Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer my strong support for H.R. 761, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey a Lewis and Clark visitor center in my district from the National Park Service to a well-respected non-profit organization. As the sponsor of this bill, I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I would like to begin by expressing my sincere appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources and the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the Ranking Member on the Committee, as well as the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the Chairman of the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee for their outstanding work in bringing this legislation to the Floor.

The Lewis and Clark Interpretive Trail and Visitor Center is the culmination of a vision that was outlined 20 years ago. Starting with the efforts of former Congressman Doug Bereuter, the Center's completion required a great deal of hard work and dedication for which the entire Nebraska City community should be proud.

I would also like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Nancy Hoch from Nebraska City, who has played such a key role in the construction of the visitor center and its ongoing operation. Her vision and leadership have been instrumental in making the center such an outstanding success.

The bill is very straightforward. It would simply convey certain federal land near Nebraska City associated with the Missouri River Basin Lewis and Clark Interpretive Trail and Visitor Center to the related non-profit group, the Missouri River Basin Lewis and Clark Interpretive Trail and Visitor Center Foundation, Inc. The bill also authorizes $150,000 annually for 10 years to operate the facility. This legislation would actually save the federal government about $50,000 a year since the National Park Service currently provides about $200,000 for the center.

It is important to note that I worked with the National Park Service in drafting the language for the bill and this proposed conveyance fits with the long-range plans for the center. I also believe that it would be the most cost-effective option for the Park Service.

H.R. 761 is cosponsored by both of my colleagues from Nebraska, Representatives Lee Terry and Adrian Smith. A companion bill in the Senate, S. 471, has the support of both Nebraska senators, Chuck Hagel and Ben Nelson.

The Interpretive Trail and Visitor Center is an outstanding resource and impressive facility. The non-profit organization associated with it includes a committed group of individuals who have spent many years making the center a reality and ensuring that it provides a meaningful and educational experience for those who visit. This legislative action is needed to fulfill the original plan for operating the visitor center.

The Missouri River Basin Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center is truly unique. It is the only visitor center or museum in the United States to focus on the flora and fauna and scientific discoveries recorded by Lewis and Clark.

The Lewis and Clark Expedition was a watershed mark in American history. Two centuries later, the courageous story of these two outstanding explorers and the Corps of Discovery continues to inspire Americans of all ages. This legislation will help ensure that future generations will have the opportunity to learn about this remarkable journey.

Again Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for H.R. 761.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, July 23, 2007, I was unavoidable detained due to transportation delays and thus I missed rollcall votes Nos. 687, 688, 689, and 690. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Nos. 687, 688, and 689, and ``nay'' on No. 690.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Blunt was allowed to speak out of order.)

Legislative Program

Mr. Speaker, on H.R. 1980, and H.R. 1982. I was unavoidably detained by transportation delay. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on the Fourth of July, during a celebration to mark the opening of a new volunteer fire station in Rising City, Nebraska, I was introduced to two extraordinary volunteer firefighters, Mr. Rich Topil and Mr. Don Fish.

Rising City, like so many rural communities in Nebraska, relies on the good efforts of volunteer firefighters to meet their needs for fire protection as well as life-saving services. These volunteers act out of a sense of dedication and duty to the communities that they serve.

On Independence Day, the citizens of Rising City recognized Mr. Topil and Mr. Fish for having served as volunteer firefighters for an unbelievable total of 117 combined years. It was only fitting that these two men were honored by the people to whom they have given so much.

Mr. Speaker, Independence Day is when we traditionally celebrate the best of America; family, community and country. And Mr. Topil and Mr. Fish and the citizens of Rising City, Nebraska, remind us all that these values remain very strong and very vibrant.

Madam Speaker, Corporal Matthew Alexander of Gretna, Nebraska, died in Baqubah, Iraq, on May 6, when a improvised explosive device detonated near his military vehicle. He was 21 years old.

Matthew and his wife, Kara, wed on Valentine's Day of this year. Upon his death, Kara said, ``Matthew made it his life's work to take care of those he loved. His heart was made of gold. Matt truly was our angel on Earth,'' she said.

Corporal Alexander was the son of Melvin and Monica Alexander of, Gretna, and the brother of Marshall.

As a young teen, he made clear his intent to serve others in the United States military. At his funeral, in a tremendous outpouring of support from the community, friends and neighbors gave testimony to his kindness and compassion, his dedication to the least among us.

