Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concerns about the final conference report on H.R. 2272.

There are many good provision in the bill, and as a medical doctor, I share the goal of increasing participation in math and science education and in fostering research in these critical areas. In particular, I applaud funding for the National Science Foundation.

However, I am concerned about the level of increase that is in this bill for the National Science Foundation--amounting to a 12 percent increase in each of the next four years. The NSF bill that the House approved earlier this year, and which I voted for, provided about an 8 percent annual increase for NSF. I was concerned over the fact that because NSF and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) compete for the same pot of money, increasing NSF by more than this amount might cause problems for our national space program. Now that the bill has come back from the Senate and the House-Senate Conference Committee with a 13 percent annual increase for NSF each year through 2011, I am very concerned about the threat this poses to our human space flight program.

While this bill says that it is the sense of the Congress that NASA should be funded at the 2005 authorization level in FY08, the Democrat Majority could not even accomplish this goal for FY07 when the new Democrat leadership cut over a half a billion dollars for the space exploration account and funded NASA at only $16.2 billion--$1.7 billion below the authorized level. In addition, the House-passed Commerce State Justice Appropriations Bill for FY 2008 actually funded NASA at $17.6 billion--$1.2 billion below the authorized level. So, while H.R. 2272 includes nice rhetoric about fully funding NASA, the authors of H.R. 2272 know that such rhetoric is empty.

Additionally, I am concerned that the bill creates 40 new federal programs, 20 more than were in the House-passed version. Many of these new programs are duplicative of over 200 existing federal science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) programs and will siphon money away from research in order to fund bloated bureaucracies.

My belief is that there is no program that inspires interest and study in math and the sciences like our nation's space program. So recognition of this fact should follow with adequate and fair funding levels. This bill jeopardizes that and, unfortunately, I cannot support it.

I rise to express my opposition to the bill before us. As a physician who still sees patients I find this piece of legislation to be completely unacceptable and extremely irresponsible.

The Democrat majority--under the guise of providing insurance to uninsured lower-income children--has chosen to expand the State Children Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) far beyond its original intent of insuring low-income children. What is worse, they've chosen to pay for it by cutting benefits for Seniors and other Medicare beneficiaries by more than $157 billion.

They have rushed this 500-page bill to the House floor without first allowing the committees of jurisdiction to fully debate and amend the bill. They introduced their bill last night just before midnight. Shortly after midnight, they added a 45-page amendment. This morning they made this available to Members of the House. Now they have only allowed two hours of debate and denied Members of Congress any opportunity to offer amendments to the bill. In fact, they are brazenly complaining that by giving Members time to read the bill, it would unnecessarily delay moving this bill forward.

What is so offensive about suggesting that Members of Congress have an opportunity to read the bill before being asked to vote on it? Why the rush? Why the secrecy? Why are they shutting down the legislative process and rushing this bill through before anyone can read it?

It is because they don't want the American people to know what they are doing until it is too late. And they don't want Members of Congress to know what they are voting on and what the true effects of the legislation will be.

They don't want the 780,000 seniors in the state of Florida-- including over 40,000 seniors in my congressional district--to know that their Medicare benefits will be cut in order to provide health insurance to non-U.S. citizens, including illegal immigrants, and millions of children who already have health coverage.

They don't want 8 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans across this Nation to know that their benefits are being cut so that the SCHIP program can be expanded to subsidize health care benefits for adults in states like New Jersey, some with annual incomes of $80,000 per year.

They want to hide from America's seniors the fact that Medicare benefits are being cut in order to subsidize health care benefits to a new group of ``children'' who happen to be between 18 and 25 years of age.

They don't want seniors to know that budget experts in Congress estimate that nearly one-half of the children who will be signed up to the SCHIP program after this bill passes--using money that is being cut from Medicare--are simply dropping their private health care coverage in order to get the federal subsidy under the SCHIP program.

