Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6407, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act.

The Government Reform Committee, of which I am vice-chairman, has held hearings and briefings on postal reform for several years now, and I am glad to see our efforts come to fruition today.

The United States Postal Service has been forced to cut back on its service due to serious financial challenges. H.R. 6407 is an effort to modernize our nation's postal laws for the first time in 36 years. It is intended to help ensure the United States Postal Service can survive in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

Due to the increasing use of electronic forms of communication, such as email, first-class mail volume is declining, but postal addresses are increasing. In lieu of simply increasing rates, an entire reform of the postal service is necessary.

H.R. 6407 would require the Postal Service to operate in a more businesslike manner by creating a modern system of rate regulation, establishing fair competition rules and a more powerful regulatory commission.

H.R. 6407 will also promote both price stability and pricing flexibility. Giving the Postal Service pricing flexibility will allow USPS to price its core mail products in a way that keeps them competitive and, quite literally, in the mail. By limiting the amount of future postage rate increases, however, the bill also takes an important step towards encouraging the Postal Service to increase mail volume and keep the mailbags full while giving mailers predictability and stability.

Universal postal service should be the first and foremost goal of reform. This can only be accomplished if the financial and operational crisis facing the United States Postal Service is met with innovative and bold action. H.R. 6407 takes such action.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6099 because I believe it is a woman's choice whether to terminate a pregnancy, and oppose legislation requiring health care practitioners to tell a patient information that may or may not be true.

I am concerned about the precedent we are setting by having the Federal government mandate by law the medical advice doctors offer their patients. It seems to me the last thing physicians want or need is more federal intrusion into their practices.

I support a woman's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy subject to the restrictions of Roe v. Wade. Abortion is a very personal decision. While a woman's doctor, clergy, friends, family and public officials may have an opinion, the ultimate decision rests solely with her. I would like to see abortion remain safe and legal, yet rare.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to insert in the Congressional Record the following statement by Joseph Verner Reed, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations

Remarks on United Nations Day's 61st Anniversary Celebration

(Tuesday October 24, 2006)

Today October 24, 2006 the United Nations celebrates its

61st birthday.

born of war

The United Nations was created in large part by the efforts

of the United States. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's

vision and dedication laid the framework. The President even

coined its name.

Former United States Secretary of State Cordell Hull won

the Nobel Peace Prize, mainly for his efforts in building the

institution. President Harry S Truman supported President

Roosevelt's vision with equal devotion, and in 1945, the

vision became a reality.

The United Nations has succeeded most obviously in

preventing the horror of a third world war, encouraging

multinational dialogues and the development of international

law, and providing a forum for governmental and non-

governmental entities.

It is active in peacekeeping, disarmament, economic

development, environmental preservation, education and

disease prevention. United Nations groups like UNICEF, the

World Bank, the World Health Organization and the

International Atomic Energy Agency have produced a long list

of achievements, along with the inevitable stumble now and

then.

It is less commonly known that the United Nations also

handles international labor standards, international aviation

safety provisions, international mail flow issues and

international copyright laws, all of which significantly

benefit Americans.

In the words of former United States Ambassador to the

United Nations and former Secretary of State Madeleine

Albright, ``If you have ever traveled on an international

airline or shipping line, or placed a phone call overseas, or

received mail from outside the country, or been thankful

for an accurate weather report--then you have been served

directly or indirectly by one part or another of the

United Nations system.''

more helpful to united states

Many within America view the United Nations with great

suspicion, primarily because they see a significant threat to

U.S. sovereignty.

They would do well to heed the words of former United

States Senator Arthur Vandenberg, a Republican who supported

the formation of the world body: ``Though we cooperate

wholeheartedly with the United Nations for peace and

security, we remain the captains of our own souls.''

The veto power of the United States in the Security Council

alone ensures that the United Nations does not act

arbitrarily to harm U.S. interests. And when looked at

historically, the United Nations has served interests of the

United States far more than it has harmed them.

Among other examples, the United Nations supported the

dispatch of forces to Korea in 1950 and the incursion into

Kuwait to expel Iraqi forces in 1991.

After September 11, 2001, it also moved swiftly to join the

battle against terrorism, supporting the attack on

Afghanistan and passing Resolution 1373, which ``required

nations to interdict arms flows and financial transfers to

suspected terrorist groups, report on terrorists' movements

and update national legislation to fight them.''

