Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding as well. I was watching the conversation back in the office and felt compelled to come down and speak as well. I wanted to commend my colleague, Congressman Smith, for all of his leadership through the years on this essential American issue.

And Congressman Smith, I wanted to relay a story to you of something that happened to me a few years ago. I was at our State fair. And there is a group of people there who actually hand out little plastic replicas of unborn children just as a positive reminder to all of us about what an unborn child looks like. And I took one and brought it home. And somehow it ended up on the floor in one of my children's room or the toy room. And our youngest child actually picked that little replica of an unborn child up and was carrying it around. And before she could hardly speak a word, she was saying the word ``baby, baby.'' This little child herself recognized an immutable truth that the wisest of us on the Supreme Court and the legislatures here and throughout the land don't seem to be able to grasp. And I think this point is essential in the sense that I think we are entering a new phase in society where we have to confront this issue head on.

The pain, the trauma, the personal conflict, the psychological damage, the tearing apart of hearts that has occurred because of abortion I think could potentially lead us to a new day because America is built on a fundamental premise namely that all persons have inherent dignity and therefore rights. We have lived that imperfectly as a country because we had to fight a civil war and have a 100-year civil rights struggle because we didn't believe that at first if you were black. We didn't believe that at first if you were a woman, because at the beginning of last century women didn't have

the right to vote. And we have not matured yet I think to this point. But I certainly believe we have the capacity to, because our philosophical premise is to accept the fact that the new civil rights struggle is for the unborn because women deserve better than abortion.

So Mr. Smith, thank you so much for your leadership on this issue. And I'm very grateful to be a partner and colleague with you as we build toward a new way forward, a new day for America, and we can celebrate the beautiful gift of life and confront circumstances no matter how hard and difficult they are with a loving community response that helps get people through it. Thank you so much.

Madam Speaker, at the outset, let me say I believe that SCHIP is a very important program that provides quality health care coverage for millions of America's children. I support the program. I support its renewal, and I support its appropriate expansion. However, I do believe that this must be done responsibly, for instance, prioritizing America's most vulnerable children first.

We must also guard against expanding the program to those who may not need it, or risk creating a program that encourages some families to unnecessarily drop their existing insurance coverage for the government program, a move that could jeopardize the program's intent for our neediest children.

As we have learned, the State of Hawaii recently halted its universal child health care program, just 7 months after its inception, because high-income families were dropping private insurance so their children would be eligible for the government program.

The amendment that I offered to the Rules Committee would give vulnerable families the same opportunities as others to purchase health insurance. It would offer eligible families the choice of retaining SCHIP coverage for their children or using SCHIP funds to obtain a health insurance plan for the entire family through premium assistance for their child.

I believe families are in the best position to make health care choices for their children. They should be able to remain together under the same health care coverage if they so choose, and see the family doctor together.

I am disappointed that I am hindered from offering this plan as an amendment, as I believe it would strengthen the current program by empowering family choices, simplifying the process of accessing quality care, making family plans more affordable, and saving taxpayer dollars.

So, Madam Speaker, I will have to oppose this rule.

Madam Speaker, the choice before us today is not between action and inaction.

That is a false choice.

Clearly there is a very serious economic challenge. The decision before us is whether to adopt a potential $700 billion taxpayer liability to nationalize bad corporate debt or an alternative that may be less costly, easier to implement, and fairer to most Americans who have no blame for this mess.

Earlier in the week, many of us said no to this, and because we said no, many helpful changes were made such as FDIC increases and a change in accounting rules that may be artificially driving down asset values.

I know every Member is making a tough judgment call according to their conscience.

But I have not heard a single Member say: ``I really believe in this. This will work.''

Instead we hear: ``It stinks, it's the best we got, our problems will get worse, and we've got to get it done.''

Madam Speaker, we are the legislative body. We make the law. There are other reasonable options that could be unpacked--hopefully quickly--to address falling asset value, increase liquidity, and provide needed capital.

Madam Speaker, undoubtedly America is facing a very serious financial challenge. There is a threat of systemic failure. Yet the central issue before us is twofold: First, is this situation as dire as predicted? And, second, is this construct, this bill, this type of government intervention, with its huge expenditure and taxpayer exposure, the correct approach?

