Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express deep and profound sadness at the passing of Stan Moskowitz, CIA Director of Congressional Affairs and integral partner to the Interagency Working Group on Nazi War Crimes, IWG. Mr. Moskowitz passed away suddenly, after playing tennis, on June 29, 2006. It was a great shock to many who were privileged and fortunate to work with him.

Mr. Moskowitz played an integral role in ensuring the disclosure of documents related to the Nazi war crimes. When the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act was extended for 2 years in February 2005, then Director of Central Intelligence Porter Goss asked Mr. Moskowitz, who at the time was retiring as CIA's Director of Congressional Affairs, to help him guide the Agency toward a full disclosure of the historical record as captured in CIA files. Based on Porter Goss's commitment, Mr. Moskowitz promised the IWG that CIA would do the following: Declassify information on all Nazis; Declassify operational files associated with those Nazis; Re-review material that had been redacted; Undertake such additional searches that historians or the CIA thought necessary as the work progressed.

Under the leadership of Mr. Moskowitz, the CIA has made good on each of these promises. He played a key role in ensuring the success of the CIA's work during the 2-year extension and made a quick, sensitive, and good humored shift from all of his prior responsibilities to an entirely, new, important and difficult role.

I first learned of Mr. Moskowitz's death from those of us working with the IWG in an effort to release U.S. Government records related to crimes committed by the Nazi and Japanese Governments during World War II. The response to the news was immediate and heartfelt. Since his colleagues conveyed Stan Moskowitz's remarkable character and the important contribution he made to history, I would like to share with you some of their thoughts. One person wrote: ``Stan was a man whose broad experience, character and personality drew you in as few have the ability to do. He just radiated intelligence, understanding, empathy, insight, and yes, wit. I will miss Stan.'' Another wrote: ``Stan was a major reason for our success. He may not have always agreed with our conclusions, but he wanted to be sure that the historical record was as complete as possible.'' Finally: ``What terrible, shocking news. Stan was a wonderful person who was unswervingly dedicated to pursuing truth, and he performed great service to his country in a long and distinguished career. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the statements from those who knew and worked with Mr. Moskowitz. I think they speak volumes of this man who contributed significantly to our Nation's history. Most recently, I met Stan Moskowitz at the IWG press conference on June 6. As usual, his comments were informative and insightful. He truly was a national treasure.

I would like to note that Mr. Moskowitz earned many high honors including two Presidential Distinguished Officer Awards, the Director's Medal, the Distinguished Career Intelligence Medal, the Distinguished Intelligence Medal, and the Intelligence Community Medal of Merit. Mr. Speaker, Stan Moskowitz served his Agency, his government, and the people of the United States loyally and with honor. I would like to offer Mr. Moskowitz's family my deepest condolences. He will truly be missed.

Mr. Speaker, today I, along with Senator Jack Reed (D- RI) in the Senate, introduce legislation that will establish a Commission on the Survey of Income and Program Participation. The President has proposed eliminating the SIPP in his FY 2007 Budget, with a redesigned survey to take its place in 2009. This is careless, as it takes away one of the most valuable sources of data on the economic well-being of American families. The SIPP Commission represents a fair process for changing or eliminating the survey if the need arises. Should someone wish to change the SIPP, a detailed proposal outlining the change, its justification, and the timetable on which it should take place, will be submitted to the SIPP Commission for evaluation. Members of the Commission would include the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, one appointed member from Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Social Security Administration, the Bureau of the Census, and two members from the National Academy of Sciences.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Community Protection and Response Act of 2006 to eliminate confusion in terrorist prevention and response.

One of the major lessons learned in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks is that timely response is critical. Any delay complicates short-, medium-, and long-term recovery efforts. Sadly, many of the lessons that we have learned have gone without an appropriate response.

In response to the attacks of September 11th, Congress took a series of actions to bring relief to affected areas. These legislative actions along with existing statutes, including the Robert T. Stafford Relief and Emergency Act and the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, formed the framework for the Federal Government's response. The magnitude of the attacks and the need for Congress to take action before certain relief could be delivered added to the challenge of the recovery efforts and exposed critical weaknesses in Federal authority to respond.

The Community Protection and Response Act would amend the Stafford Act along with other statutes and would give the President a series of policy options to choose from following a homeland security event. A homeland security event is defined as an event that poses a significant risk to the security of people and property and is in such a magnitude that effective response is beyond the scope and capability of the affected State and local government. Many of these options are based on congressional action following September 11th or other policy suggestions in reports by the Congressional Research Service, the General Accounting Office and the New York branch of the Federal Reserve. Specifically, in the event of a homeland security event, the President can provide grants for lost tax revenue, aid to school systems, and assistance to medical facilities and utility companies. The bill also establishes guidelines to ensure the public health of area residents and disaster workers.

Specifically this legislation would do the following:

Community Protection and Response Act of 2006 (CPR)

expansion of definitions in the stafford act/amendments to existing

statutes

1. Expands the definition of ``major disaster'' to include terrorist attacks, dispersions of radioactive or other contaminants, dispersion of hazardous substances, or other catastrophic event.

2. In the event of a homeland security event expands definition to include private for-profit utilities (including power, water, telecommunications and phone services).

