digital communications on journalism by advocating passage of E-FOIA, a law that eases public access to information in an electronic format under the Freedom of Information Act. In the 109th Congress I was an early cosponsor of the OPEN Government Act, which would help independent bloggers and other new-media communicators obtain government information by expanding FOIA provisions to journalists not affiliated with institutions. Time and again I have called for openness over secrecy in the dissemination of information by the executive branch of the federal government, whether it involves testimony from former government officials on homeland security matters, or scientists' recommendations on contraceptive safety. In these efforts, I share many of the goals of the editorial professionals in the trade press.

It is with great pleasure that I welcome ASBPE to my city and congratulate its president, Roy Harris, Jr., of CFO Magazine in Boston, and its incoming president, Steven Roll of the Bureau of National Affairs in Washington, D.C., for the success of their growing organization. I also want to congratulate Warren Hersch, ASBPE's New York City chapter president, for hosting his organization in our great city. A congratulatory note, too, to ASBPE's two most recent past presidents, Paul Heney of Hydraulics & Pneumatics Magazine in Cleveland, and Robert Freedman of Realtor Magazine in Washington, D.C. Finally, a hearty good luck to ASBPE's other national officers, Vice President Portia Stewart of Firstline Magazine, in Kansas City, Kans., and Treasurer Ira Pilchin of the American Bar Association in Chicago, and the incoming vice president, Amy Fischbach of Kansas City, and Jyme Mariani of GMPRO in Fort Worth, Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3162, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act (CHAMP Act).

This important legislation will provide health care to 11 million children by reauthorizing and strengthening the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

Insuring America's children is an affordable goal. It costs less than $3.50 a day--about the cost of a Starbucks Frappuccino--to cover a child through CHIP. Certainly we can all agree that this is an investment worth making.

In addition to providing health coverage to children, this bill strengthens Medicare to ensure beneficiaries have access to their doctors and improves benefits to cover preventative and mental health services.

This bill lays the groundwork for a long-term solution to the physician payment system.

Medicare physician payment rates are set to be cut by 10 percent in 2008 and a 5 percent cut each year thereafter under current law. This bill eliminates pending cuts and enacts a .5 percent increase in both 2008 and 2009.

Congress has a responsibility to protect our children's access to affordable health care and strengthen Medicare for patients and physicians.

This bill accomplishes both these goals.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Bishop of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, since its inception in 1997, I have been a steadfast proponent of SCHIP. This was perhaps most evident in January of this year when PeachCare, Georgia's SCHIP funded program, faced a $131 million shortfall. I hosted a bi-partisan delegation of Georgia lawmakers and public health officials who came to Washington to persuade the House leadership to fix the problem. In May, Congress approved and the President signed into law legislation which eliminated this shortfall faced by Georgia and other states.

While my support of children's health care has never been in question, my vote today in favor of the bill was a difficult choice. I'm very uncomfortable with voting for any excise tax, especially one as regressive as a tobacco tax. The CHAMP Act presents a dilemma: improve access to health insurance for our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, or oppose the legislation to avoid causing harm to the many retailers and employees whose livelihoods depend upon the sale of tobacco, as well as the state and local governments that depend upon revenues generated from tobacco sales.

This is not a perfect bill. But let us not let the ``perfect'' be the enemy of the ``good.'' This bill will ensure our children grow up healthy and strong, save millions of dollars for the taxpayers who pick up the tab for indigent care in emergency rooms, strengthen access to health care in rural America, and protect our nation's seniors by giving them the healthcare they deserve

Mr. Latham. ``Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to R.R. 3162. First, I fully support reauthorizing the SCHIP program and preserving this important program intended to provide health insurance to low- income children.

Having said that, I cannot support a bill that robs America's seniors of their Medicare benefits in order to give taxpayer-financed health care to illegal immigrants. The bill before us eliminates requirements that applicants show proof of citizenship, potentially allowing millions of illegal immigrants access to Medicaid and SCHIP.

