Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to continuation of a failed farm policy that takes from the poor to give to the rich. Although the Farm Bill, H.R. 2419 before us is being sold as a reform package, it is little more than a dressed up version of previous ``Farm Bills'' that have paid over $1 billion to dead farmers and $1.3 billion to individuals who do not farm.

Our so-called ``farm policy'' overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest landowners at the expense of small farmers. The top 10 percent of recipients collect 60 percent of all payments. Large landowners receive the most subsidies, which allows them to purchase the best land from smaller farmers. This drives many farmers out of business and increases the price of land.

This bill does lower the income cap and prohibits individuals with more than $1 million in annual income from receiving direct payments. Unfortunately, there are numerous loopholes in this provision, which led the Bush Administration's own Agriculture Department to estimate that as few as 3,000 out of the 1.5 million individuals receiving direct payments will be cut off. This bill therefore does little to end the corporate welfare that has become the hallmark of our agriculture policy.

Congressmen Kind and Flake are offering real reform. I support their Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment because it creates a meaningful income limit to make sure no subsidies go to farmers with a yearly income over $250,000. It gradually reduces direct payments and reforms the bloated crop insurance program. These savings are then invested into conservation, minority farmers, fruit and vegetable production, and a $5.6 billion boost to vital nutrition programs. This is the new direction in which America's farm policy should be headed.

I applaud the efforts of my many colleagues who worked hard to include additional funding for the Food Stamps program and the McGovern/Dole International Food program. Their efforts

will help millions of hungry families in this country and around the world. However, this bill, does not go far enough to provide food for the hungry and looks to the wrong place to pay for the limited funding it does provide. If we are truly concerned about our Nation's hungry and poor, we could stop subsidizing agri-business and put the money we recoup from eliminating current subsidies to feed our neighbors and support family farms.

I urge my colleagues to vote for meaningful reform, support the Kind/ Flake amendment, and oppose the underlying bill.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of making quality education and health care available to our children. The last 6 years of Republican budgets created numerous human deficits--in health care, education, child care, and social services. This bill takes America in a new direction, beginning to fill those deficits with long overdue investments in Pell Grants, Head Start, public and special education programs and community health centers.

President Bush has threatened to veto this bill because he claims it is fiscally irresponsible. Only in an absurd parallel universe, where Iraq really had weapons of mass destruction, would increasing the amount of Pell Grants so that low-income students can afford college be considered irresponsible. Only in a fictional world, where abstinence- only education actually works, could increasing funding for childcare and Head Start be irresponsible.

In the real world, these investments will generate valuable returns for--our children and our country. Passage of this bill is essential to repairing the safety net and providing our children with the world class education they need to become engaged and productive citizens.

It is critical for the future of public education that the federal government provide states with the support they need to meet the laudable, but difficult goals set by President Bush's own No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB. Unfortunately, the President has negligently underfunded his own law by $50 million. This bill provides a $2 billion increase in K-12 education funding, rejects the President's proposed cuts for special education programs for the 6.9 million students with disabilities, and expands the Child Care Block Grant by $75 million.

Today's legislation also takes a small step toward improving our broken health care system, in which tens of millions of people are uninsured or underinsured. It expands access to health care for 1.2 million people by funding community health centers and state health access grants. This bill also makes overdue investments in the National Institutes of Health

by providing funds for 545 new research grants. Such grants fund breakthrough discoveries that can dramatically decrease suffering and disease.

I hope my colleagues recognize that this bill paves the way for a healthier, better educated, and more compassionate society and urge them to join me in voting yes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of ending the War in Iraq.

Last November, the American people demanded a new direction for Iraq. Today, the new Democratic Congress is taking a concrete step toward bringing our troops home.

The Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act sends a loud and clear message to President Bush. It requires the President to begin withdrawing American forces in the next 120

days and to complete the transition to a limited presence by April 1, 2008.

This legislation is an important and historic step forward, but it does not go far enough. I support the immediate withdrawal of all American troops.

Not next year. Not next month. Today.

