Floor Statements

How safe is America today from terrorist attacks? Here are some of the results from Foreign Policy magazine's recently published ``Terrorism Index,'' a survey of over 100 top national security experts from across the political spectrum, with the results weighted to ensure balance between conservatives and liberals.

Among the key findings are, one, 84 percent of the experts said we are losing the war on terror. Eighty-six percent said that the world is becoming more dangerous for the United States and the American people. Ninety-three percent said the war in Afghanistan had a positive impact on the war on terror, but 87 percent said the war in Iraq had a negative impact on the war on terror.

It is clear to the American people now that this country is moving in the wrong direction, the wrong direction in the war in Iraq; and it is time for a new direction. The Democrats offer a new direction for America.

Mr. Speaker, the International AIDS Society meeting in Toronto last month focused the world's attention on ways to deal with the ongoing AIDS pandemic. Global health experts and advocates came together to discuss effective tactics and comprehensive strategies for improved prevention and therapies and, ultimately, a cure. I am particularly glad that the meeting highlighted the need for microbicides development, treatments that will allow vulnerable women to protect themselves and their families from infection.

As we consider the recommendations made in Toronto, I want to draw my colleagues' attention to a recent article, ``AIDS in 2006--Moving toward One World, One Hope?,'' published in the August 17 edition of The New England Journal of Medicine. Written by Dr. Paul Farmer and Dr. Jim Yong Kim, leading medical experts with years of front-line experience through their work at Partners in Health, they offer us important lessons that will help translate the optimism expressed in Toronto into the reality of improved global health.

As they point out, an effective approach to the global AIDS epidemic (and to the global TB and malaria epidemics as well) will require strategies that address the global epidemic of poverty and the inequitable distribution of health care resources. Affordable drugs, viable public health systems, access to trained health care personnel, and the provision of nutrition and other ``wrap-around'' services that make the difference between life and death are all essential components for success. As Partners in Health has proven in Haiti and Rwanda, this comprehensive approach is not a pie-in-the-sky notion. It is completely achievable given a commitment to make and sustain the necessary investments.

The work of nongovernmental organizations like Partners in Health, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Clinton Foundations HIV/ AIDS Initiative has allowed us to make incredible strides, but they cannot solve these problems alone. As Dr. Farmer and Dr. Kim caution us, ``Only the public sector, not nongovernmental organizations, can offer health care as a right.'' The U.S. government can and must take the lead in expanding our commitment to defeating the twin dangers of global pandemics and global poverty. By doing so, we will not only make the world healthier, we will make it safer.

[From the New England Journal of Medicine, Aug. 17, 2006]

AIDS in 2006--Moving Toward One World, One Hope?

(By Jim Yong Kim and Paul Farmer)

For the past two decades, AIDS experts--clinicians,

epidemiologists, policymakers, activists, and scientists--

have gathered every two years to confer about what is now the

world's leading infectious cause of death among young adults.

This year, the International AIDS Society is hosting the

meeting in Toronto from August 13 through 18. The last time

the conference was held in Canada, in 1996, its theme was

``One World, One Hope.'' But it was evident to conferees from

the poorer reaches of the world that the price tag of the

era's great hope--combination antiretroviral therapy--

rendered it out of their reach. Indeed, some African

participants that year made a banner reading ``One World, No

Hope.''

Today, the global picture is quite different. The claims

that have been made for the efficacy of antiretroviral

therapy have proved to be well founded: in the United States,

such therapy has prolonged life by an estimated 13 years--a

success rate that would compare favorably with that of almost

any treatment for cancer or complications of coronary artery

disease. In addition, a number of lessons, with implications

for policy and action, have emerged from efforts that are

well under way in the developing world. During the past

decade, we have gleaned these lessons from our work in

setting global AIDS policies at the World Health Organization

in Geneva and in implementing integrated programs for AIDS

prevention and care in places such as rural Haiti and Rwanda.

As vastly different as these places may be, they are part of

one world, and we believe that ambitious policy goals,

adequate funding, and knowledge about implementation can move

us toward the elusive goal of shared hope.

The first lesson is that charging for AIDS prevention and

care will pose insurmountable problems for people living in

poverty, since there will always be those unable to pay even

modest amounts for services or medications, whether generic

or branded. Like efforts to battle airborne tuberculosis,

such services should be seen as a public good for public

health. Policymakers and public health officials, especially

in heavily burdened regions, should adopt universal-access

plans and waive fees for HIV care. Initially, this approach

will require sustained donor contributions, but many African

countries have recently set targets for increased national

investments in health, a pledge that could render ambitious

programs sustainable in the long run.

As local investments increase, the price of AIDS care is

decreasing. The development of generic medications means that

antiretroviral therapy can now cost less than 50 cents per

day, and costs continue to decrease to affordable levels for

public health officials in developing countries. All

antiretroviral medications--first-line, second-line, and

third-line--must be made available at such prices.