3. Defines ``Homeland Security Event'' as a major disaster that poses a significant risk to the people and property of the Nation and it is such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capability of the affected State and local government. Designation requested by Governor and made by President.

4. Changes definition of critical services to include education systems, providers of counseling assistance, and providers of assistance to the homeless.

5. Removes $5 million restriction for loans as a result of lost taxes or other revenues. Forgives interest in the event of a Homeland Security Event.

6. Removes requirement of ``direct'' impact for assistance.

homeland security events new authorities given to the president

After declaration, the President is authorized, but not required, to do the following:

1. Establish a coordinating office and appoint a Disaster Recovery Director.

2. Reimburse State and local governments to respond to high security alerts.

3. Provide grants to local governments which may suffer a loss of tax and other revenues.

4. Reimburse school systems for lost instructional time, mental health and trauma counseling and clean up cost.

5. Authorizes EPA to perform all indoor air testing and undertake remedial actions.

standards and reporting

Directs OMB to establish standards for reporting disaster relief efforts regarding each agency that assists in disaster relief efforts following a homeland security event. Reports such data to Congress.

monitoring of health risks

1. Instructs President to appoint a special commission to study the authorities available to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) following a homeland security event. Including the monitoring of the environment.

2. Works with the EPA and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to develop guidelines regarding health risks for affected areas and instructs the CDC to provide information in the case of biological materials.

3. Provides for standardization, rapid collection and analysis, and communication following a homeland security event.

4. Authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make awards to private

entities to collect health data in the aftermath of an event. These awards can be made in advance of the event for immediate response.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join my colleagues, Representatives Oxley, Pryce, Crowley and Majority Whip Blunt in bipartisan support of H.R. 5337, the National Security FIRST Act.

After the Dubai Ports World disaster, it was clear that there was a pressing need to reform the process by which the United States Government reviews foreign acquisitions of businesses in the United States for national security threats, the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS.

This bill was unanimously approved by the Financial Services Committee and has received strong bipartisan support in the Homeland Security Committee. It also reflects the input of the Energy and Commerce, Armed Services and International Relations Committees.

We have all worked hard together to achieve a strong and sensible bill, and I would like to thank the members and staff of these committees as well as my own staff for their support and hard work.

H.R. 5337, the National Security FIRST Act, is widely recognized as a balanced approach which protects national security, first, while continuing to encourage safe and important foreign investment, to create American jobs and improve our economy.

Many observers, both domestic and foreign, think our bill has struck this balance successfully. The National Security FIRST Act incorporates and builds on a bipartisan bill I introduced earlier, based on reforms proposed by the General Accounting Office even before Dubai Ports World brought this issue into the spotlight. These recommendations of the GAO were obviously not knee-jerk reactions to the Dubai crisis but addressed structural problems in the CFIUS process and so provided a sound and farsighted basis for long-term reform.

This bill addresses three core issues.

First, the bill strengthens national security protections. All foreign government-controlled entities must go through a 45-day rigorous investigation in addition to the 30-day review. This is necessary because government-controlled entities could have agendas other than profit and can pay whatever they want to accomplish them. Private companies would not be able to compete.

To ensure greater accountability and better judgment, all reviews and investigations by CFIUS will require sign-off at the highest levels. The Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Treasury, Homeland Security and Commerce must sign the CFIUS recommendation. The Dubai Ports deal was approved by 12 people and agencies. No one had ever heard of these particular people. This bill makes Cabinet officers responsible to the American people for their decisions.

Also important, all reviews and investigations will be analyzed by the Director of National Intelligence, whose input is required under the bill.

For the first time, CFIUS will have a set of mandatory factors to consider in determining whether the purchase could affect national security, including whether it affects critical infrastructure such as ports, energy transmission or voting machines.

Second, the bill builds in congressional oversight by requiring twice-annual reporting to Congress of all completed actions by CFIUS. In order to ensure that this administration does not evade its responsibility by only reporting to one or two members, the bill specifies that both majority and minority members of the relevant committees will be notified.

Additionally, Congress would be notified promptly of any extensive investigation or transaction involving a foreign government purchase.

Involving Congress can help the CFIUS agencies be more aware of transactions that raise a red flag. For example, recently I wrote a letter to Secretary Snow urging CFIUS to review a transaction in which a company with strong Venezuelan ties acquired a major electronic voting company in the United States. Treasury says it is conducting a pre-review of whether the company is owned by the Venezuelan Government and whether the deal puts our electoral system at risk. Regardless of the outcome, this is a good example of why this bill is needed.

The third impact of the bill is to strengthen the CFIUS enforcement and monitoring systems. In many cases, the U.S. Government enters into a contract with a foreign purchaser to ensure U.S. Government concerns regarding national security are met. This bill strengthens these contracts and adds provisions to follow up on whether the foreign purchasers are complying.

Also, the bill provides for greater oversight of withdrawals from the CFIUS process. The GAO, the Government Accountability Office, noted a pattern of applicants withdrawing if they needed or received indications of concern and then going ahead with the flawed transaction anyway without the CFIUS approval. These off-the-radar deals pose great risk and great incentives, and we need to adopt better monitoring of them.

