Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues and the Resources Committee for allowing this resolution to be considered today. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

The Museum of the American Quilter's Society in Paducah, Kentucky, is a non-profit institution established to educate, promote, and honor today's quiltmakers. The museum started over 16 years ago and is the largest quilt museum in the United States and, in fact, the world. The museum has the largest quilt exhibit space of any quilt museum, with three exhibit galleries, allowing for over 13,400 square feet, and over 150 quilts on exhibit year round. Quilts in the museum's permanent collection are made by quilters from throughout the nation, from Maine to Florida and Pennsylvania to California, having been made by quilters from 44 of the 50 States and a number of foreign countries.

Exhibit themes include educational activities called the ``School Block Challenge,'' which are blocks of quilts made by school children from kindergarten through high school to collectively make one large quilt. Additionally, antique quilts exhibited in the museum are representative of the Nation and its cultures, featuring a wide diversity of themes and topics.

Mr. Speaker, this museum is certainly a national landmark and one that promotes education and diversity, while also displaying our Nation's heritage and traditions. In order that our children and grandchildren are able to treasure these educational and significant features of our Nation we must strengthen and embrace initiatives, such as the National Quilt Museum of the United States. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the Museum of the American Quilter's Society, located in Paducah, Kentucky, be designated as the ``National Quilt Museum of the United States.''

Madam Speaker, I rise in recognition of the city of Hartford, Kentucky, located in the First Congressional District of Kentucky. On February 3, 2008, Hartford will celebrate its bicentennial birthday. This community in western Kentucky is among the oldest towns in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the third largest city in western Kentucky. It probably has one of the most unique yet welcoming slogans, ``Home of 2,000 Happy People and a Few Soreheads.''

Hartford was settled before 1790 in an area that was often a scene of bloody strife between American Indians and 18th century pioneers. There is evidence that a settlement was made at the present site of Hartford in 1782 and this was the first fortified settlement in the lower Green River Valley of western Kentucky.

The source of the town's name is uncertain. There is one tradition that a man named Hart ran a ferry there, hence the name Hart's Ford, which later became Hartford. Another tradition found in reminiscences of early times is that the town was so called because animals including deer, the male of which the English forebears called a ``Hart'' had a regular crossing or ``Ford'' at the location of Hartford on the banks of Rough Creek.

The town of Hartford was formally established as ``400 acres of land heretofore designated and laid out for a town, in the county of Ohio, on Rough creek, on the land of the late Gabriel Madison, inclusive of the out and in lots by an Act of the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, enacted February 3, 1808.''

Madam Speaker, Hartford has a rich history from its pioneer founding to the battle of brother against brother during the Civil War. Some of Hartford's famous past residents include Virgil Earp, brother of Wyatt Earp of the OK Corral acclaim, and impressionist painter Charles Courtney Curran, whose works hang in the Smithsonian Museum of Modem Art.

Hartford, Kentucky, is a progressive community welcoming those from near and far to visit or make their home in this inviting community. Opportunities from tourism to high tech industry attract visitors and new residents in this community located in the heart of western Kentucky.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I bring to the attention of this House the historical significance and sense of community that the citizens of Hartford, Kentucky, have as they celebrate the 200th anniversary of a great American city.

Madam Speaker, I certainly want to congratulate Chairman Dingell, Ranking Member Barton, Chairman Rush and Ranking Member Stearns.

Recently, we've read many articles about products coming out of China, whether it be wheat gluten, whether it be contaminated toothpaste, whether it be excessive lead in the paints of toys, and all of us are quite excited about this legislation, H.R. 4040, for the reformation that it makes in the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

One thing that I would point out, and other people have already said it, but the new standards regarding lead paints implements the most stringent standard ever for lead content in children's products in this legislation. So, this is an exciting day for the American people. I think it shows that Congress does have the ability to meet very important problems facing our country.

I look forward to the passage of this legislation today, and certainly want to thank the staff for the hard work that they did on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose a nonbinding resolution that will have serious negative consequences to our national security.