I oppose additional funding for the war because the situation in Iraq isn't getting better, it's getting worse. Since Bush announced his intent to escalate the war and deploy an additional 20,000 American troops, 600 have been killed and more than 3,000 have been wounded.

And for what? The administration just acknowledged in a congressionally mandated report that since the ``surge,'' there has been little to no progress on a host of political, security and economic benchmarks proposed by the President himself.

In total, the war has taken the lives of more than 3,600 American service men and women and injured more than 26,000. Countless innocent Iraqis have been killed or maimed.

This loss of life is obscene and must stop.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2956 and commit to withholding additional money for Iraq when Congress debates the next war funding bill in September.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007. This bill provides the largest single investment in higher education since the

Montgomery GI Bill of 1944, with no new cost to taxpayers.

Today, Federal financial aid programs fail to meet the needs of many students. That means a college education is unattainable for many young people. Public university students can only expect one-third of the cost of attendance at a 4-year institution to be covered by the Pell grant, down from two-thirds of the cost covered in 1980. This bill makes higher education more affordable by increasing the maximum Pell grant by $500 and increasing the number of eligible students by over half a million. These improvements are long overdue.

In addition to strengthening Pell grants, this bill builds on other existing Federal student aid programs to help provide our next generation with a chance to succeed. It lowers Federal loan interest rates to improve accessibility and ease the growing debt burden of graduates. In 2004, one-fourth of all graduating students with loans carried more than $25,000 in loan debt. Perversely, last year the Republican-controlled Congress enacted the largest reduction ever to Federal student aid programs to finance tax cuts for the rich. The College Cost Reduction Act--H.R. 2669--begins to reverse failed Republican policies by reducing the Federal interest rate on student loans from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over 5 years.

We must strengthen our education system if we hope to compete in a global economy. In addition to making college more financially feasible, careers in public service need to be rewarded. Quality elementary and secondary teachers are essential to our public school system, but in 2003-2004 their median salary was only $31,704. Teachers deserve more than pats on the back. This bill provides upfront tuition assistance for aspiring educators who commit to teaching high-need subjects in underperforming schools.

This bill pays for itself by reducing some of the massive fees paid to the scandal-plagued student loan industry. Instead of subsidizing the profits of lenders, this bill puts money in the hands of low- and middle-income students. Not surprisingly, President Bush is siding with the big lenders and he's threatened to veto this essential legislation. He and the Republicans in Congress continue to obstruct real progress in education and almost every other domestic priority.

We must address the rising cost of higher education, reinvest in our schools by attracting new teachers, and cultivate the next generation of American leaders. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for America's future and supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of assisting immigrants who Congress invited to live in the United States because they were being persecuted in their home countries.

Refugees arrive in this country with little more than the clothes on their backs. They often have no family in the United States. For those immigrants who are elderly or have disabilities and cannot work, their sole source of income is often the meager benefits--typically around $600 per month--provided by the SSI program.

Under draconian provisions of 1996's so-called ``Welfare Reform'' law, refugess and asylees can only receive SSI benefits for a maximum of 7 years. To date, this law has caused more than 12,000 elderly and disabled humanitarian immigrants to lose their benefits and face hunger and homelessness. The Social Security Administration has estimated that an additional 40,000 individuals will be terminated from assistance in the next 10 years if the law is not changed. Leaving immigrants, who have suffered so much and come to the United States in search of protection, destitute with no means of support is unconscienable.

Current law assumes that refugees and asylees can complete the lengthy and expensive citizenship process within 7 years and continue receiving benefits. For most refugees there is a mandatory 5-year waiting period before they can even apply for citizenship. With application backlogs that regularly near 1 million, becoming naturalized within 7 years is a longshot at best. Acquiring the skills needed to pass the citizenship test, such as English language proficiency, may be impossible for immigrants with severe disabilities.

The SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act (H.R. 2608) takes the common sense and compassionate approach of temporarily extending the time limit by 2 years. This will provide relief to thousands of individuals facing the loss of their sole source of support.

While this bill is the best we can do given the present fiscal environment, we should move toward completely removing the time limits. Doing so would bring us into compliance with International Conventions requiring nations to accord lawful refugees the same access to public benefits that they allow their own citizens. In addition, it would build on our Nation's tradition of opening our borders to immigrants escaping persecution and suffering.