In sum, this bill is a sensible, balanced approach to making sure foreign acquisitions do not jeopardize our national security, while not killing foreign investment in our country. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Ninety of our colleagues are cosponsors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) who has worked very hard on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank Chairman Oxley for his distinguished service to this body and to this country. He has been a very fine chairman of the Financial Services Committee, on which I serve. An example of his leadership is the bill that is before us today, which had very strong bipartisan input, was balanced, took into consideration concerns first of all for national security but also for the business community and all concerned.

In sum, the bill has over 90 cosponsors. It is a balanced approach, making sure that foreign acquisitions do not jeopardize our national security while continuing to encourage appropriate foreign investment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any further requests at this time, and I yield back the balance of my time and urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Bush Administration and Washington Republicans continue to tout the success of their economic policies. But their economic record actually falls far short of their rhetoric.

This week, the Democratic staffs of the House Budget Committee and the Joint Economic Committee released a report showing that employment growth is at its lowest levels since the Eisenhower administration, while inflation-adjusted wages have decreased by 1.3 percent since August of 2003, when the economy stopped losing jobs.

Today, the average American worker is spending more hours on the job for less pay. According to the report, median annual household income has decreased by $1,700 after accounting for inflation since President Bush took office back in 2001.

While the wealthiest have been rewarded with tax breaks, middle-class workers are really feeling the pinch. Stagnant wages are making it difficult for them to pay for rising housing, health care and gas bills.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Expanded Homeownership Act. It modernizes and moves the FHA into the realities of the housing market of the 21st century.

I want to build on the comments of my colleague Maxine Waters who has worked selflessly and devotedly on moving this legislation to the floor in a bipartisan effort.

There are three points that are particularly important to New York and the district that I represent. The bill raises the mortgage limits to 100 percent of area median income, thereby making more Americans eligible to receive loans under FHA.

Secondly, it expands coverage, not only to higher risk individuals, but also to cover condos and co-ops. I represent many people who live in high-rises. They live vertically as opposed to horizontally. This is an important change. Many more will be eligible for FHA support.

Thirdly, and very importantly to the elderly in New York City and around the country, it lifts the cap on the number of reverse mortgages HUD can insure, allowing many more elderly in our country to be able to stay in their homes.

I congratulate the leadership on both sides of the aisle. This is an example of the bipartisan effort in the Financial Services Committee that has moved forward meaningful legislation, and I particularly thank my colleague and ranking member of the committee, Maxine Waters.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Export-Import Bank, I am delighted to stand and speak in support of H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2006, introduced by our Subcommittee Chair, Deborah Pryce.

This bipartisan legislation was overwhelmingly supported in the Financial Services Committee and is also supported by the Small Business Committee on a bipartisan basis. The original cosponsors include not only Representative Pryce and myself, but the majority and minority leadership of both committees. We have all worked together in this bill to fairly address the concerns of many viewpoints, and I want to thank those Members and their staffs for their hard work and effort to listen to many points of view and to produce a bill on which we can all agree.

I also want to take a moment to thank Chairman Oxley for his leadership on this bill and on so many others throughout his tenure. The Financial Services Committee and this Congress will feel his absence. This bill is a good example of the bipartisan work of the committee that Chairman Oxley helped to make possible. We don't always agree, but we can often work together to find points of agreement, as we have done on this bill.

This bill responds to concerns that the committees involved have had for some time and that we heard repeatedly from our constituents, both businesses and interest groups, as we began work on this very important piece of legislation.

First, the bill reaffirms Congress' strong intent that the bank support small businesses to a greater extent than at present, consistent with sound lending practices. To this end, the bill creates a Small Business Division within the bank run by a senior VP who reports directly to the chairman. The staff of this new division are dedicated exclusively to small business transactions, reflecting the fact that these deals and these clients need unique skills. Within this division, the bill creates an office charged with expanding outreach to women and minority-owned businesses. On these sections, the leadership of the Small Business Committee was especially valuable, and I want to thank my colleague Representative Velazquez from New York.

Secondly, based on numerous comments, we also concluded that the bank could increase its activity in Sub-Saharan Africa consistent with sound lending principles by being more flexible in its financing and underwriting terms. And the bill contains a mandate to that effect.

Third, as a proud member of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues and the representative of a large and vibrant Armenian-American community, I support the provisions which would prohibit the Export- Import Bank from funding railroad projects in South Caucasus region that deliberately exclude Armenia.

Fourth, in listening to my constituents and others talk about their experiences with the bank, it became clear to me that businesses, large and small, were frustrated by the lack of transparency and unfriendliness in the bank process. Several of them said that their applications simply disappeared.

At my initiative, the bill contains several transparency reforms that respond to this concern. I expect these relatively low-cost changes will provide significant benefits to Ex-Im clients. They include notification requirements, so that applicants know what is happening to their application.

Ex-Im has recently put up an improved Web site, and the bill requires that applicants be able to access their application on that site and see where it is in the process. Most colleges manage student applications in a similar manner, and it is time for Ex-Im to implement simple steps like this to help the American public.

