Floor Statements

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

I rise to condemn in the strongest way statements made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier this week and strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the resolution.

Earlier this week, the President of Iran repeated the late Ayatollah Khomeini's call, stating, ``Israel must be wiped off the map,'' described Israel as ``a disgraced blot on the face of the Islamic world,'' and declared that ``anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nations' fury.''

These comments are unacceptable and raise concerns about Iran's intentions. Does Iran want to be a partner in this world or an outlaw regime that is a pariah among nations?

It is also troubling that this was not just the sentiment of the President, but the Iranian Foreign Minister reiterated the President's remarks stating, ``The comments expressed by the President are the declared and specific policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We don't recognize the Zionist regime and don't consider it legitimate.''

Mr. Speaker, as one of our closest allies, Israel has constantly had to defend itself from hostile neighbors supported by Iran. However, it poses a new threat with nuclear ambitions not just in the Middle East, but to the world, and that is why this statement is outrageous.

I think our country, by passing this resolution, needs to guarantee our continued support for Israel, and I will insert the rest of my statement in the Record at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn in the strongest way the statements made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier this week I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Earlier this week, President Ahmadinejad repeated the late Ayatollah Khomeini's call, stating ``Israel must be wiped off the map,'' described Israel as ``a disgraceful blot on the face of the Islamic world,'' and declared that ``anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.''

These comments are unacceptable and raise concerns about Iran's intentions. Does Iran want to be a partner in this world or an outlaw regime that is a pariah among nations. It is also troubling that this was not just the sentiment of the President, but that Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki reiterated President Admadinejad's remarks stating ``the comments expressed by the president are the declared and specific policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We don't recognize the Zionist regime and don't consider it legitimate.''

Mr. Speaker, as one of our closest allies, Israel has constantly had to defend itself from hostile neighbors, however, Iran poses a new and possible more serious threat with its nuclear ambitions.

When reading about these comments I learned that during a military parade in Tehran just a month ago, ``Israel Should Be Wiped Off the Map'' was the slogan draped on a Shahab-3 ballistic missile. Six of the missiles were displayed in the parade; with a 1,250 mile range, these missiles could reach Israel. Nuclear power is dangerous in reasonable nations but must be controlled in outlaw countries. Iran has long been a threat to Middle East peace and Israel, and President Ahmadinejad's remarks underline Iran's hostile intent. We should treat Iran as an outlaw government and not only a threat to Israel or our country but the world.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support his resolution to denounce the comments made by President Ahmadinejad and to guarantee our support for Israel's security.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to follow my neighbor from Texas (Mr. DeLay). Ellington is in his district, but I am the next closest Member.

I rise to express my disapproval for the recommendations of the Defense Base Realignment and Closure and urge my colleagues to support the gentleman from Illinois' resolution, of which I am a proud cosponsor. This is the most ill-advised, ill-timed round in base closure history. We currently have men and women fighting in two countries, and we passed three large supplemental requests, and the fourth likely in the next few months. We are in the process of closing bases overseas and bringing them home. Given these uncertainties, we cannot know what our base needs or our threat needs will be for the next 5, 10 or 20 years.

Ellington is home to the 147th Air National Guard Wing, Texas Air National Guard Wing. Houston is the fourth largest city in our Nation. It is our home and has a huge petrochemical complex that accounts for nearly half of the Nation's base petrochemical production. The Houston ship channel in the Port of Houston handled more foreign tonnage than any other port. We have the Texas Medical Center and NASA's Johnson Space Center. One of the most vulnerable targets in the area is the petrochemical complex, along with these other assets. Yet the base closure commission on a close vote decided to close Ellington.

Now, what they are doing is they are saying that we are going to provide service from San Antonio, Texas. The problem is that is 23 minutes away. As we know, an airborne attack on a refinery complex could seriously disrupt our Nation's energy supply, causing major nationwide economic impacts. An attack on a chemical plant could result in a hazardous release and thousands of casualties.