Earlier this year, I was troubled by the fact that Democrats planned to significantly expand the SCHIP program and I offered an amendment in the House Appropriations Committee that would have focused the program so that states would first be required to ensure that all children in homes earning below 200 percent of the poverty level were covered. My amendment was rejected by the Democrat majority in that Committee who said they opposed it because my amendment would focus the program on serving uninsured children. They made it clear that they had no intent of focusing this program on lower income children, but rather planned to expand the program to those well above the poverty level and to include adults and non-citizens.

What else is in this bill that they are trying to hide from the American people?

They repeal the requirement that individuals must prove citizenship in order to enroll in Medicaid and SCHIP. This opens the program to fraud and the enrollment of illegal immigrants. In 2006, the Inspector General (IG) of the Department of Health and Human Services found that 46 states allowed anyone seeking Medicaid or SCHIP to simply state they were citizens. The IG found that 27 states never sought to verify that enrollees were indeed citizens. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that repealing this requirement will cost $1.9 billion.

The bill provides a bonus payment to states that choose not to implement an asset test for those enrolling in SCHIP. In other words, a family could hold assets of as much as $1 million (a house, car, mutual fund) but could still qualify for SCHIP if their income for that year fell within the amount allowed for SCHIP enrollment. For example, a family of four living in a $1 million home in New York with an annual income of $80,000 could qualify for enrollment in SCHIP. And if New York does this--they get a bonus!

It is my understanding that this 500-plus-page bill imposes a tax on private health insurance. Certainly, they want to hide that from the American people.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that they don't want the American people to know that they are creating a massive new entitlement program just at the time when the financial strains of the Social Security and Medicare entitlements are being stretched as Baby Boomers retire. They are putting this Nation on a path to bankruptcy by creating a huge new entitlement program that they have no way of sustaining long-term. This is the wrong time to be saddling the American taxpayers with a gigantic new program.

Additionally, I am concerned that this bill fails to secure the senior's long-term access to quality physicians. The 1997 Budget Act (a bill I voted against) created a formula that has resulted in payment to doctors being cut. As a result, today some doctors (typically the best doctors with the busiest practices) are starting to refuse to see new Medicare patients. This SCHIP bill does not fix this problem. It provides doctors with a 1 percent increase over 2 years then cuts doctor reimbursement by 12 percent in 2010 and 12 percent in 2011, or 23 percent over 2 years. The effect of these cuts could be devastating with many doctors facing the possibility of losing money when they see Medicare patients. The result will be seniors will not be able to see a doctor.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on about the additional cuts to Medicare, including cuts to the following Medicare benefits: home health, end stage renal disease, oxygen therapy, imaging services, dialysis, and skilled nursing facilities.

By cutting Medicare and spending the money elsewhere, this bill will make the challenge of securing the long-term solvency of Medicare even more difficult.

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that the Democrat leaders have chosen to pit health care benefits for America's senior citizens against those of children. There is a better way. Had the Democrat leadership chosen to consider this bill under the regular legislative process, we could have worked through this in a bipartisan manner. Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi has chosen to put politics before prudence. This bill goes far beyond the bill passed by the Senate, and the President has vowed to veto the House bill. This bill should be sent back to committee and debated in regular order. America's seniors, uninsured children, and the American taxpayer deserve better.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 748 I voted ``no.'' I meant to vote ``aye.''

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Rangel

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to express my view of H.R. 1, The 9/11 Conference Report. I commend the bipartisan group that worked together on this bill, which on balance is a good bill, although I do have reservations about some provisions of the bill.

There are some very good provisions in this bill, which were not part of the House-passed bill. I am pleased that many of the significant problems in the version of this bill that passed the House in January have been removed from the final conference report that we are voting on today.

This bill no longer contains the provisions that place the collective bargaining policies of Transportation Security Administration, TSA, employees above the homeland security needs of the American people. This was a troubling provision that was included in the original House- passed version of this bill. It was troubling because collective bargaining rights would have interfered with the ability of the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA to impose the best work policies and procedures possible in order to make our Nation safer. It would have interfered with the ability to fully and quickly implement security-based policies.

I am pleased that the Conference Report contains a provision that grants immunity from civil lawsuits to those who report transportation- related suspicious activities. This is a crucial provision that will free American citizens from the fear of reporting activity that they think is suspicious. No one should be subject to a lawsuit because they report suspicious activity.