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill, but I hope everyone recognizes that this bill only represents a partial fix.

Madam Speaker, Medicare Advantage Plans--by name and by advertising--promote that they provide added value to the Medicare benefit.

But under current law, MA plans are allowed to manipulate cost sharing for Medicare benefits. In some instances, enrollees save compared to Medicare. In many other instances, they spend more than they would in the traditional Medicare program. Few seniors or people with disabilities understand that--depending on their health--they could spend far more in a Medicare Advantage plan than they would under traditional Medicare.

Beneficiaries are often charged more for home health, skilled nursing facilities, hospitalizations, durable medical equipment, Part B drugs (chemotherapy being the biggest service), and inpatient mental health services. These services are vital to millions of Medicare beneficiaries who face multiple chronic conditions and depend on affordable health care for their very lives.

As Barbara Kennelly, President of the National Committee To Preserve Social Security and Medicare so aptly puts it, ``While MA plans are required to cover everything that Medicare covers, they do not have to cover every benefit in the same way.''

The Medicare Rights Center emphasizes that, ``On a daily basis, our counselors assist older adults and people with disabilities enrolled in these plans who run into unexpectedly high out-of-pocket costs for their health care.''

In my district in California, one of the major MA plans in our community charges $275 a day for the first 10 days in the hospital. This compares to a single charge of $992 in traditional Medicare for a hospital stay of up to 60 days. That means patients in this so-called Medicare Advantage plan who have to go to the hospital for 10 days are paying $2750 instead of $992--that is not an advantage!

With regard to home health benefits, Medicare charges no copayment for these services as recipients tend to be the most frail, elderly women who are often widows and living on very low fixed incomes. Yet many MA plans charge a 20 percent copayment for home health. They also impose tough utilization review standards to further restrict access to this needed benefit for our most at-risk beneficiaries.

Attached is a chart which further highlights how beneficiary cost sharing for various services in a variety of MA plans surpasses Medicare's cost-sharing for those same services. It is just an illustrative sampling.

The Medicare Advantage Truth in Advertising Act would fix this problem. It would require MA plans to cover all of Medicare's benefits with no greater cost-sharing than is charged in the traditional fee- for-service Medicare program. It would preserve the ability of MA plans to use flat copayments and per diem rates in lieu of deductibles and co-insurance charged in traditional Medicare, but it would prohibit their costs from exceeding the overall fee-for-service cost. In other words, it holds private plans to their propaganda that they're an advantage.

This is a simple bill. It holds Medicare Advantage plans to their word and assures Medicare beneficiaries that they won't face higher out of pocket costs if they choose to join one of the private plan options so heavily promoted in Medicare today.

With thousands of different MA plans out there and numerous complaints being filed about inappropriate and illegal sales techniques, the least we can do is assure Medicare beneficiaries that they'll still be eligible for Medicare-covered services at no more than Medicare prices.

I developed this bill in direct response to testimony presented by Medicare beneficiary advocates before our Ways and Means Health Subcommittee this year. I am pleased that numerous groups support this bill, including the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Medicare Rights Center, Consumers Union, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, Families USA, the National Senior Citizens Law Center and California Health Advocates.

I urge you to join me in support of this common sense improvement to the Medicare Advantage program.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of strengthening environmental protections, preserving public lands, and confronting global warming.

In the past 6 years of Republican budgets, our National Parks, forests, and wildlife refuges were recklessly neglected. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the main entity responsible for enforcing environmental laws, was left scrambling for funding. Nonetheless, President Bush suggested another big cut in his budget request. Fortunately for the millions of people who enjoy our public lands and who rely on the EPA to protect our air and water, the new Democratic Congress is committed to reversing years of dereliction. Instead, we are making overdue investments in environmental protections.

The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 2643) provides for modest, but crucial, funding increases in a number of areas including: $437 million above the President's request for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund that will allow approximately 150 communities to modernize their drinking water and wastewater infrastructure; $200 million increase over 2007 levels for the National Park Service to end a decade of declines in staffing, visitor services, and maintenance; $900 million more than the President proposed for EPA enforcement and scientific research.