In the same vein, the bill contains a requirement for board action on applications that have been subject to economic impact analysis. These applications tended to die a lingering death as Ex-Im sat on them. That is really not fair. The bank should tell applicants whether it can support them or not in a reasonable time frame.

Finally, and very important, the bill contains new provisions to make the bank more competitive with other countries' export credit agencies, or ECAs, so that the bank and U.S. companies are not fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. In particular, the bill gives the bank authority to use the Tied Aid Fund, a fund established several years ago by Congress to combat unfair export practices by other countries' ECAs. To date, Treasury has blocked the use of this fund as Congress intended, and this underlying bill will correct that.

This reform and reauthorization legislation is urgently needed. Today, more than ever, the future of the Export-Import Bank is of great interest and concern because it has significant potential to affect the national economy, job growth and our trade imbalance.

We are faced with the need to pass reauthorization legislation for our Nation's export credit agency at a time when the demands of the global marketplace seem increasingly pressing and difficult and the agenda of the Ex-Im Bank is more critical to our economy than ever before.

The Ex-Im Bank has long played a key role in the economy of many of the districts we each represent. As the independent U.S. Government agency that assists in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to markets around the world, through export credit insurance, loan guarantees and direct loans. But the bank's mission of creating and maintaining U.S. jobs through financing exports takes on a

new urgency and importance in the new global economy.

Tom Friedman's book, The World is Flat, brought home to many of us the fact that an economic tsunami is occurring under our feet. The convergence of events that have brought India, China and many other countries into the global supply chain for services and manufacturing has created an explosion of wealth in the middle classes of the world's two biggest nations, giving them a huge new stake in globalization.

As former Chairman Greenspan was fond of telling us when we asked him about the loss of jobs in this country, we need to recognize, he said, that all of a sudden a huge number of highly educated people from formally noncompetitive countries have entered the global workforce. We cannot afford to be uncompetitive in the rapidly changing global market or complacent about our status in the global market.

As leadership on both sides of the House recognize, we must empower and support Ex-Im now more than ever. I think we have crafted a bill that Members from both sides can support and that is much needed. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5068.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the honorable gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee. I thank her once again for her leadership on this legislation.

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the housing subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee)

Mr. Speaker, at this point we do not have any further speakers. I urge a strong vote on this bill. It is supported by the Financial Services Committee, the Chair and the ranking member, the Chair and the ranking member of the subcommittee, and the Chair and ranking member of the Small Business Committee.

It has a very special focus on enabling small businesses to compete in the global market, and it will help America's competitiveness and economic growth.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 921.

No sovereign nation can tolerate having its borders invaded, its people shelled and its soldiers kidnapped. America wouldn't, the members of the EU wouldn't, and Israel shouldn't.

Under the circumstances, Israel's response has been measured. Israel clearly has the right to defend its cities and its people from rocket fire, its borders from terrorist tunnels and its military bases from kidnappers.

Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations. They have no purpose and no aim other than to destroy Israel. For months they have been waging a war against Israel--and Israel has shown restraint. They have lobbed rockets at Israeli targets--and Israel has shown restraint. They have bombed Israel's cities--and Israel has shown restraint. They have sent their suicide bombers--and Israel has shown restraint. There comes a point when Israel can no longer be restrained. It has a right and an obligation to protect its people from attack.

Ironically, these attacks originate in the areas from which Israel withdrew its troops and settlers. Israel left Lebanon in 2000 and disengaged from Gaza last year. Instead of rewarding and encouraging such movement, Hamas and Hezbollah set about arming themselves with increasingly dangerous and potent weapons. We are now seeing the extent to which these terrorist organizations have been fortifying themselves, and it is terrifying. Their weapons are reaching areas of Israel that have never been subjected to rocket fire before. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis are living in bomb shelters or have been evacuated from their homes.

I am pleased to note that the United States and many members of the international community, including the G-8 have supported Israel's right to defend itself. ``We demand first that the Israeli soldiers be returned to Israel healthy, that the attacks on Israel cease, and then naturally for Israel to halt military action,'' German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters at the G-8 summit.

Many Arab leaders and opinion molders have also condemned Hezbollah and/or Hamas for their actions. Although he issued the usual condemnations of Israel, Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, also chided Hezbollah's ``unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts.'' I understand that delegates from Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait and the UAE backed Mr. al-Faisal. In the same vein, the official Saudi Press Agency opined, ``A distinction must be made between legitimate resistance and uncalculated adventures undertaken by elements [without] . . . consulting

and coordinating with Arab nations.'' Ahmed al-Jarallah, editor of Kuwait's Arab Times, condemned both Hezbollah and Hamas in an editorial on July 15, 2006, writing, ``Unfortunately we must admit that in such a war the only way to get rid of `these irregular phenomena' is what Israel is doing. The operations of Israel in Gaza and Lebanon are in the interest of people of Arab countries and the international community.''

I am pleased that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is planning a trip to the region shortly, and hope that she will remain fully engaged. In the meantime, Israel should not be asked to stop its actions as long as Hezbollah and Hamas continue to send missiles toward Israel and to hold Israeli soldiers hostage.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked a true tragedy for the medical history of this country. For the first time in 5 years, this President chose to veto a bill that has the potential to save millions of lives and impact millions more.