We cannot allow an atmosphere of fear of litigation to further hamper our ability to thwart acts of terror. If people feel some activity is suspicious, they should feel free to report it to the proper authorities. It is then up to the authorities to determine if it is suspicious enough to investigate. In weighing the rights of Americans, I believe the right to be free from injury or death from terrorists trumps the right of threatening people to conduct their threatening activity with impunity. This provision directly addresses the case of the six Imams who have brought suit against the passengers on their flight who reported their suspicious activity. It is clear to most observers that these individuals were likely fomenting fear in order to create the lawsuit that has resulted. I, and my fellow Americans, will not stand for the patent abuse of our own legal system used against us.

Provisions in the bill enhancing the screening of air cargo carried on passenger airlines is an important provision and one of which I am very supportive. The bill will also implement a program to collect biometric data on those entering the U.S. from visa waiver countries. This will enhance security as will the provision enabling us to take into account visa overstay violations when considering visa waiver country policies.

I agree with these and other provisions in the bill and believe they will enhance national security. However, there are some provisions that have little to do with homeland security and should never have been in this bill. In fact, none of these provisions were included in the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and in fact, do just the opposite of enhancing security.

I am greatly disappointed that the Democrat majority chose to include a provision that will disclose to the public, including terrorists, how much money our Nation spends on intelligence gathering. This should never have been included in a bill aimed at securing our Nation. How does disclosing to those who seek to harm the American people make our Nation safer? I will be supporting efforts to ensure that this budget is not revealed and that this is not disclosed.

Additionally, I am concerned that the bill included a provision that allows the administration to increase the scope of the Visa Waiver Program. Currently, individuals from 27 nations are permitted entry into the U.S. without having to go through the security processes related to obtaining a visa. I oppose this provision and will support legislative provisions to limit the administration's ability to expand the program.

Finally, I share some of the concerns raised by my colleagues relating to the provision requiring 100-percent screening of container cargo. I am concerned that there are loopholes and weaknesses in such a system and that simply requiring 100-percent screening may give the American people a false sense of security. There are deficiencies in the screening technologies and, once screened, the cargo can still be tampered with. I believe we need to weigh the implementation of this program and adjust it along the way to ensure that we are using our homeland security dollars as wisely as possible. Even the 9/11 Commission recommended that we base cargo inspections on a security risk assessment rather than a 100-percent screening program. I think they recognized the value of a focused program.

I look forward to continuing to work to address these issues.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise to explain the purpose of two amendments I submitted to H.R. 3093, the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Bill of 2008. While I had planned to offer these amendments, I was disappointed that just prior to offering my amendments to the bill on the House floor, was informed that the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science was going to object to my amendments and insist on a point of order against them. After discussion with the Parliamentarian, who said the point of order would be upheld on a technicality, I decided to not offer my amendments. I am disappointed that the Democrat majority chose to object to my amendments on a technicality, particularly when you consider that technical objections were waived for a host of other provisions in

this same bill. I believe if is important to explain here and get on the record the substance of these amendments and why they are critical to securing our homeland.

My first amendment (No. 14) would have tied funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program to whether recipients are complying with the federal prohibition on sanctuary policies. Sanctuary cities have been prohibited under Federal law (8 U.S.C. 1373 and 1644) for more than 10 years. Yet, there is no enforcement mechanism and no penalty for those cities that choose to disobey the law.

My amendment would have prohibited COPS funding from going to State or local governments that have sanctuary policies which prevent cooperation between local or state police and federal immigration authorities or prevent local or state police from enforcing immigration laws.

Terrorists know all about sanctuary cities and the concealment that such cities provide. The 9/11 terrorists are a case in point. Two of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, ran afoul of police months and days before the attack.

Mohammed Atta was ticketed in Broward County Florida in the Spring of 2001 for driving without a license. Atta was in the U.S. on an expired Visa and was in the U.S. illegally. If the local or state police had looked into Atta's immigration status, the leader of the 9/11 attacks would have been departed 5 months before the attacks took place.

In addition, of the 48 Al Qaeda operatives who operated in the U.S. between 1993-2001, including the 9/11 hijackers, almost half were illegal aliens. Sadly, jurisdictions with sanctuary policies would not only prohibit their apprehension, it would also prohibit the police from informing federal officials of their immigration status so that they could commence deportation proceedings. Three of the Fort Dix Six--the men who tried to pull off a terrorist incident at Ft. Dix, NJ--were pulled over by local police for traffic violations. Three of these individuals had run-ins with police 75 times, but no one ever checked their immigration status. They were all in the U.S. illegally. The jurisdiction in which they were charged supposedly had a sanctuary policy ... which explains why they were never reported to federal immigration officials.

We cannot fool ourselves into thinking that terrorists do not know about these sanctuary jurisdictions... so harboring illegal aliens creates an environment where terrorists can easily hide and not be found out. I want to be clear that I do not believe that all illegal immigrants are terrorists. Very, very' few illegal immigrants are terrorists. But those few who are terrorists can kill thousands of innocent Americans, as only 19 did on September 11, 2001.

Obviously, the COPS program adds to our arsenal in combating crime by increasing the number of police in our communities. But funding increased police presence while at the same time not reporting known illegal immigrants to federal authorities, as is the policy of jurisdictions with sanctuary laws, is contradictory and self-defeating. If we simply allowed our law enforcement officers to follow Federal law by requiring them to inform immigration officials of violations of immigration laws, we would likely need fewer police officers to enforce our laws.

Why would we need fewer officers? Because requiring local jurisdictions to cooperate with the Federal agencies to quickly and efficiently deport illegal immigrants, particularly those engaged in criminal acts, would help reduce the size and capabilities of criminal gangs. A large percentage of those who populate violent criminal gangs, including MS-13, are illegal immigrants. Violent criminal gangs are making these communities unsafe. FBI Director, Robert Mueller, has even declared MS-13 as the top priority of the bureau's criminal-enterprise branch.

Even more, the gangs that are populated by illegal immigrants have increased the threat to our homeland. Honduran Security Minister, Oscar Alvarez, even stated that Al Qaeda might be trying to recruit Central American gang members to help terrorists infiltrate the US. Additionally, Salvadoran President Tony Saca echoed this theme, saying he could ``not rule out a link between terrorist and Central American gang members.''

My second amendment (No. 15) would have tied funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) to whether recipient jurisdictions are complying with the federal prohibition on sanctuary policies (8 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1373 and 1644). The amendment would have given priority in SCAAP funding to those communities that are cooperating with federal immigration officials in deporting illegal immigrants, rather than State or local governments that have sanctuary policies and simply release criminal aliens back onto U.S. streets.

My amendment says if you expect to get federal money for incarcerating illegal immigrants you must also report them to federal immigration authorities so that they can be deported, rather than being released back on to U.S. streets. If a community cannot live by this policy, it is only right that they not get a taxpayer subsidy.

What's amazing is how much money sanctuary cities are raking in from the Federal Government. During fiscal 2005, the Justice Department distributed $287.1 million in SCAAP payments to 752 state, county and local jurisdictions. Seventy percent of SCAAP funds went to just 10 jurisdictions: the states of California, New York, Texas, Florida, Arizona, Illinois and Massachusetts; New York City; and two California counties, Los Angeles and Orange.

Many of the largest recipients of SCAAP funds are sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with Federal authorities on immigration enforcement. Some of the largest sanctuary cities and counties that received SCAAP money in 2005 include New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Houston, and Seattle.

It seems as if we did not learn anything from 9/11 about the need to treat illegal immigration seriously and recognize that the failure to enforce our immigration laws can endanger our national security?

Some of America's most important cities are sanctuary even though it is prohibited under Federal law. And it is time that the Federal Government stops turning a blind eye to sanctuary cities. If a community chooses to be a sanctuary, they should no longer expect to receive the largess of taxpayers from across this country.

Once again, I am disappointed that the Democrat majority would not permit these amendments to be considered for all up or down vote. However, I will continue to work to address this serious national security concern.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to commend him and Chairman Mollohan for fully funding the exploration initiative. These are the funds that will allow us to continue to operate the shuttle and as well to continue to develop a replacement for the shuttle. And, importantly, that replacement, the Orion capsule, will be a safer and less expensive space vehicle, and so it is very important that we keep funding on track.

I want to commend Chairman Mollohan for bringing up the important issue of the gap in human space flight. I would simply point out that when the President originally put forward this proposal, I shared Chairman Mollohan's criticism that this gap in human space flight is not good for America, and I am certainly anxious to work with the administration and with the committee to see if it will be possible for us in the years ahead to reduce that time where Americans will be relying on the Russians, essentially, to put our astronauts into space.

While I certainly share the concerns raised by Ranking Member Frelinghuysen about the veto threat against this bill because of the excessive spending, I just want to go on record regarding the spending increase concerns raised by the administration in the aeronautics account.

I am very concerned about our air traffic control system and its ability to handle the ever-increasing volume of commercial air traffic, and that we are falling behind on this critical investment of modernizing our air traffic control system.

Additionally, I want to comment on the accounting changes in the NASA account that Chairman Mollohan has championed. While I agree that they represent perhaps a more elegant way for us to keep track of NASA funding, the 90-day time window he has provided NASA to implement this new initiative may not be physically feasible for the agency, and I am certainly hoping that he is willing to work with NASA officials in the years ahead.

And then, finally, I just want to comment on two other important issues. One, I am very pleased that both the chairman and the ranking member are seeking to protect the census account. This is a very important account. It is probably one of the few constitutionally mandated responsibilities in this bill. I know that the census account is frequently used as a piggy bank by Members seeking to increase various sections of the bill, and I am pleased and I would want to continue to encourage both the chairman and the ranking member to protect the census account.

Then finally, I want to comment on two amendments that I am offering in the bill. I have two amendments that deal with the issue of cities and municipalities that create sanctuaries for illegal aliens who basically say that we are not going to enforce Federal laws in our jurisdiction, and then they turn around and apply for grants in this bill to help them with the responsibility of dealing with criminal illegal aliens. In my opinion, that is inappropriate, and if they want to have access to the money, they shouldn't be creating sanctuaries.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I just want to say a few words about marijuana. First of all, it does cause cancer. I have seen it. I have seen people with lung cancer, no risk other than they were chronic marijuana smokers.

Additionally, the last time we were debating this bill, I called one of my former colleagues in my medical practice who is an oncologist, I had three oncologists, and I asked him for the latest information on cannabis, or THC. He again informed me this is available in pill form. You can actually get it in pill form. Additionally, it is not a very good antiemetic and not a good appetite stimulator. There are about 18 different products legally available that doctors can prescribe.

By and large, most of the people who want to use this want to get high and there are consequences to letting this move forward.

Saying that this State and this State allows this, we need to remember something: States govern where you practice medicine. If I want to practice medicine here, I have got to get a license in the District of Columbia. If I want to open a satellite office, I have got to get a license in Maryland or Virginia. But the Federal Government regulates prescribing, for obvious reasons. If the patient comes in to see me here and lives in Virginia, they are going to go over to a pharmacy there. So the Federal Government has always regulated this.

There are significant consequences to making this product widely available, and that is what this amendment will do. This is a very, very bad amendment. Marijuana has been implicated in railroad accidents. It has been implicated in car accidents. It is documented to have an adverse effect on memory.

Jeepers, we have people dying in this country from the effects of cigarettes. We have people dying in this country from the effects of alcohol. We have people in this body wanting to ban cigarettes and ban smoking. And now we are going to take action to allow another dangerous substance on the market? And there is an agenda of the people who are behind these kinds of amendments.

They want to legalize marijuana, and they want to make another dangerous product available to our society. I think that this is a bad direction for us to go in. This a bad amendment and a dangerous amendment. I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I want to commend her on a very thoughtful amendment. As I understand it, the majority is going to be willing to accept it.