Manufacturers of generic drugs in China, India, and other

developing countries stand ready to provide the full range of

drugs. Whether through negotiated agreements or use of the

full flexibilities of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects

of Intellectual Property Rights, full access to all

available antiretroviral drugs must quickly become the

standard in all countries.

Second, the effective scale-up of pilot projects will

require the strengthening and even rebuilding of health care

systems, including those charged with delivering primary

care. In the past, the lack of a health care infrastructure

has been a barrier to antiretroviral therapy; we must now

marshal AIDS resources, which are at last considerable, to

rebuild public health systems in sub-Saharan Africa and other

HIV-burdened regions. These efforts will not weaken efforts

to address other problems--malaria and other diseases of

poverty, maternal mortality, and insufficient vaccination

coverage--if they are planned deliberately with the public

sector in mind. Only the public sector, not nongovernmental

organizations, can offer health care as a right.

Third, a lack of trained health care personnel, most

notably doctors, is invoked as a reason for the failure to

treat AIDS in poor

countries. The lack is real, and the brain drain continues.

But one reason doctors flee Africa is that they lack the

tools of their trade. AIDS funding offers us a chance not

only to recruit physicians and nurses to underserved regions,

but also to train community health care workers to supervise

care, for AIDS and many other diseases, within their home

villages and neighborhoods. Such training should be

undertaken even in places where physicians are abundant,

since community-based, closely supervised care represents the

highest standard of care for chronic disease, whether in the

First World or the Third. And community health care workers

must be compensated for their labor if these programs are to

be sustainable.

Fourth, extreme poverty makes it difficult for many

patients to comply with antiretroviral therapy. Indeed,

poverty is far and away the greatest barrier to the scale-up

of treatment and prevention programs. Our experience in Haiti

and Rwanda has shown us that it is possible to remove many of

the social and economic barriers to adherence but only with

what are sometimes termed ``wrap-around services'': food

supplements for the hungry, help with transportation to

clinics, child care, and housing. In many rural regions of

Africa, hunger is the major coexisting condition in patients

with AIDS or tuberculosis, and these consumptive diseases

cannot be treated effectively without food supplementation.

Coordination among initiatives such as the President's

Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the Global Fund to Fight

AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and the World Food Program

of the United Nations can help in the short term; fair-trade

agreements and support of African farmers will help in the

long run.

Fifth, investments in efforts to combat the global

epidemics of AIDS and tuberculosis are much more generous

than they were five years ago, but funding must be increased

and sustained if we are to slow these increasingly complex

epidemics. One of the most ominous recent developments is the

advent of highly drug-resistant strains of both causative

pathogens. ``Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis'' has

been reported in the United States, Eastern Europe, Asia,

South Africa, and elsewhere; in each of these settings, the

copresence of HIV has amplified local epidemics of these

almost untreatable strains. Drug-resistant malaria is now

common worldwide, extensively drug-resistant HIV disease will

surely follow, and massive efforts to diagnose and treat

these diseases ethically and effectively will be needed.

We have already learned a great deal about how best to

expand access to second-line antituberculous drugs while

increasing control over their use; these lessons must be

applied in the struggles against AIDS, malaria, and other

infectious pathogens.

Finally, there is a need for a renewed basic-science

commitment to vaccine development, more reliable diagnostics

(the 100-year-old tests widely used to diagnose tuberculosis

are neither specific nor sensitive), and new classes of

therapeutics. The research-based pharmaceutical industry has

a critical role to play in drug development, even if the

overall goal is a segmented market, with higher prices in

developed countries and generic production with affordable

prices in developing countries.

There has been a heartening increase in basic-science

investments for tuberculosis and malaria; funding for HIV

research at the National Institutes of Health remains robust.

Yet the fruits of such research will not arrive in time for

those now living with, and dying from, AIDS and tuberculosis.

New tools to prevent, diagnose, and treat the diseases of

poverty will be added to the stockpile of other potentially

lifesaving products that do not reach the poorest people,

unless we develop an equity plan to provide them. Right now,

our focus must be on improving access to the therapies that

are available in high-income countries. The past few years

have shown us that we can make these services available to

millions, even in the poorest reaches of the world.

The unglamorous and difficult process of increasing access

to prevention and care needs to be our primary focus if we

are to move toward the lofty goal of equitably distributed

medical services in a world riven by inequality. Without such

goals, the slogan ``One World, One Hope'' will remain nothing

more than a dream.

Mr. Speaker, last month, the 9th Congressional District of Illinois mourned the loss of a dedicated and extraordinary public servant. Mary Anderson Bain brought her many talents, a firmly- rooted commitment to the New Deal principles of expanding opportunities to all, and a deep love of the arts to a career that has enriched our Nation.