Furthermore, there is no requirement to ensure that eligible children from low-income families are enrolled before expanding coverage to children from middle-class or wealthier families. No limits on income eligibility are included, allowing a virtually open-ended expansion of the program to children that already have private health insurance. Meanwhile, 70 percent of uninsured children are already eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP and most of these are in the low-income category. The original intent of SCHIP was to cover low-income children, and we need to give these kids priority.

To pay for the expansion of SCHIP, Democrats are cutting over $157 billion from Medicare Advantage, which provides enhanced benefits like prescription drug, vision and dental coverage, as well as lower out-of- pocket costs, for almost 51,000 Iowa seniors. This will result in a reduction of benefits for seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage, and an increase in their costs. These drastic cuts will even force 3 million current beneficiaries out of the program.

Pitting grandparents against their grandchildren is simply wrong. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Let's go back to the drawing board to produce a more responsible bill focused on providing health insurance to children from low-income families.''

Mrs. Bono. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, and the need for this program to be reauthorized. But, unfortunately, I must also state my opposition to the proposals that we have before us on the floor today.

Since its enactment in 1997, SCHIP has been a tremendous success. SCHIP has been adopted in one form or another in every state across the nation. In my own state of California, we have enacted a combination of the SCHIP and Medicaid program to optimize coverage in the state. This program is better known as Healthy Families and currently provides coverage to more than 800,000 children. I strongly support the coverage that currently exists in California and voice my continued commitment to maintaining that coverage.

I was heartened to see the bipartisan compromise that emerged from the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee earlier this month and that is currently being debated on the Senate floor. This legislation ensures that states will have adequate federal funding to continue their existing programs, while allowing others to expand coverage to more children. The bill also allows states to cover pregnant women and includes provisions to transition childless adults into Medicaid. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this bill will lead to the coverage of three and a half million new children. And all this was done at $15 billion less than the SCHIP portion of the proposal that we have before us today. While I recognize that the Senate proposal is still a work in progress, I am supportive of many of the principles laid forth in this legislation and appreciate the flexibility with which states are allowed to continue operating this program.

This CHAMP Act that is before us includes many provisions that are positive and attempt to address some very real and very serious problems facing the health care community. I know that my own state would benefit greatly from the Adult Day Health Care Services provision within the bill and would allow California and 7 other states to continue operating their long standing and successful programs. There

are provisions that will amend Medicare Part D to aid patients relying on the AIDS Drug Assistance Program or ADAP to pay for their drugs. Perhaps most importantly, this legislation also includes a two year update for payments to physicians under the Medicare fee schedule. If current law is allowed to move forward doctors will be forced to absorb a nearly 10% cut in reimbursements. As the daughter of a doctor, I am sympathetic to this cause and have been supportive of efforts to stave off devastating cuts that have been pending in years past. I strongly believe that the problems we face as a result of the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) deserve our full and careful attention. I do not, however, believe that this is the vehicle to do so.

While I support many, if not most of the provisions in this bill, I have a responsibility to vote for programs and policies that are necessary for the public and affordable for the taxpayer. This bill is typical of what we have come to expect from a Congress that refuses to put limits on what they are willing to support and ask the taxpayers to fund.

I joined with several of my colleagues in co-sponsoring H.R. 3269, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, which was introduced by Representative Heather Wilson yesterday afternoon. I am proud to have co-sponsored this legislation that will do what needs to be done in an affordable and responsible manner. It would be a tragedy if this bill, that has bipartisan support in the Senate, were to lose and so many important projects pushed off track because this Congress refuses to deal with everyday realities of taxpayers struggling to make ends meet. I am deeply disappointed in the decision made by my colleagues on the Rules Committee to not only allow rejection of this amendment but every other amendment that may have helped to improve and reign in this irresponsible bill.

To help pay for the obscene $90 billion price tag of this legislation, cuts have been proposed to hospital payments, inpatient rehabilitation services, skilled nursing facilities, and home health care services to name a few. I am very alarmed that a lion's share of these cutbacks will be felt by Medicare Advantage and the 8 million Medicare beneficiaries currently enrolled. In Riverside County alone, nearly 50 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have chosen to participate in a Medicare Advantage plan, more than 100,000 seniors. The bill that we have before us today will put each of us in the position of having to choose between children and seniors.