I had two amendments that dealt with this very same issue that specifically dealt with the SCAAP program and the COPS program, denying funds to any of the sanctuary city or sanctuary community jurisdictions.

As I understand it, her language covers both of those things, and I am going to be looking forward to working with the gentlelady in the years ahead to make sure that these sanctuary cities do not have access to these funds.

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

I'm happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Offered By: Mr. Weldon of Florida

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill and before the

short title, insert the following:

Title VII--Additional General Provisions

Sec. 701. None of the funds made available under this

heading may be used to provide assistance under the Office of

Justice Programs--Community Oriented Policing Services

program to any State or political subdivision that is acting

in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration

Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.

1373(a))''

Offered By: Mr. Weldon of Florida

Amendment No. 15: At the end of the bill and before the

short title, insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concerns about H.R. 980. Unfortunately, this bill, like many under the new majority has come to the House floor under a closed process that prevents Members of Congress from offering any amendment to this bill.

Florida is a right-to-work State, and while the proponents of the legislation argue that this bill does not preempts states rights, the details of the bill simply do not match the rhetoric.

This bill, which is opposed by the National League of Cities, has the effect of forcing thousands of State and local governments to recognize union officials as the exclusive bargaining agents of public-safety officers. Under the process established in this bill--even in right to work states--if union organizers win the representation of 50 percent of workers plus one, they are recognized as the sole bargaining representative of each and every public safety officer. This preempts State laws and strips tens of thousands of police and firemen of their freedom to negotiate directly with their employer. This is tantamount to compulsory unionizing. The bill amounts to an unprecedented federalization of collective bargaining; an area traditionally left to State and local governments. This issue was succinctly stated by R. Theodore Clark who testified on behalf of the National Public Employer Labor Relations Association during the Committee hearing on H.R. 980 when he said:

[My] opposition to federal collective bargaining

legislation such as H.R. 980 is not because I oppose public

sector collective bargaining, but rather because of my firm

belief that the enactment of a federal collective bargaining

law would severely limit the demonstrated innovative and

creative abilities of the states and local jurisdictions to

deal in a responsible manner with the many complex issues

that the public sector collective bargaining poses.

Finally, concerns have been raised that H.R. 980 might endanger public safety by decimating volunteer fire departments that currently protect countless small communities across America. A fact well understood and opposed by small community mayors and volunteer firefighters across the country.

Our local cites and States are the best deciders of how to provide vital services to our citizens. We should not tie their hands by establishing a ``one size fits all'' Federal pattern that cannot hope to account for the unique conditions and structures that our states and localities face. It is for this reason and the decision by the majority leadership to deny the ability of members of Congress to address these shortcomings that I could not vote for final passage of H.R. 980.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise to speak about an amendment that was introduced by me in the committee, and overwhelmingly adopted by the committee by voice vote. And I rise mainly to address the concerns being raised by members of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other members sending letters to the Congress from the public health community.

Let me state from the outset, as a physician, I strongly support vaccinating children and adults. Indeed, I gave a lot of vaccines. Immunizing kids against the flu is a particularly good idea. It prevents the kids from getting the flu, but it also, because children have bad personal hygiene and they tend to spread the flu around if they get it, by vaccinating kids and preventing them from getting the flu you actually prevent adults from getting the flu.

Certainly I believe the American Academy of Pediatrics is a great organization, as are the public health officials who do the work in administering these vaccines, even though they are complaining about my amendment.

Let me just state from the outset, my amendment simply implements the policy that the American Academy of Pediatrics established in 1999, when they stated, The Public Health Service, the American Academy of Pediatrics and vaccine manufacturers agree that thimerosal-containing vaccines should be removed as soon as possible. My amendment does nothing more than implement that policy.

Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative that is toxic. If I brought some thimerosal to this Chamber, spilled it on that table, we would have to evacuate the Chamber. That is how toxic it is.

