Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1082) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 120 East Illinois Avenue in Vinita, Oklahoma, as the ``Francis C. Goodpaster Post Office Building.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Committee on Government Reform and its chairman, I rise to begin the consideration of H.R. 1082. This legislation honors a caring community leader who personifies much of what is good about America. Francis Goodpaster was a veteran, postmaster, philanthropist, teacher, church elder, and lifelong resident of the northeast Oklahoma town of Vinita. All members of the Oklahoma State delegation have joined the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren), the sponsor, as cosponsors of H.R. 1082.

Born in Vinita, Oklahoma in 1909, Francis Goodpaster became employed by the Post Office Department in 1937. He left his job and his home to serve our Nation in the Army in World War II. He retired from the Army as a lieutenant colonel. In 1964 he became Postmaster in Vinita until his retirement in 1973.

In addition to his postal and military career, Mr. Goodpaster was very active in his native community. He served as Craig County Commissioner, President of the Vinita Lions Club, commander in the local American Legion, Red Cross board member, and he was even an elder at the Pilgrim Presbyterian Church.

Mr. Speaker, Francis Goodpaster passed away on March 3, 2002. We support this legislation that will memorialize his contributions to his hometown of Vinita, Oklahoma.

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

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

I urge all Members to support this legislation introduced by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren) and urge the passage of H.R. 1082.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1542) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 695 Pleasant Street in New Bedford, Massachusetts, as the ``Honorable Judge George N. Leighton Post Office Building.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1542 names this postal facility in New Bedford Massachusetts as the ``Honorable Judge George N. Leighton Post Office Building.'' This fitting tribute honors a notable and ground-breaking judicial figure. Judge Leighton was born George Neves Leitao in New Bedford, Massachusetts on October 22, 1912. As a young man, Leitao fought for our Nation in World War II and was awarded the Bronze Star for his courageous service. After he returned safely home from the war, he pursued his dreams of going to law school and earned a law degree from Harvard in 1946.

After graduation he moved to Chicago to pursue his career in the law. He ultimately became a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois in 1964, and in 1969 he was elevated to judge of the Appellate Court, First District. In that capacity Judge Leighton became the first African American judge to sit on the Illinois Appellate Court.

Mr. Speaker, President Gerald Ford recognized Judge Leighton's judicial prowess and appointed him to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in 1976. His distinguished tenure as a Federal judge lasted until 1987.

Mr. Speaker, Judge George Leighton was a great legal mind who also was a professor at the John Marshall School of Law in Chicago for more than a quarter of a century. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for offering H.R. 1542. I know he is proud of Judge Leighton, who, at 95 years of age, continues to be the pride of all New Bedford residents.

Judge Leighton is tremendously deserving of this honor, and it is terrific that this post office will hopefully soon carry his name. I urge all Members to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of the bill sponsored by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), H.R. 1542, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 366, the Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act.

In order for the United States to continue to compete in today's global economy we must continue educating our youth. I was disappointed the President's FY 06 budget request did not include funding for most current vocational education programs authorized under the Perkins Act.

I support the Perkins Act because I believe it is necessary to develop the academic, vocational, and technical skills of secondary students and postsecondary students enrolled in vocational and technical education programs. I am concerned, however, that sometimes when Congress gives grants to Universities they increase tuition and other costs, so the benefit to the students is minimal.

I am hopeful the $1.3 billion allocated in this legislation will benefit the students who need the grant to improve their future and the future of our country, not the universities who take advantage of additional funds to raise tuition.

I support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification 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 H.R. 748 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 inaIv 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, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and since I do not need the full 2 minutes, I will be yielding back some time, but I just want to say to her and to everyone in this Chamber, that the ethics process needs to be bipartisan, and so it is so right to return the rules back to the way they were.

I believe that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the chairman and ranking members respectively, can work out whatever other differences that still remain. These are two good men.