This bill protects coastal ecosystems and communities by maintaining the longstanding moratoria on oil and gas drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. This restriction protects the California coastlines that my constituents and I hold dear.

Finally, after years of denials and stonewalling by Republicans, this bill recognizes that climate change is a reality and requires us to act.

It would create a Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation to make recommendations on how to best respond to climate change. This long overdue step will allow us to begin to address the many challenges that global warming presents.

President Bush has issued a veto threat and called this bill ``irresponsible and excessive.'' What is truly ``irresponsible'' is wasting billions of dollars on a fraudulent war while ignoring the threat of global warming and failing to protect the environment and the public health. This bill begins to alter the dangerous environmental course that the President and the Republicans have led us down the last 6 years. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend CAPT Allison D. Webster-Giddings, U.S. Navy, for an exemplary and honorable Naval career. Captain Webster-Giddings, a native of Birmingham, MI, is a 1984 graduate of the United States Naval Academy.

After earning her Naval Aviator wings in January 1986, Captain Webster-Giddings deployed to Helicopter Combat Support Squadron SIX, NAS Norfolk, VA, where she completed tours to the Mediterranean Sea aboard SNS Sirius, USS Concord and USNS Saturn. In 1989, Captain Webster-Giddings was assigned to the Commander, Naval Air Force, Atlantic, Air Operations Staff. In 1991, she was selected for Class 101 of the USN Test Pilot School, NAS Patuxent River, MD. Upon completion, she was assigned as the Dynamic Interface Department Head and H-46 project pilot of Rotary Wing Aircraft Test Directorate.

In 1994, Captain Webster-Giddings transitioned into the Aerospace Engineering Duty Officer community and was assigned as the Avionics Systems Project Officer for H-60/H-3/H-3 aircraft at the Naval Air Systems Command. During this tour, she led the PMA-299 avionics team for the MH-60R/S aircraft and existing fleet avionics programs. Captain Webster-Giddings returned to the Test Pilot School in 1997, this time as an instructor.

Captain Webster-Giddings commanded the Defense Contract Management Agency, Lockheed Martin Systems Integration, Oswego, NY, from 1998- 2001. Her command was responsible for the oversight and esxecution of $4 billion of Defense Department contracts. During this tour, the command received the DCMA Flight Award ``Small Activity'' and the Federal Service John N. Sturdivant Award.

In October 2001, Captain Webster-Giddings returned to the United States Naval Academy. She currently serves as the Director, Faculty and Staff Programs, Center for Ethical Leadership. She has served as Deputy Director, Officer Development Division and Associate Chairman of the Weapons and Systems Department. She has taught several engineering, ethics, and leadership courses. She has served as the Officer Representative of the Women's Crew team and the Captain Joy Bright Hancock Organization (a women's professional organization).

Captain Webster-Giddings education includes a master's degree in aviation systems from the University of Tennessee, Space Institute, with qualifications in test and evaluation, program management, systems engineering and production, and maintenance and quality assurance.

Her personal awards include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy Commendation Medal (three awards), and the Navy Expert Pistol Medal. She has been lauded twice by the National Aviation Club at its annual ``Women in Aviation'' recognition ceremony. Over the course of her career, Captain Webster-Giddings has logged over 2200 flight hours and flown over 35 different aircraft, including the first flight on the SH-60S. She holds commercial aviation ratings in helicopter, single- engine fixed-wing, and dual-engine fixed-wing aircraft.

I would like to personally thank and congratulate her for her distinguished service to our Nation.

Madam Spearker, I rise today to introduce the Fair Balance Prescription Drug Advertisement Act. This bill would place long overdue restrictions on direct-to-consumer, DTC, prescription drug advertisements. All too often, these poorly regulated ads provide incomplete and misleading information about new pills, pushing unnecessary prescriptions and promoting drugs before doctors and scientists have time to learn enough about their dangers.