Mary Bain is known by many of us from her long service with Representative Sid Yates, and she was one of the first women chiefs of staff when she accepted that position in 1975. Mrs. Bain was gracious and charming, but she was also politically-savvy and focused when it came to contributing to the well-being of the 9th Congressional District of Illinois and promoting the interests that she and Representative Yates shared. The two of them were a finely-tuned team who, together, were able to do great things.

In 2003, Mary Bain received the Heritage Defender Award, an award that recognized her many achievements: helping to create a cultural heritage grants program for the National Park Service and a conservation program at the Institute of Library and Museum Services and to ensure funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Smithsonian Institute, the National Gallery, and the Kennedy Center.

At the awards ceremony, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said, ``Not only did Mary Bain save national treasures, she is a national treasure.''

Mrs. Bain served the Nation but she started her public service in Illinois, first as a junior high school English teacher and later as the Illinois administrator of the National Youth Administration, a depression-era New Deal initiative. She was one of the youngest and one of the few women leaders. Part of the Works Progress Administration, the NYA provided young men and women with small work study payments so that they could afford to get an education. It provided an opportunity for a generation of young people who would otherwise have lost hope and their chance for a better future.

Mary Bain followed two guiding principles throughout her life. One was the belief that publicly-accountable government could make a positive difference in people's lives, whether it is in preserving the environment, providing education opportunities and financial security or expanding our cultural life. She was proud to be a liberal and made no bones about it.

The second was her commitment to sharing what she had learned from her decades of public service with others. There are many

people in Washington and Illinois who were mentored by Mary Bain-- staff, House members, activists and advocates. I will always be grateful for her generosity in helping me when I was elected to succeed Representative Yates.

And, like so many others, I will always be grateful for her lifetime of accomplishments.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, which would put an end to the deplorable practice of slaughtering American horses for consumption.

As a strong supporter of animal rights, a horse lover, a former horse owner, I have joined with 202 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle as a cosponsor of H.R. 503. 550 national and State organizations also support H.R. 503, and I have received over 900 communications from constituents in support of the bill.

Congress has already expressed its desire to put an end to horse slaughter by voting to amend the fiscal year 2006 agriculture appropriations bill to ban the practice. That amendment passed by an overwhelming vote of 269-158 in the House, 69-28 in the Senate. However, the language that passed in both the House and Senate stating that no Federal dollars could be used to fund the inspection of horse slaughter plants, thus ending the practice, was stripped out. The Republican leadership, in an act of hubris, changed the language in conference to allow for flexibility in interpretation of that ban and allowed the plants to continue to operate. This is going against congressional intent and has been taken to the courts.

Congress voted to put an end to horse slaughter in this country because horses are some of the most beautiful and beloved domesticated animals on Earth. Earlier this year the story of Barbaro, the Kentucky Derby winner that shattered his leg at the start of the Preakness, transfixed millions of Americans. Since his injury, the thoroughbred has received an incredible outpouring of letters, flowers, apples, and carrots from Americans across the country. Fans have even made pilgrimages to Barbaro's care facility in Pennsylvania to wish him well in his long recovery. Americans are rooting for Barbaro because they have been inspired by his strength, his beauty, and his strong personality.

Americans have long appreciated horses for transport, on ranches, as police mounts, and as cherished companions. The American Horse Council reports that 1.9 million Americans currently own horses. Another 7.1 million Americans are involved in the industry as horse owners, service providers, employees, and volunteers, while tens of millions participate in horse events as spectators. These millions of Americans know that horses should be treated with dignity and respect in life and death. They are disgusted, as I am, that in 2005 over 90,000 horses were slaughtered at three American-based foreign-owned plants, and I stress foreign-owned plants, so that meat could be shipped to Europe and Asia for consumption as a delicacy.

Horses bound for slaughter must endure inhumane conditions on the way to and during slaughter. Horses are shipped frequently for long distances in terrible conditions. They are crammed together in trucks built for cattle and pigs. Because of the cramped transport, they are often trampled and some horses arrive at the slaughterhouse seriously injured or dead. Once at the slaughterhouse, horses are often not rendered unconscious before they are killed, as mandated by Federal law.

Most people assume that all or most of the horses bought for slaughter are old or injured. In fact, according to the USDA guidelines for handling and transporting equines for slaughter, 92.3 percent of horses that arrive at slaughter plants are in ``good'' condition, meaning they are not injured, lame, overweight, or underweight. Healthy animals, pets, and former race horses are all sent to slaughter.

We may hear today that it is likened to being humane to animals in order to oppose this legislation. It could not be further from the truth. The humane vote is to vote in favor of this legislation to ban the inhumane slaughter of horses.

Earlier I mentioned Barbaro, the Kentucky Derby winner. Ferdinand, the winner of the 1986 Derby, faced a very different fate. After his momentous Derby victory, Ferdinand was killed for food in a Japanese slaughterhouse in 2002. Just imagine if Barbaro faced the same end.