And I also want to say that I have tremendous respect for Members of this Chamber from both parties for the good will and integrity they exhibit. I just think it is important for us to put this behind us and to move forward. It may be that on a bipartisan basis the chairman and ranking member and the full committee will come back with recommendations that this full body can consider.

It would be an absolute shame, I think, if the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct becomes a committee in which it is a place to just ``get Members'' and a place to score political points. And I hope and pray that it will be a committee that will see its primary purpose as maintaining the integrity of this Chamber and allowing us to all feel proud of what happens here.

So I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and I think it was a mistake to have amended the rules and I am grateful that we are restoring them to the way they were.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to oncology nurses. Oncology nurses play an important and essential role in providing quality cancer care. These nurses are principally involved in the administration and monitoring of chemotherapy and the associated side-effects patients experience. As anyone ever treated for cancer will tell you, oncology nurses are intelligent, well-trained, highly skilled, kind-hearted angels who provide quality clinical, psychosocial and supportive care to patients and their families. In short, they are integral to our nation's cancer care delivery system.

I congratulate the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) on its 30th Anniversary. ONS is the largest organization of oncology health professionals in the world, with more than 31,000 registered nurses and other health care professionals. Since 1975, ONS has been dedicated to excellence in patient care, teaching, research, administration and education in the field of oncology. The Society's mission is to promote excellence in oncology nursing and quality cancer care. To that end, ONS honors and maintains nursing's historical and essential commitment to advocate for the public good by providing nurses and healthcare professionals with access to the highest quality educational programs, cancer-care resources, research opportunities and networks for peer support. ONS has two chapters in my home state of Connecticut, which help oncology nurses provide high quality cancer care to patients and their families in our state.

Cancer is a complex, multifaceted and chronic disease, and people with cancer are best served by a multidisciplinary health care team specialized in oncology care, including nurses who are certified in that specialty. Each year in the United States, approximately 1.37 million people are diagnosed with cancer, another 570,000 lose their battles with this terrible disease, and more than 8 million Americans count themselves among a growing community known as cancer survivors. Every day, oncology nurses see the pain and suffering caused by cancer and understand the physical, emotional, and financial challenges that people with cancer face throughout their diagnosis and treatment.

Over the last ten years, the setting where treatment for cancer is provided has changed dramatically. An estimated 80 percent of all cancer patients receive care in community settings, including cancer centers, physicians' offices, and hospital outpatient departments. Treatment regimens are as complex, if not more so, than regimens given in the inpatient setting a few short years ago. Oncology nurses are involved in the care of a cancer patient from the beginning through the end of treatment, and they are the front-line providers of care by administering chemotherapy, managing patient therapies and side- effects, working with insurance companies to ensure that patients receive the appropriate treatment, provide counseling to patients and family members, in addition to many other daily acts on behalf of cancer patients.

I appreciate oncology nurses' dedication to our nation's cancer patients, and commend the Oncology Nursing Society for all of its efforts and leadership over the last 30 years. They have contributed immensely to the quality and accessibility of care for all cancer patients and their families, and I urge my colleagues to support them in their important endeavors.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I support the Castle-Markey amendment and would say to my fellow Republicans, if this is the party that believes in local government and decisions being made on the local level and the State level as opposed to the Federal level, you would be supporting this amendment.

It seems absolutely clear as can be to me that if you do not give authority, some authority, and rights to States and local communities, you are going to have companies come in and bully their way because they will not have to be answerable. They will not have to work out problems with their States and local governments. They will just have the capability to advise, and advice means very little.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Castle-Markey-Shays- Andrews amendment, striking the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) siting language contained in Section 320 of H.R. 6.

There are risks as well as benefits associated with the siting and expansion of LNG terminals in populated areas. It is essential states be able to evaluate their effect on sensitive coastal areas. In Long Island Sound just off Connecticut, there is a very real possibility that a facility will be sited with little to no state or local input.

We propose an amendment to restore the role of state and local authority in citing decisions. States and localities should be able to maintain the ability to review and impact decisions that could pose serious environmental and health hazards to its coastal areas and its citizens.