As I have often stated, SCHIP must be reauthorized; 6.6 million children who are currently enrolled will find their coverage jeopardized if Congress does not act. We have long known that September 30th was looming and instead of acting, the leadership of the various Committee's of jurisdiction have chosen to wait until the 11th hour, and not just act on SCHIP, but to create a veritable Christmas tree of major health care policy reforms with no legislative hearings. We can and should act on behalf of SCHIP. I encourage my colleagues in the House to follow the example of the Senate and consider a bill that is clean and focused and allows members to vote their conscience on coverage for children.

I will not be voting for the CHAMP Act today for these reasons. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will come together during Conference, put aside partisanship, put aside a grab bag of legislation and bring back a bill that is truly for our children.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3093, the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill.

This legislation includes $175,000,000 for a DNA analysis and capacity enhancement program and other local, State, and Federal forensic activities. Of this funding, not less than $151,000,000 is directed toward the Debbie

Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program which helps to reduce and eliminate the backlog of DNA samples and increase State and local DNA laboratory capacity .

I introduced legislation named after Debbie Smith in 2001. In 2004 this bill was signed into law and since that time, Congress has consistently shown its support for this valuable program. With this funding we help ensure that other rape survivors will not have to wait as long as Debbie did to put their assailant behind bars.

I want to acknowledge the funding in the bill for efforts to combat human trafficking. It is important that we protect the victims of the sex trade industry, and punish the predators that exploit them. While human trafficking is a problem in other countries, it is happening here in the United States too.

I also want to thank Chairman Mollohan and Ranking Member Frelinghuysen for their dedication to fully funding the Census Bureau's needs. As we head into the final two years before the decennial census in 2010, funding for the census is now more critical than ever. This bill fully funds the ramp-up to this constitutionally mandated survey, and restores the funding that the Bush administration cut for the decennial census partnership program. Partnerships are an essential component of the decennial census effort, enlisting local community leaders and organizations to partner with the Census Bureau to use existing community relationships to promote census participation.

Mr. Mollohan and Mr. Frelinghuysen should also be commended for providing funds to once again continue the Survey of Income and Program Participation. Last year, the Bush administration proposed eliminating this survey, which is the only source of policy-relevant data on economic well-being and participation in government programs, and replacing it with a more limited survey a few years from now. After much discussion with members of Congress and the stakeholder community, the Administration came to the conclusion that their plan to replace the SIPP was not viable, and they changed course, advocating a continuation of the SIPP. While they had not requested enough money in the budget to do so, Mr. Mollohan and Mr. Frelinghuysen came through to provide the necessary funds.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 1, the Honest Leadership, Open Government Act.

As the scandals of the past few years have made clear, it is time to change the way that business is conducted in Washington. The legislation before us today will implement several necessary reforms including new transparency for lobbyists who bundle campaign contributions, ending the K Street Project, expanding public disclosure of Members' travel and finances, and closing the revolving door between the legislative branch and post-employment lobbying.

S. 1 is supported by Common Cause, Democracy 21, Public Citizen, League of Women Voters, U.S. PIRG, and Campaign Legal Center.

I hope that this bill will help to restore the American people's confidence in their government. I want to commend Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic Leadership for their commitment to getting this legislation through Congress.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his outstanding work on this issue and many others. I rise in strong support of the rule for H.R. 2831.

In the Ledbetter case, the Supreme Court has outdone itself. Against reason, against logic, against fairness, they ruled that women must file their claim a scant 180 days from the date on which their salary first became unequal. In a world where most workers do not know what their colleagues are earning, the 180-day rule is an insurmountable barrier with terrible consequences. Miss the deadline and you're stuck with discrimination for the rest of your career.

What's more, since raises are often based on a percentage of pay, small differences magnify over time. Under the Supreme Court's twisted reasoning, employees cannot contest this growing disparity if they don't protest at the beginning.