Not surprisingly, a recent poll conducted by public opinion strategists found that 65 percent of Americans do not support horse slaughter, and 64 percent of Americans believe that horses

are companions like dogs and cats and killing a horse to eat is not different than killing a cat or dog to eat.

I am sure that other Members of this body have received hundreds of letters too from constituents who oppose horse slaughter and support H.R. 503. I think it is time to listen to the American public and finally end the barbaric practice of horse slaughter by passing H.R. 503. Let us not sign off on Barbaro burgers.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 503.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I would like to yield 3 minutes to our distinguished whip, Mr. Hoyer.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

(Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I want to point out there is a book called, ``Alternatives to Auction and Slaughter: A Guide for Equine Owners (A Better Way),'' that lists all kinds of places that welcome animals that are at the end of their lives and are unwanted.

Quite frankly, I find really disingenuous those on the other side who oppose this legislation who say those of us who support ending horse slaughter are actually going to be hurting horses more, that we somehow don't get it. I think that is very disrespectful to the well over 500 organizations that support this bill, including the American Horse Defense Fund, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Animal Protection Institute, the Humane Society of the United States. Clearly, I could go on and on. These are organizations that are in business for the sole purpose of making sure that animals are treated humanely. They are not mistaken in supporting this legislation.

Those of us who truly care about the welfare of horses should support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican do-nothing Congress is unwilling to tackle the issues of importance to the American people. At a time when hardworking Americans are finding it more and more difficult to make ends meet, at a time when a weak economy is creating very few jobs, at a time when gas prices are at record levels, the Republican do-nothing Congress has frittered away scarce time on meaningless and divisive proposals that were never even intended to become law.

No wonder the American people are so disgusted with Washington. There is so much that this Congress should be doing, and yet the House Republicans refuse to act. We could raise the minimum wage for the first time in 9 years and give 7 million Americans a pay raise.

We could give the Federal Government the ability to negotiate prescription drugs on behalf of America's seniors in order to fill the gap in coverage that millions of seniors will soon face in their drug coverage. We could finally go after Big Oil and guarantee the American consumer is not to be gouged at the pump.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot we could do. The problem is Republicans are out of ideas. It is time we lead America in a new direction.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise in support of H.R. 5337 and want to add some important history and context to our discussion.

The Omnibus Trade Act of 1988 was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce on which I sit. During its consideration, our committee produced the Exon-Florio provision which determines what can be bought in the United States by foreign entities, and it was included in the final version of the Omnibus Trade Act.

Exon-Florio authorized the President to suspend or prohibit the acquisition of a U.S. corporation by a foreign entity. Responsibility for executing Exon-Florio was delegated to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS, the interagency committee that was formed to protect the United States' economic well-being and national security.

In the past, the Energy and Commerce Committee has conducted numerous oversight hearings, aggressively evaluating how well CFIUS has complied with the requirements of Exon-Florio. When the Senate amended Exon- Florio and passed the Byrd amendment in 1993, members of Energy and Commerce were conferees for those provisions.

While I am pleased that the Energy and Commerce Committee conducted a hearing on CFIUS and considered it in open markup, and while we support the legislation, we are disappointed that a number of the provisions we added to the bill are not in the version we are considering today. These are matters of the utmost importance to our economic and national security. As we proceed, I encourage my colleagues to be vigilant and consider these matters carefully.

I look forward to continuing our work in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, consistent with its long-standing involvement with this issue, and working with my other colleagues in the House who have also put much thought and effort into this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Brian Thorson, CRNA, MA. Mr. Thorson will soon complete his year as National President of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA). I am very pleased that Mr. Thorson was tapped as the 2005-2006 President of this prestigious national organization, which I am proud to say is headquartered in Park Ridge, Illinois, in the Congressional district that I represent.

Celebrating its 75th Anniversary, the AANA is the professional organization that represents more than 36,000 practicing Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) across the country. Founded in 1931, the AANA has ably served the interests of CRNAs and the patients who rely on them for quality care. CRNAs are anesthesia professionals who administer approximately 65 percent of all anesthetics given to patients each year in the United States. They work in every setting in which anesthesia is delivered, including hospital surgical suites and obstetrical delivery rooms, ambulatory surgical centers, and the offices of dentists, podiatrists, and plastic surgeons.

CRNAs provide anesthesia for all types of surgical cases and, in some states, are the sole anesthesia providers in approximately 75 percent of all rural hospitals, affording these medical facilities obstetrical, surgical and trauma stabilization services.