My party has always believed state and local governments know best what works in their communities.

Mr. Chairman, while energy security is a national issue, it seems to me, local communities, who will live with our decisions far into the future, deserve a voice in the decision-making process.

Mr. Chairman, on April 21, I inadvertently missed a recorded vote.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that I would have voted ``yes'' on recorded vote number 130.

Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Castle

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1095, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish and provide a checkoff for a World Trade Center Memorial Fund, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, protecting our environment and promoting energy independence are two of the most important jobs I have as a Member of Congress. Unfortunately, the bill before us today represents a real missed opportunity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, promote energy efficiency and conservation, and improve our air, land and water quality.

For decades, our country has lacked a national energy policy. While I did not agree with the Administration's energy plan, I was grateful President Bush put forward a comprehensive proposal. The President's energy plan was superior to the severely flawed bill before us today.

We had a chance to devise a forward-looking energy policy that would have increased fuel efficiency, made polluters (including MTBE producers) pay for harming our environment, and advanced a renewable portfolio standard. Instead what we have is quite a bad bill.

Instead of creating a balanced energy policy that provides incentives to make renewable energy more affordable and widely available, we are making fiscally irresponsible and environmentally-reckless decisions for the benefit of a few profitable industries that don't need this kind of help from taxpayers.

I fail to understand why the major thrust of the bill's tax provisions involve further subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, rather than providing incentives for conservation and renewable sources of energy. These are enormously profitable industries operating in a time of record energy prices. Clearly, these profits demonstrate the market has already provided the fossil fuel industries with sufficient incentive to increase production.

I strongly oppose a provision in the bill that allows for the permanent activation of the Cross Sound Cable. In doing so, the bill subverts the regulatory process and ignores sound environmental policy regarding the depth at which the Cable should be buried.

In addition to its environmental shortsightedness, I also oppose provisions in this bill related to energy transmission. For instance, the Energy Policy Act allows the Federal Electric Regulatory Commission (FERC) to preempt state siting authorities when it is determined that a high-voltage power line is of ``national significance,'' and overrides state authorities when expanding or siting new liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals. In our own Long Island Sound just off Connecticut, this is a very real possibility. While energy security is a national issue, it seems to me the communities who will live with these siting decisions deserve a voice in the process.

Finally, I strongly oppose opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. We simply won't have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways. In my judgment, it would be far better to develop prudent and lasting alternate fuel energies than to risk irreparable damage to the wilderness of one of North America's most beautiful frontiers. Drilling in the Arctic will not fix our energy problems--with so little oil available up there it couldn't possibly, as it will take a decade to get the oil down here. That time would be far better spent developing clean, renewable energy

sources that will provide infinite energy without imperiling our last remaining wilderness areas.

I look forward to the day when we will have an opportunity to vote for a fiscally-prudent, environmentally-responsible national energy policy. Today is not that day.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey- Johnson Amendment to protect the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.

The coastal plain of ANWR is the last major part of the North Slope that has not been developed. In my judgment, it would be far better to develop prudent and lasting alternate fuel energies than to risk irreparable damage to the wilderness of one of North America's most beautiful frontiers.

The reason the ANWR ``solution'' seems so simple is because it's too good to be true. It won't fix our energy problems--with so little oil available up there, it couldn't possibly, as it will take a decade to get the oil down here. That time would be far better spent developing clean, renewable energy sources that will provide infinite energy without imperiling our last remaining wilderness areas. Even a modest increase in CAFE standards would save more oil than would be produced by drilling in ANWR.

We simply won't have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways. What we really need to ask ourselves is: how can we square legitimate environmental concerns with our expanding energy needs?

Mr. Chairman, drilling in the Arctic Refuge is the wrong answer to the right question. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Markey- Johnson Amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey- Boehlert, et al amendment. People used to own slaves and we look back and say how could they? Future generations will say we destroyed the environment and how could we?

