Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for Taiwan in its aspiration to become a member of the United Nations (UN). Taiwan has all the qualifications: a sound political system, a much-admired economy, and a genuine desire to maintain peace and prosperity in East Asia and the world.

Being the world's 17th largest economy, Taiwan will most certainly be able to carry out all United Nations Charter obligations. Taiwan's economic model is especially valuable for developing nations. Taiwan has always been willing to share this experience with the world by contributing to multilateral aid programs. Taiwan's efforts to help other countries would be much more effective if they could be coordinated with international efforts sponsored by the UN and its specialized agencies. Perhaps one of the best reasons for supporting Taiwan's membership in the United Nations is that Taiwan is willing and anxious to be a full contributing member of the United Nations.

Also, with membership in the United Nations, Taiwan will be able to incorporate itself into the international system of human rights protection, abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action. It is heartening to know Taiwan's commitment to human rights is very serious by establishing a National Human Rights Commission in accordance with the principles outlined by the UN.

Taiwan has been denied a voice in the United Nations for too long. I urge my colleagues to support Taiwan, our friend and ally, on their latest bid to return to the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3182) to reauthorize the adoption incentive payments program under part E of title IV of the Social Security Act, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3182, the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003, which was introduced with bipartisan support. This legislation reauthorizes the Adoption Incentive Program, which was created as part of the Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997.

Since 1997 until 2002, we have seen adoptions increase by 64 percent. Special-needs adoptions during that same period have increased by 63 percent. We are here today to reauthorize a successful program, while making key improvements to that program. Adoption is about parents and families opening their homes and hearts to children who need a family.

Growing up with a loving family is essential to every child, not only emotionally but also intellectually. Just last week we held the Angels in Adoption dinner put on by the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, which recognizes adoptive families throughout the country; and hundreds of parents were there. I spent the night honoring a couple from my district, Coleman, Michigan, Charlie and Gerry Brown, who began with six biological children, began to expand their family when they opened their home to a young foster girl in 1990. Today they have 14 adoptives, and they are in the process of adopting two more boys, making them the proud parents of 22 children.

I think the Browns exemplify everything good about adoption, but we need more families who will bring children into their homes. Approximately 126,000 children currently are awaiting adoption, half of whom are 9 years of age or older, and these are children who have the least chance of being adopted and the greatest chance of spending the rest of their childhood in foster care, which is unacceptable by anyone's standards.

The Adoption Promotion Act of 2003 enhances the current incentive program for adoption, which rewards States that increase the number of children adopted by creating a new incentive for States that increase the adoptions of children age 9 and older as well.

I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), for working on this important measure in such a bipartisan effort which allows this bill to come to the floor. I thank the staff of the Subcommittee on Human Resources for their hard work.

There is nothing more special than seeing a parent, a mom or dad, bringing a new son or daughter into their family through adoption. This bill achieves this important goal, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources.

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

I appreciate the gentleman's comments and again thank all of the Members for this bipartisan effort here. I also want to note that the majority leader did have an impact on this bill and required that there be penalties on the Health and Human Services Agency if they do not submit timely and complete adoption and foster care data. This will help us track exactly where children are, how long they are spending in foster care, and what their needs are. This is an important provision, and I wanted to highlight that for the Members as well.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3182, the bill just passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 408, a bill to provide for the expansion of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, located in Empire, Michigan, and along the coast of Michigan. I introduced this bill in January with my colleague the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). This legislation represents a culmination of years of debate on the issue of whether or how to include certain acreage into the Park Service system.

H.R. 408 would authorize the National Park Service to purchase approximately 104 acres of property now owned by a private resort community and include it within the boundaries of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.

In the mid-eighties, The Homestead, a resort community located in Glen Arbor, Michigan, purchased property that included frontage on the Crystal River. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service described the property as ``globally rare.'' Since the purchase of the Crystal River property, the owners of The Homestead have sought to build a golf course and over 30 single-family homes. The resort's desire to build on the pristine acreage caused concern among a number of community residents and local environmental groups who opposed development of the property.

To resolve the dispute, The Homestead and the Park Service began discussions to exchange the environmentally sensitive riverfront property for acreage already included in the Lakeshore. Residents and area environmental organizations rejected the idea of an exchange. Opponents argued that it would unfairly give land from one private landowner to another.