Now, in 1999, the manufacturers, in coordination with the AAP, the CDC and the drug industry, removed all of the mercury from all of the childhood vaccines in 18 months. They removed it from the DPT and the hepatitis B. Eighteen months after adopting that policy in 1999, all of the pediatric vaccines had been produced and manufactured without any mercury in them. And then in 2004, a decision was made to add flu vaccine to the vaccine scheduled for children. And since that time it has been very difficult for me to get the American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC and the manufacturers to take this issue seriously and get the mercury out of the childhood vaccines.

And let me just also add, this is a bipartisan issue. I have a bill that I've introduced with Representative Carolyn Maloney from New York to get all this mercury out. There are many Democrats and many Republicans on this bill.

Now, some of the people who are opposing my amendment are actually claiming that children who were not vaccinated last year who got the flu died, and if there's not enough flu vaccine available, that more children may not get vaccinated and there may be more deaths. I would like to just simply point out that one of the issues here is public confidence in the vaccine program, and that many of these parents who didn't get their kids vaccinated maybe didn't get their kids vaccinated because they were concerned about the mercury in the flu vaccine. And, indeed, you might ask the question of the deaths that occurred last year, might some of them not have occurred if we had a mercury-free vaccine on the market?

Now, I want to refer to this chart briefly because I think this basically says it all.

In 2004, we were producing a little bit over 80 million doses of flu vaccine, and today we're producing over 130 million doses. But yet, officials have made no attempt to increase the amount of mercury-free vaccine that is being produced in this country. Mind you, the Europeans are producing more than enough mercury-free to vaccinate their kids. They have figured out how to do it. Mind you, I said earlier 18 months was all it took to get the mercury out of all of the other childhood vaccines. And why, after all these years, year after year, they say they want to get the mercury out of the childhood vaccines and they're not doing it. They're got getting it out of the flu vaccine. And they can do it and they will do it.

What this really boils down to, my colleagues, is an issue of leadership. CDC, AAP, the public health community has not exercised proper leadership on this issue, and it falls to us to do the right thing.

The language that I put in this bill is not covering this flu season, it's covering next flu season. They have more than a year to address this issue. I think they can. And that's why I put that language in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in support of efforts to make college education more affordable for more Americans. Indeed earlier this year I voted in support of H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act of 2007. I believed that bill took some positive steps and was pleased to support it.

I am very disappointed that the bill before us, H.R. 2669, falls far short of its goal. While those who drafted the bill assert that it is a comprehensive solution to making college more affordable, H.R. 2669 fails to address the core problem of access to U.S. colleges and universities: sky-rocketing rates of tuition and room and board. In just the last 7 years, yearly inflation has increased on average 2.7 percent. However, higher education costs for students has increased an average of 4.2 percent--a rate that is 55 percent higher than regular inflation. This bill makes it easier for students to borrow more money to face these costs, but it does nothing to fix the root problem. And, the end result will be that under H.R. 2669, the average college student graduating from college 4 years from now will still face a higher college debt than those graduating this year--even with all of the billions of dollars included in this bill. Why is that the case? Because this bill does nothing to address the core problem facing college students: uncontrolled growth in tuition, room and board.

Under H.R. 2669, those attending college in the future will be able to borrow more money and perhaps pay a lower interest rate, but with college expenses growing at a rate that far exceeds the annual inflation rate, students will end college with a significantly larger debt. By failing to address this fundamental problem, this bill avoids the major issue facing families and college students. It is due to this obvious omission that I could not vote for final passage of this bill.

H.R. 2669 will enable students to take on more debt which will further burden them for many years past graduation. In 2006, the Higher Education Price Index, HEPI, calculation showed that inflation for colleges and universities jumped to 5 percent. This is 30 percent higher than the regular inflation rate. When colleges and universities know that students have access to more funds through financial aid, loans, and grants they have simply seen this as an opportunity to raise costs for students. This was the case in the past and it is likely to happen again.

This bill does nothing to discourage colleges and universities from further inflating their tuition rates. In fact, it will do the opposite. If we truly want to help our students go into the world with a good education and saddled with less debt, we should hold colleges and universities who take government aid more accountable and not allow them to continue their excessive increases in college costs. Our students deserve better.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concerns about legislative amendments related to permitting drilling for oil or natural gas off of our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf (OSC).