Consumers, at whom these ads are targeted, don't realize that FDA approves drugs without confirming that they are safe for every treatment circumstance. As a result, many new drugs are widely marketed before the FDA discovers serious side effects and takes corrective action. Examples include drugs for conditions as common as arthritis and high blood sugar.

As scientists have discovered, ``DTCA (direct to consumer advertising) is a successful method of generating prescriptions.'' Since ad restrictions were gutted in the U.S., drug advertising has grown at a startling rate, to a whopping $4.2 billion in 2005. No surprise, drug costs have grown dramatically as well, from 78 billion in 1997 to more than 2 trillion in 2005. Pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars trying to convince consumers their drugs will fix everything from bad sex lives to bad moods. These ads lead consumers to demand drugs that may not be medically necessary or appropriate for their condition.

In many instances, DTC ads promote drugs that are later found to harm patients. In 2003, for example, Johnson & Johnson ran ads where Procrit seemed to rescue a cancer victim from disabling lethargy. Then new research came out showing cancer patients did no better on Procrit. In fact, some cancer patients actually did worse.

The FDA has now given Procrit a black box warning cautioning against the use of this drug in certain circumstances. The agency has also warned Johnson & Johnson and Amgen that there is no evidence to support marketing efforts suggesting the drug reduces fatigue for patients in chemotherapy.

By increasing demand for pricey new drugs when cheaper ones will do, DTC advertising also drives up the costs of prescriptions. Sadly when patients find they can't afford these expensive drugs, they skip doses or don't even start the treatment. Unbalanced ads for expensive pills therefore contribute to both higher costs and to poor control of chronic disease.

The Fair Balance Prescription Drug Advertisement Act will empower the FDA to determine whether pharmaceutical companies present information about their products in a fair manner, balancing risks and benefits. Any advertisements found to violate this standard would be denied currently allowed business expense tax deductions for advertising costs.

Based on recommendations from the Institute of Medicine, the bill goes one step further and eliminates the business exemption for all new medications for the first 2 years that they are in the marketplace. This provision would provide doctors and scientists the opportunity to learn more about drugs' effects on a general population before consumers are bombarded with marketing pitches. Had this regulation been in effect when Procrit was introduced, many people would be better off today.

There are freedom of speech concerns with directly prohibiting advertising, accurate or not. This legislation therefore takes a different approach, hitting drug companies where it hurts them most, their bottom lines. While companies could continue running misleading ads, they would have to pay significantly more to do so. This will discourage drug companies from engaging in dishonest marketing practices.

The Fair Balance Prescription Drug Advertisement Act sets forth new guidelines that will help the pharmaceutical industry appropriately educate the public, enabling consumers to make informed decisions based on a fair and balanced presentation of risks and benefits. Today's DTC ads simply don't meet that standard. Given rapidly rising health care and prescription drug costs, we need to take every step we can to make prescription drugs safer and more affordable. We have to make sure advertisements aid consumers in making informed decisions, rather than simply increasing demand for the newest drugs.

Since the pharmaceutical industry already argues that their ads inform consumers, they should have nothing to fear from this bill. We should pass this bill immediately and take a concrete step to improve the safety and efficacy of prescription drugs for America's consumers. I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of the Fair Balance Prescription Drug Advertisement Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Army SGT Andrew Higgins, a Hayward, California soldier who was killed on June 5, 2007, in Baqubah, during his second tour in Iraq as part of an elite Stryker Brigade. He was a member of the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division from Fort Lewis, Washington.

At a very young age, Sergeant Higgins wanted to join the military. During the summer between his junior and senior years at Kennedy High School in Fremont, he took Army basic training.

After graduating from high school, he spent 2 years in the Army Reserve, signed up for the regular Army, and was assigned several times to an Army Ranger unit as a fire support specialist. Sergeant Higgins was deployed to Afghanistan with the first contingent of troops sent to fight the Taliban.

While in the Army, he received awards and decorations including two Army Good Conduct Medals, National Defense Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terror Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terror Service Medal and the Combat Action Badge. He was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart and the Army Commendation Medal.

Sergeant Higgins came from a long line of early American settlers. The first descendant of his family landed in New England in 1693. He was next in line to carry on the family name, as he was the third generation of Higginses who were only sons.