His life and his death are marked by noble virtue. America is forever indebted to corporal Matthew Alexander.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, June 25, 2007, I was unavoidably detained and thus I missed rollcall votes Nos. 549 and 550. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both votes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Pitts amendment. This amendment will save lives. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, commonly known as PEPFAR, is the largest bilateral foreign assistance program dedicated to mitigating the HIV/ AIDS crisis worldwide. The plan places special emphasis on the 15 countries in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean which account for approximately 50 percent of the world's HIV infections.

If the U.S. is to remain the world's leader in saving lives from the devastation of AIDS, it's time to look at the track record and see what works well. Demographic and health surveys show that HIV/AIDS prevalence rates in at least 7 of the 15 PEPFAR focus countries is declining. Countries such as Uganda, Zambia and Senegal have success stories to showcase and something to teach us. In these nations and others experiencing declines in the prevalence of HIV/AIDS, it is through indigenous programming that respects the local cultural milieu and social norms that figure prominently.

In Uganda, for example, prevalence rates among pregnant women fell from approximately 20 percent in 1991 to 6 percent in the year 2000. Between 1991 and 1998, HIV prevalence rates among 15- to 19-year-olds fell by 75 percent, from approximately 21 percent to 5 percent.

While causal factors behind the prevalence declines are complex and should not be oversimplified, it is clear that the success stories in Uganda, Zambia, Senegal and elsewhere all incorporate the same common denominator, an emphasis on abstinence and fidelity, as critical elements in successful interventions.

As it stands, this appropriations bill would potentially reverse the most significant element of this success by diminishing the emphasis on abstinence and fidelity. This issue is much too serious to prevent the outright dismissal of compelling clinical evidence that in-country programming emphasizing abstinence and fidelity can effectively reduce the prevalence of HIV and AIDS.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith-Stupak amendment and encourage my colleagues to support this measure to prevent the U.S.-taxpayer-funded export of abortion.

The purpose of U.S. foreign assistance is to strengthen the foundation for international stability by fostering civil society, supporting institutions that foster self-determination, and helping the vulnerable by bringing healing and hope and basic sustenance.

As a leading provider of foreign assistance worldwide, the United States has made extraordinary strides towards alleviating suffering throughout the world. Unfortunately, an element of the Foreign Operations bill before us today risks undermining this noble legacy.

The Mexico City policy, first announced by President Reagan in 1984, requires that as a condition for receiving Federal funds for family planning, foreign nongovernmental organizations

agree that they will neither perform abortions nor lobby to change abortion laws or otherwise actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.

The Foreign Operations bill, as it currently stands, would undo this policy and subsidize abortion providers overseas. U.S. taxpayers should not be forced to do this, nor should other countries be forced to accept it. Abortion is so often the result of abandonment, Mr. Chairman; and I believe women deserve better.

Mr. Chairman, many Americans aren't comfortable about the rightness or wrongness of it. Many Americans are unsure in their heart of hearts about the ethics of abortion. Americans agonize about this difficult issue, and our collective experience as a society demonstrates the grave consequences.

Given these considerations, is abortion really the best we can offer to some of the most vulnerable populations in the world? Is this really how we wish to be identified as a Nation?

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to retain the long-standing Mexico City policy and not to compromise the reputation and legitimacy of our foreign assistance programs.

I thank the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of his amendment.

Section 699, as proposed in this Foreign Operations bill, risks undermining the significant progress we have made in a vital strategic partnership.

Mr. Chairman, it is critical to remember that our friend and ally Egypt led the Arab world in establishing a model for peaceful cooperation in the Middle East. The Camp David Accords ushered in an unprecedented era of cooperation between Egypt and the United States, as well as between Egypt and Israel. This peace has held for nearly 30 years. The benefits to the world have been very significant, and the consequences, particularly to Egypt, have also been considerable, including the assassination of former President Anwar Sadat.

Egypt has been the cultural and historical center of the Arab world and is poised to play a significant role in fostering peace and maintaining a very delicate balance of stability in the Middle East. Even now, as my colleague mentioned, Egyptian President Mubarak is preparing for an emergency summit with Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, King Abdullah of Jordan, and Palestinian President Abbas to address the potentially explosive situation in Gaza.

Mr. Chairman, I had actually hoped to offer an amendment today to section 699 to help address the serious concerns involving the smuggling of arms, weapons and contraband across the border into Gaza, a pressing concern which has become even more urgent given recent news. However, this amendment would not have been ruled in order.