Brian Thorson has done a remarkable job as National President of the AANA, bringing his training, skills and hands-on experience to the job. He was educated in the art and science of Nurse Anesthesia at the St. Paul-Ramsey School of Nurse Anesthesiology in St. Paul, Minnesota, and earned his Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) from Winona University in Winona, Minnesota. In addition, Mr. Thorson also holds a Master of Arts (MA) degree in Curriculum Development and Instruction from the College of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, and an additional Bachelors of Science from the College of Health Sciences at the University of Minnesota, in Minneapolis, where he graduated summa cum laude. Currently, he is a Staff Anesthetist within the Department of Anesthesia at Hennepin County Medical Center, which provides anesthesia services in and around the Minneapolis area. In an effort to make certain that those citizens in the Minneapolis area are ensured access to needed care, Brian Thorson continues to shape the future of nurse anesthesia by serving as a Clinical Instructor and didactic faculty member at the Minneapolis School of Anesthesia in St. Louis Park, Minnesota and Saint Mary's University of Minnesota.

Mr. Thorson held various leadership positions in the AANA as President-Elect, Treasurer, and Regional Director before becoming the National President of the AANA in 2005. In addition, Brian has served terms as President, President-Elect, Vice-President, Federal Political Director, and as a Member of the Board of Directors for the Minnesota Association of Nurse Anesthetists (MANA). He has also served as the anesthesia representative to both the Council of Minnesota Nursing Organizations and the Minnesota Organization of Leaders in Nursing.

Adding to his professional accomplishments, Mr. Thorson has been recognized for speaking on anesthesia-related topics over the years. He has taken his experience and knowledge from the workplace and AANA leadership roles to lecture on political and academic anesthesia- related topics before different professional groups. During his AANA presidency, Mr. Thorson has played important roles in advocating for the practice of nurse anesthesia and its patients before Medicare and other federal agencies. He has worked tirelessly to help ensure that CRNAs have a seat at the table in the development of a pay-for- performance reimbursement model, increased communication among AANA members, promoted anesthesia patient safety through vigorous participation in the interdisciplinary National Quality Forum (NQF), and advanced principles of wellness among practitioners in this high- stress profession. In addition, under Mr. Thorson's leadership and direction, AANA testified before three House subcommittees about the importance of nurse anesthesia education, the roles and contributions of CRNAs in the Veterans Affairs health system, and the dedication with which CRNAs have provided safe anesthesia care to members of the U.S. Armed Forces at home and abroad. Finally, Brian Thorson has fought hard to maintain equality in teaching and instruction so that all anesthesia professionals have the opportunity to provide the care patients need, without the system harmfully favoring one provider over another.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me today in recognizing the outgoing President of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, Mr. Brian Thorson, CRNA, MA, for his notable career and outstanding achievements.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2389, the so-called Pledge Protection Act. H.R. 2389 would strip all Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of their ability to hear cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Pledge of Allegiance is a true expression of liberty and justice for all--cornerstones of our great Nation. However, H.R. 2389 would punish those who exercise that freedom. Basic due process demands an independent judicial forum capable of determining Federal constitutional rights. This legislation deprives the Federal courts of their ability to hear cases involving the fundamental free speech rights of students, parents, and other individuals. In our Country, dissenting views are supposed to be valued, allowed and tolerated. To take away this fundamental freedom of expression is to dishonor America and all Americans.

At this time when American soldiers continue to die every day in Iraq, with the Taliban and Al Qaeda making gains in Afghanistan, when millions of Americans are suffering because the minimum wage has not been raised in almost a decade, when millions more lack any health care coverage, and when gas prices are skyrocketing, the Republican majority has decided that the House should instead debate a bill that is unnecessary and, if passed, would only serve to undermine our democracy.

I am not afraid of those Americans who oppose parts of the Pledge having an opportunity to express those views. Healthy, controversial debates and a free society able to challenge the status quo are what make our country so strong and so great. What is scary are those who seek to use bills, such as the one before us today, to advance their ideology at the expense of freedom and liberty. That is something we should all oppose in the strongest terms.

As Members of Congress we owe our constituents better. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2389.

Madam Speaker, as a Jew, as someone who loves Israel, and as a member of Congress, I stand in solidarity with the people of Israel.

I remain committed to a peace process for Israel's security and for the future of the Middle East. Unfortunately, that peace process and the relative calm that has been the reality in the region in recent months were violently attacked at dawn on June 25th when a Hamas terror cell infiltrated Israel through a tunnel, murdered two Israeli soldiers, and kidnapped 19 year old Corporal Gilad Shalit. The operation was praised by the Hamas government. This came after Israel had fully withdrawn from Gaza in September 2005, a move that offered the Palestinian people the opportunity to begin the development of their future independent state.

Then on July 12th, the Iran and Syria-supported Hezbollah terrorist organization crossed the internationally recognized border between Lebanon and Israel under a barrage of rocket and missile salvos, initially killing two Israeli soldiers and kidnapping two more. From positions in Lebanon, Hezbollah launched dozens of rockets laden with ball bearings indiscriminately at civilian communities in Israel. Israel fully withdrew from Lebanon in May of the year 2000. Last week's attack was so egregious that it prompted the leaders of Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan to condemn Hezbollah's act of vicious terrorism.