In the 1970s, the Federal Government condemned private land and included it in the Lakeshore, one of the first cases where the Federal Government condemned property that was already inhabited. At the time, the Federal Government told the private property owners that their land would be protected for the public to enjoy. The idea of trading that land to be developed into a golf course and homes was not a policy local residents and environmental groups could endorse.

After much negotiation and compromise, a solution has been reached that aims to benefit all stakeholders and is supported by all stakeholders. The agreement is embodied in H.R. 408. The bill stipulates that the purchase of this land be made on a ``willing seller'' basis. This stipulation was included intentionally to provide assurances to The Homestead that their property will not be taken or withheld from them for any reason without their express consent. The bill also prohibits the Park Service from acquiring the property by an exchange.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House Committee on Resources, particularly the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo); the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich); and members of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), for their outstanding support.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this noncontroversial but important measure.

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

The Sandlin motion to instruct conferees is essentially the same as the last two motions to instruct that have been defeated by the House of Representatives. This motion, like the others, asks us to accept the Senate's position of a government-run prescription delivery drug system and structure. It would provide unprecedented and unnecessary inflationary increases to providers and would undo the bicameral decisions that the conferees have already resolved. Roughly a third of the bill in question, H.R. 1, has been resolved by the Medicare conference. This motion would reopen those issues that have already been resolved in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion. This is the third Congress that has attempted to enact a prescription drug benefit in Medicare, and this motion would ensure that a prescription drug Medicare bill never reaches the President's desk; and I urge a defeat of this motion.

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

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

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

Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that under the Senate approach to the Medicare prescription drug bill, one third of the beneficiaries will be in a full government run fallback plan; and if the government is at risk, the plan will have little incentive to control costs and would simply process claims. And that is why the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Senate provisions would lead to higher prices for beneficiaries and taxpayers and result in over $8 billion in higher costs; and this would, I think, be an unacceptable giveaway. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, also estimates fewer plans and therefore fewer choices for seniors under the Senate proposal, and that would be because the full-risk plans would be hesitant to compete against the government contractors.

And let me just say that the market basket adjustment is just a part of the picture in terms of what is being done for providers in rural America; and when we add in together the market basket update, the standardized amounts, the labor share, the Medicare disproportionate- share payment, we are seeing increases over current law in rural areas; and most of those numbers do not include the increases for critical access hospitals which are an important part of health care providing in rural America.

So I would still urge my colleagues to defeat this motion to instruct. We have a good process moving, and let us keep the process going forward.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the third Congress where we have attempted to pass a prescription drug bill. The bill that is in conference now passed this House with a bipartisan vote. Finally, the other body has acted and also has passed a prescription drug bill. That is why we are in this meeting called a conference, to resolve the differences between the two.

We have made tremendous bipartisan progress in that conference. One- third of the bill, approximately, has been agreed to. This is the third time this motion has been brought to try to divert time and attention away from the progress that has been made in conference.

I think that if we are serious about trying to enact a prescription drug benefit this year, if we are serious about getting a bill to the President's desk, I think it would be important not to support this motion. This would literally stop all of the progress that has been made, not only in a bipartisan way between Republicans and Democrats, but also between the House and Senate. As I say, this has been the third Congress where we are very close. One-third of the bill has been decided, great progress has been made. Let us let that progress continue. Vote no on this motion.

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

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

I appreciate the gentleman's comments and the anecdotal nature of them, but I do know that there was a 10 o'clock meeting this morning in Dirksen 215 to brief the staff on the progress that has been made on the Medicare bill and to go over issues and to discuss matters.

But this motion to instruct does not deal with the particulars of the prescription drug benefit, as has been discussed. It really only would provide for a government-run fallback in the plan. And both bills have prescription drug plans that assume some financial risk. The difference is they would ask the government to be the fallback on that, which would really then allow for very little incentive to control costs and would not really be the kind of benefit that would become available to seniors and be effective.

So, again, I would urge a rejection of this motion to instruct on that basis.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Medicare, of course, with regard to hospitals and providers, reimburses, particularly hospitals, based on a system that on average allows them to make a profit under Medicare. We are advised in Congress by a nonpartisan group of panel experts called MEDPAC, or the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. And this

bill, as passed the House, follows their recommendation and their advice to Congress, which they made unanimously, that Congress increase payments by 3 percent, which is what this legislation does. We will be spending billions and billions of dollars on Medicare. We are trying to do it in a responsible way that follows the advice of the nonpartisan experts that Congress has looked to in the past to help guide us in these matters.