H. Res. 106, the Armenian Genocide resolution, is a dangerously short-sighted and controversial resolution that is being marked up in the Foreign Affairs Committee today. This resolution will jeopardize our relationship with a strong NATO ally, Turkey, and hinder our ability to combat the global war on terror. This resolution makes assertions about facts that historians to this date still debate.

I might add that every living former Secretary of State, both Democrat and Republican, recently sent a letter to the Speaker stating that passage of this resolution would ``strain our relations with Turkey, endanger our national security interests, including the safety of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.''

I would also point out that in today's Washington Post in an editorial, it said that ``passage of the Armenian Genocide resolution would be dangerous and grossly irresponsible.'' I hope the Foreign Affairs Committee today will reject this resolution.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I support one of the self-executing amendments in this rule, and it's my understanding that in the original Ag appropriations bill, there was very broad language relating to horse slaughter intending to stop horse slaughter in the U.S. that has passed this House overwhelmingly on six different occasions.

And the gentlelady from Connecticut in responding to the concerns that that amendment was overbroad has asked that a self-executing amendment be included in this rule that is sponsored by three Democrats and myself. I would say that she addressed our concerns, and I would commend her for that.

Mr. Speaker, if there ever was a bill that should have bipartisan support, it is this SCHIP bill. All of us support health care for children.

But the problem that we have in this process is that this is a bill that really did not receive the full vent of the Congress. And so here we find ourselves on the floor debating a bill that is going to be a dramatic change and expansion of government health care.

The original SCHIP program was designed for 250 percent of the poverty level and above. This bill removes that limit so that States can do whatever they want to.

Today there are 700,000 adults on the Children's Health Program. This bill is going to greatly expand the number of adults on the program. There even are incentives so that children will leave their parents' health plan and go to the government health plan, and in doing so, since children are generally a healthy group, the private health plan premiums are going to increase in cost. They are also imposing a fee on every private health plan in America, every self-insured health plan in America.

In addition to that, they are going to lower the reimbursement for the Medicare Advantage program, which is particularly strong in rural areas, which will hurt the seniors on the Medicare Advantage program.

So the bottom line, and philosophically we are not questioning anyone's motives, but there should be a full debate on this. This is dramatically expanding government health care and diminishing private health care. And that is what this debate is really all about.

And I would say this: We need a strong private health system. That has been the tradition in America. And last year, for example, the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas spent more money on research and development in health care and health needs and curing diseases than all of the entities in the Canadian health plan. That is why we are upset about this program. Not that we don't want to cover children.

I thank the gentleman for his generosity of time.

I want to commend all those for the hard work they have done on this rule. I must say that the American people today, 14 percent of the American people only, approve of Congress as an institution. I think there are many reasons for that.

For example, with this farm bill we have an opportunity once every 5 years to address major issues in the farm bill. Yesterday, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the Budget Committee, two other Democrats and two Republicans offered an amendment to the Rules Committee on an issue that has been on this House floor five separate times and every time it passed overwhelmingly, but we needed this amendment to finally bring this issue to a conclusion. And although four people on the Rules Committee that spoke applauded our efforts and were very complimentary of it, we were not given an opportunity to bring this amendment to the floor.

In addition to that, the tax issues relating to the farm bill have not been adequately explained, have not been adequately debated. In the committee that I am on, the Energy and Commerce Committee, there is an SCHIP program that provides $100 billion in cost over the next 5 years; and to pay for that, we have not had any opportunity to debate that.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today with the hope that the Island of Cyprus will soon be reunified, and with resolve of her citizens and the help from the international community, both the Greek and Turkish Cypriots will know tranquility.

Tragically, thirty-three years ago, violence and bloodshed ripped Cyprus apart, dividing the island. Although it is peaceful today, the Greek and Turkish Cypriots are still separated to the detriment of many Turkish Cypriots, who have been deprived of economic and social advancements.

Unfortunately, decades of negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations and involving motherlands Greece and Turkey, have produced no lasting agreement. There was hope in April 2004 when the comprehensive, U.N.-sponsored ``Annan Plan,'' was put to referenda. To the dismay of the international community, this plan failed when the Greek Cypriots overwhelmingly voted against it, despite the fact that the Turkish Cypriots overwhelmingly voted in favor of it.