The premeditated, coordinated, and unprovoked terrorist attacks on Israel, from territory that Israel voluntarily conceded in an effort to promote peace and regional security, are absolutely indefensible. Hamas and Hezbollah bear direct responsibility for this current conflict.

Hezbollah receives military, financial and political support from Iran and Syria, with Tehran providing the terrorist group with an estimated $100 million annually. Regular weapons shipments including Katyusha rockets, new long-range ballistic missiles, Chinese-made anti- ship missiles, mortars, anti-tank missiles, mines, explosives and small arms are sent to Hezbollah from Tehran through Damascus.

Iran and Syria have provided Hezbollah with more than 10,000 rockets, including shorter-range Katyushas and more sophisticated longer-range weapons, which the terrorist group is now firing at major Israeli population centers across northern Israel and beyond. In fact, on July 14th, Hezbollah used a Silkworm cruise missile to attack an Israeli ship, killing four sailors and yesterday, rockets slammed into a Christian-Arab neighborhood of Nazareth, a city respected by people of all faiths around the world.

Both Syrian President Bashar Assad and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have met with Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah in the past year to reaffirm their ties to the terrorist group. Ahmadinejad promised to continue to support Hezbollah's struggle against the ``enemies of Islam.''

Israeli and American officials believe Hezbollah would not have attacked Israel without a green light from its patrons in Damascus and Tehran, and the leaders of both countries

have subsequently expressed strong support for the attacks on Israel.

The United States Congress has already enacted several laws, including the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, and the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, all of which call for the imposition of sanctions on Syria and Iran for, among other things, their support for terrorism and terrorist organizations. We must insist that President Bush bring the full force of political, diplomatic, and economic sanctions available to the Government of the United States against the Governments of Syria and Iran.

Sadly and frighteningly, Hezbollah remains off the European Union's (EU) terrorist list. This means that European nationals continue to provide Hezbollah with material support to this day. President Bush and Secretary of State Rice must make an immediate push with our European allies to have Hezbollah added to the EU terrorist list.

Israel has the responsibility to defend its citizens and cannot be expected to tolerate the violent provocations Hamas and Hezbollah committed this month. And while I am convinced that Israel is using every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties, it has become clear that the terrorists in Hamas and Hezbollah stage their actions from within civilian communities, thereby intentionally putting civilians at risk. Israel must do what is necessary to defend itself while continuing to make every effort to avoid civilian casualties.

As the New York Times stated: ``Kidnapping Israeli soldiers to use as bargaining chips for the release of Arab prisoners is horrible behavior for groups that claim international recognition and political legitimacy, as Hamas and Hezbollah do. The same applies to lobbing rockets over Israel's borders in the hope that they might kill unsuspecting civilians.''

It is long past due for the international community to implement fully UN Security Council Resolution 1559, adopted in September 2004, which calls for the Lebanese army to secure southern Lebanon's border and for Hezbollah to be disarmed and disbanded. Lebanon cannot be free and democratic so long as Hezbollah continues to operate as a state within a state, complete with its own army.

Regarding the Palestinians, the peace process will continue to be under attack until Hamas denounces its violent charter, rejects terrorism, and recognizes Israel's right to exist and decides it is more important to build a Palestinian state than destroy the Jewish State. I encourage Israeli leaders to maintain a dialogue with moderates within the Palestinian Authority in order to keep hope of a two-state solution in the near future alive.

But in the meantime, the United States must stand by its friend and ally, Israel, and the Bush Administration must actively engage itself in seeking a resolution to this situation. As a first step to restoring calm, the kidnapped Israeli soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon must be returned unconditionally and unharmed, and the indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas and Hezbollah must end immediately.

I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 921.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in strong support of a veto override for H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. It is clear that a majority of Americans and a bipartisan majority in Congress strongly support embryonic stem cell research because it could prove to be critical for some 128 million Americans who suffer from juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease, spinal cord injury, cerebral palsy, and other diseases.

Stem cell research is essential for the future of medicine in America; one that should be allowed to transcend political lines so that critical gains can be made to save millions of human lives. One such life is that of my constituent, 24-year-old Bishoy Abo-Saif. In his letter to me, Bishoy described his daily struggle with cerebral palsy. He has been to Canada, the United Kingdom, Hungary, Poland and the Ukraine looking for alternative therapies for his disease. Nothing has worked. Even though he has accomplished academic goals, he still feels he is on the sidelines. As he stated to me, ``the wheelchair is always in the way.'' However, he said that, ``stem cell treatment is the only hope to overcome his condition.''

Most scientists agree that embryonic stem cell research offers the greatest hope to people like Bishoy. America has always been on the cutting edge of new innovation and now we stand on the brink of groundbreaking medical advancements that would dramatically alter the lives of people such as Bishoy. We must not prohibit this promising research.