Currently our 147th Air Wing provides air security in the area, and the solution from the Pentagon is rotating several planes to fly on alert out of Ellington, which provides a much smaller deterrent than having a full squadron. What would happen if we had multiple planes that are attacking different facilities?

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my disapproval with the recommendations made by the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission, and to urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

This is the most ill-advised and ill-timed round in the history of Base Realignments and Closures. We currently have men and women fighting in two countries, we have passed three of the largest supplemental requests in our Nation's history with a fourth likely in the next several months, and we are in the process of closing bases overseas and bringing troops home.

Given these uncertainties, we cannot begin to know what our basing needs will be 5, 10, or 20 years down the road. However, instead of postponing this round of closures for 2 or 3 years like many members of the House and Senate supported, one of the most contentious rounds of BRAC was pushed through.

Like many other communities across the country, the district I represent was affected

by the Defense Department's plan to consolidate Air National Guard units, leaving one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country less prepared to respond to a terrorist attack.

Houston is the fourth largest city in the Nation, and is home to a petrochemical complex that accounts for nearly half of the Nation's base petrochemical production capacity. The Houston shipping channel and the Port of Houston handle more foreign tonnage than any other U.S. port. Also, we have NASA's Johnson Space Center, and the Texas Medical Center.

One of the most vulnerable targets in the area, and possibly the country, is the petrochemical complex; a tremendous complex that stretches the length of the Houston Ship Channel and continues along the coast through Beaumont, Texas. We have seen in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita the negative effects caused by disruptions in our oil supply and refining capacity, and leaving this area unprotected is leaving the door open to a terrorist attack on this critical infrastructure.

The Port of Houston is the second largest petrochemical complex in the world, and the largest in the Western Hemisphere, which produces over 35 percent of the Nation's gasoline at a great many refineries.

Numerous chemical plants also line the channel, producing a number of volatile compounds. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, 7,600 deep draft vessels arrive each year, and 60 percent of those ships carry sensitive oil/chemical cargos.

An airborne attack on the refinery chemical complex could seriously disrupt the Nation's energy supply, causing major nation-wide economic impacts. An attack on a chemical plant could result in a hazardous release with thousands of casualties.

Currently the 147th Fighter Wing of the Texas Air National Guard provides air security in the area and could respond to a threat on the complex or at the port in minutes because of the close proximity.

Rotating several planes to fly on alert out of Ellington, provides a much smaller deterrent than having a full squadron permanently stationed there, and would not provide enough planes to respond to multiple attacks on multiple targets in the area.

Meanwhile the closest full squadron would be in San Antonio, and would take approximately 23 minutes longer to respond to a threat than the F-16s at Ellington can currently provide.

In addition to providing security for the Houston area, the 147th is capable of providing precision strikes, close air support, offensive counter air, defensive counter air, and suppression of enemy air defenses.

The area around Ellington also provides the 147th with excellent training airspace, including over-water air-to-air training on the Gulf of Mexico allowing them to perform supersonic flights and lights out training from the surface to 50,000 feet.

Terrorists have proven their intent and capability to attack ground targets with multiple aircraft and retiring the 147th Fighter Wing's F- 16s leaves Houston vulnerable to an attack.

The savings estimated in the DoD's BRAC report are minimal and do not justify moving the F-16s away from Ellington; while it is estimated that retiring the F-16s will save DoD $3.6 million over 20 years, an attack on any of the possible targets listed above, especially the petrochemical facilities and Port of Houston, would cost our national economy billions of dollars.

Mr. Chairman, this round of BRAC is ill-advised and ill-timed and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for yielding me time.

I rise in opposition of H.R. 420 and in support of the substitute.

This bill would not do anything to reduce frivolous lawsuits. In fact, my concern about it is it is unnecessary, and it will infringe on States being able to manage their own court systems.