Mr. Chairman, I fully understand the desire of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to see progress on human rights and civil reform in Egypt. I deeply share this concern as well and eagerly look for the right mechanism to achieve this goal. But I oppose the methodology of penalizing our diplomatic and military cooperation efforts.

U.S.-Middle East policy is complex and a delicate undertaking, at best. And despite the good intentions here, I fear that section 699 could backfire and harm one of our best and most vital strategic relationships in the region.

Mr. Speaker, I support stem cell research. I support stem cell research using umbilical cord blood cells, adult stem cell sources, amniotic fluid stem cells and now, as we have learned, a new source of stem cells, skin cells, all stem cell sources that are showing real medical process and avoid the ethically divisive issue of the destruction of unborn human embryos, unborn human persons.

Mr. Speaker, let's do what's right. Let's use our scarce resources for what makes sense and not force taxpayers to pay for questionable research that offends the sensibilities of so many Americans and has yet to show any real therapeutic productivity.

Research using adult stem cells, including umbilical cord blood and bone marrow sources has shown great promise and provided real clinical benefits to numerous patients suffering from approximately 72 diseases. Adult stem cells are providing genuine evidence-based hope for the potential cures for the ravages of Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries and even diabetes. We also know now that stem cells derived from amniotic fluid have allowed researchers in Europe to begin growing heart valves for pre-born infants diagnosed in utero with heart disease. Unlike embryonic stem cells, adult and amniotic sources have not been shown to form tumors in laboratory animals.

Mr. Speaker, all of these facts beg a central question: Why are we even considering expanding the use of Federal dollars to fund the ethically divisive and currently unproductive practice of embryonic stem cell research when so many viable and proven alternatives exist? It's not fair. It's not fair to those who are suffering from the ravages of disease. Why would we be willing in Congress to trade false hope for real hope?

We should oppose this measure. And I believe we should invest in proven stem cell research.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, May 21, 2007, I was unavoidably detained and thus I missed rollcall votes Nos.

384 and 385. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both votes.

I thank the gentleman from Florida. First, I should also thank my distinguished colleague, Mr. Berman of California, for his leadership on this important issue, his support and his partnership. I appreciate your efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the plight of courageous Iraqi and Afghani translators and interpreters who are assisting our military and our government. Given the vigorous and necessary debate about America's involvement in Iraq, this important humanitarian issue should not be overlooked. It warrants immediate attention as we move toward the stabilization of Iraq.

Every day in Iraq, and Afghanistan, American forces receive critical help, the kind of help essential for progress. An acute sense of duty has led thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis to aid American forces since late 2001.

Some of these brave men and women have worked alongside our troops providing invaluable assistance serving as translators and interpreters. Although they do not receive much attention, often by design, the translators and interpreters have been instrumental in supporting U.S. military operations. Mr. Speaker, they face mortal danger. They are considered traitors by the terrorist insurgents, and are targets often with bounties on their heads. Many find themselves without secure homes due to their dangerous work. They must conceal and vary their daily routines to preserve their safety. Most do not tell their immediate family about their work.

In 2006, the Defense Department authorization bill established a program that allows translators and interpreters who have worked for the U.S. military for at least 12 months to come to the U.S. on special visas. The program, as we have heard, allows up to 50 visas for Iraqi and Afghani translators each year. But since mid-April of this year, 510 applications have been received, 440 have been approved, 16 denied, and 54 are pending. Under the current cap of 50 allowable applicants per year, it will take until approximately the year 2016 to admit those currently in the queue for entry into the U.S.

To correct this problem, I, in partnership again with my distinguished colleague Mr. Berman of California, recently introduced legislation that would increase the annual limit for these visas from 50 to 500. The Senate bill before us today does exactly that for the next 2 years.

I believe it is right and just to offer refuge to those who have risked their own lives to help our troops and our Nation. These translators and interpreters are performing crucial work to assist the United States Government in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They have been invaluable to our efforts in the Middle East. It is my hope that our Nation will provide them the protection and asylum they need in honor of their service to our country and in honor to the commitment that they have made.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, May 7, 2007, I was unavoidably detained and thus I missed roll call votes Nos. 302, 303, and 304. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all three votes.

Madam Speaker, when I left home this week for Washington, my 6-year-old Kathryn became very sad. See, she has big, beautiful brown eyes and they welled up with tears at the prospect of my leaving again for Washington. And she said to me, Daddy, why do you have to be a Congressman? And I thought of the words of the Revolutionary War author Thomas Paine when he said, ``I prefer peace; but if trouble must come, let it come in my time so that my children can have peace.''