This veto will go down in history as a monumental step backward for medical research and a profound and significant disappointment for victims and their families. Hope was just a signature away and to millions of people in this country, this President could have become a hero simply by signing H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, into law. Instead, he chose to veto this bill and stall the advancement of science.

In contrast, by signing S. 3504, the President gave cover to opponents of lifesaving science. I would hope that this President would give more credit to the American public. S. 3504 is a useless bill that does nothing for victims of ravaging diseases and instead rubs salt in the wound.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here with many of my colleagues, pleading with the President to listen to 72 percent of Americans, the overwhelming majority of scientists, researchers, and even Nobel laureates who all recognize the promise that embryonic stem cell research holds.

Right now, only 22 of the 78 stem cell lines approved by President Bush are left. Many of these lines have been contaminated and are no longer useful, but more than 400,000 frozen embryos exist in the United States. To be clear, these are embryos that were extracted for in vitro fertilization. Most of them will be discarded. If the President had signed H.R. 810, they would have instead been used to save human lives. With further research, these cells may be used as ``replacement'' cells and tissues to treat many diseases including Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, AIDS, Lou Gehrig's disease and others.

Mr. Speaker, as a founder and current co-chair of the Working Group on Parkinson's Disease and as someone who lost my father to Parkinson's disease, I know firsthand just how important this legislation is and how important it is to open up the stem cell lines. I cannot be more clear: This bill is about saving lives and preventing devastating diseases from ravaging and ending people's lives.

In vetoing this legislation, this President has stalled science, ended hope, and reversed progress.

I stand with a bipartisan majority of Congress to express my severe disappointment with the President's decision to veto this lifesaving legislation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership in so many areas.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. As a strong supporter of our Nation's wilderness, I am opposed to it, the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act.

I am joined in my opposition by the Sierra Club, and I will place their statement in the Record. I am also joined in my opposition by 44 different organizations, most of which are located in the great State of Idaho, and I will place their statements in opposition also in the Record. I am also joined by Wilderness Watch. They are opposed because they say that the legislation contains ``wilderness-weakening provisions.'' And I will place their statement in the Record.

Sierra Club,

July 21, 2006.

Re Please oppose H.R. 3603/CIEDRA.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: The 750,000 members of the Sierra Club

are citizens from across the country who share a common

interest: protecting and restoring wild and special places.

Sierra Club members believe that good and responsible

stewardship requires that we protect wildlife habitat, halt

the loss of wild lands, and secure our natural heritage for

future generations. As a member of the House of

Representatives, you will make a decision on the Central

Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA) (H.R.

3603).

While we acknowledge several changes have been made to the

bill since its original introduction, and we are supportive

of wilderness protection for Idaho, we continue to have very

serious concerns regarding several aspects of the

legislation. Sierra Club, therefore, continues to oppose H.R.

3603 in its current form and asks that you vote NO on this

legislation.

Privatizing Public Lands

The American public has overwhelmingly opposed recent

proposals to privatize public land. CIEDRA will give away

over 5,000 acres of National Forest and BLM-managed lands,

including lands from the congressionally protected Sawtooth

National Recreation Area (Sawtooth NRA). These lands include

elk wintering grounds and salmon waters in the Salmon River

watershed near Stanley, Idaho. If CIEDRA is adopted, these

lands will be open to large-scale home development and

motorized recreational parks. It is wrong to give away public

lands.

Taxpayers have invested nearly $65 million over 30 years to

protect the Sawtooth NRA. CIEDRA would reverse this policy,

even giving away land inside the Sawtooth NRA that was

purchased in 1989 for $341,000 with federal tax dollars in

1989. CIEDRA sets a precedent of dismantling protections on

public lands to benefit a few local interests, despite the

strong opposition of many residents.

Wilderness Lost

The failure to include 130,000 acres of wilderness quality

lands long advocated for protection by the conservation

community for wilderness reduces the habitat and wilderness

values that should be protected.

Waters of the Sawtooth NRA

The streams and rivers of the Sawtooth NRA must be

protected for fish (especially spawning salmon) and wildlife.

Normally, federal lands such as the Sawtooth NRA include

federal protection of instream flows. However, in 2000 the

Idaho Supreme Court stripped the Sawtooth NRA of its

protections for water and the State of Idaho is free to

continue issuing new water rights further degrading instream

flow protections. CIEDRA should reassert flow protections.

Instead, the bill expressly denies a federal water right

under current Idaho law for the Wilderness areas, and is

silent as to the new Boulder White Clouds Management Area.

The Salmon River and its tributaries could be degraded as a

result, further harming salmon recovery.

Off Road Vehicle Use

CIEDRA would give priority use to motorized recreation for

a newly designated 540,000-acre Boulder White Clouds

Management Area, and would in effect subvert the conservation

purposes of the Sawtooth NRA. To encourage off-road motorized

use, what should be a cohesive Wilderness is cleaved into

multiple parts. CIEDRA would codify significant ORV trail

incursions into prime habitat.

In particular is our concern that CIEDRA adopts a ``no net

loss'' requirement that would prevent Sawtooth NRA land

managers from closing motorized trails. No matter how great

the damage or risk to public safety, motorized recreation is

protected by statute.