This bill restores reason, logic and fairness to the process. Every unequal paycheck ought to be recognized for what it is, a new act of discrimination.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the fair underlying bill. I congratulate the Democratic leadership for coming forward with it, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2929, a bill that would ensure that no permanent U.S. military bases are established in Iraq. As a cosponsor of this legislation, I believe that H.R. 2929 sends an important message to the Iraqi people that we respect their sovereignty. We can take the wind out of the sails of extremists and insurgents who benefit enormously from the Iraqi public perception that the United States intends to maintain permanent bases and troop presence within the nation.

In December 2006 the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended that the United States clearly state that our Nation does not seek permanent bases in Iraq or to control Iraq's oil. We must speak out now to show the Iraqi people and the international community that we support full sovereignty for Iraq, entrusted to a functioning Iraqi government. Although this body previously has approved provisions banning permanent bases in Iraq, these provisions are due to expire on September 30, 2007. H.R. 2929 would make this ban permanent.

Congress has made clear that there should be no permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, despite the Administration's warnings for a prolonged military presence in Iraq. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill, and I congratulate this Democratic majority and this speaker for making security an absolute priority and for implementing all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and making it a priority.

This bill was H.R. 1, the first bill introduced under the Democratic Congress, and it increases funding in many areas, particularly the interoperability of first responders' phones. The phones did not work on 9/11; the communications did not work. They still do not work. This will move us towards safer responding of our first responders. Over $4 billion for rail and security and trains and buses. And very, very importantly, it calls that our grants, our grants that are based on high threat, on security risks is based just on that, security risks, so that the money goes where it is needed, not in pork barrel politics.

And today marks the end of a very long journey that, along with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including Representative Shays and 9/11 family members, when we joined together and formed the 9/11 Commission Caucus and introduced legislation to implement all of the recommendations. While the bill that was signed into law in 2004 did not include everything in the recommendations that our bill called for, it was a necessary first step in the process, and we are completing that process today.

The first bill was the first bill of major reorganization of our government since 1946. It coordinated all of our 15 different agencies under the National Intelligence Director, and it moved us in the right direction. This bill completes the recommendations of the commission in a bipartisan way. All the members have endorsed this legislation.

I want to note the heroic efforts of the 9/11 family members, including Mary and Frank Fetchet; Beverly Eckert; Carol Ashley; Abraham Scott; Rosemary Dillard; and Carrie Lemack. They have worked selflessly and tirelessly for years to pass this. They are an inspiration to me and this body, and I do not believe these bills would have passed without them.

Particularly, I want to note the provisions in the conference report that strengthen the privacy and civil liberties board more to the way that the 9/11 Commission recommended: a strong board, not the very weak one that the previous majority championed.

This bill establishes a strong, independent board with subpoena power. And this conference report will achieve many more significant reforms. It will make our country safer. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, the underlying bill, so that we will strengthen our homeland security and our defenses against another terrorist attack. It is based on merit. It is based on the 9/11 Commission Report. I urge an ``aye.''

It is not in the conference report. It is not in the underlying bill.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the FY08 Labor, Health, and Human Services, Education Appropriations Act. This legislation includes valuable funding for the health care needs of the heroes and heroines of 9/11. I commend Chairman Obey for his effort to include $50 million for their treatment.

H.R. 3043 will make college more affordable by increasing the maximum Pell Grant by $390 while providing $2 billion more than last year for No Child Left Behind programs. It expands access to health care for the uninsured and provides and increases funding for the National Institutes of Health by $750 million over last year.

However, I do oppose a policy provision contained in H.R. 3043 which concerns the National Institutes of Health public access policy. The act would change the current voluntary policy by mandating that final manuscripts reporting on NIH-funded research be submitted to the NIH National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central for worldwide distribution. This change would set a dangerous precedent for government action, by infringing on the rights of the copyright holders of these articles. I believe strongly that the policy is best left in its current voluntary form to provide flexibility and allow copyright holders to manage their investments in scientific research while maintaining the accuracy of this data.