While I recognize the economic dangers this Nation faces, I deeply regret that we have accepted artificial deadlines in a rush to do something.

The bill before us today, while much improved from the original administration proposal, relieves bad assets from the market which have no defined market value. But it overlooks more fundamental issues, such as accounting rules called mark to market, that are forcing banks to artificially write down assets, many of which have real economic value but technically no or little book value. This in turn erodes the ability to leverage these assets to meet capital requirements, resulting in shrinking credit and an inability to make loans.

Simple measures to change this problem are not even being considered. Should we also increase the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation guarantees to restore depositor confidence? Could we give banks some breathing room to work out these problems, rather than a taxpayer assumption of these underlying assets?

The taxpayer exposure of this bill started at $700 billion. It remains $700 billion. Nebraskans and most other Americans have made responsible financial decisions. Now we are forcing them to foot the bill for the financial industrialists of Wall Street who created this mess for Main Street, and perhaps we have not addressed the underlying fundamental problems.

We are falling into a trap of sequential decisionmaking. Once we adopt this construct, we shut the door on alternatives that may be less costly, easier to implement, and may provide a way through this crisis.

The choice between action or inaction today is a false one. In good conscience, I cannot support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, given the enormous pressures this Congress is facing to solve urgent financial problems which threaten the stability and health of our economy, I must express my deep reservations about expediting approval of the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement at this time.

While I fully favor strengthening economic, social, cultural, and political ties with our Indian friends, why this most desirable pursuit hinges upon the sale of sensitive nuclear technology--remains a mystery to me.

The U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement sets a groundbreaking precedent that could open a floodgate for worldwide nuclear commerce that, absent rigorous conditions, safeguards, and oversight, could significantly damage the stability and integrity of U.S. and international nuclear nonproliferation efforts. Just this week, the Russian Prime Minister announced that Russia ``was ready to consider the possibility of cooperation in nuclear energy'' with Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez.

As you know, in 2006 Congress passed the Hyde Act, which waives key provisions of the Atomic Energy Act to enable our consideration of the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement. Absent the Hyde Act, the agreement would violate the Atomic Energy Act, which has regulated U.S. nuclear commerce since 1954 to prevent the dangerous proliferation of nuclear technology and materials.

Upon a preliminary review, the agreement does not address the Hyde Act's prohibition on nuclear cooperation in the event of nuclear testing. Also, I understand that the terms of this agreement and India's safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency would permit the removal of tritium from heavy water in safeguarded reactors, possibly enhancing nuclear weapons yields, in contravention of U.S. law and the NPT.

Moreover, I am deeply concerned that international guidelines recently eased to pave the way for this agreement and exempt India from longstanding rules of nuclear commerce that have applied equally to all nations are insufficiently rigorous to prevent the potential erosion of decades of global nonproliferation gains.

Let us remember that the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the NPT, which India has not signed, is the nonproliferation mainstream.

This bill also waives the 30-day period provided in the Hyde Act for congressional consideration of the underlying agreement. As co-chair of the Nuclear Security Caucus and the author of a Hyde Act amendment that seeks to prevent potential diversion of fissile material for military purposes, I oppose waiving the 30-day requirement to permit thoughtful consideration of whether this agreement in fact complies with the law we passed to condition its implementation.

Mr. Chairman, we should not rush this. We are accountable to the American people for conducting rigorous oversight on matters of nuclear security, and I am concerned that short-circuiting the review process for this agreement is not consistent with that obligation. The Hyde Act was the result of precise and painstaking negotiations. I urge my colleagues to allow for adequate ,due diligence of this complex matter.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding time.

I also wish to thank the ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for her leadership on this complex issue and her consideration of my differing view.

Mr. Speaker, given the enormous pressures this Congress is facing to solve urgent financial problems which threaten the stability and health of our economy, I must express my deep reservations about expediting approval of the U.S.-India civil Nuclear Agreement at this time.

While I fully favor strengthening ties, economic, social, cultural, and political with our Indian friends, why this most desirable pursuit hinges upon the sale of sensitive nuclear technology remains a mystery to me.

The U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement sets a groundbreaking precedent that could open a floodgate of nuclear commerce worldwide that, absent rigorous conditions, safeguards, and oversight, could significantly damage the stability and integrity of U.S. and international nuclear nonproliferation efforts.

Just this week, the Russian prime minister announced that Russia was, ``ready to consider the possibility of cooperation in nuclear energy'' with Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez.

We should not rush this.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on member requests, I am submitting the following information regarding four (4) member requests I received as part of H.R. 2638, The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009:

1. Southeast Nebraska Cancer Center Foundation/National Functional Genomics Center: $1.2 million.

Account: 30 0603002A Medical Advanced Technology.

Address of Requesting Entity: Southeast Nebraska Cancer Center Foundation, 201 South 68th Street Place, Lincoln, NE 68510-2496.

Description: $1.2 million which will be used to support current genomics-based clinical trials involving the development of molecular signatures at the National Functional Genomics Center (NFGC), concurrently supporting the development of a strong bioinformatics program. These two components are critical to the mission of the NGFC. Each requires large numbers of qualifying patients, and corresponding tissues procurement to advance translational research.

The Southeast Nebraska Cancer Center (SNCC) is comprised of a group of oncologists, health care professionals and informatics personnel who support the advancement of translational research, in conjunction with a desire to offer the best survival opportunities to patients now and in the future. As an affiliate member of the NFGC, SNCC provides clinical support for validation of ``molecular signatures'' and serves as the first clinical facility to provide patients for trials, and to establish research protocols for distance access to the NFGC.

2. Novel Coating Technologies for Military Equipment: $4.8 million.

Account: 7 0602234N Materials, Electronics, and Computer Technology.

Address of Requesting Entity: University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 301 Canfield, P.O. Box 880433, Lincoln, NE 68588-0433.

Description: $4.8 million for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to further develop novel technologies that will enable high-performance surface coatings to be applied to airplanes, warships, tanks, and other large military equipment on site and in an open atmosphere, avoiding the current high costs in time and money of equipment disassembly and the use of vacuum chambers. Most military equipment, ranging from airplanes to warships and tanks, requires high-performance surface coatings for improved performance and reliability. Because military equipment is commonly used in harsh environments, the surface coatings quickly degrade and require periodic evaluation, repair, and often full replacement. Current coating technologies use chemical and physical vapor deposition, which requires high temperatures, the use of vacuum chambers, and disassembly of large equipment to fit in the vacuum chambers. This project will develop laser-based technologies that will deposit high performance surface coatings on site and in open atmosphere without requiring disassembly and

reassembly of the equipment. These surface coatings will have improved hardness, wear resistance, anti-corrosion, and thermal barrier properties.

3. Advanced Magnetic Nanosensors for Defense Applications: $4.8 million.

Account: 5 0602105A Materials Technology.

Address of Requesting Entity: University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 301 Canfield, P.O. Box 880433, Lincoln, NE 68588-0433.

Description: $4.8 million for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to develop and demonstrate nanosensors with unprecedented sensitivity, reduced noise, optimal capability with electronic systems, and the capability to detect explosives, chemicals, and motion. The project addresses the Department of Defense (DoD) priority research area of nanotechnology-based warfighting with an emphasis on new devices for defense and security. These highly sensitive, miniaturized devices would be extremely useful in the creation of the distributed sensor networks that DoD sees as next generation sensor technology. Research will focus on the development of two types of sensors: magnetic tunnel junctions (MTJs) to sense extremely small magnetic fields, enabling detection of explosive devices (such as IEDs) and motion; and micro- cantilever detectors (MCDs), highly sensitive devices to detect molecules attached to magnetic nanoparticles, creating an advanced biological sensor capable of detecting a single virus or bacterium. This research will provide clear pathways for applications developers to improve signal and reduce noise, two of the critical challenges to effective nanosensors. This research will continue to build the strong infrastructure of basic trained scientists with the expertise required for Nebraska's economic development in the area of sensors and electronic devices.

4. Novel Systems for Developing Therapeutics Against Botulism: $4 million.

Account: 28 0602787A Medical Technology.

Address of Requesting Entity: University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 301 Canfield, P.O. Box 880433, Lincoln, NE 68588-0433.