Madam Speaker, this is a pivotal moment for our Nation and a very grave, solemn policy debate. We cannot afford to allow the ups and downs of the daily news cycle set the course for our deliberations. The stakes in Iraq are simply too high.

During last year's debate on Iraq, I emphasized that this war is different from wars of the past. There is no front, no lines of demarcation, no clear enemy in distinct uniforms. This is a war that invades tranquil time and space without warning, carried out by those who hide among populations seeking to exploit the vulnerable for ruthless, ideological purposes.

We have never before waged a war in an era of globalization, in an age when technology eviscerates the concept of distance, magnifies our losses, trivializes our accomplishments, and places our adversaries in a far better position to leverage our freedoms, particularly the freedom of speech, against us. These are the complexities we face now.

Madam Speaker, I submit that our choices now stand to determine not only the future of the Middle East but the very future of civilization. We can point fingers and blame each other, or we can think constructively together.

So what are our choices? The National Intelligence Estimate categorically rejects an arbitrary or precipitous U.S. troop withdrawal. The result

would be horrific chaos, a humanitarian disaster, destabilizing the entire Middle East, emboldening the geopolitical aims of Iran, and leading to a much less peaceful world in very short order.

The conflict in Iraq is dangerous, risky, and complex. And we can all agree that our troops are doing an outstanding job, and so are their families who bear the biggest burden in their absence.

I submit that our time and energy as leaders of this Nation should be focused on new, clear military and geopolitical strategies.

First, Iraqis must fight for their own country now. They must lead in the battle for Baghdad now.

Over the past several months I joined colleagues in urging the President to deploy trained Iraqi troops into the heart of the battle for Baghdad, and I am pleased to see that this recommendation is now under way. However, I remain concerned about exposing our forces to unnecessary danger in the sectarian violence of Baghdad. As best we can, our troops should remain in support and training roles. I also believe that it is prudent to send reinforcements to our marines in Anbar province who are achieving good success against al Qaeda elements in collaboration with Sunni tribal leadership.

Second, we must engage responsible members of the international community, particularly the pan-Arab world, to assume a unified and decisive role in neutralizing the forces of chaos and helping secure stability and peace throughout the Middle East.

Third, we must provide meaningful congressional oversight. And I commend Chairman Lantos for taking this lead in the House Foreign Affairs Committee and for his commitment to a substantive and reasoned debate in this regard.

I would have liked to have had the opportunity to support a constructive bipartisan initiative drawing upon the substantive resources like the Iraqi Study Group to enhance congressional oversight and set out meaningful benchmarks to measure progress toward the stabilization of Iraq and the drawdown of our troops.

While it would be politically easier for me to vote for this resolution, I cannot. I see no useful purpose in supporting a nonbinding resolution that may have the unintentional consequence of undermining our efforts while our troops remain in harm's way.

Madam Speaker, this resolution, while wrapped in the mantle of supporting our troops, does not point to a credible way forward in Iraq. I believe I would make the same decision if a Democratic administration were struggling with similarly arduous challenges. If we flinch now, regardless of the goodwill behind our motivations, if we are perceived as weak and divided and eager to throw up our hands in frustration, we will pay a heavy price. And every nation that counts upon us as a friend and ally will also pay a very heavy price. None of us wants to see the repeat of the last helicopter out of Saigon.

I urge my colleagues, let's find constructive ways to get the job done

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his time and his commendations of the University of Nebraska volleyball team.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to also thank Representative Adrian Smith for originally sponsoring this resolution congratulating all the members of the volleyball team. I am pleased to cosponsor this resolution as well to bring attention to the national successes of this team out of Lincoln.

Just a month ago, as it was mentioned, the team won the 2006 NCAA Division I women's volleyball championship. I am very proud of the Husker team and particularly proud to say that this team represents all of Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, success isn't something that just happens. It takes forethought, hard work, persistence and dedication, and the members of the Huskers women's volleyball team certainly earned it.

Every member of the team should be commended for her dedication, as well as Head Coach John Cook, who led the team with skill and discipline. Under Coach Cook's leadership, the team finished the season with an astounding record of 33-1. Not only did Coach Cook lead this team to a national championship, but this is his third time in that leadership seat.

The University of Nebraska women's volleyball team is a shining example of the best that Nebraska has to offer. Again, I would like to congratulate the team.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, February 5, 2007, I was unavoidably detained and thus I missed rollcall votes Nos. 74 and 75.