On October 27, 2005, current and retired land managers from

the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Interior testified

before the House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

opposing provisions and costs of CIEDRA, including the ORV

provisions.

We acknowledge Rep. Simpson's work in moving forward the

discussion of Wilderness in central Idaho. We welcome the

opportunity to work with Rep. Simpson and other Members to

find accommodations in the bill that would address these

issues and help advance and not undo the protections when

Congress established the Sawtooth National Recreation Area.

Thank you for your consideration of Sierra Club's position

and our reasons for opposing H.R. 3603 in its current form.

Respectfully yours,

Carl Pope,

Executive Director.

Madam Speaker, among other harmful provisions, the underlying bill, H.R. 3603, will give away many public lands for private development to local governments completely for free. A bill this controversial should not be considered under suspension of the rules.

The bill, H.R. 3603, includes unusual language that allows the giving away of publicly owned land, owned by the taxpayers, to localities, to counties, and local governments for them then to possibly develop it for private development.

It will also give away, I am told, by the Sierra Club, 5,000 acres. My good friend on the other side of the aisle, Mike Simpson, said that it is only 3,600 acres. I asked the Democratic staff what is the correct number? They say they do not know because they just got the maps of this controversial bill today at 12:30. And I think that illustrates, if we do not even know how many acres of publicly owned land we are giving away, this needs a further investigation.

In any event, it will give away thousands of acres of national forest and Bureau of Land Management managed lands, including lands within the congressionally protected Sawtooth National Recreation Area, to be opened to large-scale home development and motorized recreational parks. American taxpayers have invested nearly $65 million over 30 years to protect the Sawtooth National Recreational Area, and it is among the most beautiful sites truly in our country. And now this bill will be giving away roughly 3,600 or 5,000 acres. We are not clear how many.

Make no mistake. We are setting a dangerous precedent by turning over land that is truly owned by this country by all Americans for private development, most of it completely for free.

Some are willing to accept this dangerous precedent and other comprises harmful to the land and wildlife because this bill designates some wilderness. However, Madam Speaker, the esteemed ranking member, Nick Rahall, of the Resources Committee, and I quote his statement in the committee, ``I believe that wilderness designations should not be the result of a quid pro quo,'' this is from Nick Rahall, who is opposing this bill.

Mike Thompson has a bill before us today that would designate 275,000 acres of wilderness, and I am totally supportive. But apparently, these two bills have been tied together in an unprecedented way. But even if you believe they should both move forward, let us look at what getting in return for our public lands.

We are getting a number, according to the Wilderness Watch and the Sierra Club, of wilderness-weakening provisions that are contrary and, indeed, undermine the intent and provisions of the Wilderness Act that has been the gold standard for wilderness protection in America for over 40 years.

For example, H.R. 3603 fragments the largest remaining contiguous, roadless area in the continental U.S. into four parcels separated and surrounded by all-terrain vehicles and motorcycle trails.

Secondly, according to Sierra Club and Wilderness Watch, it weakens stream protection by saying that the Forest Service, in order to get water rights, they must get these rights from the State. But the State does not provide wilderness water rights. Therefore, the Democratic staff says that this is a complete and total charade.

Also, it weakens restrictions on access to mining claims and releases more than 130,000 acres of Wilderness

Study Areas and recommended Wilderness, suspending protection and opening these lands to damaging uses.

We must not set a precedent of giving away lands for private development, and we must not get in place of it watered-down, substandard ``wilderness.'' It is simply not worth the cost.

A bill this controversial simply should not be considered under suspension, and I urge, along with the Sierra Club, 44 organizations, Wilderness Watch, a ``no'' vote on H.R. 3603. And I feel it should not be tied in any way to Mr. Thompson's very fine bill that provides for wilderness protection.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I mourn the passing of our distinguished former colleague, the Honorable Thomas J. Manton. Tom was a great public servant, a great New Yorker, and a great American. Indeed, Tom Manton was the personification of the American Dream.

The son of immigrants from the Irish countryside, Tom Manton was born and raised a New Yorker. His father was a plasterer, and Tom loved to tell the story of how proud his father was of his election to Congress; and how when he came to celebrate that election, they were in the Longworth Building, and his father told him that he had helped build that building in which Tom served.

After serving with honor and distinction in the United States Marine Corps, Tom put himself through college and law school while serving proudly in the New York City Police Department. He was recognized by his community in western Queens for his outstanding leadership abilities when his neighbors chose him to represent them on the New York City Council from 1970 to 1984.

I was proud to call myself a colleague and friend of Tom Manton. We served together on the New York City Council, and I served with him on the Housing Committee, which he chaired. I will never forget one day he came in late to a meeting. He was never late. But that night he had stayed up all night counting votes that sent him to Congress.

It was in that legislative body that I learned to appreciate his quiet, firm, steady powers of persuasion and conciliation, the true hallmarks of leadership in a democratic society. I was privileged as well to call Tom Manton a colleague in the halls of the United States Congress. No Member of this House was ever more dedicated to serving the needs of his constituents.