When the United Nations speaks in a clear voice, it

represents the greatest source of international legitimacy

possible.

When the Security Council passes a Resolution it is not

only legally binding, but it is widely respected. To solve

global challenges requires a close partnership between the

United States and the United Nations.

As President Dwight D. Eisenhower said, ``With all the

defects . . . the United Nations still represents man's best

organized hope to substitute the conference table for the

battlefield.''

Indeed, to attack the United Nations is to criticize the

conference table. The United Nations is only as effective as

the countries around that table. If we hope to strengthen the

World Organization's effectiveness, the United States must

play a leading role in reform efforts.

It is an honor and privilege to present the message of

Secretary-General Kofi A. Annan to the People of Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act.

I support encouraging--not requiring--parental notification for minors seeking contraceptive services. This legislation proposes a variety of new mandates on women, families, and doctors.

For example, the bill forces doctors to learn and enforce 49 other states' laws, under the threat of fines and prison sentences. In many cases, it forces young women to comply with two states' parental- involvement mandates. It also requires a doctor to notify a young woman's parents in person, in another state, before abortion services can be provided.

Finally, in some cases, even if a parent travels with his or her daughter to obtain abortion care, the doctor must still give ``notice'' to the parent and wait 24 hours before providing the care. In such cases, this requirement acts as a built-in mandatory delay--which makes it more difficult logistically, more expensive, and more burdensome all around for the family. It may even endanger the young woman's health.

Not only does S. 403 include these negative provisions, it also could be found unconstitutional for three reasons. First, it contains no health exception.

Second, in some cases, it offers young women no judicial bypass. Judicial bypass is required by the Supreme Court and allows another responsible adult to consent instead of a parent.

Finally, it forces states to enforce other states' laws by forcing individuals to carry their home state laws with them when they travel.

Every parent hopes that a child confronting a crisis will seek the advice and counsel of those who care for her most and know her best. In fact, even in the absence of laws mandating parental involvement, many young women do turn to their parents when they are considering an abortion. One study found that 61 percent of parents in states without mandatory parental consent or notice laws knew of their daughter's pregnancy.

In a perfect world, all children would have open, clear communication with their parents. Unfortunately, this is not the case in every family. I believe this legislation would dissuade young women from turning to other trusted adults, such as an aunt or older sibling, in a time of need.

While this bill might be well intentioned, it is a deeply flawed attempt to curb young women's access to private, confidential health services under the guise of protecting parental rights.

I would like to see abortion remain safe and legal, yet rare. Whatever one's views on abortion, I believe we all can recognize the importance of preventing unintended pregnancies. When women are unable to control the number and timing of births, they will increasingly rely on abortion. Making criminals of advisors, however, is simply not the way to accomplish this goal.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, although I have some reservations, I support this legislation and appreciate it being brought up for consideration.

On June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the Bush administration lacked the authority to take the ``extraordinary measure'' of scheduling special military trials for inmates, in which defendants have fewer legal protections than in civilian U.S. courts. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens recommended Congress authorize a trial system closely based on our military's court-martial process. I am pleased that is what we are doing today.

It is a testament to our system of government that the highest court has given us guidance in properly administering justice to these terrorism suspects. We should bring detainees to trial with protections similar to military courts. This will guarantee the trials are honest, fair and impartiaI and that justice is done.

I recognize there are certain areas in which the tribunal system we are authorizing must deviate from a traditional court-martial and in my judgment this bill handles those differences in a fair and just manner.

On September 19, 2006, along with several of my Republican colleagues, I wrote to Majority Leader Boehner urging him to bring a bill to the floor that ensures the United States remains fully committed to the Geneva Convention. In our judgment, the bill considered by the Senate Armed Services Committee was a good bill, and I am grateful the bill before the House was modified to closely reflect the provisions in the Senate.

The legislation could have be more explicit in stating the so-called enhanced or harsh techniques that have been implemented in the past by the CIA may not be used under any U.S. law or order. The bill provides the President with some latitude to define what techniques may be used in accordance with the prohibition against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

When I read the language in this bill--and specifically the definitions of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment--I believe any reasonable person would conclude that all of those techniques would still be criminal offenses under the War Crimes Act because they clearly cause ``serious mental and physical suffering.''

I am also concerned about the bill's definition of rape, and of sexual assault or abuse under a section delineating what crimes may be prosecuted before military tribunals if committed by an enemy combatant or if committed by an American against a detainee. The narrow definition in this bill leaves out other acts, as well as the notion that sex without consent is also rape, as defined by numerous state laws and federal law.

