Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1. The 9/11 Commission made its recommendations over two and a half years ago, and I am pleased this legislation to implement those recommendations is a top priority in this Congress.

Among other things, this legislation will address the allocation of Homeland Security grants to ensure risk-based distribution of funds to provide the most vulnerable areas with the resources necessary to protect citizens and infrastructure. Section 2001 of this bill defines what critical sectors should be used to determine high risk areas, and representing a district that is home to many of these sectors, I have long supported these changes.

This bill will also improve information sharing among different levels of law enforcement, improve the interoperability of communications for first responders, and strengthen aviation and cargo security.

As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, these are all important steps toward securing our homeland. But I am concerned about how some of these objectives are accomplished and the jurisdictional implications in this bill.

In particular, this bill provides the Department of Homeland Security with broad authority over public health, electric transmission, site security, and communications. The agencies and departments that currently oversee these areas have expertise working with these issues and it is not clear that DHS is better prepared to regulate, advise or award grants in these areas.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure these issues are worked out either in conference or through committee oversight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to show my support for the House rules, as we are dealing with them today, but I am also calling for an independent investigating arm for the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my full support to these changes to our House Rules.

These rules are the foundation that will govern how this body operates, but also serves as a reflection of our collective values and character.

I have served almost 6 years on the House Ethics Committee.

I have seen more investigations than I care to in the last 6 years of Members on both sides of the aisle.

These rule changes should restore a tone of civility and honesty in this chamber and that is why I am supporting this package and urge all my colleagues to do the same.

However, I would like to raise an issue that is not contained in this package today.

I strongly believe that the House Ethics Committee needs an independent investigative office.

Currently, my colleagues on the Ethics Committee and I are tasked with determining whether rumors and innuendos have any merit to launch investigations that at times bring disgrace to this body and end the careers of our colleagues.

We are the Court of Congress, yet we serve as both the investigators and the judges of our colleagues. This is no easy task.

Those of us on this Committee have accepted this position and stand poised to enforce the Rules of the House and preserve the integrity of this body.

However, it would be beneficial to the Members of the Ethics Committee and this House if we had an independent investigation arm so we may have unbiased, thorough information regarding any accusation of impropriety by a Member of this body.

I believe this would help remove any partisan sentiments regarding origination of investigations and may help restore America's faith in our ability to enforce our rules.

With this information the Members of the Committee would then determine whether or not there is sufficient information to further the investigation, or take action on the issue before the Committee.

Allowing an independent investigating office to begin investigating then bring information to the Ethics Committee would not make our job easier, but it would help us have this nonpartisan information to do our job better.

I strongly support the changes proposed today, but I believe it is necessary for us to begin a dialogue on creating an Independent Investigative Office to serve the House Ethics Committee and the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two very special tots, Juwan and Rhaquann Brunson, who had the presence of mind to call 911 to seek assistance from emergency personnel when their grandmother, Mrs. Otisteen Brunson, became dizzy and fell in her house on Park Avenue in Wilson, North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I learned that as soon as Mrs. Brunson fell, Rhaquann and Juwan immediately charged to their grandmother's rescue; Rhaquann's tiny fingers happened upon 911 on his grandmother's telephone while little Juwan provided comfort to his grandmother by rubbing her head until the emergency personnel arrived.

Mr. Speaker, this incident stresses the importance of parents, grandparents or older siblings taking the time to familiarize children at a very young age with the proper way to respond in emergency situations. It is critically important for children to know their address, home telephone number and how they should respond when confronted with a catastrophic situation such as illness, a fire or flood.

I applaud Juwan and Rhaquann Brunson for their bravery, but more importantly, I applaud their grandmother, Mrs. Otisteen Brunson, for taking the time to teach these tots how to dial 911.

Mr. Speaker, this special act performed by Mrs. Brunson's grandsons very well may have saved her life, as she had just recently been released from the hospital and she suffers with arthritis, congestive obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to rise and join me in paying tribute to two mighty brave tots, Juwan and Rhaquann Brunson. I thank God for the blessings of children.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about a project that a student in our district is participating in. Emily Leal is a first grade student and an excellent student at Roosevelt Elementary School and contacted me about the Flat Stanley project. Roosevelt is a recognized school for its quality and also happens to be the elementary school in our district that I went to.

This national project, originally designed by Arthur Brown in his book, Flat Stanley, encourages communication and education among children around the world. Students make a Flat Stanley and start a journal for him. Then he is sent around to schools, professionals, persons in different geographic locations where Flat Stanley is treated as a guest for a few days and this journal is completed.