Tom played a crucial role in helping forge the peace that prevails in Ireland today through his patient and persistent efforts to bring peace to that once troubled land. He served as co-chair of the bipartisan Irish Caucus, on which I served. And he was selected to be the Grand Marshal of the New York City Saint Patrick's Day Parade. He was very proud of that and kept in his office a big picture of that event.

But he also embraced Tip O'Neill's maxim that all politics is local, and he

lived it, to the everlasting gratitude of the people that he represented in Queens and the Bronx. When the Long Island Railroad threatened to build a waste transfer station in western Queens, Tom led the successful fight to block it. When police officers suffered permanent job-related injuries, Tom made sure that they and their families received fitting lifetime compensation.

But perhaps Tom Manton's most enduring legacy may be forging the most united and effective political party organization in any county in New York City. He accomplished this remarkable achievement in what is probably the most ethnically diverse county in the Nation, and he did it with his singular and extraordinary powers of leadership. He was able to convene diverse groups and views and unite them behind common goals and purposes.

He showed an unparalleled ability to identify and encourage new leadership and talent from the emerging communities of our City and to develop and nurture future public servants who were worthy of the responsibilities with which they were entrusted. That is truly Tom Manton's greatest legacy, a history of leadership through inclusion, guided by the principles of tolerance and equality.

When I first came to Congress, Tom took me under his wing. He was an important mentor to me, an important friend, and my heart goes out to his wife, Diane, his children and his grandchildren. You are in our hearts and in our prayers. Tom will be deeply missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 32nd 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.

The United States must continue to play an active role in the resolution of the serious issues facing Cyprus. First and foremost is the ongoing illegal occupation by the Turkish military forces of the northern part of the island in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions. 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.

Turkey must also show respect for the rights of the owners to their property in the north. I have introduced legislation, H. Res. 322, which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives in support of the European Court of Human Rights for its decisions in the Loizidou and Xenides-Arestis cases against Turkey. Turkey must respect these decisions while ending the illegal exploitation of Greek Cypriot properties in the areas of Cyprus under Turkish military occupation.

Earlier this month, Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat agreed to begin a process of bi- communal discussions to find a comprehensive settlement to the Cyprus problem. Based on President Papadopoulos' initiative, the two leaders agreed to a set of principles including a commitment to the unification of Cyprus based on a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation and political equality, as set out in the relevant Security Council resolutions; recognition that the status quo is unacceptable and that its prolongation would have negative consequences for the Turkish and Greek Cypriots; and agreement to begin a process immediately involving bi- communal discussion of issues that affect the day to day life of the people and concurrently those that concern substantive issues, both of which will contribute to a comprehensive settlement. I welcome these developments.

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. Last July, the United States and the Republic of Cyprus signed a reciprocal Proliferation Security Initiative, PSI, Ship Boarding Agreement, which is aimed at preventing the proliferation of weapons of

mass destruction. Cyprus was the first EU member to sign this agreement. In the fall Cyprus became a signatory to the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. Finally, as citizens from many nations including the United States evacuate from Lebanon, Cyprus is providing critical support in helping these individuals reach safety.

A unified Cyprus would promote stability, both politically and economically, to the entire Mediterranean region. 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 32nd anniversary of the invasion of Cyprus.

Long live freedom.

Long live Cyprus.

Long live Greece.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House several key moments over the last several weeks where the United Nations has been called upon by the international community to address issues of grave global concern and has taken significant steps to increase its own efficiency and efficacy.

In the last week alone, the U.N., which is located in my congressional district, has been asked to deal with the nuclear threat from North Korea, hostilities in Lebanon, and the deteriorating peace and humanitarian situation in Gaza. In fact, as I speak, a U.N. team, led by Under Secretary General Vijay Nambiar, is on the ground in the Middle East helping defuse the current crisis. They have already met with the prime ministers of both Israel and Lebanon and the foreign ministers of the Arab League. Over the next few days, they may return to Lebanon and, perhaps, travel to Syria, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories before returning to New York to brief the U.N. Security Council. Secretary Rice called for the creation of this team and has, along with the President, the National Security Advisor, and a host of other administration officials, publicly supported it since its inception. In fact, during a press briefing in Germany on July 13, Secretary Rice called the Secretary-General's mission ``the best opportunity now for deescalation of this crisis.''

The U.N. Security Council has also taken action against Iran and North Korea, two regimes that the United States has deemed a serious threat to international security and stability but has been unable or unwilling to address directly on its own. Last Saturday, the Security Council voted unanimously to demand that North Korea suspend all ballistic missile launches and related activity and required all member states to prevent the import or export of funds or goods that could fuel Pyongyang's missile or weapons of mass destruction programs. And, as reported in Tuesday's New York Times, the Security Council, including China and Russia, is currently developing a resolution based on a previous agreement to require Iran to suspend its nuclear programs or suffer actions under article 41, chapter 7, of the U.N. Charter, which allows for sanctions.