Publishers in my district invest hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure that the results of scientific research are peer reviewed, published and disseminated as widely as possible. Although public dollars are used to fund the research, the peer review and publishing process is completely funded by private sector non-profit and commercial publishers. A unilateral requirement that these articles be posted for free on PubMed Central, ignores the critical role that publishers play in the scientific process. This requirement also ignores a longstanding principle that the government should not be involved in the taking of copyrighted works--and in this case, without providing any compensation. That is exactly what a mandated policy would do.

Moreover, once manuscripts are deposited in PubMed Central, these copyrighted works would be available for anyone to download the material, free of charge and without any geographic or time restrictions. Under the current policy publishers still retain control and voluntarily make their articles available for free public access while retaining their copyright.

Under a mandatory policy authors and publishers would be required, as a matter of practical effect, to give up any reasonable prospect of protecting their copyrights.

Madam Chairman, I believe that the NIH can achieve the laudable goals it has set by implementing the public access policy without infringing on publishers' copyrights. However, this can only be done if the policy is left in its current form and not mandated. I urge my colleagues who will be conferencing on the Labor/HHS Appropriations bill to take these issues into consideration when they finalize the legislation so that the copyright protections that are so critical to the continued advancement of science and scientific knowledge will be fully preserved.

Madam Speaker, today, along with Representatives Shays and Weiner, I am reintroducing the ``9/11 Can You Hear Me Now Act.''

The attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and on September 11, 2001, exposed serious communication problems for the New York City Fire Department, FDNY. Since these attacks, there have been major efforts to improve the FDNY's communication system, but much more needs to be done. There can be no doubt that New York is a top terrorist target and the lack of a fully functional communications system is a threat not only to FDNY and New York residents' lives but also to all those who visit there.

The protection of New York City has become a national responsibility. Other cities with tall buildings throughout the country face the same challenges with their communication systems and will need the same upgrades. Improvements in New York will lay the groundwork for improvements to communications systems across the country.

The ``9/11 Can You Hear Me Now Act'' instructs the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to provide the FDNY with a communication system that must be capable of operating in all locations and under the circumstances we know firefighters face and will continue to face when responding to an emergency in New York City.

This bill would require a communication system that includes three components--radios, dispatch system and a supplemental communication device. It would require it to work in all buildings and in all parts of the city. The supplemental communication device would allow firefighters to transmit an audible emergency distress signal when a firefighter is in need of immediate assistance, and DHS would work with the City of New York in their planned upgrades of the emergency 911 system and any interoperability initiatives with other public safety communication systems.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of a resolution commemorating the 200th anniversary of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Fossella, for taking the lead in sponsoring this Resolution.

It is a tradition of this legislative body to honor and pay tribute to American institutions whose historic significance has contributed to the culture and traditions of our citizens. The Archdiocese of New York, with its long history of faith and service, is one such institution.

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York presently covers New York City and other areas of southern New York State. When it was established on April 8, 1808, the Diocese of New York was under the jurisdiction of the Archdiocese of Baltimore and covered all of New York State and certain parts of New Jersey. The Diocese was elevated to an Archdiocese in 1850. Twelve dioceses now occupy the area that was once covered by one.

Under Archbishop Cardinal Edward M. Egan, the Archdiocese of New York now serves 2.5 million New York Roman Catholics and consists of 42 parishes, 278 elementary schools, and 3,729 charitable ministries.

The Archdiocese of New York is significant for many reasons. Elizabeth Ann Seton, founder of today's Catholic education parochial school and the first American-born saint, was a member of the Archdiocese. In fact, her name appears on the front doors of the well- known St. Patrick's Cathedral--the largest decorated gothic-style Catholic cathedral in the United States, which is located in my district. The New York Archdiocese has also had the honor of hosting three papal visits: Pope Paul VI in 1965 and Pope John Paul II in 1979 and 1995.

Throughout its rich history and up to the present day, the Archdiocese of New York has been generously sustained by its faithful parishioners, and has long supported the community through its ministries and countless good deeds. I can think of no better time to celebrate the Archdiocese than in this, its bicentennial year.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3074, the FY2008 Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act.