Flat Stanley and his journal are then returned to the original student who can plot his travels and share the journal for educational purposes with his or her fellow students. Since Emily's first grade class is participating in this project, she is a constituent of mine, and she chose to send Flat Stanley to me so he can visit the floor of Congress in Washington, DC.

Before I return Flat Stanley to Emily this next week, I am going to bring him to the House floor where America's elected officials participate in democracy. I hope that Flat Stanley will have a safe trip back with me to our district, and that Emily's class enjoys reading about his visit to Congress.

I rise in support of this legislation to reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act. Initially enacted in 1990, the Ryan White CARE Act provides critical medical treatment to individuals living with HIV and AIDS. The Ryan White program is essentially a payer of last resort and specifically targets uninsured and medically underserved individuals living with HIV and AIDS.

In my community in Harris County, our Hospital District utilizes more than $26 million each year to coordinate essential health care and support services for more than 21,000 individuals in our community living with HIV and AIDS. The importance of this program cannot be overestimated; without CARE Act funds, many Americans living with HIV and AIDS would have no other source for treatment.

This reauthorization bill includes an important change in the criteria used to formulate funding under the Ryan White program. Thus far, funding was determined based on a grantee's estimated number of living AIDS cases, with a jurisdiction's number of HIV cases not included in funding determinations.

As the HIV/AIDS epidemic has shifted geographically, our funding formulas must change to meet increased need for care in certain areas. Southern States and rural areas are seeing higher numbers of individuals with HIV, for whom treatment is necessary. I wholeheartedly support the use of HIV counts in CARE Act funding formulas to provide these areas with the support they need to develop appropriate systems of care. However, it is important that the funding formula recognize that urban areas--particularly those in New York--continue to be the epicenter of the AIDS epidemic. Unfortunately, this bill does not provide the necessary assurances that communities with a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS will have the resources to maintain their systems of care.

In this kind of formula fight, the battle lines are drawn geographically rather than ideologically. I appreciate the work of Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Dingell, and their staffs, who worked tirelessly for more than 6 months to develop a bi-partisan, consensus bill that sought to address great need in every area of this country. Nevertheless, in this type of bill there are always winners and losers. This bill contains more winners than losers, and my State of Texas comes out a winner, relatively speaking. For that reason, I am happy to support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the NIH Reform Act and congratulate Chairman Barton on his hard work to develop the consensus product before us today. Without a doubt, the work performed at the NIH is invaluable. The groundbreaking research supported by NIH has provided a lifeline of hope to countless Americans living with diabetes, cancer, HIV/AIDS and many other illnesses.

Congress has not reauthorized the National Institutes of Health in more than a decade. Since its last reauthorization, the NIH has seen its funding double--a testament to the high priority that Congress places on the important research being performed at NIH. This reauthorization is an extension of our commitment to ensure that the NIH has the resources and proper management structures to conduct the kind of research that will ease the burden of disease in this country.

These days, Americans live with chronic conditions that cannot be remedied by studying one particular organ, or one part of the body. Obesity and diabetes, for example, affect virtually the entire body, and we need to facilitate increased cooperation among the NIH's Institutes and Centers to achieve real progress on these pervasive conditions. The bill before us would do just that by creating a Common Fund, through which the Director of the NIH could support the important research that involves several institutes and centers at the NIH.

While the Common Fund is an innovative approach toward trans-NIH research, Chairman Barton also worked to ensure that this new fund did not overshadow the important research being performed at the individual institutes and centers. To strike this balance, the bill stipulates that only 50 percent of funding increases appropriated by Congress each year can be dedicated to the Common Fund. I would like to see an authorization level high enough to ensure adequate funding for the Common Fund and individual institutes and centers; however, in this tight budget environment, this provision is an important assurance that institutes and centers don't find themselves in a zero-sum game with the Common Fund.

As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I was proud to vote for this bill during our committee markup last week. My hometown of Houston is home to the world-class Texas Medical Center, which houses many facilities that conduct groundbreaking NIH research. The Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children's Hospital conduct more NIH pediatric research than any other NIH grantee. The University of Texas's MD Anderson Cancer Center also conducts critical NIH research and is frequently recognized as the top cancer center in the country.