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was amended in 1993 to its current state because it was being abused by defendants in civil rights cases who filed a series of Rule 11 motions to harass the men and women who challenged discrimination.

Until now there has been no demonstrated problems with the current version of the rule. Usually this type of change in civil procedure goes through a process of the Rules Enabling Act. But in this instance we have decided to circumvent the United States Judicial Conference and the United States Supreme Court. We have taken it upon ourselves to decide what is best for the judicial system.

The Lawsuit Reduction Act would amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and revert back to that pre-1993 status. By doing this, again, we take away States' discretion to impose sanctions on improper and frivolous pleadings.

This would eliminate the current safe harbor provision, permitting the attorneys to withdraw improper frivolous

motions within 21 days after they have been challenged by an opposing counsel. Additionally, this bill dictates where plaintiffs can file a personal injury lawsuit against a corporation in a State court. Do we really want to get into the jurisdictional battles in our States?

Reverting back to the previous Rule 11 would make people less likely to challenge unjust laws because they are putting themselves at risk for being harassed. At the time some people thought Brown v. Board of Education was a frivolous lawsuit, but it did not look like it had a chance until the Supreme Court recognized that separate was not equal.

If we had this strict version of Rule 11 back then, maybe Brown v. Board of Education would have never made it to the Supreme Court.

This bill is another example of Congress intruding on States' rights. Our system of government is designed to keep our judicial system separate, particularly our State judicial system.

We simply do not have the right to tell State and county courthouses across the Nation how to enforce sanctions in their courtrooms or where the plaintiff may file a lawsuit in the State courts.

Mr. Speaker, I want to offer my full support for this resolution to congratulate Ambassador Dan Gillerman, Israel's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, and the government and people of Israel on Israel's election as Vice-president of the 60th General Assembly of the United Nations.

Since joining the United Nations on May 11, 1949, Israel has been singled out time and again for disproportionate criticism, underrepresented on important committees, denied full membership in regional groupings and constantly attacked by a bloc of Arab states and their supporters.

From the time he assumed his post as Israel's Representative to the United Nation in January 2003, Mr. Gillerman has been a strong advocate of reforms at the UN that will give Israel more rights and will reform many of the wasteful and corrupt UN programs. In September 2005, Mr. Gillerman submitted Israel's first-ever candidacy for the Security Council, and Israel also recently proposed its first UN resolution.

Mr. Gillerman has also supported ending four UN committees established specifically to aid Palestinians. The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the Division for Palestinian Rights, the Special Information Program on the Question of Palestine and the Special Committee to Investigate Israel Practices are all biased committees that have long outlived their intended purposes and have added to the waste and anti-Israeli sentiments at the UN.

In June 2005, Ambassador Gillerman was elected to serve as the Vice- President of the General Assembly of the United Nations. He is the first Israeli representative to serve as Vice-President of the General Assembly in the past 53 years, since Abba Eban who served in this position in 1952.

I congratulate Mr. Gillerman on his election as Vice-President of the 60th General Assembly of the United Nations and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting House Resolution 368.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my deepest sympathies to the family, friends, and colleagues of John Tucker, a constituent and citizen of Baytown, Texas, who passed away September 25, 2005, at the age of 83.

Born in Victoria County, Mr. Tucker served in the Army Air Corps as a gunnery instructor during World War II. He also served in Japan during the Korean War. After the war, he went to work for ExxonMobil, where he stayed for 33 years, retiring in 1980.

But it is not only his distinguished careers in the Armed Forces and at ExxonMobil that I wish to honor today. John Tucker's service to the community of Baytown as one of its greatest philanthropists is also worthy of our recognition. Mr. Tucker established and chaired the ``Friends of Lee College'' organization with 14 of his friends in 1986. In 2000, he raised over a million dollars for the college for an admirable purpose: to establish a childcare center at the college so that single mothers could

attend classes and finish their educations. These are just two examples of the many acts of generosity and kindness he performed for the citizens of Baytown. He also served as board chair for the Baytown Museum and served on the boards of the American Diabetes Association, the Lee College Foundation, the Hospice Advisory, and the Texas Exes of Baytown, receiving several awards from these organizations in recognition of his service.