So again, I would say that there will be a tremendous amount in this legislation for providers, particularly in rural areas. I represent a rural area in Michigan. And just to give Iowa as an example, they will ultimately receive a 5.5 percent increase in Medicare payments above what they would have received under current law. Again, that does not include the increases that they would receive for the 51 critical access hospitals in Iowa. So there will still be, I think, a significant help to make sure that there will be access to health care in rural areas. It is a critical issue, and this legislation provides for that.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay special tribute to Mother Teresa of Calcutta in celebration of her extraordinary life.

The world has always been filled with great humanitarians, people who donate millions of dollars, and people who make their voices heard. Yet, Mother Teresa stands out in this group. She dedicated her entire adult life to caring for the terminally ill, the unwanted and unloved. Despite these people's pain and suffering, she gave them a reason to smile. Mother Teresa received her calling in 1946 and humbly spent the next 51 years devoted to helping the people of India. In 1979 she received the Nobel Peace Prize and in 1985 she received the highest U.S. civilian award, the Medal of Freedom.

Mother Teresa had love in her heart for all God's children, and for that, I am honored today to pay tribute to her.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority whip for his hard work on this bill; and I lend my strong support to H.R. 7, which passed the committee by voice vote. I think all members on the committee agreed that this policy was an appropriate way to increase philanthropy among individuals, corporations, and foundations. I think it contains the right mix of tax incentives to spur individual giving, business and foundation giving, for example, the nonitemizer provision for low- and middle-income taxpayers. In my view, the Tax Code should provide a tax incentive to all taxpayers to give to charity, not just those who itemize; and this bill does that.

Another important feature is those who have reached 70\1/2\ can make tax-free contributions from their IRAs.

Last, I want to thank the majority whip and the committee for their hard work in making sure that we also do what we can to increase giving from charitable organizations and foundations. I think we have the right mix in this bill to do that.

I lend my strong support to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay special tribute to Major James Ewald for his faithful service to his country and his bold display of courage during the events unfolding on April 8, 2003.

Major James Ewald joined the Air Force on January 15, 1989 and served on active duty until July 1, 1998 when he joined the Michigan Air National Guard's 110th Fighter Wing. Since his transfer to the 110th, Major Ewald has deployed with the unit to numerous stateside training exercises and recently returned from a 4-month tour of duty in Kuwait. While serving in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, he flew over 30 combat sorties. One such flight occurred on April 8, 2003, when Major Ewald's aircraft was struck by an Iraqi surface-to-air missile, rendering his craft only marginally flyable. Major Ewald flew the wounded-bird for 12 minutes before ejecting. He then evaded capture by masking his presence in thick foliage while awaiting his rescue.

I commend Major Ewald for his extreme devotion to his country. He responded to his country's call of duty, giving of himself for the causes of liberty, justice, and peace. His dedication and sacrifice for his country serves as a shining example to all Americans.

On behalf of the 4th Congressional District of Michigan, I am truly honored to have the opportunity to acknowledge Major Ewald and welcome him home. The United States is deeply indebted to him for all of his efforts and commitment.

As family and friends gather with Major Ewald today, please allow me to join in thanking him for his patriotism, selflessness, and heroic efforts in protecting America's freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003.

We're hearing a lot about the year 1965 today. Let me remind my colleagues of some of the other things from that year. Herb Alpert and Tijuana Brass won a Grammy for `Album of the Year' and Tom Jones earned one as `Best New Artist'. Sonny and Cher had a hit song in `l Got You Babe' and `Bonanza' was the top show on television. A postage stamp cost a nickel and a gallon of regular gasoline was 31 cents. And the Dow Jones Industrial Average reached a high of 969 points.

We've come a long way since then.

Also in 1965 Medicare, which has provided health care security for millions of Americans for almost 40 years, was created. When it was launched, the program was designed to focus on a different set of needs, needs that did not include prescription drug coverage and preventive care. It was designed to fit the needs of 1965.

Well my friends this isn't the mid-sixties anymore. Just as a postage stamp is no longer a nickel, the Medicare program which doesn't provide a prescription drug benefit doesn't work in today's world.

My friends, times change.

In 2003, we must honor our commitment of health care to seniors by ensuring that seniors have access and when needed assistance to prescription drug coverage. Additionally, H.R. 1 allows for other modernizations by adding an entry physical, cholesterol screening and offers disease management.