For these reasons, I am voting for the Democrat Motion to Recommit the bill to require a reauthorization of this legislation and also to request expedited judicial review.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill that, as amended, reauthorizes the HOPE VI program through 2007. Reauthorizing the HOPE VI for an additional year will have an important impact on the lives of low- income people and will also pay tremendous dividends in towns and cities across America.

I am grateful to have worked on this legislation with my colleagues Jim Leach, Maxine Waters, Artur Davis who has worked very hard on this, Mel Watt as well, Charlie Dent, and appreciate the assistance and guidance they have provided.

I also appreciate the support of Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank in moving this bill forward. I

have tremendous admiration for my chairman and ranking member and the work that they have done throughout a number of years. With their assistance, this legislation passed the Financial Services Committee by voice vote.

HOPE VI epitomizes public-private partnerships for funding redevelopment projects. Mixed-finance agreements have allowed the government to raise millions of dollars from the private sector for redevelopment properties using Federal funds as leverage. For every government dollar granted, these partnerships can yield an additional $3 or $4.

Let me give an example of an incredible HOPE VI project that has been completed in Stamford, Connecticut. A $26 million HOPE VI grant leveraged an additional $80 million in State, local, and private funds. The HOPE VI transformed Southfield Village, a dim, crime-ridden, and dilapidated housing project into Southwood Square, a beautiful place to live and raise your children.

It is also a mixed-income community, where low-income families and those paying market rent live side-by-side. I am talking about people who make more than $100,000. Their children play together, and they have the opportunity to grow and learn from one another.

As a result of this Federal assistance, Southwood Square is now a safe place for children to play. Its residents receive job training on site. Others are going to work, and working parents have access to child care facilities. Instead of the BMW belonging to drug dealers, they belong to employees who work for the many businesses in the community. Just as importantly, residents are involved in their community.

I wish Members could see the transformation that has taken place there. Another HOPE VI project at Fairfield Court in Stamford is now beginning and promises to be just as successful as Southwood Square.

The lesson here is, when the Federal Government demonstrates its interest in improving the housing needs of low-income families, the community responds in a big way.

I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation and again thank Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank for their cooperation in bringing this legislation before us, as well as the lead cosponsors on both sides of the aisle for their support. This was a team effort, and that is why passage tonight is so satisfying.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Hedge Fund Study Act and appreciate the work of our colleague, Mike Castle, to craft this legislation and bring it to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, the hedge fund industry plays a critical and special role in our capital markets and is enormously important to helping institutional investors diversify their investment portfolios and meet their future funding needs.

While the numbers fluctuate some, there are believed to be close to 8,000 hedge funds that manage approximately $1 trillion in assets. Connecticut's Fourth Congressional District, which I'm grateful to represent, is home to several hundred of the most successful hedge funds.

Over the past few years, the industry has received increasing attention from the media, Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). I happen to believe that strong oversight of our financial markets is critical to our Nation's economic well-being. While hedge funds, which have knowledgeable and sophisticated investors, do not require the same level of scrutiny as is paid to the mutual fund industry, it seems to me more transparency and better government and regulator understanding of the industry will ultimately benefit investors and managers alike.

In my judgment, this act is a sensible approach to the issues raised by the growth and importance of hedge funds to the capital markets. We should require the Presidential Working Group on Financial Markets to study and make recommendations in a final report regarding efforts of both the industry and its regulators to improve practices.

Again, I appreciate this legislation coming to the House floor and urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of th1s legislation, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5160, the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act. I recognize the vital role the Long Island Sound plays in the Fourth Congressional District as well as all of Connecticut.

The Long Island Sound contributes more than $5 billion annually to the regional economy and is one of the most populated and visited areas of our country. In fact, approximately 10 percent of the American population lives within the Long Island Sound watershed.

It is a source of livelihood, nourishment, and recreation for many in Connecticut and elsewhere, and it is critical that we treat it well.

This legislation would authorize $40 million to protect and preserve areas along the Sound's shorelines with significant ecological, recreational, or educational value. The Long Island Sound Stewardship Act gives those most familiar with the Sound's precious and diverse resources the tools necessary to continue their conservation efforts, and applies the most effective methods available to identify, protect, and enhance sites with ecological, educational, and recreation value in Connecticut and New York.

Protecting and preserving the environment is one of the most important jobs I have as a Member of Congress. We simply will not have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways.

The Long Island Sound is our Yellowstone. I urge passage of this legislation so that we may continue its conservation and protection.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 477, I would have voted ``no,'' like I did in the 106th Congress, but I was unavoidably detained.

Mr. Speaker, on September 16, the Fairfield County Ancient Order of Hibernians celebrated the official recognition of Commodore John Barry as the First Flag Officer of the United States Navy. In 2005, the House passed, and the President signed into law, H.J. Res. 38, which made this recognition official, and I was proud to support this legislation. I am happy to submit the text of Master Chief Richard Iannucci's informative address

at this ceremony to be entered into the Record.

Selectmen, honored guests, veterans, citizens of Fairfield,

stalwarts of Gaelic descent, and shipmates

This is a replica of the First Navy Jack. This flag, more

properly this ``jack,'' was flown by Commodore John Barry and

at the bow of ships of the Continental Navy.

This same jack was ordered flown on the jackstaff of every

US Navy warship on 9/12/2001. This jack had not be flown by

an American warship at war in over two hundred years.

At sea a flag or jack always signifies something. This

jack, the jack of Commodore Barry and the Continental Navy,

signifies that the US Navy is today functioning at its

grimmest, most deadly earnest level of national survival.

Barry and the men who fought alongside him, were heroes in

the traditional sense of the word. They were not victims as

the word ``hero'' seems to be evolving today, but men of

courage who voluntarily thrust themselves ``in harm's way''

to use a phrase made famous by another Continental Navy

captain, John Paul Jones.

This flag symbolizes John Barry and the Continental Navy's

proud and courageous legacy.

Barry: The First Crucible

John Barry, the father of the United States Navy, was fired

in three crucibles. His legacy is a function of those three

crucibles and the trials they represented.

The first crucible was the unsettled nature of the country

of his origin, Ireland. John Barry was born in 1745, in a

cottage in County Wexford, Ireland, the southeasternmost part

of Ireland. Wexford had a strong maritime tradition, but

Barry's father was a poor tenant farmer who was eventually

evicted from his farm by his British landlord. The family was

forced to relocate to the village of Rosslare. It would have

been at an early age that Barry learned of the bloody fall of

Wexford to an invading British force led by Oliver Cromwell

in 1649.

Barry had to be aware of his countrymen's general fear of

British oppression and governmental administration. Today

there are people who parrot that thought that ``there is

nothing worse than war.'' John Barry knew there was at least

one thing worse than war . . . losing a war and he only

needed to look around himself in Ireland to draw that

conclusion. Today you hear the cant, ``War never accomplishes

anything.'' John Barry would have known that to be a

wrongheaded conclusion.

Personally, as a descendant of highlanders and seafarers

forced to leave the Isle of Raasey of the Inner Hebrides, on

the western coast of Scotland, during the Highland

Clearances, I am aware of the strong formative influence of

having to leave your home under the cloud of a sense of

injustice.

The plight of his native land had to have left its mark on

John Barry.

Barry: The Second Crucible

The second crucible was the demanding, unforgiving nature

of the sea. John Barry's uncle was the captain of a fishing

skiff, and at an early age he chose to follow his uncle as a

seafarer. The sea meant freedom and independence. It was

easier to jump ship, if life became unfair or oppressive,

than move from one farming tenancy to another. Barry started

as a cabin boy, and worked his way up. Going to sea was no

easy career choice, but it gave a young man independence, and

opportunities tied to merit, for the sea holds little regard

for nationality or economic status. Only performance counts.

A sea captain sailed one of the technological marvels of the

day. A captain had to know sophisticated mathematics,

astronomy, meteorology, navigation, carpentry, metal working,

oceanography, chemistry, physics, civil engineering, business

law, and psychology, among other disciplines. A merchant ship

was the second most complex convergence of technology of the

18th Century. He had to learn all this, control and lead

dozens of men at a time, fight the elements, and turn a

profit. He was an established ship's captain by the age of

30, plying the trade route between Philadelphia and the West

Indies.

What was the most complex convergence of technology of the

18th Century? A naval warship was the first most complex

convergence of technology, because it carried the added

element of naval guns and other weaponry.