Sergeant Higgins is remembered as a courageous soldier with a sharp wit and a kind heart. When he finished his military service, he had planned to go back to school and study fish and habitat conservation.

I join the community in expressing deepest sympathy to SGT Andrew Higgins' family members on his tragic death. Our country owes a debt of gratitude to Sergeant Higgins and his family for the ultimate sacrifice he made in service to his country.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mohammed H. Qayoumi, Ph.D., who assumed the presidency of Cal State University, East Bay on July 1, 2006. Dr. Qayoumi is the fourth president of the university and his formal investiture will take place at the Hayward, CA, campus of Cal State University, East Bay on June 1, 2007.

Prior to his employment at Cal State University, East Bay, President Qayoumi served as vice president for administration and finance and chief financial officer at California State University, Northridge. He was also a tenured professor of engineering management at the university.

President Qayoumi has also served as vice chancellor for administrative services and as adjunct professor at the University of Missouri-Rolla and was associate vice president for administration and an adjunct professor at Sari Jose State University. He has more than 27 years of experience in the service of higher education and industry.

He has a B.S. degree in electrical engineering from American University of Beirut, and MS. degrees in nuclear engineering, electrical and computer engineering, a well as an M.B.A. in finance and a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the University of Cincinnati.

When President Qayoumi came to the United States in 1978, he was first employed as staff engineer at the University of Cincinnati, where he also held positions as director of technical services, director of utilities and engineering services and adjunct professor. Prior to 1978, President Qayoumi was employed as a communications engineer in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and as a project electrical engineer in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

President Qayoumi has published eight books, more than 85 articles and several chapters in various books. He has made presentations at numerous conferences across the United States and in 10 other countries on various topics in his areas of academic expertise.

He has served his native country of Afghanistan in various financial capacities, including minister of finance, and remains on several boards of directors, including the Central Bank of Afghanistan.

I am confident President Qayoumi will provide exemplary leadership to Cal State University and I join in wishing him every success.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Pat Loomes, upon her retirement from Girls Inc. after 30 years of distinguished service to girls in Alameda County, California. This fall, Ms. Loomes will retire from Girls, Inc. leaving an organization that now serves more than 7,000 girls, has more than 90 staff members and a $5 million budget.

While feminists across the country marched to demand equal rights in the workplace, in the classroom, and at home, Pat Loomes realized that improving the quality of women's lives meant empowering them in their most formative years, when they were girls. Although many of her friends disagreed, arguing that advocating for girls weakened the women's movement, she followed her heart. Her commitment to leveling the playing field for girls laid the foundation for Girls Incorporated of Alameda County and contributed to the organization's impressive growth.

Pat Loomes saw Girls, Inc. as a vital opportunity to set girls' lives on the right track and give them the skills needed to lead productive and fulfilling lives. Among her first accomplishments was a grant from the Department of Labor that allowed girls to learn about carpentry, construction and other non-traditional jobs from women already in the industry.

Soon, she realized that girls' programs received far fewer funds from United Way than boys' programs and embarked on a campaign to end the discrimination. She recalls, `` I wrote a letter every week to the president of the board asking to increase funding until I got a response.'' Pat Loomes' campaign led to equitable funding, not only for Girls Inc. of Alameda County, but also for other girls' programs such as Campfire Girls, YWCA and the Girl Scouts.

In 1983, she created a formal program to treat child victims of sexual abuse. When government funds were discontinued for pregnant teens across the country, Girls Inc. moved to fill the gap and provided sex education and life options beyond high school, such as college, work, and travel.

Ms. Loomes achievements and success with the myriad of programs at Girls, Inc. have been recognized by numerous organizations, such as United Way and then, Seaton Manning Outstanding Agency Professional Award for her leadership and advocacy on behalf of girls.

I join the community in thanking Pat Loomes for her outstanding legacy. She has molded and shaped the girls' movement in a profound way that will be felt for generations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Federal funding for stem cell research. Gravely ill Americans are asking their government for help, but President Bush's so-called ``moral'' reservations could again stand in the way of advances in medical science and deny people potentially life-saving cures.