After the unsuccessful adoption of the ``Annan Plan,'' Turkish Cypriots called for action to discuss the situation. It was then that Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat and Greek Cypriot leader Tassos Papadopoulos met on July 3rd and 8th, 2006, and agreed to hold further meetings based on a ``Set of Principles'' aimed at the unification of Cyprus. The meeting of the two leaders and the agreement they reached have been welcomed by the international community, including the United States, the European Union and others.

It is important that this new and positive spirit demonstrated by the two Cypriot leaders be supported by the United States in order to help the parties build trust and forge an atmosphere conducive to progress and prosperity. It is our sincere hope that the spirit of reconciliation and goodwill generated in recent times will continue to be promoted by all parties involved.

Madam Speaker, as the process moves forward it is also important to recognize the resolve of the Turkish Cypriot people who have demonstrated time after time an unwavering commitment to reconciliation as well as remarkable flexibility by supporting the ``Annan Plan.'' Despite their continued commitment to reunify Cyprus, Turkish Cypriots are still awaiting the fulfillment of the promises made to them by the international community that their isolation would be lifted. We believe that both the Turkish Cypriots and Turkey, whose support was crucial in securing the ``yes'' vote of the Turkish Cypriots in the 2004 referenda, should be rewarded, not penalized, in order for the process to move forward toward a lasting settlement.

More than ever before, it is important to support a diplomatic compromise in Cyprus to ensure a bright future for Greek and Turkish Cypriots.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, in 2005, the U.S. Congress adopted the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act, which was signed into law by the President in 2005. The amendment at the desk simply provides funding of $10 million for this authorized program. The $10 million is taken from the Secretary's Management Account, so the offset is taken care of.

On March 29 of this year, 2007, Chairman Dingell, Ranking Member Barton and the chairman and ranking

member of every subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, as well as other Members, sent a letter to Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis requesting that they consider funding this program. And we had hoped that it would be included in this HHS appropriation bill because NASPER, as passed by the Congress, is located and placed at HHS.

Now, the Appropriations Committee on another bill has provided funding for an unauthorized drug monitoring program located at the Department of Justice. That program is primarily based and focused on law enforcement. And we do not object to that program in any way, but I might say that last year, for 2007 and 2006, money was made available for both the NASPER program at HHS and the Department of Justice program, which is more based on law enforcement. The NASPER program really addresses the prescription drug addiction problem and helps physicians work with patients and makes physicians aware of prescriptions that those patients have. So last year we were quite pleased that both programs were funded. And we were disappointed that this year's program, the authorized program, was not funded; the unauthorized program was funded.

And so we come today and ask the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member, both of whom have worked diligently on a very complicated bill that provides great services to our country, we come this morning and ask them to consider funding this authorized program.

I might add that Secretary Leavitt testified for it. We had 2 years of hearings on this program. Secretary Leavitt endorsed it. Former Secretary Tommy Thompson endorsed it. And as I said, we're not asking that they defund the unauthorized program because we know that it's doing a good job, but we're simply saying the Energy and Commerce Committee had 2 years of hearings, passed this legislation. It passed the Senate overwhelmingly. The President signed it. It was funded last year, and we strongly request that the chairman consider funding it again this year.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

I would say to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member that we didn't really want to force this issue this morning. But it is a program, as has been said, we spent 2 years having hearings on this program. It mandates States to adopt these programs. We feel like it is a great program. It was funded last year, and we would respectfully request that at conference maybe the chairman and ranking member would work with us in trying to address the issue.

Yes, sir.

Chairman Obey, I am going to withdraw the amendment, but I would like to make this point: This is an authorized program that we are talking about. We had 2 years of hearings on this project. There is some sentiment in the Congress, I believe today, that the appropriators seem to authorize on their appropriations bill when it is convenient for them.

Madam Chairman, I am going to withdraw the amendment because of the respect that I have for the gentleman from Wisconsin and the ranking member, as well as the Member from Kentucky that was talked about.