This bill will ensure that the NIH research performed at the Texas Medical Center--and other impressive research facilities across the nation--will yield continued contributions to our understanding of disease and the development of effective treatments to improve the health and well-being of all Americans. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5533, to advance the development of biological countermeasures.

The anthrax attacks of 2001 shined a bright light on our lack of preparedness to deal with a biological attack. While we were blessed that Cipro was an effective countermeasure for anthrax specifically, the attacks led us to realize the real possibility that our enemies could develop the capability to attack our country using several biological agents for which we do not have effective countermeasures.

This possibility strikes great fear in most Americans, who have been bombarded in recent years with the threat not only of bioterrorism but also pandemic flu. However, this uncertainty of a biological attack or pandemic flu is the same factor that often keeps manufacturers from making the investments necessary to bring a countermeasure to market.

When medical treatments for conditions such as high blood pressure and high cholesterol are developed, pharmaceutical manufacturers are willing to make the investment in research and development because there is a known demand for these treatments. We are lucky that there is no current demand for biological countermeasures. As a country responsible for protecting American citizens, however, we cannot wait for a biological attack or pandemic flu to occur before these countermeasures are developed.

This is a classic case of market failure, where the government must intervene and provide public resources to ensure that we have effective countermeasures before a biological attack occurs. This bill achieves that goal by providing the incentives to encourage the private sector to develop these treatments. Specifically, it would provide the necessary assurances that the federal government will purchase the end product for use in the event of an attack. Additionally, it will provide milestone payments to countermeasure developers to bridge the funding gap between basic research and countermeasure development.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, which will go a long way toward ensuring that we have effective biological countermeasures in place in the event of a biological attack or infectious disease pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to reauthorize the Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education Program. Seven years ago, Congress established this program to provide the federal support needed for training activities at our children's teaching hospitals. In other hospital settings, training dollars needed for residents are funded, in part, through Medicare's graduate medical education program. With relatively few Medicare patients being served at children's hospitals, however, children's teaching hospitals cannot fully benefit from Medicare's graduate medical education program. CHGME was established to help alleviate the inequity faced by children's hospitals with respect to the training of their residents.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 210, to support the goal of eliminating suffering and death due to cancer by 2015.

Cancer is one of the most dreaded diagnoses a person can get. Every one of us has been affected by cancer, whether personally or through the experience of a family member or loved one.

In fact, cancer affects one out of every two men and one out of every three women in this country. According to the American Cancer Society, 1.3 million new cancer cases will be diagnosed this year, with 1,500 Americans dying from cancer every single day.

While the statistics are still staggering, the promise of a cure is closer than we had ever imagined. Thanks to the commitment of the Federal Government and our research institutions, cancer rates declined by nearly 10 percent in the 1990s, and new treatments are being developed every day.

Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, the former Director of the National Cancer Institute, set a goal for the country to eliminate suffering and death due to cancer by 2015. In my hometown of Houston, we were proud to have Dr. von Eschenbach serve at MD Anderson Cancer Center, one of the top cancer centers in the country in terms of both research and patient care. With all of his experience as a leader in the field of cancer research, if Dr. von Eschenbach thinks we can achieve this goal, I am confident that our hope for a cure is within reach.

I thank my colleague, Mr. Shaw, for introducing this important resolution and encourage my colleagues to join me in support of it.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 982 which offers this Chamber's support for National Peripheral Arterial Disease Awareness week.

This year, National Peripheral Arterial Disease Awareness Week occurs September 18 through September 22 and gives us a time to reflect on the need for the increased education and awareness needed to promote early detection and the proper treatment of this disease.

Peripheral arterial disease, which is a narrowing of the arteries that results in reduced blood flow to the limbs, affects between 8 million and 12 million Americans. Americans suffering from peripheral arterial disease find themselves at increased risk for heart attack, stroke and lower limb amputation. Unfortunately, most cases of peripheral arterial disease are asymptomatic, causing too many Americans not to know that they have the condition.

That is why this resolution and this Chamber's support for National Peripheral Arterial Disease Awareness Week are so important. If we can shed light on this devastating disease, more Americans will become educated about their risk factors and get the early detection and treatment to avoid the painful heart attacks, strokes and amputations that too often befall our loved ones.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Michigan colleague for yielding me this time.

I rise to oppose H.R. 6095, but let me follow up on what the chairman of the committee talked about. If somebody

committed a crime, and they were here legally or illegally, the standard practice for local law enforcement is to pick that person up, arrest them, and then they will be punished. Then they will be turned over to ICE, Immigration Control and Enforcement.