I find it ludicrous that the same administration that has submerged the country in a nonsensical and deadly war professes that to make use of stem cells to develop cures is ``morally troubling.'' The President's backwards approach to what he considers progress would be laughable were the consequences of his decisions not so spectacularly detrimental to our country's welfare.

What is morally troubling is that Americans who are suffering from Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, and other deadly diseases cannot place hope in what is becoming an increasingly important field of research. It is morally troubling that friends and family who have suffered the loss of loved ones to painful and drawn-out illnesses cannot depend on our country's leaders to pursue what could be an effective form of disease prevention.

Instead of throwing away some 400,000 frozen embryos left over from in vitro fertilization procedures, we should use stem cells from these embryos to better the lives of countless individuals.

I urge my colleagues to soundly reject this phony ``culture of life'' and instead support H.R. 3 which promotes and prolongs life. I hope the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act passes with enough support to overcome a likely presidential veto.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Jacob Eapen on being the 2007 recipient of the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. Dr. Eapen, a resident of Fremont, California, is a pediatrician who has spent countless hours through the years in community service. When he hasn't been serving on various boards in or near Fremont, he has provided medical assistance statewide and overseas. He has spent more than 25 years giving back to a world too often in need.

His endless work has earned him local, state and national recognition. His most recent award, the Ellis Island Medal of Honor, is a prestigious honor given annually by the New York-based National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations. The medal celebrates the immigrant experience and seeks to honor Americans from a wide variety of backgrounds for their positive and lasting imprint on society.

In previous years, the medal has been awarded to six U.S. presidents; courageous heroes who created positive social change such as Rosa Parks and Elie Wiesel and athletes, including Muhammad Ali. He is one of just six Indo-Americans and one of 12 Californians to receive the Ellis Island Medal of Honor this year.

Dr. Eapen was born in Trivandrum, Kerala, in southern India where he grew up and received his medical degree. He earned his master's degree in public health from the University of California, Berkeley. He spent five years in Sub-Saharan Africa as a teacher and physician. He recalls his days in Africa where he would arrive at the medical clinic at 8 a.m. and find 150 people waiting in line for medical help, including some who had walked for hours. This experience fueled his passion to value life and to make a difference in the lives of others.

He is currently an elected member of the Washington Hospital board of directors and works as a practicing pediatrician in Newark with Alameda County Health Services. Dr. Eapen has previously served as a board member of the Association of California Healthcare Districts, medical director of a local health care clinic, Alameda County public health commissioner, U.N. high commissioner for refugees in the Philippines, and as an adviser to Alameda County's Every Child Counts Commission. In 2004, he received the Medical Board of California's First Physicians award.

I join Dr. Eapen's friends and admirers in congratulating him on receiving his most recent award, the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. It is well deserved and a fitting symbol of his endless commitment and contributions to make a better life for others.

Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day.

Decades ago, I ran for Congress because I opposed the War in Vietnam. After arriving in Washington, I carried out the will of my constituents, repeatedly voting to stop funding the death of American troops and Vietnamese civilians.

More than 4 years ago, I voted against the original resolution authorizing the President to take unprecedented preemptive military action against Iraq. In the years since, I have consistently opposed the President at every turn, always voting to deny him the funding he requested to continue his failed War in Iraq.

Last November, the American people delivered a loud and clear message to their representatives in Washington. In electing a Democratic House and Senate, the public demanded a new direction in Iraq.

Today, however, we're staying the course.

The supplemental before us includes no deadlines for troop withdrawal and no enforceable benchmarks for holding President Bush accountable.

In other words, there is no way I--or the overwhelming majority of my constituents--would ever support it.

We can't go on like this, killing our troops and Iraqi civilians--and wasting tens of billions of dollars that would be better spent on vital domestic priorities like education and health care.

You know who supports this bill? President Bush and Republicans in Congress who refuse to acknowledge either the Shiite-Sunni civil war or our lack of progress in Iraq.

I strongly urge my colleagues to remember who sent them to Washington. It wasn't President Bush; it was America's voters. They've made their opposition to this war clear. It's time for Congress to do the same.