This legislation includes funding for many valuable programs including $1.4 billion for Amtrak, which serves as a critical transportation link not only for my constituents, but for people across the country.

I especially want to thank Chairman Olver for the funding in the bill for the Second Avenue Subway. The President's budget request included funding for the Second Avenue Subway, which will be vital to commuters throughout the region and for thousands of tourists

who visit from around the country. The Second Avenue Subway will ease the incredibly overcrowded Lexington Avenue subway line, which is one of the busiest in the Nation. On day one, the Second Avenue Subway will carry nearly 200,000 riders, reducing crowding on the Lex line by 13 percent. I am also pleased that the bill includes funding for the East Side Connector, which when completed will bring approximately 160,000 new passengers, including 5,000 residents of western Queens, into Grand Central Station.

Finally, I support the provisions in the bill to increase funding for Section 8 housing vouchers, the HOPE VI program, and the Community Development Block Grant, and to restore the President's proposed cuts to housing for the disabled and the elderly. This legislation addresses the needs of our constituents, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my good friend's amendment. The census is critically important. It's even required in our Constitution. The importance of an accurate census cannot be overstated. The Founding Fathers of our country understood it; they wrote it right into Article I, section 2 of the Constitution.

It is very, very important for the reasons that Chairman Mollohan mentioned, but it's absolutely our constitutional obligation to conduct the census and to do it to the very best of our ability.

To delete very important programs that put together data on which we make decisions, policy decisions, in our country is extremely short- sighted.

I rise in strong opposition, not because I oppose the program it seeks to add funding to, but because I oppose the offset, the cut to the census. And I think that it's easy to say that programs that fight crime or aid local law enforcement need this money more than the census. On the surface the census does not seem to have the direct connection to public safety that some of these programs do.

What many people do not realize, however, is that local law enforcements rely on the Census every day and an inaccurate count could jeopardize their ability to fight crime. Our businesses rely on it. Our funding formulas are tied to it.

We are required to conduct the census every 10 years by our Constitution in order to have reapportionment. Our representation is tied to it. So when you cut the money to the Census, you are cutting representation. You are cutting accurate data so that we can make accurate decisions in this body. It is very short-sighted.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment, not because I oppose the program it seeks to add funding too, but because I oppose the offset. Every year we have the same fight to maintain funding for the Census Bureau. I don't know how many times I've had to come down here to try and explain how essential it is that we not cut funds for the Census Bureau.

The Census is the largest peacetime mobilization in history. It requires recruitment and training of over 500,000 enumerators and census workers, to count more than 300 million residents at 130 million unique addresses. All of this massive preparation takes place according to a strict, decade-long schedule. The closer we get to the decennial, the more important it is to adhere to that schedule. In 2008, there are two full dress rehearsals planned, one in California, and one in North Carolina.

Former Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt once said that it is difficult to do a really good census, but it is easy to do a bad one. If we cut funds to the Census Bureau, we will easily do a bad one.

Census as a Good Taxpayer Investment

The Federal government depends on census data in three important ways. First, to distribute funding through eligibility criteria and allocation formulas. 69.3% of the Federal grants given out in FY2004 (the most recent year that we have this data for) were allocated based on Census Bureau data. Second, census data are used to enforce Federal civil rights and anti-discrimination laws such as the Voting Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act. Third, the Federal government uses census data to create models and estimates for various Federal programs, and to then evaluate their efficacy.

State and local governments use census data for different purposes. They allocate criminal justice resources based on crime maps and demographic profiles. They base disaster response plans on census data. They analyze their transportation systems using information from the Census Bureau. The list goes on.

Not only do governments of all levels rely on the census, but the private sector does as well. Businesses conduct market research based on census data. Hospitals identify their constituencies and how to better serve their needs based on census data. The real estate sector uses it to . . . .

One can argue, therefore, that the census is essential not only to democracy, but to the U.S. economy as well. With so many governments and businesses who rely on data, it is absolutely essential that that data be accurate.