Honored as the 1999 Baytown Sun Citizen of the Year and the 2001 ExxonMobil Refiner of the Year, Mr. Tucker was best known for his uncanny fundraising abilities, his exceptionally happy demeanor, and his dedication to his family, especially his wife Jane.

He will be greatly missed by the citizens of Baytown and all those who knew him, and I ask that you remember the Tucker family in your thoughts and prayers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of the largest mutual aid organizations in the world, Channel Industries Mutual Aid, for their 50 years of service to Houston and the surrounding areas.

Formed in 1955 under the name of the ``Houston Ship Channel Industries Disaster Aid Organization,'' in 1960 it became the non- profit corporation ``Channel Industries Mutual Aid.'' Its objective remained the same: to provide mutual assistance in case of emergency situations, whether natural or man-made.

With over 100 industrial, municipal, and governmental members such as Shell Oil, Celanese, the City of Houston Fire Dept., and the U.S. Coast Guard, CIMA joins these together to respond to fire, hazardous material, rescue and medical emergencies along the Houston Ship Channel.

CIMA provides disaster assistance not only to the Houston Ship Channel, but cooperates with mutual aid organizations all along the Texas and Louisiana coastlines, and has shared its response readiness procedures with international organizations such as the International Red Cross, and countries such as Germany, Switzerland, and Austria.

For its invaluable service to the City of Houston, the 29th District of Texas, the Gulf Coast, and the rest of the world, I extend CIMA my deepest gratitude, and my heartfelt congratulations on 50 years of excellence.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to congratulate the Houston Astros, the major league baseball team which last night defeated the St. Louis Cardinals to earn the right to go to the 2005 World Series. This is the first World Series for the City of Houston and the first World Series for the State of Texas. The Astros and the Texas Rangers were founded in 1962 and 1961 respectively.

Also, first congratulating the team for its hard work and dedication, I want to express thanks to our owner

Drayton McLane, who has been a tremendous asset to the City of Houston. It was an honor to work closely with him on the Harris County Sports Authority to build what is now Minute Maid Park to replace the historic Houston Astrodome.

I want to salute Tal Smith, who is a great part of the Astros' organization since the beginning when they were the Colt 45's. As the President of Baseball Operations, he has been an integral part of the entire organization.

The Houston Astros do not have one of the highest payrolls in baseball, so the fact that they are now in the World Championship is a tribute to our general manager Tim Purpura and also our manager Phil ``Scrap Iron'' Garner, who actually played for the Astros years ago. It is good to have him back home.

Many of the 2005 National League Champion Houston Astros are products of our minor league farm system, not high-priced free agents, including the winner of last night's game, Roy Oswalt. The Astros were the best team in baseball for the month of July and never looked back. Now they are the best team in the National League and look forward to taking on the White Sox in the 2005 World Series, Mr. Speaker.

In addition we have a lot of homegrown talent. Craig Biggio, Jeff Bagwell, Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte, again, are some of our great players along with the whole team. Again, congratulations, and I yield back my time Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. I am an original cosponsor of the House version of this legislation, H.R. 800.

A lawsuit against a gun manufacturer simply for being a gun manufacturer has no business in American courts.

I am proud that every court in our judicial system has agreed with that and has thrown out these frivolous lawsuits.

However, in U.S. courts we have the American rule, where each side pays their own legal fees under normal circumstances, instead of the English rule, where the loser usually pays.

Generally, I support the American rule because it is fairer to individuals seeking relief from large firms.

Unfortunately the American rule can mean that frivolous lawsuits which have no chance of going anywhere still impose a terrible burden on parties.

Some people in this country are politically opposed to the firearm industry and believe most firearms should be illegal or hard to obtain.