I want it to be very clear what I support with regard to offshore drilling. I believe it is important to ensure that we can adequately protect Florida's shoreline and I believe that the legislation approved last year by the Congress more than protects Florida's shoreline. I support a 100-mile buffer of protection for our beaches when it comes to drilling oil wells. Additionally, I am not opposed to allowing natural gas only wells at a distance closer than 100 miles, particularly in those States that want to permit natural gas wells closer to their coasts.

The current Federal moratorium on offshore drilling bans natural gas wells not only along the Florida coast, but also along southern, central and northern California; Washington; Oregon; and the North Atlantic, including Virginia. The State of Virginia has indicated that it would like to permit drilling off of its shore. The Democrat Governor of the State has asked for the ability to allow drilling off of Virginia's shore. The Republican legislature of Virginia has asked the Federal Government to remove the barrier to drilling off the coast. The Federal moratorium in the Interior and Environment Appropriations bills stops this policy asked for by the State of Virginia.

Additionally, with regard to Florida, I would like to clarify some confusion on this issue. Some have suggested that without the Federal moratorium rider on the Interior bill drilling would be allowed within 3 miles of the Florida coast. That is just simply not the case. The Presidential moratorium would remain in place protecting Florida. Additionally, President Bush has pledged to ensure that Florida is permitted to maintain at least a 100-mile protective buffer. Moreover should the Presidential moratorium be removed, the Congress must enact legislation directing the Department of the Interior on where to permit Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leases. This is not a one step process.

Some have suggested that allowing natural gas wells will do little to address the energy costs in the United States. This claim simply is not based on sound economics. As many of my colleagues know, over the past decade there has been a dramatic increase in the use of natural gas to produce electricity. Switching to natural gas for electric power generation has been a very quick and cost effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According a 2005 report from the Florida Public Service Commission, in 2003, 26 percent of Florida's electric power was generated using natural gas. By 2013, just 6 years from now, the FPSC projects that over 50 percent of Florida's electric power will be generated using natural gas. The cost of natural gas for electric power generation has more than doubled since 2002 from about $3.00 per thousand cubic feet to more than $7.00 in 2007. Clearly, Florida is increasingly relying on natural gas to meet our everyday energy needs and ensuring a longer term affordable supply of natural gas will make Florida consumers' power bills more affordable.

When you consider this growing reliance on clean burning natural gas along with price increases we have seen, it is clear that Florida consumers will continue to pay higher costs for electricity if we don't expand our natural gas supply.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that Florida has an adequate protective buffer while looking to meet our constituents' long-term clean energy needs.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pitts amendment. I am concerned with the change in the abstinence policy in the PEPFAR budget to permissive authority for the administration to give grants to abstinence-based programs. I fear that this is a setback to the work we are doing overseas with AIDS relief.

The best way to stop AIDS is to encourage people to abstain from sexual behavior outside of marriage. Last July, southern African AIDS experts and officials listed, and I'm quoting here, reducing multiple concurrent partnerships as their number one priority for preventing the spread of HIV.

I used to treat AIDS patients. I used to practice infectious disease. The reason AIDS exploded through the gay community in this country in the late seventies and the early eighties was because of this phenomenon, having multiple concurrent sexual partners. And the reason Uganda, and you're going to hear Uganda quoted over and over again, was successful in lowering their AIDS incidence from 18 percent to 6 percent, and there was very little foreign aid going in the country at the time they did this, is because they established an education program.

People are rising on the floor today acting like there is no money for anything other than abstinence education. This is a very modest component of the bill. We have a lot of money for prevention. We have money for mother-to-child prevention. We are simply requiring that a third of the money go to what I think is the most cost-effective venue that we could be using.

I would highly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I believe right now under the current

law, the President has the authority to waive this requirement if the country team asks for it and as I understand some countries have and they have waived the authority. I believe that this language that they changed in PEPFAR is authorizing and this should have been left to the authorizing debate.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the Pitts amendment.