Barry: The Third Crucible

In 1775, John Barry was dropped into his last and third

crucible, when he offered his services to the Continental

Congress. His ship Black Prince was purchased by the

Continental Congress and renamed Alfred. His lieutenant was a

fiery Scotsman, named Jones, John Paul Jones.

John Barry was then given command of Lexington, 14 guns, in

December of 1775. Lexington sailed in March of 1776. That

April, off the Capes of Virginia, John Barry engaged Edward,

tender to the British man-of-war Liverpool. After a heated

battle he captured Edward, the first American naval prize of

the war and brought her into Philadelphia. He captured

several private armed British ships not long after.

His next command was Effingham, which was only partially

completed and used her to patrol the Delaware Bay and Capes.

A British agent offered Barry 20,000 pounds sterling to

change sides and bring Effingham with him. In the 18th

Century, 20,000 pounds was a fortune. Barry would not turn

his coat.

In October of 1776. the Continental Congress assigned the

rankings of officers of the Continental Navy, ranking John

Barry No. 7 among Continental Navy captains.

Barry was a thorough warrior. Barry's contribution to the

war was not limited to sea duty. He could have stuck with

Effingham and his naval specialization, but in December of

1776. Barry recruited a company of volunteers for landing

party duty. He and his company took part in the Trenton

campaign. He organized the boatmen and assisted George

Washington in his famous crossing of the Delaware. Barry

subsequently assisted in the defense of Philadelphia and

operations in the upper Delaware.

When the British took possession of Philadelphia in

September 1777, Captain Barry was ordered to take his

uncompleted frigate Effingham up the Delaware River to a

place of safety. In October, the ship was ordered sunk or

burned. Barry scuttled her in November, near Bordentown, New

Jersey, to deny her use to the British.

In March of 1778, Captain Barry captured the British

schooner Alert of 20 guns, and two ships loaded with supplies

for the British Army using a fleet of small boats.

Taking command of Raleigh, 32 guns, he sailed from Boston

in September 1778, and two days later was chased and attacked

by three of Royal Navy vessels. After a nine hour running

battle, he ran Raleigh ashore on an island near the mouth of

Penobscot Bay in what is now known as Maine, but was foiled

by a turncoat crewman and unable to completely destroy

Raleigh. He escaped to the mainland with most of his crew. He

then assumed command of the privateer Delaware, 10 guns.

In November of 1780, Barry was ordered to command Alliance,

32 guns, and took John Laurens, Special Commissioner, to

France. Alliance would be his most famous command. To and

from France, he captured the British Privateers Alert, 12

guns; Mars, 26 guns; and Minerva, 10 guns.

In May of 1781, Barry engaged the British sloops-of-war,

Atlanta, 20 guns, and Trepassy, 14 guns. This was to be

Barry's most famous engagement. Barry conducted a relentless

defense from the quarterdeck until a projectile of langridge

(broken nails and metal fragments) or canister (small

spherical projectiles) struck him in the left shoulder. He

remained on deck bleeding from many wounds until losing

consciousness. He was carried below to the cockpit for

medical care by the ship's surgeon.

As the battle increased in intensity, Alliance's colors

were shot away. Barry's second in command, appeared before

him as his wounds were being dressed.

I asked you to bear with me. 18th Century dialogue sound

wooden and strangely formal to the 21st Century.

Barry's second in command stated, ``I have to report the

ship in frightful condition, Sir. The rigging is much cut,

damage everywhere great, many men killed and wounded, and we

labor under great disadvantage for want of wind. Have I

permission to strike our colors?''

Barry replied angrily.

``No Sir, the thunder! If this ship cannot be fought

without me, I will be brought on deck; to your duty, Sir.'' A

new flag was raised using the mizzenbrail for a halyard, and

the fight continued. Just as they reached the deck, a gust of

wind filled Alliance's sails. Replying to her helm, the

battered Alliance swung about and the officers and crew

pressed their new advantage to victory.

He continued in command of Alliance, taking numerous prizes

in 1782.

In 1783, John Barry fought the last Continental Navy

engagement of the Revolutionary War against the British man-

of-war Sybylle, 28 guns. Though the ship surrendered to him

he was obliged to abandon it to escape from the rest of the

squadron of which Sybylle was a part. At the time, Barry was

convoying Duc de Lauzane, carrying money and supplies from

the West Indies to the Colonies. His defense enabled Duc de

Lauzane to escape and reach the Colonies.

After the close of Revolutionary War, Captain Barry

returned to the merchant marine.