Description: $4 million for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) to develop novel processes to produce therapeutic molecules against all seven serotypes of the botulinum neurotoxin and make these processes ready for Phase I clinical studies. Botulinum neurotoxin is a biowarfare agent, a Category A CDC select agent and the most potent known toxin to humans. No FDA licensed vaccines against botulinum neurotoxin exists and there are no therapeutic molecules that can counteract its deadly effects once it enters the nerve cell. Development of such a therapeutic is the U.S. Army's highest priority for botulism research. Scientists at UNL and USAMRIID have collaborated 12 years on the first generation botulism vaccine, which has been effective against some of the original toxin, but challenges in vaccine development may render the vaccine ineffective. USAMRIID has developed and demonstrated a proof-of-concept of a new molecule that will specifically target the nerve cell. This funding will enable UNL's Biological Process Development Facility to develop novel recombinant protein expression technology to produce therapeutic molecules and make these processes ready for Phase I clinical studies. The processes also will enable the development of other therapeutics of interest to the Department of Defense.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, America needs, and is demanding from this Congress, a bold, new energy vision.

We, as a Congress, have been presented with the opportunity of a generation: to step into the breach and deliver to the American people a victory over the vexing problem of dependence on foreign oil. Left unaddressed for far too long, it has compromised our national security, our economic security, and our environmental security. And now is not the time to retreat into the familiar trenches of partisan politics.

Now is the time to establish a broad, comprehensive, new energy direction, and yes, I believe we should adopt long-term investments in a sustainable future. I support them: research and incentives for wind, solar, biofuels and geothermal. But we must also address, Mr. Speaker, the immediate problem of our overwhelming dependence on foreign oil.

Let's have an honest debate about the full range of energy options in our portfolio. Increased use of domestic resources in an environmentally responsible way will promote our energy independence while bridging to a sustainable and independent energy future, fully integrating conservation, innovative technologies and a variety of renewable resources.

Mr. Speaker, today, I believe, could have been a day of celebration instead of the rancorous political pushing and shoving. I am sure that many Members on both sides are eager for a bill, reached in true bipartisan fashion, yes, with the appropriate trade-offs and compromises but one that lays a new energy vision.

What a message we could have sent to our own people, the financial markets, to innovators and entrepreneurs, to the world oil markets, that America has chosen a new way and we will no longer be captive and vulnerable. Instead, we have a bill that is the product of dysfunction in this House, Mr. Speaker. I just believe we can do better.

Well, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, my good friend. I am so sorry you have to leave quickly, but I understand. I hoped we could dialogue a little bit and perhaps broaden the discussion slightly. Mr. Conaway just gave a great segue by saying I think we can get this done, and I think that is what the American people are hungry for.

You got to go.

That is fine too, my good friend from Indiana. But I believe the American people are hungry for a bold new energy vision.

Madam Speaker, I think the American people are hungry for a bold new innovative vision for a sustainable energy future, and I think we have to have an honest conversation about the full range of options in our energy portfolio; looking at the opportunity to increase domestic resources, use of domestic resources in an environmentally responsible way, while also bridging to a sustainable energy future that looks at the full range of opportunities that are presented to us. And one of the things that I don't think is unpacked quite adequately, Mr. Burton and Madam Speaker, is the issue of how small-scale entrepreneurs can play an increasing role in meeting a sustainable energy policy.

For many years now, by the way, I have powered my home by wind. Now, I don't have a wind turbine in my backyard. I live in the city. But, nonetheless, I used to be on the Lincoln City Council. Nebraska is a public power State. The Lincoln City Council basically has authority over the electric system.

We greatly encouraged them a number of years ago to move forward on wind energy and they integrated wind turbines into their portfolio. Of course, it is a small portion of their portfolio, but nonetheless, I thought it was important to support that. I paid a little bit more than $4 a month extra on my energy bill to help underwrite that new development a number of years ago. Now they have integrated that cost and are sharing it with everyone. But, nonetheless, we have been in front of this trend for some time.

There is a hog farmer in my district, for instance. A couple years ago, Danny Kulthe in Colfax County, he just decided he was going to do something different. He has 8,000 head of hog. He captures that manure in a methane digestion pit, takes that methane, puts into a generator and produces enough electricity to power 40 homes from 8,000 head of hog. And he did this a number of years ago by pulling together the capital through a variety of innovative sources, some grant sources as well.

But a small scale entrepreneur like that is helping lead the way in a whole new energy vision that does several things: He solves an environmental problem, he wedded agriculture and energy policy, and he created additional income for his farm. Small scale entrepreneurs like that I think are yearning to be engaged in this bold, new energy vision to help write the various chapters we are going to need to help solve this.