Over ten years, the 2010 census will cost approximately $11.5 billion. That's an average of $1.2 billion per year. Divide that by the population of the U.S., and the cost is approximately $4 per person, per year. Four dollars. That's it. I don't know about you, Mr. Chairman, but I am willing to spend $4 a year to ensure that Federal, State, and local governments, businesses and non-profits, all have accurate data to conduct their business. In fact, considering the enormous benefit that the economy gains by having an accurate census, I'm willing to wager that this is one of the most cost-effective uses of taxpayer dollars. I urge my colleagues to spend your constituents' tax dollars wisely by opposing any amendments that cut funding from the census.

Constitutional Obligation

The importance of an accurate census enumeration cannot be overstated. The founding fathers of our country understood, they wrote it right into the Constitution. In Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, it says that congressional representation and taxes shall be based on the population. I quote directly, ``The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.'' By extension, the census affects Presidential election, as the number of electoral college votes for each State is based on the number of representatives and senators from that State. There are several instances (listed below) in recent history where very close elections and redistricting hinged directly on census data. When the founding fathers rooted our representative democracy in an accurate enumeration of the population, they placed a great burden on the census. It is our constitutional obligation to conduct this census, and to absolutely do it to the best of our ability.

After Census 2000, the state of Utah missed gaining a fourth Congressional seat and sixth electoral vote by 856 residents; the 435th seat and 538th electoral vote went to North Carolina instead. Utah's experience has been highly instructive to states with regard to the 2010 Census. Realizing that apportionment is a zero sum game, more states will be working aggressively to bring about a full count.

The result of the 2000 presidential election turned on the accuracy of the 1990 census. The election was so close that a slightly more or less accurate census could have produced another pattern of Congressional apportionment and so a different outcome.

In 2003, the Texas state legislature's redrawing of Congressional Districts produced quite a commotion, as some legislators in the minority left the state in the hopes of blocking approval of the new boundaries.

Crime-fighting

It is very easy to say that programs that fight crime or aid local law enforcement need this money more than the census. On the surface, the census does not seem to have the direct connection to public safety that (anti-meth program, COPS, SCAAP) does. What many people don't realize, however, is that local law enforcement officials rely on the census every day, and an inaccurate count could jeopardize their ability to fight crime. One of the most valuable tools for local law enforcement is crime mapping. This technology allows them to more effectively allocate limited resources and manpower based on crime statistics and information on neighborhood characteristics. They are better able to predict where crimes will occur based on this information, and can therefore send more police officers as a preventative measure. Crime mapping programs draw heavily from demographic and housing data from both the decennial census and the yearly American Community Survey (ACS). When a census or ACS count is less accurate due to lower funding levels, it will jeopardize our ability to effectively fight crime at the local level.

Domestic Violence

Let's be clear, I am extremely supportive of funding for programs to combat domestic violence. I have devoted much of my career to making women's lives better, and have been an outspoken advocate of reducing violence against women. However, I cannot support this amendment. Taking money from the census to fund a domestic violence prevention

program is nonsensical. These programs rely on census data to recognize patterns of domestic violence, such as the link between poverty and domestic violence. Domestic violence advocates also use census data to analyze the impact of these programs. And finally, the funds that we would give to these programs will be based on funding formulas that use data from the census. If we do not have the most accurate census possible, this program, and all the other programs that receive Federal funding, will be at risk.

Madam Speaker, as co-chair and co-founder of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues, I rise today to commemorate the 33rd anniversary of the 1974 illegal Turkish invasion of Cyprus. I have commemorated this day each year since I became a Member of Congress.

PSEKA (The International Coordinating Committee ``Justice for Cyprus''), The Cyprus Federation of America, SAE (World Council of Hellenes Abroad), and The Federation of Hellenic Societies are primarily located in the 14th Congressional District of New York, which I am fortunate to represent.

These organizations have been strong advocates against the division of Cyprus and the human rights violations perpetrated by the Turkish army in Cyprus.