So these folks do not have a problem spending non-profit money and public money on a losing lawsuit in pursuit of ideology.

However, that is not fair to the firearm industry, which is not only completely legal, but has the right to own their product enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Therefore, it is particularly bad that the firearm industry has had to pay $200 million to defend themselves from frivolous lawsuits that have never, ever succeeded in court.

S. 397 only protects legitimate businesses that comply with Federal, State and local firearm laws.

The bill does not waive liability for actually defective products, breach of contract or warranty, or other causes that are not related to third-party criminal misuse of firearms.

If we are going to sue firearm makers for armed robberies, why not go on and sue the auto maker who made the get-away car?

The idea is absurd, but some groups and politicians want to punish firearm manufacturers for their very existence.

As a result, we must pass S. 397 and send it to the President.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 501, legislation that will extend the important Transitional Medical Assistance and Qualified Individuals programs. Over the past few years, these programs have been reauthorized by short-term extensions that offer low-income beneficiaries of the programs few assurances that they will be able to depend on the benefits in the future. While I support this extension bill, Congress should be acting I today to make these programs permanent.

The TMA program provides an important incentive for low-income individuals to move off of welfare and into employment by ensuring continued access to health care. Health insurance is a critical factor in everyone's employment decisions. Without TMA, many families would have little incentive to move off of welfare and leave behind the Medicaid benefits that TANF beneficiaries often receive. TMA allows for extended health care coverage when low-income families lose traditional Medicaid benefits due to an increase in income. While four months of TMA coverage is assured under current law, the six-to-twelve month extension that families so often need falls under a legislative sunset. While our action today will extend this coverage, we should be making this extension permanent.

Likewise, we should be acting today to make Medicare's QI-1 program permanent. This program is critical for Medicare beneficiaries whose income is between 120% and 135% of the federal poverty level, as it provides these individuals with assistance with their Medicare Part B premiums. Since Qualified Individuals are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid, the QI-1 program is critical in ensuring low-income seniors' access to physician care.

Mr. Speaker, I support the efforts of the bill sponsor to swiftly enact this important legislation. However, I regret that it includes extraneous provisions that would limit Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries' access to certain classes of prescription drugs. Physicians, not Congress, know best when a prescription drug is medically necessary, and the government should not interject in decisions between a patient and his doctor I about the proper course of treatment.

Despite those reservations, this bill offers important benefits to low-income individuals' access to health care, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, these are very hard times for energy consumers--from people on fixed incomes filling up their tanks to multi-billion dollar chemical

companies facing soaring natural gas feedstock costs.

I think we did a good job with the energy bill, which cannot provide immediate relief, but will allow prices to stabilize in the future and to become more affordable over time.

If the global market gives us $60 per barrel oil, we are going to pay a lot for gas.

People say there is no global spare oil capacity.

Well, there is a lot here in the U.S. but we aren't allowed to use it--that is why I support expanded oil and gas production offshore in the OCS.

Limited refining capacity is leading to higher prices, but it is not the refiners fault.

We have 12 refining companies that make over 500,000 barrels per day.

That is more competitive than the software operating system industry, the airline industry, the semiconductor industry, and many others.

In the refining business, historical profits are well below average-- that's why no one invested in expansion until recently, when margins improved.

Throughout this process, I have been concerned with both parties' approach to consumer protection on gasoline prices.

The original refinery bill had no FTC authority to protect consumers, only a study.

However, I am grateful to Chairman Barton for making significant improvements to the committee-passed version of this bill.

The Stupak substitute goes even further by expanding refining capacity and applying tougher and clearer consumer protection standards to this bill.

It is clear that some price increases should be investigated-- especially given price spikes in Atlanta that topped $6 after Hurricane Katrina.

But, I object to singling out the energy industry.

If we need the FTC to investigate price spikes for gasoline during emergencies, it should have the authority to investigate price increases for any necessity during an emergency.