What this bill would do is allow for our local police and sheriffs and constables to actually be standing in the place of immigration officers. I support strong law enforcement of our immigration laws, but we shouldn't burden our local law enforcement officers to enforce Federal immigration laws.

This Congress and this administration has cut the COPS program since 2001. Asking our local law enforcement agencies to enforce Federal immigration law without any commitment of funds is unfair and takes officers out of our neighborhoods and off our streets. The role of local law enforcement is to protect our property and our families. Most local police departments are already stretched thin as it is. In Houston, our officers have had the challenge of protecting an additional 100,000 people who evacuated to Houston from New Orleans over a year ago. Adding immigration enforcement to their duties would make their jobs tougher and our neighborhoods less safe.

Currently if law enforcement officers catch someone committing a crime that is here illegally or legally, they are turned over to Immigration Control and Enforcement, and they are deported. Now, they need to pay their debt to our own county or State, but they will be deported. If someone breaks into my home, either the Houston Police Department, the sheriff's department or the county constables will show up, not the Border Patrol, not Immigration Customs Enforcement officers. They don't come to protect my home.

Securing our borders is a Federal responsibility. This body is responsible for ensuring that there is enough funding for detention beds and Border Patrol officers. We shouldn't put the responsibility on our local law enforcement officers to fill the gaps, and we should be doing our own part to ensure the security of our borders and interior enforcement. The cuts in funds for local police make it hard to protect our lives and property. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 6095.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring my colleagues' attention to the editorial entitled ``Assault on Science,'' which was published on July 21, 2006 in the Baytown Sun. The editorial, which calls the President's veto of legislation to expand Federal embryonic stem cell research ``a blow against scientific progress and human health,'' mirrors the views of more than 70 percent of the American public who support expanded embryonic stem cell research. I encourage each of my colleagues to read this well-written piece and ask unanimous consent that a copy of it be placed in the Record.

[From the Baytown Sun, July 21, 2006]

Assault on Science

(By David Bloom)

President Bush used his first veto Wednesday to block a

bill that would have lifted some federal restrictions on

funding for stem cell research that most Americans support.

In vetoing the bill, Bush made good on a promise he made in

2001 to limit federally funded embryonic research to the stem

cell lines that had been created by the time. He also landed

quite a blow against scientific progress and human health.

Bush and other opponents of embryonic stem cell research

claim that their position is rooted in a respect for human

life. They say that the embryos destroyed in the process of

extracting stem cells are human beings with a right to life.

In truth, clinics destroy thousands upon thousands of

embryos every year, the leftovers of the in-vitro

fertilization process.

The bill would have allowed federal funding only for stem

cell lines made from embryos headed for destruction, not

adoption. Thus, no lives will be saved by the president's

veto.

Further, embryos used in embryonic stem cell research are

not human beings--not in any rational sense of the term.

These embryos are smaller than a grain of sand, and consist

of at most a few hundred undifferentiated cells.

While they have the potential to become human beings--if

implanted in a woman's uterus and brought to term--they are

nowhere near actual human beings.

No one knows for certain all that can be helped by stem

cells. Most scientists believe they hold extraordinary

healing powers and may aid everything from brain function

impaired by Alzheimer's and Parkinson's to pancreas function

limited by diabetes and heart function after a heart attack.

It is revealing that Bush has used his first veto to oppose

potentially life-saving research to shore up his support

among people who regard destruction of an embryo as abortion.

Anyone who truly cares about human life should condemn this

religious assault on medical progress.

Granted, it's difficult to balance the moral, ethical and

economic considerations in life sciences research. Elected

officials must set policy that is flexible but consistent

with historic national values.

But in this case, the president's beliefs and his aim for

better poll numbers are preventing research that offers hope

to many ailing people.

Mr. Speaker, I will place a statement in the Record on H. Res. 994 on the 9/11 5-year anniversary at this point

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, this Nation took time to remember the events of five years earlier on September 11, 2001--events that changed the way we viewed the world and our own Nation. Our prayers are with the families of those that lost their lives that day. We never imagined that something like that could happen on American soil and it is still hard to comprehend the number of innocent lives lost that day.

The five year anniversary brought back memories of planes crashing into the World Trade Center Building, the Pentagon, and Flight 93 going down in Pennsylvania, but more importantly, we remembered the images of the brave Americans--fire fighters, law enforcement, medical personnel, and everyday citizens--that rushed to help their fellow Americans that were injured or trapped in the rubble of the fallen buildings.