For the past several years, the Hellenic Caucus has been very engaged on the issues facing Cyprus. Many members of the Caucus remain concerned about the continued occupation and division of the Republic of Cyprus. Turkey illegally invaded Cyprus in 1974. As a result of the Turkish invasion and occupation, 160,000 Greek Cypriots, amounting to 70 percent of the population of the occupied area and over a quarter of the total population, were forcibly expelled from their homes and approximately 5,000 Cypriots were killed. More than 1,400 Greek Cypriots, including four Americans of Cypriot descent, remain missing and unaccounted for since the Turkish invasion. Today, 33 years later, Turkey continues forcibly to occupy more than one-third of Cyprus with more than 43,000 Turkish troops. The peaceful and cooperative spirit in the person-to-person, family-to-family interactions between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots is an encouraging sign for the successful reunification of Cyprus. However, it is time for Turkey to remove its troops from the island so that Cyprus can move forward as one nation.

As a full-fledged member of the European Union, Cyprus is playing a vital role in European affairs while also strengthening relations with the United States. It has joined with us on issues important to our own security, including the fight against terrorism and other forms of international crimes. Cyprus was the first EU member to join the ship boarding protocol of President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative, particularly important because Cyprus has one of the world's largest commercial shipping registries. As Cyprus developed into a regional financial center, the government moved aggressively and put in place strong anti-money laundering legislation.

On July 8, 2006, the President of the Republic of Cyprus Tassos Papadopoulos and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat agreed to immediately begin a process of establishing bi-communal technical committees and working groups. This UN-brokered agreement also emphasized the need for confidence-building measures to make this process successful. Unfortunately, the Turkish Cypriot side has not reciprocated the positive approach taken by the Cyprus Government. President Papadopoulos proposed a meeting with the Turkish Cypriot leader Mr. Talat to jumpstart the process and move forward with the agreement. Mr. Talat initially accepted this invitation but on July 12th decided to cancel. I hope that the Turkish side will reconsider this decision so that the July 8th agreement can proceed.

On March 8, 2007, the Government of the Republic of Cyprus demolished a wall at Ledra Street in Nicosia, a key thoroughfare through the divided capital, as a gesture to facilitate the opening of Ledra Street as a crossing point. I have introduced H. Res. 407, which expresses the strong support of the House of Representatives for the positive actions by the Republic of Cyprus aimed at opening additional crossing points along the cease-fire line, thereby contributing to efforts for the reunification of the island. Once Turkey removes its occupation forces from the adjacent area and other issues of safety and security have been addressed, the citizens of Cyprus will be free to travel Ledra Street as they had generations ago.

I also strongly support legislation introduced by my colleagues including H.R. 1456, introduced by Representative Pallone, which would enable U.S. citizens who own property in the Turkish-occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus to seek financial remedies with

either the current inhabitants of their land or the Turkish government, and H. Res. 405, introduced by Representative Bilirakis, which expresses the strong support of the House of Representatives for the implementation of the UN-brokered July 8, 2006, agreement as the way forward to prepare for new comprehensive negotiations for the reunification of Cyprus.

The people of Cyprus deserve a unified and democratic country, and I remain hopeful that a peaceful settlement will be found so that the division of Cyprus will come to an end.

In recognition of the spirit of the people of Cyprus, I ask my colleagues to join me in solemnly commemorating the 33rd anniversary of the invasion of Cyprus.

Long Live Freedom.

Long Live Cyprus.

Long Live Greece.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pence amendment, which would deny Federal funding to one of the most important family planning and women's health organizations in the country. Current law prohibits using Title X funds to provide abortion services. Planned Parenthood has not violated this law. In fact, Planned Parenthood uses completely separate funds to provide these services.

Ninety-seven percent of the services that Planned Parenthood provides are related to pregnancy prevention and women's health. The majority of their work focuses on low-income women, a population at greater risk for unintended pregnancies. Oftentimes a local Planned Parenthood clinic is the only place where women have access to basic health care, including birth control. In addition to family planning assistance, Planned Parenthood also provides cancer screening for breast and cervical cancers, as well as testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV and AIDS. These are essential health services for women, and it would be irresponsible to discontinue Federal funding for them. I urge my colleagues to support healthcare and family planning for women by voting no on this amendment.