In addition, at the request of President Bush and the Iraqi Government, the United Nations announced earlier this month that it will help create an ``International Compact for Iraq'' to provide a platform for international support. The Deputy Secretary General has already traveled to Baghdad to begin discussions with

Iraqi President Jalal Talibani. The U.N., through a similar ``Compact'' for Afghanistan, raised billions of dollars for relief and reconstruction and built an international consensus on ways to improve the economy, security, and human rights situation in Afghanistan. Today, in part because of the U.N.'s role as a platform for international cooperation, Afghanistan has its first democratically elected parliament in more than 20 years; 4 million refugees have returned; 5 million children are back at school; 60,000 combatants have rejoined society; and the economy is growing.

These are only the most recent of a long list of ways in which the U.N. helps to safeguard American peace and prosperity. The U.N. currently maintains the world's second-largest standing army, which is keeping the peace in some of the world's most hostile environments. It is working to detect any outbreaks of avian flu and develop the first line of defense against a possible world pandemic, as the President noted in his National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza. It is providing humanitarian assistance and saving lives in volatile regions of the world. And it is developing an international legal framework and bringing those guilty of crimes against humanity to justice.

In addition to taking a central role in addressing these global problems and maintaining an increasingly important presence around the world, the U.N. has taken significant action over the past few months to look inward and improve its own efficiency, transparency, and accountability.

Over our July 4 recess, the U.N. General Assembly--with U.S. consensus--agreed to a slate of broad reforms, many of which had been recommended by former State Department Under Secretary for Management and current U.N. Under Secretary General for Management Christopher Burnham, that include an upgrade to the U.N.'s information technology systems to help better analyze and organize real-time financial data from computer systems spread around the globe and an acceptance of internal accounting standards. These particular actions were made against a backdrop of broader reform over the last 6 months, during which time the U.N. dismantled and replaced the discredited Human Rights Commission; increased staff and funding for internal auditing; created an Ethics Office; and enacted whistleblower and financial disclosure policies that are more far-reaching that those in the U.S. Government.

Mr. Speaker, the U.N. is an indispensable presence in the world, and it is absolutely necessary for maintaining peace and prosperity in the United States. Were the U.N. not to exist or were it unable to fully fund its programs, the U.S. would be forced to confront a rising tide of issues that are simply too numerous, complex, costly, and diplomatically implausible for us to handle on our own. The U.N., as the world's platform for international engagement, can only work when member states, especially the United States, actively engage with the organization and each other. Today--and in the future when we discuss U.S. dues to the U.N.--we will be sending a message to the international community. We must make sure, in the interest of all Americans, that the message is one of cooperation, engagement, and support for the United Nations.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2389, the ``Pledge Protection Act.''

This legislation represents an attempt by the Majority to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over yet another important issue. The effect of H.R. 2389 would be to prevent individuals who have legitimate cases from ever reaching a courtroom. The U.S. Constitution clearly states that a separation of powers, ensured by a system of checks and balances established by our Founding Fathers more than 200 years ago, must exist among the three branches of government. What the proponents of this bill want to do is to tell the courts what cases they can and cannot hear.

This bill is wrong and costs too high a price. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2389.

Mr. Speaker, it isn't every day that we get to come to the House Floor with the opportunity to save lives. When we voted on H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, we were given that very chance. With the Senate voting on the bill in the coming days, we must respond to 72 percent of Americans, scientists, researchers, and Nobel laureates and vote to continue our support for lifting the ban on which stem cell lines can be federally funded.

Right now, only 22 of the 78 stem cell lines approved by President Bush are left. Many of these lines have been contaminated and are no longer useful, but more than 400,000 frozen embryos exist in the United States. With further research, these cells may be used as ``replacement'' cells and tissues to treat many diseases including Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, AIDS, Lou Gehrig's disease and others. Stem cell research holds hope of one day being able to treat brain injury, spinal cord injury, and stroke for which there is currently no treatment available. And they may solve the problem of the body's reaction to foreign tissue, resulting in dramatic improvements in the treatment of a number of life-threatening conditions, such as burns and kidney failure, for which transplantation is currently used.

As a co-chair on the Working Group for Parkinson's Disease and as someone who has lost a very close family member to Parkinson's disease, I know firsthand just how important this legislation is and how important it is to open up the stem cell lines. Parkinson's disease is a progressive degenerative brain disease which kills a specialized and vital type of brain cell, a cell which produces the substance dopamine, that is essential for normal movement and balance. The loss of these dopamine-producing cells causes symptoms, including slowness and paucity of movement, tremor, stiffness, and difficulty walking and balancing, which makes the sufferer unable to carry out the normal activities of daily living. In 30 percent of the cases those symptoms include dementia. As the disease progresses, it inflicts horrific physical, emotional, and financial burdens on the patient and family, requiring the caregiver to assist in the activities of daily living, and may eventually lead to placement in a nursing home until death.

With further research into stem cells, scientists will be able to ``reprogram'' the stem cells into the dopamine-producing cells which are lost in Parkinson's disease. One million Americans are afflicted by this terrible disease. This bill will directly help them.

As for the suspensions we are debating today. I have heard Members of the other body claim that they are useless, but harmless. That they don't do anything to help and that there are no applications of science that they would impact, that fetal farms simply don't exist.

Mr. Speaker, we have a bill before us that will save millions of lives and impact millions more.

It's time that we put the politics aside, listen to the science, and do what's right.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 810.