Upon reorganization of the Navy, in June of 1794, Captain

Barry was appointed No. 1 on the list of Captains and his

commission was signed by George Washington. As senior

captain, this status entitled him to the positional title of

``commodore'' in any group of US Navy ships. The US Navy

would have no admirals until the Civil War. The title

``admiral'' was thought to be to aristocratic and

undemocratic. The army could have generals, but the navy

would have only commodores.

Barry was ordered to superintend the building of the

frigate United States, 44 guns, and to command her when

finished. He fought in the Quasi-War with France, 1798-1801,

capturing a number of French vessels in the West Indies. By

the direction of the Navy Department he brought United States

to Washington, where she was laid up. This ended Barry's

active service.

He was employed in testing cannon for the Government 1801-

1802, and was selected to command the Mediterranean Squadron,

but was too ill to take the duty. He died at his country

residence near Philadelphia.

Commodore Barry was indeed the Father of the United States

Navy, he was there at the beginning and he stayed the course

through two wars. He set the example and what an example it

was. He was courageous, tenacious, and versatile.

Full Circle

Let's take one last look at this First Navy Jack. We have

come full circle.

On July 7, 1779, as you left Southport Harbor and looked

over your port beam (or larboard beam as Commodore Barry

would have known it), you would seen the smoke from the

British punitive raid on Fairfield. On September 11, 2001, as

you left Southport Harbor and looked over your starboard

beam, you would see the smoke from the burning towers of the

World Trade Center. Here we are in the Southport section of

Fairfield, a crossroads of history and yet even here in

Fairfield we failed to give due deference to history. The

Fairfield School system willfully fails to observe Veterans

Day, for example, as a holiday.

We are at war, but have we learned from history? It is all

to easy to put the present war aside and go about our

business. Let someone else address the problem. Perhaps

another John Barry will turn up, or perhaps it doesn't

matter.

We need more John Barrys, men of bravery and determination,

we can never have enough.

Barry knew there were things worse than war and his life

was determined by that knowledge. He knew there were things

far worse than war. Do we? He acknowledged that there were

objectives that war could accomplish, do we?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I would like to just amend the gentleman's comment by saying there are two prime movers, Mr. Lantos and myself, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this legislation.

I rise in support of H.R. 3858, the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Act, referred to as the PETS Act, which Congressman Lantos and I both as cochairmen of the Friends of Animal Caucus introduced.

This commonsense bill requires State and local preparedness planners to include plans for evacuation of pet owners, pets, and service animals. Having passed this legislation once in the House, we now have an opportunity to include several important provisions that have been included by the Senate strengthening the bill, and then being able to send it directly to the President. These provisions include granting FEMA the authority to assist in developing evacuation plans, and authorizing financial help to States to create emergency shelters for people with their animals. Hurricane Katrina left so many victims in its wake, including up to 600,000 animals that lost their lives or were left without shelter.

To qualify for Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, funding, a jurisdiction is required to submit a plan detailing their disaster preparedness plan. The PETS Act would simply require State and local emergency preparedness authorities to plan for how they will accommodate households with pets or service animals when presenting these plans to FEMA.

This bipartisan legislation is necessary because it became evident during Hurricane Katrina, when asked to choose between abandoning their pets or their own personal safety, many pet owners chose to risk their lives and remain with their pets, and some of them perished. This is first a public safety issue, but also an animal welfare issue. Roughly two-thirds of American households own pets. We need to ensure owners and their pets are protected.

The human horror and devastation in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama was a failure we needed to immediately address, but it was also heartbreaking to hear stories of forced evacuees to choose between being rescued or remaining with their pets. The plight of the animals left behind was truly tragic.

In the middle of hurricane season, it is imperative that regulations to include pets in evacuation plans be placed in anticipation of future tragedies.

This is an important bill. I urge its passage so that we can send it directly to the President.

Again, I want to thank the chairman for bringing this bill out and marshaling this bill both times we have been before the Chamber. And I also want to thank my colleague, my cochairman, Mr. Lantos for all that he has done. He is a pleasure to work with.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. I wanted to rise and thank Chairman Shuster for marshaling this bill through and making sure that Members treated it with seriousness.

I thank the ranking member of the full Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar, for his partnership in this effort.

I also thank Congressman Lantos. We have been through many battles together, and this has been one of the most enjoyable ones.