Let us conserve, let us see oil prices go down as we stop wasting what we have. SUVs, mini-vans, and trucks need to get better mileage; and we need to tell the automobile manufacturers to make this happen.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the support of the amendment to reduce our consumption of oil by increasing fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks.

This amendment requires the Department of Transportation to raise fuel economy standards for automobiles from today's average of 25 miles per gallon to 33 miles per gallon by 2015.

Under this amendment, the Administrator of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration will have maximum flexibility in how the standards are set. the standard could be increased for cars or SUVs or only the heaviest trucks.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with those who say, ``We cannot conserve our way out of this energy problem.'' However, until we raise CAFE standards, we cannot honestly tell the American people this is a balanced energy plan.

It is absolutely imperative we are more efficient and make better use of our precious resources.

This is a common sense amendment, which represents a modest step forward in our nation's efforts to become more energy efficient. Our amendment will help protect the environment, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and save drivers money at the pump.

The United States cannot continue on a course of increased oil consumption with little to no regard for the implications it has on our environment, economy and national security. There is no better time to focus on reducing our reliance on foreign oil than right now. Increased fuel efficiency standards and tax incentives for conservation and renewable energy sources should be at the heart of our national energy policy in a post-September 11 world.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. It is a basic principle of commerce in our country that when a person makes an obligation to pay someone for a good or service, they do so. We ought to address the fact that our nation had over 1.6 million bankruptcy filings last year, and an estimated $44 billion in debts are discharged annually. When creditors are unable to collect money owed to them, we all pay the cost in the form of higher costs, higher interest rates and higher downpayments.

I want to be very clear that this legislation will not prevent those who have incurred oppressive indebtedness from filing. It will apply a means test that weighs whether a debtor has enough disposable income to repay creditors. If, after applying this test, the debtor has little or no disposable income, they will be able to file for straight bankruptcy just as they always have. Those who earn wages and have the ability to repay, however, will be required to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, restructure their debt and repay a portion of it.

I have heard from a number of my constituents concerned about high credit card rates, predatory loan practices and identity theft. I share their concern and believe that after passing this legislation today, we must redouble our efforts to pass legislation curbing predatory lending, and we must build on the legislation we passed during the last Congress regarding identity theft.

This is comprehensive legislation and while supporting its passage, this body should pledge strong oversight and the willingness to review its effect on bankruptcy filers and the economy at large.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act, although the base bill does not address the estate tax in the manner I believe to be most prudent.

In 2003, Congressman Doug Bereuter and I introduced the Estate Tax Relief Act, which would increase the estate tax exclusion to $10 million and lower the top rate to the level as the top income tax rate (currently 35 percent). I think this is a much better solution than total repeal.

Because estate and gift taxes have had devastating effects on small businesses--many of which are forced to liquidate assets simply to pay taxes ranging from 35 to 55 percent of the value of the business--I think we need to provide significant relief in this area. My preference, however, is to reduce estate taxes without entirely eliminating them.

In the last Congress, I voted for today's base bill because if it is not enacted the estate tax, which is being phased-out over a period between 2001 and 2010, will return in 2011 with an exemption of just $675,000 and a top rate of 55 percent.

While my first choice would be to significantly increase the exclusion and lower the top rate, I believe full repeal is preferable to the return of this onerous tax.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res 188, which recognizes and honors the contributions firefighters have made to our country.

Firefighters have played an important role in our nation's history since the first volunteer fire company was founded in 1736 by Benjamin Franklin. Firefighters take their oath of public safety very seriously and go above and beyond their call of duty to serve and protect the citizens of the United States.

On September 11, 2001, the firefighters of our nation selflessly risked and gave their lives in one of most tragic days in the history of our country. The site of those brave men and women putting their lives on the line to enter the smoldering World Trade Center to save as many people as they could is still a humbling vision three years later. My heart goes out to the hundreds of firefighters who gave their lives on that horrible day.