I am pleased that this bill works to address the needs of our rural communities. Long overlooked, H.R. 1 provides a permanent fix to formulas that have discriminated against health care providers in mid- Michigan and other rural areas. This is a policy change that goes to the heart of the problem and its benefits will be multiplied for years to come.

This legislation will increase to every small urban and rural hospital, equalizing their base payment rates with that of large urban hospitals. Additionally, H.R. 1 adds a five percent bonus for primary and specialty care physicians working in areas where such care is scarce; creating a new category of hospitals that are the primary hospital in the community to receive payments covering costs plus two percent; allowing rural and small-town hospitals that provide graduate medical education to receive additional direct medical education and indirect teaching hospital funds by moving unused residency slots to these hospitals; and adding a five percent increase for all rural home health agencies for two years.

Put simply, it is past time to modernize and improve the Medicare system. H.R. 1 will be able to better serve the needs of seniors. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 1.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1416, the Homeland Security Technical Corrections Act of 2003. This bipartisan bill makes grammatical and technical changes to the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

The Department of Homeland Security, the product of the Homeland Security Act, has existed for a little more than 100 days. The Homeland Security Act brought together a number of Federal agencies with homeland security functions into one collaborative effort, joining resources, information and missions to defend our Nation.

Protecting our Nation from attack requires strengthening our border defenses. We must know who and what is passing through our country. The American people deserve this level of security. Utilizing technology advancements, we can monitor individuals and intelligently screen cargo without delaying legitimate trade and travel. Cross-border commerce is critical to the American economy. Trade with Canada and Mexico, our country's top trading partners, is growing at a rapid pace with almost $1.4 billion crossing the northern border every day; and with more than $250 billion in trade per year with Mexico, our Nation cannot lose sight of the vital importance of the uninterrupted flow of trade as new policies for border security are pursued. Security and commerce are not mutually exclusive goals.

Since the Department of Homeland Security was officially created, coordination between border security agencies has definitely improved. Twenty-four hours a day, American citizens are patrolling our borders, searching cargo, and checking individual travelers. This is not new since September 11, 2001; however, we are now acutely aware of the threat to our Nation and people and have stepped up our response by uniting our security functions. As the new Department continues integrating and organizing, there are certain areas that the Federal Government needs to address.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Border and Infrastructure of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I look forward to working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the Department of Homeland Security to address security along our Nation's borders, over 300 ports of entry, and to better protect our critical infrastructure. As Congress continues to assist the new Department in meeting obligations in the act, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for bringing this technical corrections bill to the floor and for his leadership, and reiterate my support for H.R. 1416.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 201. This bill expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that American businesses should be commended for their support of our troops and their families. I would like to thank my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Rogers, for introducing this timely and appropriate tribute and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution.

Since September 11, 2001, the Armed Forces have undertaken more than 21 months of courageous and successful operations against terrorism worldwide. Over 216,931 members of the Reserve components have been called to leave their families and their jobs to serve our country. From my own State of Michigan, over 1,000 individuals have been called to Active Duty.

National Guard and Reserve members comprise 38 percent of our military and support by their employers is crucial. It can be a struggle for Guard and Reserve members to find a balance between serving our country and dedication to their employment. For activated service members to be successful in their missions, they need peace of mind that their families, civilian jobs, and other responsibilities will be stable and financially secure in their absence.

We have established a law to protect our troops and this law has significantly reinforced the respect and encouragement our armed forces deserve. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) provides job protection and rights of reinstatement to employees who participate in the National Guard and Reserve. The act seeks to ensure that members of the uniformed services are entitled to return to their civilian employment upon completion of their service. They should be reinstated with the seniority, status, and rate of pay they would have obtained had they remained continuously employed by their civilian employer. The law also protects individuals from discrimination in hiring, promotion, and retention on the basis of present and future membership in the Armed Forces.

Many employers have gone above and beyond what is required under USERRA. They have expanded their pay differential and medical coverage policies for Reserve and National Guard members called to Active Duty. Along with the companies who provide a pay differential during service members' annual training and mobilization, continuation of insurance and other company benefits, establishing family support networks to maintain open lines of communication, and facilitating information sharing have been used to mitigate the psychological hardships of war.