But the opponents of this measure have put forward disingenuous arguments that fly in the face of widely accepted scientific research and proven potential. They wrongly portray the decision on funding for additional stem cell research as a choice between one life or another. In fact, we are choosing between disposing of embryonic stem cells or using those cells to save countless lives and advance life-saving science in previously unrealized ways. It is incomprehensible that anyone would allow politics and personal preference to trump hard facts and science. And, like the overwhelming majority of Americans, I am deeply disappointed and dismayed over President Bush's decision to issue his first veto on this bill, dashing the hopes so many families who are battling critical illnesses have pinned on the promising potential of stem cell research.

President Bush acted to snuff out the hopes of millions of Americans only to please a small right-wing constituency which has politicized this medical issue. Once again, the Bush administration has put politics before science sadly taking hope and health away from countless families. We should not delay or deny the potentially lifesaving research offered by stem cell technology. Bishoy and millions of other Americans are counting on us. As Bishoy stated in his letter, ``our hopes and

dreams are in your hands, please do not shatter them. Allow me and others to regain what we have lost.''

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the veto override to H.R. 810.

Park Ridge, IL,

July 17, 2006.

Dear Congresswoman Schakowsky: My name is Bishoy Abo-Saif.

I am 24 years old. Currently I am studying for my Master's

degree in Social Work, at Dominican University, in River

Forest, Illinois. However, I feel that I live in two

completely different worlds. These two worlds could not be

further apart. Since birth I have had severe physical

limitations caused by a condition called Cerebral Palsy. I am

one of the lucky few who is not affected cognitively by this

devastating condition.

I am writing to you today to implore you to support H.R.

810, for this piece of legislation is vital to millions of

people who are afflicted with my condition and other

neurological disorders. Since I was diagnosed, at 9 months of

age, my parents' mission was to help me lead a normal life.

Unfortunately, the many doctors we visited painted a very

bleak picture. A picture, which had no light at the end of

the tunnel. One doctor after the other kept telling my

parents that I would never walk. Cerebral Palsy is a

condition that affects people in different ways. It ranges

from severe to mild. Despite the years spent in physical and

occupational therapies, the progress is always minimal at

best, much to the dismay of the patients and their families.

In our efforts to beat the odds, we kept looking for

alternative treatments outside the U.S. We went to Canada,

the United Kingdom, Hungary, Poland and Ukraine. The success

of these treatments was very limited. Many were not covered

by our insurance and the trips were arduous.

To this end, H.R. 810 holds the key to unlock the chains

that trap me and others in my condition from experiencing

life as it should be experienced. Ever since I was a child, I

could not experience activities which other children take for

granted. I never knew how it feels like to run or jump, or

hit a ball.

Even now despite the fact that I have accomplished academic

goals, I still feel that I am on the sidelines, so to speak.

The wheelchair is always in the way.

Stem Cell treatment is the only hope to overcome this

condition. Doctors have made great strides with animal

experiments in the lab. It has been proven that Stem Cells

have the ability to regenerate the damaged cells in the

brain.

Stem Cell treatment is the catalyst for great progress in

the field of medicine. It is the answer to many unsolved

medical conditions. This Congress has the opportunity to make

history by voting for H.R. 810, which will make a real

tangible difference in the lives of the millions for whom

Stem Cell treatment is the only answer. People will be able

to takes steps, regain function of their legs, hands, and

affected parts of the brain will regenerate. People will

become whole. Our hopes and dreams are in your hands; please

do not shatter them. Allow me and others to regain what we

have lost.

H.R. 810 is an imperative piece of legislation which will

change my life and the lives of millions of other people like

me.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

Bishoy Abo-Saif.

Mr. Speaker, the editorial in yesterday's USA Today, entitled ``Bush Readies First Veto, Dashing Hopes of Millions,'' says it all. The editorial begins: ``A quarter-century from now, when the benefits of embryonic stem cell research are finally realized, Americans are likely to shake their heads in astonishment at this week's events in Washington.''

But President Bush is not the only one to blame. House Republicans had a chance to join us in overriding the President's veto. They refused. Instead, they rubber-stamped the wishes of the President and, in doing so, dashed the hopes of millions of Americans.

The legislation offered us a real opportunity to find cures for diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer and MS that are currently afflicting millions of Americans. This research has been put on hold for far too long by an administration that chooses to stifle groundbreaking science.

Mr. Speaker, this was a golden opportunity for this Congress to give scientists and researchers the tools they need to save lives. House Republicans refused to join us in moving this Nation forward. The stem cell vote yesterday is the latest example of why new leadership is needed to take our country in a new direction.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as a union member and as a Member of this body, and as someone who wants to expand U.S. trade relations, nonetheless I feel obligated to oppose this rule and the Oman Free Trade Agreement we will consider today.