We should cover water supplies, financial services, clothing, food, and other things we need to survive in the modern world.

I also don't agree with critics of this bill who call it a give-away to the energy industry.

When the refining industry has historically low returns and lots of pollution control investments to make, there is not much we can do to force them to expand capacity.

I am particularly grateful to Chairman Barton for eliminating the New Source Review reform provisions in the committee-passed version of the bill.

That language had the potential to hinder our efforts to improve air quality in Houston.

My constituents are extremely concerned with air pollution in our district, and we are working on solutions with the help of both industry and residents.

The elimination of this provision greatly improves this bill and ensures that it will do no environmental harm to the Houston area, which has long struggled to contain air pollution and smog.

The courts and the EPA are working to reform New Source Review, a highly complex and controversial program, and it is wise for Congress to let them address this issue.

For my part, I am thankful for the Chairman accepting my amendment to respond to the crisis that brought us here--gasoline shortages and prices spikes after Hurricane Katrina and now Rita.

The amendment added an Energy Assurance title to the bill to require the Department of Energy to review, approve, and offer recommendations of the fuel supply segments of State evacuation plans.

The amendment also specifically authorizes critical energy facilities like refineries to request direct help from the Department of Energy during a federally declared emergency or disaster. It is in the national interest for refineries not to go down, and if they do, to get back up quickly,

The Department of Energy is authorized to provide assistance with generation capacity, water service, critical employees, ensure raw materials can be accessed, and any other necessity.

Neither the base bill nor the Stupak amendment is a perfect answer to our problems with refining capacity.

However, it is clear that the American public is feeling an energy pinch and is looking to Congress for action.

At this time, some amount of positive action is better than no action--which is why I will ultimately support this bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

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

I have to admit, it is frustrating when you have someone from an energy producing State and when you hear speaker after speaker complain about high energy prices, and yet the only thing they bring to the table is an empty tank. What we need is supply solutions, but I am supporting the Stupak substitute only because of the additional consumer protections.

I applaud the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Barton) amendment to the version we passed out of committee for strengthening consumer protections and for removing the new source review, or the NSR, language that would have weakened clean air protections.

But the language in the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Stupak) amendment is clearer, and the penalties are much stronger than those in the original bill. This is a critical issue that must be addressed to prevent price spikes like we saw in Atlanta after the hurricane that drove prices to nearly $6 a gallon.

I am disappointed the substitute does not include my amendment that was accepted by the committee to address energy needs after a disaster. The amendment would require the Department of Energy to review and approve and offer recommendations on fuel supply segments of State evacuation plans.

It would also specifically authorize critical energy facilities like refineries to request direct help from the Department of Energy during a federally declared emergency or disaster.

If refineries go down, they must get back up quickly. The amendment would have authorized the DOE to provide assistance with generation capacity, water service, critical employees and ensure raw materials could be accessed, and any other necessity.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment strengthens the consumer protections in the overall bill, and that is why I support it, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution offered by my friend and fellow Texan, Mr. Hall.

I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this resolution, which would encourage CMS to extend a Medicare demonstration project that has maintained cancer patients' access to chemotherapy.

Approximately 9.6 million men, women, and children in the United States are currently living with a diagnosis of cancer.

Despite the tremendous strides made in cancer research and cancer care, the disease unfortunately still ranks as the number two killer in the United States, exceeded only by heart disease.

According to the American Cancer Society, more than 1.3 million new cancer cases will be diagnosed this year alone.

These individuals face a tough road ahead and difficult decisions about the path they will take in fighting this disease.

This year, the Medicare program implemented a demonstration project to look at chemotherapy patients and the quality of care they receive.

A good deal of cancer patients receive life-saving chemotherapy in physicians' offices.

However, the Medicare bill Congress passed in 2003 reduced payments to physicians who administer chemotherapy in their offices.