The terrorist attacks were not just attacks on New York City, but on the nation. With New York as a continuing top terrorist target, the protection of New York City is becoming a national responsibility. Other cities with tall buildings throughout the country face the same challenges with their communication systems and will need the same upgrades. Improvements in New York will lay the groundwork for improvements to communications systems across the country.

In light of this fact, it is my hope Congress will redouble its efforts to insist that communications systems of firefighters in high- risk urban areas be upgraded. The ``9/11 Can You Hear Me Now Act,'' which Congresswoman Maloney will be introducing soon with my support, instructs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide a communication system that must be capable of operating in all locations and under the circumstances we know firefighters face and will continue to face when responding to emergencies.

Today and every day, the bravery and self-sacrifice of the firefighters in the United States deserves to be commended. Their efforts have had an enormous impact on the public safety of our citizens. Thanks to the 1.1 million firefighters in the United States, the country is a safer place to live.

Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to Terri Schiavo, her parents, and family, and, yes, even to her husband. My heart goes out to everyone who may have found themselves in a similar situation in the past or might find themselves in a similar situation in the future.

I wanted to stay back in Connecticut and avoid having to cast a vote because I do not want to play God, and either way I vote I feel I am. We all know this is a time for real thoughtfulness and wisdom and inspiration, and I believe that is what we are all trying to do. On both sides of the aisle we ask ``Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my Strength and my Redeemer.''

Sanctity of life, sanctity of marriage, sanctity of an individual to decide for themselves what should happen to their own life, I find myself wondering why is there so much focus on this life when we ignore the countless lives throughout the world who die minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day from hunger and disease that this Congress could address and this Congress could prevent? Why only Terri when there are others like her in our country?

The only way this bill has any legitimacy is if it applies to all cases, not just Terri's, and that is what concerns me. How deep is this Congress going to reach? How deep is this Congress going to reach into the personal lives of each and every one of us?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me this time. I am a strong cosponsor of this amendment. I join with the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from Massachusetts. He is right on target. Employers who are paying the difference in salary and helping Reservists and National Guardsmen be able to do their duty and not suffer financial consequences should have some compensation, or partial compensation. This bill does that. The Federal Government should make up the difference when you have Federal employees who are being called up and those who are self-employed should be able to hire someone to take their place to keep the business going. There are a number of people who are self-employed who cannot keep the business going.

We have so many other problems with those in the National Guard and Reserve. They are not paid quickly what they should be when they are in Iraq. There are a lot of problems. We have had problems with equipment. My gosh, we need to deal with this.

If there is a point of order on this bill, the gentleman from California has served an important role in notifying this Congress that his bill is in this Chamber, and is before a committee. We need to have a hearing on it. I believe it is going to pass, and I think it is going to pass on a bipartisan basis sometime because it is sorely needed. I thank the gentleman for introducing this.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for their involvement in this important legislation.

I think the thing that is most refreshing about President Bush's administration is the effort to have an honest dialogue with our allies about what is happening around the world. And we need to have this honest dialogue.

The bottom line is Hezbollah is a terrorist organization through and through. It may have a political arm, it may have a public relations arm as the gentleman from California (Ranking Member Lantos) pointed out, but so did the Nazi Party. This is a terrorist organization and to use a phrase that Congressman Lantos uses quite often, it ``boggles the mind'' that they would not be included as a terrorist organization within the European Union.

When we look at the resolution, there are 20 whereases, and each one is powerful

Whereas Hezbollah is a Lebanon-based radical organization

with terrorist cells based in Europe, Africa, North America,

South America, Asia, and elsewhere, receiving financial,

training, weapons, and political and organizational aid from

Iran and Syria;

Whereas Hezbollah has led a 23-year global campaign of

terror targeting American, German, French, British, Italian,

Israeli, Kuwaiti, Saudi Arabian, Argentinean, Thai,

Singaporean, and Russian civilians, among other . . .

and it goes on.

I cannot believe frankly that if our colleagues from Europe read this resolution they will not readily agree that they need to take this action. Once again I thank my colleague for yielding me time, and I hope we pass this with a resounding ``yes.''