Employers' willingness to bear the inevitable financial hardships and organizational disruptions that result from war is an important contribution to our Nation's security. In placing America's well being above their own, employers help our National Guard provide mission- ready forces to help preserve our freedoms and protect our national interests.

Our Nation's businesses and business owners serve our country in many ways, especially in these days of increased engagement of our military in strategic locations around our Nation and around the world. I would like to commend their patriotism and offer my sincere gratitude to the men and women defending America.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 252) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives supporting the United States in its efforts

within the World Trade Organization (WTO) to end the European Union's protectionist and discriminatory trade practices of the past five years regarding agricultural biotechnology, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 252 introduced by my good friend from Missouri, Majority Whip Roy Blunt. This important resolution expresses support for the administration's World Trade Organization case against the European Union's unwarranted moratorium on agriculture and food biotech products.

On May 13, 2003, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick and Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman announced that the United States, Argentina, Canada, and Egypt would file a WTO case against the European Union over its illegal 5-year moratorium on approving agricultural biotech products. Other countries expressing support for this case by joining it as third parties include Australia, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, and Uruguay.

Since the late 1990s, the European Union has opposed the use of agriculture biotechnology and pursued policies opposing genetically engineered products around the world. The current 5-year moratorium on the approval of new agriculture biotechnology products entering the European market has no scientific basis, effectively prohibits most United States corn exports to Europe, violates European Union law, and clearly breaches World Trade Organization rules.

According to recent studies, biotechnology has made substantial contributions to the protection of the environment by reducing the application of pesticides, reducing soil erosion and creating an environment more hospitable to wildlife. Since its implementation in October 1998, the moratorium has blocked more than $300 million annually in United States corn exports to countries in the European Union. This is completely unacceptable.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and support the administration, sound science, and United States farmers at the WTO.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the Committee on Agriculture and a good colleague.

(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Catherine Ochenski in honor of her becoming the first female District Commander for the Veterans of Foreign Wars 11th district.

Kate proudly served her country in the Women's Army Corps from 1944 to 1946 both in the United States and in Europe. Her role during these 2 years was to assist in the aftermath of World War II. Kate has since gone on to wed a Marine veteran, and raise a family of three children. She has also served in a multitude of capacities at V.F.W. Post 1075 for over 15 years, where she currently has received the honor of being the first female District Commander. Kate's accomplishments are numerous, and her devotion to her country is steadfast.

I am honored today to recognize Catherine Ochenski for her many accomplishments, and to congratulate her on the celebration of her role as first female District Commander for the V.F.W. Post 1075.

Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the treatment of variable annuity contracts under the bill. Sellers of variable annuity contracts have expressed concerns about the effect of the dividend and capital gain tax rate reductions on the market for variable annuities. Is the chairman willing to continue to examine this area?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I, too, rise in support of H.R. 1577, the Kris Eggle Memorial Center Designation Act. This bill honors National Park Service Ranger Kris Eggle, who was murdered on August 9, 2002, by an illegal alien and suspected drug smuggler while on duty in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona.

H.R. 1577 designates the visitors' center in Organ Pipe National Monument in Arizona as the Kris Eggle Memorial Visitors' Center. Kris, a native of Cadillac, Michigan, was just 28 years old at the time of his death. He died doing a job he loved, and his commitment to safeguarding America's natural treasures commands our deepest appreciation. I support this legislation that will pay tribute to his life and ideals.

The legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to post signs at the center and on the trail that describe the important role of public law enforcement officers in protecting park visitors. The signs will also refer to the tragic loss of Kris Eggle, the dedication of the trail and visitors' center by Congress, and will include a copy of this act and Kris' picture. I believe this legislation will succeed in reminding people of the sacrifices made by those who work each day to protect America.

Let me just talk for a moment about Kristopher William Eggle, the man. As I learned more about him, I became even more impressed with his life and, yes, angry at his loss. He was an individual of amazing accomplishments for his young age, Eagle Scout, National Honor Society student, valedictorian of Cadillac High School. An athlete in high school, he went on to run track at the University of Michigan. But I think more importantly his leadership skills and the quality of person that he was makes this even more tragic as we think about it.

I would like to express my deepest and heartfelt sympathy to the friends and family of Kris Eggle for their loss. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for bringing this legislation to the floor and urge my colleagues to support this measure. As the chairman of Subcommittee on Infrastructure and Border Security, I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that this never happens again.