This demonstration project has temporarily alleviated some of the financial strains oncologists were to receive under the Medicare bill--

And the result is continued patient access to chemotherapy administered in the familiar and more-convenient office setting.

Ultimately, the goal of the demonstration is to improve cancer treatment through a better understanding of the patient experience under chemotherapy.

But we don't want to cut off patients' access to chemotherapy before we determine how their cancer care could be improved.

While chemotherapy has literally been a life-saver for countless cancer patients, it is not an easy process to endure.

Patients often experience pain, nausea, vomiting and fatigue while undergoing chemotherapy.

We know a great deal about chemotherapy and its effect on patients, but our knowledge base is not complete.

Unfortunately, the cancer care demonstration project is scheduled to end on December 31, 2005.

This resolution would encourage the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to extend the cancer care demonstration project at least through next year.

By extending this project, CMS would continue to support chemotherapy services offered in physician offices.

At the same time, CMS would continue to build on the information already gleaned from the project to improve the quality of care for Americans suffering from cancer.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Hall for his leadership on this issue and encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. The Violence Against Women Act has been instrumental in protecting women from domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. Domestic violence often has devastating consequences for women, their families and society as a whole.

The Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization provides essential grants including educational programs for the prevention of domestic violence in schools, battered women's shelters, a national domestic violence hotline, grants to improve law enforcement and prosecution of violent crimes against women, among others. It also provides much needed services for the protection of children from maltreatment, sexual assault, and domestic violence.

I believe it is important to provide preventative domestic violence programs as well as help those who have been affected by domestic violence with programs that can help them recover and protect them in the future. Many of the domestic violence programs that we have today would not be able to continue without the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. I urge all my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation and allow these much needed programs and services to continue so that we may continue to work to stop domestic violence.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the Head Start Reauthorization Bill that was sent to this Chamber by the Committee.

Head Start is one of the best programs we offer our youngest students. A recent report on Head Start released by the Department of Health and Human Services shows that Head Start helps close the achievement gap between students of differing socio-economic status.

Since Head Start was created in 1965, it has proven to be our most valuable school readiness program in the history of this country.

Time after time, we have seen reports that prove students who attend Head Start perform better than those who don't.

It's important that this body reauthorize this program in a manner that shows bipartisan support for educating our children.

I agree with many of the provisions in this bill, such as safeguarding financial abuse and improving disclosure rules. Fraud and abuse of providers of Head Start Programs is indefensible.

The money allocated to Head Start programs should be used to educate children. Not for any other purpose. This bill cracks down on those programs engaging in fraud.

Also, this legislation keeps current health and nutrition services, which are essential for ensuring children can learn.

Young children have a difficult time learning if their basic needs aren't met. Providing health care is an essential part of this program.

The ``best practices'' provision of this bill will help improve the curricula of our Head Start Program.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill as it was reported from Committee. Thousands of children in my district benefit from Head Start and it's essential that we reauthorize this program with a bipartisan plan that will help this Program serve more children effectively.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to show my opposition to the Boustany Amendment.

Head Start has been one of the most successful education programs in our Nation's history.

It is successful because it brings public, private and faith based organizations together to provide a common good.

Head Start helps disadvantaged youth get a firm foundation on which they can build a strong education.

Mr. Boustany's amendment would allow faith based organizations to circumvent civil

rights laws governing hiring practices by entities receiving federal funding.

I strongly believe in the case of Head Start, that this is inappropriate. Head Start programs are not allowed to decide what religion or race the children they serve are.

Nor should they be able to eliminate qualified candidates for employment based on their religious beliefs.

In my district, thousands of children are served by Head Start and almost every major religion is represented by a Head Start program in Houston.

This amendment could lead to divisions in partnerships between Head Start providers and communities.

Currently, many of these relationships are harmonious because our community, religious leaders, and educators keep the diverse interests of our community a priority.

I believe this amendment could lead to a shift in those priorities and therefore urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.