The courage these individuals showed is the reason the terrorists were not successful in weakening our Nation. They took innocent American lives and destroyed our buildings that day, but they did not destroy our Nation's resolve because Americans will always answer the call and the first responders that day did so selflessly in an environment of chaos and uncertainty.

Over the past five years we have seen this country grow stronger in the face of the new threat that became apparent that day. As citizens we are more vigilant and as a Nation we have committed to a new war to fight terrorism across the globe.

The attacks in Spain, Jordan, Britain and elsewhere since 9/11 demonstrate that we are not alone in this fight and that we have not deterred the terrorists' intentions or will to carry out attacks against innocent people. We will continue to hunt down terrorists and terrorist cells where they are and we will lead the world in defeating their ideology.

We all have different ideas about how to do this. Over the past five years, we have seen heated debates in this House, throughout our government, and across the Nation over how to best protect our country, secure our borders, patrol our ports, and carry out the war against these extremists while protecting the American way of life and our individual liberties. But this tragedy reminded us that we are all Americans first and foremost. We may not always agree on how best to do this, but the goal of every person here is the same: to succeed in protecting our country, our way of life, and preventing another 9/11.

No one will forget where they were, or what they were doing when they learned of the attacks. This anniversary marks one of the gravest days in our Nation's history, but it also reminds us of the bravery displayed by those that reacted to the tragedy with unwavering courage and heroism.

Mr. Speaker, September 11, 2001 is five years behind us, but it will guide us for the foreseeable future. I pray for the families that lost loved ones that day and I thank those that served bravely. God be with those that are not here because of 9/11 and God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in great honor and solemn regret for a great son of Houston that passed away last Thursday. I stand in honor of the late U.S. District Judge James deAnda who passed last week from a battle with cancer.

The son of Mexican immigrants, James deAnda was born and raised in North Houston and graduated from my alma mater, Jeff Davis High School. He went on to graduate from Texas A&M University, but not before he joined the U.S. Marines and served in the Pacific during WWII. Once returning from service he graduated from the University of Texas School of Law.

With a resume of this caliber James deAnda could have gone on to private practice and plea cases that would have made him a very rich man. Instead he went on to fight for the disproportionate and unrepresented Texans of that time. James deAnda went on to work cases, pro-bono cases, to fight segregation of Hispanics within Texas' schools, he also won a Supreme Court ruling stating that Hispanics were a separate group deserving of the same constitutional protection as other minorities.

While his career was a long and great one, cases such as these serve as witness to the type of character that Judge deAnda was. A man that never sought after the limelight or recognition.

Fortunately for all of us, he did gain recognition 1979, when President Jimmy Carter appointed James deAnda to serve as Federal Judge for the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Texas. He later would serve as Chief Judge of the Southern District of Texas. He became the second Hispanic to be appointed to a Federal Judge bench.

He served in this role with distinction until he retired in 1988, he went back to work in the private sector until he began cancer therapy.

Judge James deAnda leaves us with a great sense of honor and pride. The footprints that he has left for us will be hard to follow. Judge deAnda took part in the creation of the Texas Rural Legal Aid and he was the co-founder of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, but most importantly he changed the law to work for all men and women during a time when there were many that were opposed to such change.

Mr. Speaker I ask for one minute of silence in honor of Judge James deAnda, not only a son and public servant of Texas but also of this great Nation. I ask this as his service takes place back home in Houston.

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow my Texas colleague, in fact my neighbor in the Houston area, and say the House is spending more time today on this horse bill than we are on homeland security, and we need to deal with that. We need to protect our borders, ports and airports.

If you don't like the bill, I am a co-sponsor of it, you can just vote ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, the reason I am here today is because I recently learned that the U.S. Department of Education failed to award the LULAC National Education Service Centers a grant under the Talent Search Program.

The LULAC Talent Search program has been one of the largest talent search grantees since it was first awarded in 1979. This program serves over 12,000 students in some of the country's most disadvantaged areas. These cuts will severely impact the Hispanic community that I represent.

In my Houston area, the local LULAC Council 402 has been an integral part of serving students in our area for years. Just last year, LULAC Council 402 served students in our area and they raised $32,000 separately to match the Federal funds. This program nationwide serves thousands and serves our Nation, and now the Department of Education has decided to turn out the lights on these centers. I hope someone in the Department of Education is listening.