I also wanted to stand up and acknowledge the fine work of Senator Collins and the ranking member, Mr. Lieberman, in the Senate for their help in getting this bill through. Had they not taken action and treated this bill seriously, we would not be here today. And, frankly, they made it a better bill. I just wanted to thank Senators Collins and my friend Joe Lieberman, who I love very dearly.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of H. Res. 1000, which will require disclosure of earmark sponsors in the text of any legislation considered in the House. This is a common-sense change that should improve the transparency of the earmarking process and eliminate questions about who is really behind the funding of thousands of projects.

I believe securing federal funding for local projects can be an important role for a member of Congress, so long as the project meets basic requirements. I use two tests to determine whether to seek funding. First, I ensure that transportation projects have the support of the local chief executive, regional planning agency and the Connecticut Department of Transportation.

Secondly, I apply my ``community meeting'' test. If I can't justify the funding to constituents, I know it's not a project I should support.

Earmarks have funded a broad array of transportation projects in the Fourth Congressional District, including the Bridgeport Intermodal Center, the Norwalk Pulse Point Improvement project, and the Stamford Urban Transitway, and projects promoting urban development in our urban areas and education.

Unfortunately, projects like Alaska's ``Bridge to Nowhere,'' taint views of all congressionally-directed funding.

I do not believe adoption of this resolution today lessens the need for comprehensive lobbying and ethics reform, because today's action still does not prevent the type of behavior we have witnessed in recent months. The resolution does provide additional sunlight on the process, however, which I think we can all agree is a good thing,

I thank my chairman of the Homeland Security Committee for yielding to me, I thank him for his sincerity, I thank him for his good work, and I thank him for reaching out to the other side of the aisle on every occasion. I am sorry he is having to deal with the criticism that he is now having to deal with. But this is close, I guess, to an election time.

As chairman of the 9/11 Caucus and chairman of the National Security Emerging Threats and International Relations Subcommittee, I rise to salute and honor the 2,976 individuals who lost their lives on this fateful day, 81 who were residents of the 17 towns I am privileged to represent. I salute the first responders who did what first responders do, run into danger while those they seek to protect run out. I salute as well all who labored after the buildings imploded to first save lives and then ultimately find the body parts of those who perished.

Many of these individuals, particularly those who labored on this site during the first few weeks and months breathing highly toxic air, now find their own lives at risk. May God bless them, may God bless those who perished on September 11, and may God bless this great and enduring county. I thank you very much

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 175, a resolution recognizing the importance of establishing a national memorial at the World Trade Center site and supporting the efforts of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation to build a permanent memorial at the site.

Five years ago, we lost 2,976 lives in a coordinated attack on our soil, 81 of whom were residents of the 17 towns now in the Fourth District. On the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we remember each one of those men and women who lost their lives, and their family and friends who still mourn their loss today.

But this is a tragedy that we will not and cannot forget in another five, 15 or 50 years. We must never forget.

For that reason, I support the creation of a national memorial at the World Trade Center site.

A national memorial is a way to honor the Americans who lost their lives on September 11. It would be a place of gathering for their loved ones to come and remember those they lost. And it would be a tool to help teach future generations about the tragedy of that day, the history of the attacks and the importance of protecting ourselves against future acts of terrorism.

I am grateful for the work of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and support their efforts for a permanent memorial at the site.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and thank him for taking on this battle with others.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. I oppose the cruel and senseless slaughter of American horses for human consumption in the United States or for foreign markets. I just think we should not be allowing this.

Last year, more than 90,000 American horses were either slaughtered in one of three foreign-owned slaughterhouses in the U.S. or shipped to Canada or Mexico for slaughter.

Horses have never been raised for human consumption in America. This slaughter is done for export.

Legislation is necessary because the Department of Agriculture is blatantly circumventing clear congressional intent on horse slaughter in last year's fiscal year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Act.

This legislation would prohibit the transportation, possession and sale of horses to be slaughtered for human consumption in the U.S. It does not remove the rights of owners to do what they want with their horses.

Under H.R. 503, owners can humanely euthanize sick, dangerous, or old horses. Horses can continue to be kept by their owners, can be sold to a new home, or placed in one of the many horse sanctuaries located across the country.

The way a society treats its animals, particularly horses, speaks to the core values and priorities of its citizens. Horses are not just companions and recreational animals. They are a vital part of our Nation's culture and history.

I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation and oppose all amendments aimed to weaken it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.