Mr. Conaway said it well. I think we can get this done, but it is going to take bold, new, creative thinking and public policies that I think underwrite this type of vision for a sustainable energy future.

One of the issues regarding our very heavy dependence on foreign oil as well is that it does entangle foreign affairs considerations. That is a very significant issue. It greatly increases trade deficits, it entangles foreign affairs considerations. It leaves us vulnerable, not only economic, but in many other ways.

So I think it is very important as you are saying to look at full range of options in this portfolio we have, potential portfolio, and have a ``both-and'' discussion about how we bridge to that sustainable energy future by looking at, first of all, the easiest and best thing we can do quickly obviously is to think through the issue of conservation, how we become and continue to be and expand our ability to be good stewards of the resources we have, integrate these new technologies, use the resources we have now to bridge to that sustainable future.

Here is another example for you. I was visiting with a small-scale car manufacturer. They have some proprietary battery technology. I am not an expert in these areas, but apparently this vehicle can go 120 miles on a single charge. It takes 10 minutes to refuel it, so-to- speak, if you have the special equipment. If you don't, you can plug it into your 220 volt outlet, like your dryer plugs into, and that takes about six to eight hours. It goes zero to 60 in about 10 seconds, and it has a 5-star safety rating, crash rating. It is like a regular vehicle, except the engine is different.

So let's be clear: This spike in gas prices is causing great duress for families and farmers and small business

owners, particularly in an area like I represent that I think has some similarities to where you represent as well. And I think it compels all of us to begin to think boldly and innovatively about how we can get this done by looking at that full range of options that we have in our energy portfolio and bridge into that energy future.

I really thank you for the opportunity to dialogue on this question and to focus, yes, on the urgency of the moment, while also creatively thinking about where we go. I mean, this is America. This is the land of innovation. We can get that done.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague Congressman Lee Terry for introducing the resolution expressing heartfelt sympathy for the victims and families following the tornado that hit Little Sioux, Iowa.

On June 11, we were given a stark reminder of just how fragile life is. In 1 minute, the Boy Scouts at the Little Sioux Scout Ranch were attending a leadership camp, Boy Scouts undoubtedly filled with joy, laughter and achievement, all of those wonderful things that make scouting a core ideal of America. In the next minute, a tornado tore through the camp, taking the lives of 4 Boy Scouts and injuring 40 others.

The four scouts who lost their lives--Aaron Eilerts from West Point, Nebraska, and Josh Fennen, Sam Thomsen and Ben Petrzilka from Omaha-- were exemplary young men.

After the tornado struck, many other young men applied first aid to the injured and worked to free those trapped in the rubble. Clearly, the scouts lived up to their motto, ``Be prepared.''

Mr. Speaker, may God bring comfort to the families and friends of those who lost loved ones that day.

I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, J. Sterling Morton, the founder of Arbor Day and an outstanding Nebraskan, once said, ``Each generation of humanity takes the earth as trustees.'' That is the spirit embodied in Arbor Day. The simple act of planting a tree provides resources

and beauty for future generations, and engages in good environmental stewardship. This resolution supports the goals of National Arbor Day and the National Arbor Day Foundation.

I would like to begin by expressing my sincere appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, and Mr. Clyburn of South Carolina for his help today, and the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the ranking member of the committee, for their help in bringing this important resolution to the floor.

A bit of history on Arbor Day. J. Sterling Morton served as United States Secretary of Agriculture, and is honored as one of two Nebraskans to have a statue in the United States Capitol. His former home, Arbor Lodge in Nebraska City, is now the centerpiece of a truly magnificent State historical park.

An early pioneer to the Nebraska territory, he first proposed Arbor Day in 1872 to address the absence of trees in Nebraska. Trees were needed to produce fuel and building materials, provide the necessary shade and wind breaks, as well as to prevent soil erosion. It is estimated that Nebraskans planted more than 1 million trees during that first Arbor Day.

Before long, the idea spread. Arbor Day is now celebrated in all 50 States and in many Nations throughout the world. Although National Arbor Day is always the last Friday in April, individual States observe Arbor Day on various dates, according to the most appropriate tree planting times.

Another outstanding Nebraskan, John Rosenow, built upon that legacy. In 1972, he established the National Arbor Day Foundation. Its mission is to ``inspire people to plant, nurture, and celebrate trees.'' Through its Trees for America program, it distributes more than 8 million trees annually. The Foundation has worked with the United States Department of Agriculture's forest service since 1990, helping to plant nearly 4 million trees in national forests that have been damaged by fire, insects, or other natural causes. The Foundation has also branched out beyond the United States borders, promoting environmental activities throughout the world, including rainforest preservations.

Mr. Speaker, it is very appropriate that we honor Arbor Day and its vision of dedication to tree planting. We should also recognize the countless individuals in our country who have planted trees in fulfillment of this important vision.

J. Sterling Morton once also said, ``Other holidays repose on the past. Arbor Day proposes for the future.'' By supporting this resolution, we honor the spirit of Arbor Day. Planting trees is about planting for the future.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the average U.S. farmer provides enough food and fiber for 143 persons, both here in the United States and internationally. This new farm bill continues agricultural policies which have allowed America's farmers to help feed the world.

I believe that the farm bill promotes agricultural stability and diversification, agriculture-based renewable energy production, and good conservation and land stewardship practices. As with any complicated piece of legislation, there are trade-offs and concerns. For instance, payment limitation reform progressed, but did not go far enough in my view. Even though I'm going to vote to override the President's veto, I do commend the administration for its considerable efforts to highlight the need for reform, particularly in the area of payment limitations.

I'm also pleased that the farm bill conference report includes three of my initiatives. First, a new rural energy self-sufficiency initiative that would provide grants to rural communities seeking to become energy self-sufficient through the use of renewable sources such as wind and solar and biofuels and biomass.

Additionally, there is a new provision allowing school systems and other governmental institutions to purchase local foods from local farmers, promoting agricultural sustainability and diversification.

And there is a change to the value-added producer grants program that would help target assistance to farmers with small or mid-sized farms who develop new uses and creative marketing strategies for their product.

Mr. Speaker, the development of this important legislation has taken several years. This ground has been plowed long enough. I believe this bill deserves merit. I wish to thank our ranking member, Chairman Goodlatte, for his support of this bill and Chairman Peterson as well for his considerable efforts.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 273, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 274, H. Res. 1113, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Let me add parenthetically before I begin that I am sure the gentleman from Connecticut is a fine son as well. But thank you for your kind introduction.

Mr. Speaker, in 1908, the United States Senator from Nebraska, Elmer Burkett, rose before his colleagues to propose that Mother's Day be recognized as a national holiday. Notably, the Senator's proposal was defeated in a maelstrom of sensitivities concerning the role of women in society and the role of the Federal Government in honoring them. However, despite this setback, most States adopted Mother's Day celebrations 2 year after, and in 1914, due in large part to the unceasing dedication of support of a number of persons around the country, including Mrs. Jarvis that Representative Clay mentioned, Congress passed a resolution declaring the second Sunday in May as Mother's Day.

President Woodrow Wilson then issued a proclamation directing the flying of the flag as ``a public expression of our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.'' One hundred years later, I now have the honor of rising to renew Senator Burkett's beginning effort to support the goals and ideals of Mother's Day.

Mothers have been celebrated throughout history in many languages, religions, and cultures, yet the practice remains far from antiquated. Few traditions have withstood the test of time as the social celebration of mothers. From its early Egyptian roots to our modern American holiday, the commemoration of mothers is timeless.

We now honor all mothers without debate as to their role in politics or the Federal justification in doing so because they are mothers and thus make an immeasurable contribution to the very core of our society. Mothers sustain and strengthen our Nation through their leadership in the family and community. Despite the dynamic nature of society, the ability of mothers to rise to the challenge of raising their families, with love and understanding and compassion, remains constant.

As we commemorate mothers for the integral role they play in shaping the course of our Nation's past, present, and future, we also revere and emphasize the importance of the role of the family and the home as the true and ever-present foundation of America.

Each day in Congress, we tirelessly debate the challenges and nuances of maternity with limited time for appropriate philosophical reflection. So, Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing today that we have a resolution as this before us now. This Sunday, I and millions of Americans will thank our mothers who have shaped our lives and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I wish your mother and all mothers a Happy Mother's Day.