The Bush administration and congressional Republicans are again trying to force passage of a trade agreement that willfully undermines labor rights in Oman and economic and homeland security for hardworking Americans in this country.

Democrats have called for such standards in every agreement negotiated by this administration, and each time we have been let down by the President and his allies here in Congress. In sending the Oman trade agreement to the Hill, the Bush administration has also astonishingly opted to send Congress an agreement in which he refused to include a prohibition on forced or slave labor.

Is this how we spread democracy in the Middle East? Is this how the U.S. best improves the lives in the Middle East and advances our own security interests? Another bizarre decision the President made is to put in jeopardy

the security of our ports and other critical landside homeland security functions. This Oman agreement explicitly paves the way for companies like Dubai Ports World to gain control of our ports.

Those who disagree with this argument refuse to acknowledge that the fact that in the best-case scenario, with the President utilizing every national security waiver at his disposal, the final decision on such a matter will be left out of U.S. hands and left to an international tribunal.

I would think the Republican leadership could at least agree that we should not outsource our core homeland security functions and decisions. In a country like Oman, where meager rights for workers fall well below the International Labor Organization's standards, where the Sultan can change any law by decree, and where there are no independent unions, Congress should be especially vigilant.

Mr. Speaker, we must ensure that any trade agreement with Oman, or any country, contains hard and fast labor standards. The Oman FTA does not. This is a loser on homeland security, for job security and for the best interests of Omanis. It should be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 911, a resolution strongest possible terms the July 11, 2006, terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India.

I would like to express my condolences to the families of the victims and sympathy to the people of India in the aftermath of this deadly terrorist attack. The July 11th attack resulted in the death of hundreds of innocent civilians, and injuries to many more. I have traveled to India, and have been to Mumbai, and its people remain in my heart and mind.

India is the largest democracy in the world and since its establishment, India has been threatened by terrorists trying to undermine its democratic principles. The security of India's democracy is not only important to India, but it is important to every American as well.

I commend the courage of the people of Mumbai, who quickly responded to the attack by turning out to donate blood, taking bed sheets to turn into stretchers, and offering assistance and comfort to the victims of the attack. These same brave citizens resumed using the rail commuter system the very next day.

It is an honor to represent Illinois' diverse 9th Congressional District where so many Indian-Americans reside. My sympathies go out to everyone affected by the Mumbai train bombings. I stand with India, the United States must stand with India, and I encourage this Congress to pass this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage. If this amendment were to pass, it would mean the first time in history that the Constitution has been amended to include discrimination. I believe in marriage as a stabilizing force in our society, as a nurturing environment for our children, as a public expression of the most profound love and devotion of a commitment between two people to take responsibility for one another, in a legal and a personal sense, in sickness and in health.

The vast majority of marriages are, and, of course always will be, between one man and one woman. But the same virtues of couplehood apply to any loving adults.

Surely the 27-year relationship of my dear friends Michael and Roger does not threaten my marriage in any way. The loving family that Ann and Jackie expanded when they adopted David, giving him two adoring parents, is a good thing, regardless what anyone may say to the contrary, although they are free to say it.

But nothing in the Constitution should be established to exclude them from the rights that they deserve. There are so many pressing issues right now that are working, that undermine families.

Same-sex couples embrace the positive values of families. Let's spend our

limited time here as lawmakers helping all American families, and not discriminating against any.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of the American Red Cross of Greater Chicago's ``Ready When the Time Comes'' program. This program partners the Red Cross with corporate and community organizations to respond to disasters such as fires, storms, floods, and tornadoes. I would like to acknowledge Grainger, an Illinois-based company which has been the lead corporate sponsor of the Ready When the Time Comes program.

The Ready When the Time Comes program allows Chicago area organizations and businesses to help their community before, during and after a disaster by supplying the Red Cross with volunteers. At the time of a disaster, the Red Cross will notify the company or organization and inform them of the role volunteers will have in the relief effort.

Through Ready When the Time Comes, corporations allow their employees to receive free Red Cross training in disaster relief functions. In return, corporate partners commit to making their trained employees available for disaster service at least one day each year. During a large scale disaster, with a single phone call the Red Cross can deploy as many volunteers as needed. Throughout Chicago, Ready When the Time Comes volunteers have put their training to work responding to flooding, massive fires, heat emergencies, and even the terrorist attacks of September 11.

Since February 2001, Grainger has provided the Chicago Red Cross with almost 200 volunteers for the Ready When the Time Comes program. Following Hurricane Katrina, corporate employees were called upon to staff phone centers in Chicago to answer questions from those seeking support and information. These volunteers also participated in the Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Communications disaster preparedness drill in August 2005.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me to honor and recognize the American Red Cross of Greater Chicago's ``Ready When the Time Comes'' program. This program is a model on how easily partnerships can be developed to help safeguard our communities. I support the Red Cross's efforts to afford other organizations the opportunity to partner with them to actively contribute to recovery efforts.