I do believe that this is an effective program. We look forward to working with you as we continue through the process to try to resolve it in some way.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I am here as an advocate for the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Whitfield

Amendment No. 28: Page 48, line 26, after the aggregate

dollar amount insert ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Page 63, line 4, after the first dollar amount insert

``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Whitfield

Amendment No. 29: Page 49, line 25, before the period

insert ``Provided further, That, of the funds made available

under this heading, $10,000,000 is for carrying out section

399O of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280g-4)''.

You know, every Member of this House has great respect for the chairman of the Armed Services Committee from Missouri and the ranking member from California. And like the American people, most Members of this House are torn in different directions on this issue of our involvement in Iraq and what steps we should take. But this resolution says as a requirement that the Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of Armed Forces in Iraq no later than 120 days after the enactment of this act.

General Petraeus was confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate, and in the supplemental, there was a requirement that, on September 15, General Petraeus would make a report to the Congress on the conditions in Iraq. And I believe that it is premature to come forth with this resolution today. But if it comes back at the end of September, after General Petraeus has made his report, the commanding general in Iraq with the responsibility, I think that all of us have the responsibility to read his report, to make an assessment which would be best for the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment.

It is illegal to hunt polar bears in America today except for subsistence. You cannot do trophy hunting of polar bears today. So what happened is you have wealthy American hunters that go to Canada. They pay $30,000 to kill a polar bear for one reason, and that reason is to cut its head off, send it back to America, and put it above their fireplace.

There are only 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears left in America. This amendment simply prohibits funds from being used to permit these wealthy hunters from sending polar bear parts back to the U.S.

We should protect polar bears. This amendment is the right approach to take.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Before I speak, I would like to make one parliamentary inquiry.

If I yield time to the gentlelady from North Carolina at the end of my remarks, and if she made a decision that the House do now rise, is that permissible?

But I can yield time to her for her to speak?

Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all thank the chairman of the subcommittee on the Democratic side and also on the Republican side for the hard work that they have shown in establishing this appropriation bill for Homeland Security.

Last night I was reading a poll, and I noticed that Congress, as an institution, has an approval rating of less than 30 percent. That certainly is not caused by the leadership of the Democratic Party, because when the Republicans were in control a few months ago, Congress had an approval rating of less than 30 percent also.

But I think it reflects the frustration of the American people about the institution of Congress and how Congress works. I welcome this debate on the earmarks, because I do not view this as a delaying tactic, but I think this is an issue that is even deeper than earmarks and the way that they're handled by the Appropriations Committee.

I am speaking specifically of the fact that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee yesterday mentioned that there was something like 32,000 earmark requests, and that there was not ample time to get through these appropriations bills. Yet every year Congress is consumed by the appropriations process, and every year it takes more and more time, and every year, frequently, we do not even pass all the appropriations bills in the House and the Senate, and we do continuing resolutions, and then we do omnibus bills. The omnibus bills come to the floor, and sometimes they are 8 or 9,000 pages and Members don't even know what's in there, and we are voting on those.

I would remind the Members that about 6 years ago we introduced legislation that would ask the House to go to a 2-year budget and 2- year appropriations process. That bill received over 200 votes in support of it, because I think all of us recognize that this appropriations process and budget process that we now operate under is broken. It simply does not work.

One of the frustrations, I will be very honest about it, on the earmarks is that there is a perception among Members who are not on the Appropriations Committee that the vast majority of earmarks go to the appropriators.

Yet all of us represent the same number of people, all of us represent taxpayers, and all of us are entitled to earmarks.

But it's an unfair process.

I know, from discussions that I have had with a lot of Members, I know appropriators get upset with authorizers and say authorizers are not doing their job, and authorizers get upset with appropriators in saying appropriators are authorizing on appropriations bills when they want to.

So I think what this institution needs to do is go to a 2-year budget process, a 2-year appropriations process so that one year we can sit here and argue about money, but the next year we can argue about authorization and reforming education and health care and some of the substantive problems that the American people face instead of every year being totally consumed by the appropriation process.

To me, that's the problem we have today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina.