Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5782 as amended. This is a good bill that reflects considerable work between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Pipeline safety is not one of the most high-profile issues that the Congress deals with but it is one of the most important. Because oil and gas pipelines are largely out of the public's sight, they are usually out of mind as well, that is until we have a failure such as, those several years ago in the State of Washington and New Mexico, which left several people dead. The shut-in of Prudhoe Bay in Alaska last August served as a stark reminder of that dire consequences of non-lethal pipeline accidents.

After the Prudhoe Bay incident I announced that pipeline safety reauthorization needed to include three important elements: First, the law needed to be changed to cover low-stress pipelines such as those that failed in Alaska; second, enforcement needed to be strengthened; and third, we needed more transparency in DOT's enforcement processes. I am pleased to report that this bill accomplishes those objectives but also does much more.

The bill addresses excavation damage--one of the leading causes of pipeline incidents--through several measures. It requires States with pipeline safety programs certified by the Department of Transportation (DOT) to establish a damage prevention program. The bill establishes grants to States to carry out such programs, and includes new penalty provisions for those who fail to abide by a State's call-before-you-dig program.

The bill also requires DOT to prescribe minimum integrity management standards for gas distribution operators, including a new requirement that excess flow valves be installed on new service lines. These new provisions will help strengthen that portion of the gas pipeline system that is closest to most American homes.

The bill takes a substantial step in making DOT's pipeline safety enforcement process more transparent to the general public, which has been a longstanding concern of mine. DOT will now be required to publish a monthly summary of its enforcement actions on both liquid and gas pipelines, giving the public valuable insight into areas where problems exist, and giving pipeline operators a forum to demonstrate they have been corrected.

The bill before us includes language passed by the Committee on Energy and Commerce that requires the vast majority of low-stress liquid lines to be regulated in a manner similar to high-stress liquid lines. This language responds to the issues raised by the spill on Alaska's North Slope last spring.

This bill also includes new language to require that pipeline operators file management plans that set forth a maximum limit on the hours of service performed by control room employees. I congratulate my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota Mr. Oberstar, for his dedication to this issue.

Finally, the bill authorizes DOT to hire an additional 45 new safety inspectors to carry out the important responsibilities that we have assigned to the department in this bill.

I want to thank Chairmen Young and Barton and Ranking Member Oberstar for all of their efforts on this bill and I urge the House to pass H.R. 5782.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Charles Higgins, in honor of his work and accomplishments for the Lincoln Park Board of Education.

Mr. Higgins has lived in Lincoln Park since the age of 5, and throughout his life he has been committed to making it a better place to live. Charles was first elected to the Board of Education in 1967 and he made it his goal to improve subjects that, from his time in high school in Lincoln Park, he felt were lacking. Such areas included vocational education and the math curriculum. Mr. Higgins' dedication to parent-teacher associations while on the Board granted him the Distinguished Service Award for his efforts with the students. His time on the Board earned him the recognition of the longest-serving board member in the district of Lincoln Park and in the state of Michigan, and the honorable position of Board President.

Mr. Higgins served as a liaison to the Michigan Association of School Boards, the City Council of Lincoln Park, to the City Recreation Commission. He has been deservingly honored with tributes such as the Book of Golden Deeds Award from the Lincoln Park Exchange Club and Award Merit and Award of Distinction from the Michigan Association of School Boards. He also served with dedication as one of 28 board members from the state as a Michigan Ambassador for Public Education.

Before his time on the Board, Mr. Higgins worked for General Motors and was a deacon at the Lincoln Park Presbyterian Church. He is deeply involved in his community, and some of his current commitments include the Lincoln Park Athletic Club, Little League Baseball, Girl Scouts, and the Lincoln Park Democratic Club. He is also active with the senior community, delivering baked goods to the Lincoln Park Senior Center Towers.

I wish Mr. Higgins, his wife Marilyn, and their three children many good years filled with family, friends, and good health. The Southeast Michigan Community deeply appreciates his fantastic devotion and loyal service. I ask that all of my colleagues join me in wishing Charles Higgins a happy and relaxing retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to Congressman Major Owens on the occasion of his retirement after 12 terms of service in the United States Congress.

Born in Collierville, Tennessee in 1936, Congressman Owens' commitment to education began at an early age with his own scholastic achievements. He received a bachelor's degree from Morehouse College, a Master of Science degree from Atlanta University, and later went on to serve as a librarian before entering the political arena. Congressman Owens also served as a Community Activist and Ivy League Professor.

As Ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee for Workforce Protections, Owens defended workers' rights by supporting minimum wage increases and strong protections of overtime payment. Owens promoted the benefits of integrating technology and education, and fought to expand access to classroom technology for disadvantaged students.

The ethnic and socioeconomic diversity of Congressman Owens' district--including constituents of Hasidic, Caribbean, and Eastern European backgrounds--is largely reflected in the multiplicity of his success within Congress. Congressman Owens' influence has extended beyond our nation's borders: As a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, he fought vehemently to restore the democratically-elected President of Haiti. His dedication to Africa and the Caribbean has shaped American foreign policy, including HIV/AIDS legislation and the African Growth and Opportunities Act.

The hard work and enduring legacy of Major Owens should be applauded. Mr. Speaker, I invite all of our colleagues to join me in congratulating Congressman Owens on his retirement, and sending him our best wishes for the next chapter of his life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Focus: HOPE and its wonderful team for being selected to receive the 2006 Exemplary Public Interest Contribution Award (EPIC). Focus: HOPE co-founder Eleanor Josaitis is one of my dear friends and one of the most admirable and inspiring women I know. She has put together an outstanding team of motivated, energetic individuals such as Keith Cooley, who recently became Chief Executive Officer.

The EPIC Award is one of the most prestigious honors recognized by the United States government through the Department of Labor, honoring public interest organizations that support equal employment opportunities and have worked with federal contractors to make these opportunities available for minorities, women, individuals with disabilities, and veterans.

For nearly four decades, Focus: HOPE has been a leading voice for eliminating discrimination and injustice, starting in Southeast Michigan. Following the deadly and violent 1967 Detroit riots, Father William Cunningham and Eleanor Josaitis founded Focus: HOPE, a metropolitan civil and human rights organization committed to ``intelligent and practical action to overcome racism, poverty and injustice.'' The belief is that this goal can be accomplished if the playing field is level and the economic mainstream is accessible to everyone.

Focus: HOPE programs assist individuals from all walks of life in many different ways. Their food distribution program is one of the largest in the nation, serving 43,000 children, mothers and seniors every month. Focus: HOPE career development programs are targeted towards preparing participants for employment in high-demand fields such as engineering and information technology. Since its inception, Focus: HOPE has literally helped thousands of individuals--particularly women and minorities--to become financially independent.

Focus: HOPE is one of the most successful organizations of its kind in this country, and this award is well-deserved. I ask that all of my colleagues join me in congratulating Focus: HOPE on another momentous achievement and in sending the Focus: HOPE team our best wishes for another successful year.

Madam Speaker, the people have spoken. The election is over and they have said to us that they have given us their marching orders.

For 40 months American soldiers have been suffering, working, and dying for their country in the Iraq war. Since that day, 2,800 Americans have been killed. More than 20,000 have been wounded, most in gruesome fashion, and we have spent $450 billion when Secretary Wolfowitz told us the Congress would pass only $3 billion in appropriations to fund this curious exercise.

According to the National Intelligence Estimate, we have been made less safe. The other members of the axis of evil, Iran and North Korea, have developed or are developing nuclear weapons. We have forgotten our mission in Afghanistan where a democratically elected government is slowly losing control of the country.

The war in Iraq has produced more terrorists. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, it has found that the Iraq war has created more terrorists and terrorist sympathizers than have been destroyed. Iraq has become the central front in the war on terrorism, simply because this administration has made it so.

Vice President Cheney said the insurgency was on its last throes, and more Americans die every month than did when the actual war itself was going on. Again, the National Intelligence Estimates said that fanatical terrorism has metastasized and spread across the globe.

At each and every turning point: The toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue; the dissolving the Iraqi Army; the creation of the Iraqi constitution; the vote for the constitution; the parliamentary elections; the capture of Saddam; or the death of Zarqawi, the Bush administration has told us victory is at hand.

Meanwhile, the bloodshed intensifies, hope dims, and more Americans come home with terrible wounds or in body bags.

Madam Speaker, this Nation has to have a plan and it is time that the President, whose war this is, come forward with such plan as to how we can win. Staying the course has failed. Americans will support what has to be done to get us out with honor and dignity and to win. Now the President can claim that he has the power to do these things, and clearly under the Constitution he does; but the President also has the duty to come forward with a plan that can be understood, accepted, carried out, implemented and successful for the American people.

If we are committed to staying in Iraq, the President must face the American people and adequately prepare them for the truth: The truth that his desires for Iraq will take more soldiers, more money, and cost more lives.

The American people respect and admire leadership and honesty. They admired it in Roosevelt, in Truman and in Ronald Reagan. Honesty begins with making an honest accounting of the costs and coming forward with a truthful statement of where we are and what we must do. If this Nation needs more equipment for our soldiers or needs more soldiers over there, then we must be told that and the President must face that, and we must do what has to be done to see to it that we have the proper forces there to prevail.

This war is being charged to our children and grandchildren. We need to examine whether or not it is just and proper for us to do that. We must pursue with vigor the diplomatic front. The countries in the area must be involved, and certainly little sign of that taking place is visible to all of us.

We have to swallow our pride. Let us talk to everyone, reengage the Syrians and the Iranians, in addition to those countries who are our allies in the region. And as we approach the fourth year of this war, and it must be observed that is longer than we were committed to the war in Europe in 1945, Syria and Iran have to be explored as possible participants in the solution to the problems which exist there.

The President must look the American people directly in the eye and he must deal honestly with our people. He must provide the generals with what they need and not shortchange our troops. We have only one option, and that is to either win or to get out.

Mr. President, your country asks you if Iran is so central to our security in the future, why haven't you made it possible to win and why have you not provided our military with the assets and the strategy that they need to win at the earliest time?

I was a soldier in World War II. Our purpose then was to win quickly, to win strongly, and to do so at the least cost to our people. Victory was our goal, and we were committed to it and we worked for it.

In this world the only thing that will count in this matter is success. In this war there has not been strong leadership from the White House to achieve

our goals. As the President dithers, American soldiers are killed and maimed. Let's win or get out.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Reverend Dr. Fred L. Davis, Sr. on the occasion of his retirement from the Community Church of God in Ypsilanti, Michigan, after 39 years of service.

A native of Boligee, Alabama, Dr. Davis came to the Ypsilanti area in 1968 with the intention to serve and help those in his community. He has provided this service with his leadership at the Community Church of God. Dr. Davis also worked as a Supervisor at General Motors for more than 30 years. His preparation and training for this service included a strong and supportive family and church and it was supplemented by studies at the Detroit Bible College, where he received his diploma in 1961. Dr. Davis was also awarded an honorary doctorate's degree in 1996 from the Detroit Extension of Faith Evangelistic Christian Schools.

During his tenure, Dr. Davis implemented many different programs at Community Church of God, including Alcoholics Anonymous, narcotics and substance abuse assistance, food and clothing distributions, marriage and singles therapy classes and tutoring. These programs, which Dr. Davis started and facilitated, have helped to strengthen and improve the church and its community.

Dr. Davis' service has not been limited to only to his congregation. He has served as the Ypsilanti Police Department Chaplain since 1992, providing aid and comfort to the brave men and women of the department in their times of great need. He also currently serves as an active member of the United Way and the Hope Clinic and is on the executive committees for the United Negro College Fund and the Ministerial Alliance of the Ann Arbor/Npsilanti Area.

I applaud Dr. Davis for his many years of service. I know that he and Verlouis Davis, his wife of 54 years, will enjoy this new phase of life, but will continue to give back to the community in the Ypsilanti area. Once again, I salute the work of Dr. Fred Davis and I wish both he and his wife many more years of happiness.

Mr. Speaker, well, the mountain shook, the lightning flashed, the thunder roared and the mountain gave birth to a mouse.

In last night's discussion, there was no discussion and nobody has been brought in to talk about what this legislation does, but I think we can talk about what it does not do.

First of all, it does not allow the Members opportunities to offer amendments to discuss issues of importance. It does virtually nothing to protect 25 million Amtrak riders and millions of Americans who live and work near railroad and freight tracks and passing trains carrying highly hazardous materials. It also stripped long overdue rail and mass transit measures from the final bill, as well as a number of other important security measures.

It should be noted that the bill in the Senate included provisions improving the securities of other surface transportation, including truck, bus, hazardous material transportation and pipeline security, as well as it strengthened aviation security. All gone, gone, gone.

The conferees should have been granted the right to vote on these provisions before they were stripped from the final version of the bill, particularly in light of the fact that last night we heard the House express its wishes overwhelmingly when we voted for the instruction of House conferees 281-140 to accept rail and transit titles, as well as other important provisions.

We talk about this as a great bill to address the question of airport, railroad and port security. It does not. It is not.

I would note that when we showed up last night for the conference, we all sat around for a goodly while. We had no agenda. We had no business to come before the committee. We were told there would be a meeting this morning to discuss, and we would have an opportunity to amend. Somehow or another that commitment vanished, but it did not vanish so much we do not have a bill here which was drafted without any input from any Member on this side of the aisle.

So we have sent the distinguished chairman, for whom I have enormous affection, a letter. Fifteen of our colleagues on this side of the aisle joined in signing it, and we said to you: ``Dear Chairman King: You made a personal and public commitment last night. You broke it.

``We write to protest your decision to shut down the House-Senate conference on H.R. 4954. Many of us took your word that we would have a voice in the conference process. However, your action to silence input from every Democratic member of the conference by denying the right to offer amendments effectively stripped the long-overdue rail and mass transit security measures from the final bill.''

This is a sorry process. It is a sorry procedure. It is a sorry piece of legislation. It is inadequate, and it is another example of the majority trying to do things on the cheap and then marketing it as something good.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, September 29, 2006.

Chairman Peter King,

House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, The

Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman King: You made a personal and public

commitment last night. You broke it.

We write to protest your decision to shut down the House-

Senate conference on H.R. 4954. Many of us took your word

that we would have a voice in the conference process.

However, your action to silence input from every Democratic

member of the conference by denying the right to offer

amendments effectively stripped the long-overdue rail and

mass transit security measures from the final bill, as well

as many other important security measures. Consequently,

these important elements of our transportation systems remain

vulnerable to terrorist attack.

Despite deadly attacks on transit systems worldwide--in

Madrid two years ago (191 innocent civilians killed), in

London last year

(52 killed), and Mumbai this year (207 killed)--Congress has

not passed a transit security bill. The transit community has

identified $6 billion in security needs, of which only less

than a tenth has been made available by Congress. Even less

has been done to protect the 25 million annual Amtrak riders

and the millions of Americans that live and work near freight

railroad tracks and passing trains carrying highly hazardous

materials.

The Senate had included in its version of the bill

comprehensive plans to improve U.S. rail security and mass

transit security, the second time the Senate has passed these

provisions since 9/11. In addition, the Senate included

provisions improving the security of other surface

transportation modes, including truck, bus, hazardous

materials transportation, and pipeline security, as well as

several that strengthen aviation security.

Conferees should have been granted the right to vote on

these provisions before they were stripped from the final

version of the bill, particularly in light of the wishes of

an overwhelming majority of House members, who voted last

night 281-140 to instruct House conferees to accept rail and

transit titles, as well as other important provisions.

Americans expect us to help keep them safe. We can only

hope that you have a good reason for denying them that peace

of mind.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Lautenberg.

Patty Murray.

Joe Lieberman.

Paul Sarbanes.

John D. Dingell.

Ed Markey.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 6143, the Ryan White HIV/ AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006, but I also support providing significantly more funding for it. Since 1990, the Ryan White funding has been an integral part of our domestic response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, helping metropolitan areas, States, and territories pay for essential healthcare services and medications for people living with and affected by HIV/AIDS.

This is another program hurt by the majority's budget priorities. For every millionaire that gets a large tax cut, there are many people with HIV/AIDS not getting the help they need. And this underfunding means that the reforms in this bill hurt some States and cities that have borne the brunt of this crisis.

Nonetheless, the bill before us has many improvements, and is worthy of support at this point even though authorization levels are too low. This bill recognizes the changing demographics of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in our Nation. It expands access, improves quality, and provides additional services to help target healthcare services and other support services to communities throughout our Nation that need them most.

The policy of this bill may be adequate, but it is only a paper promise without sufficient funding. As this bill goes to conference, the majority will have one more chance to recognize the human cost of their budget priorities and properly fund this program.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is a tangled web of legal intricacies which I found to be a muddled attempt to impose specific laws of individual States. After a careful reading of the bill, I am forced to rise in opposition to the legislation.

H.R. 748 is a two-part bill. The first part makes it a crime for anybody other than a parent to accompany a minor across State lines for an abortion if the minor's State of residence has parental notification laws. We have seen this language, known as the Child Custody Protection Act, in past Congresses, and I have hesitantly voted in favor of it. I say hesitantly because I have always been concerned that:

(1) The bill violates the Constitutional principles of federalism;

(2) There are no exceptions for another responsible adult family member to accompany the minor; and

(3) The language is so broad that it would allow a cab or bus driver to be prosecuted.

You are probably wondering, Mr. Speaker, why I voted for the bill even with these concerns. Well, as a parent, I feel strongly that parents should be involved in major decisions concerning the health and well-being of their children. The most knowledgeable resource regarding the minor's medical history is often their parent. Moreover, as is the case with any medical procedure, it is important that someone in the household be aware of the situation should there be side effects. Thus, I voted to move the process forward with the hope that my concerns would be addressed before the final legislation was sent to the President for signature. This did not happen because the Senate has never acted on the legislation.

The second part of the bill is new and would hold a doctor criminally liable for performing an abortion on a minor from another State. This, Mr. Speaker, is where the web gets really tangled. You see, in some cases, the minor would have to comply with the laws of two States, and in all cases, the doctor would have to get consent from the parent in person and a mandatory 24-hour waiting period would be instituted.

Probably the most striking scenario would be a minor who traveled between States with no parental consent law. In this case, the doctor would have to obtain consent in person from the parent, the mandatory 24-hour waiting period would be instituted, and in this specific case there would be no judicial bypass option.

This creates quite a burden on doctors, who would be required to have a near-encyclopedic knowledge of the parental involvement laws in each of the 50 States, their specific requirements and their judicial procedures.

Some States have strict parental consent laws, some have parental consent laws with reasonable bypass mechanisms, and some States have no consent laws at all. If this bill passes, we are saying to some States, ``Your law is good.'' To others we are saying, ``Your law is okay, but it is not quite good enough.'' And to still other States we are saying, ``Your law, or lack thereof, is wholly inadequate.'' This is no way to legislate in our federalist system.

While reading over the bill, Mr. Speaker, I tried to think of what precedent there is for this kind of law. It took a while, but the only law I could come up with was the Fugitive Slave Act. Going back to laws like this, Mr. Speaker, is not something this Congress should even consider.

Mr. Speaker, I often wonder why we don't focus more of our effort on preventing unwanted pregnancies. Reducing the number of abortions performed in this country is certainly a goal we can all agree on and strive for. As such, I would ask that all of my colleagues come to the table to discuss the ways we can further this mutual goal.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Scott and Jackson-Lee amendments and ``no'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5533, the ``Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2006''.

In an effort to respond to the new era of heightened threats to our national security and the increased risk of harm to Americans, Congress passed the ``Project Bioshield Act'' in July of 2004. The basic purpose of Project Bioshield was to support research that would lead to the development and availability of ``countermeasures'' to combat public health emergencies that threaten our national security. The main provisions of this law included: (1) flexible procedures for bioterrorism-related procurement, hiring of personnel, and awarding of research grants; (2) guaranteeing a Federal Government market for new biomedical countermeasures; and (3) permitting emergency use of unapproved countermeasures.

Building on the Project Bioshield Act, H.R. 5533 takes further steps to identify potential medical countermeasures to protect the public health and national security from biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear threats. Additionally, this legislation ensures the rapid development of medical countermeasures against such threats, including potential pandemic infectious diseases and it seeks to expand the collaboration and coordination between government and the private sector so that we can effectively respond in the event of a public health emergency.

Since the implementation of Project Bioshield, it has become apparent that certain barriers still exist to the development of countermeasures. Many promising countermeasures are not making it through the advanced research and development stages necessary to bring products to the point of eligibility for procurement. H.R. 5533 seeks to rectify this impediment to advanced-stage countermeasure development.

This legislation seeks to streamline the countermeasure research and development process and create a single point of Federal authority by creating a new office called the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Agency (BARDA) within the Department of Health and Human Services. BARDA would establish a ``one stop shop'' agency for advanced research and development of medical countermeasures, including drugs and vaccines to respond to bioterrorism and natural disease outbreaks. This agency would be responsible for directing and coordinating collaboration among HHS entities, other Federal agencies, relevant industries, academia, and other individuals with respect to countermeasure research and development.

I commend my colleagues, Representatives Eshoo and Rogers, for their diligent and impassioned work on this issue. This is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6164, the ``National Institutes of Health Reform Act of 2006''. Despite certain shortcomings, this is an important piece of legislation that contains many significant and commendable goals.

I want to congratulate Chairman Barton on crafting and moving the first National Institutes of Health (NIH) reauthorization bill in 13 years and I thank him for reaching out to stakeholders and colleagues on both sides of the aisle. In view of the numerous stakeholder endorsements of this bill, it appears that a careful balance has been struck in many of the bill's provisions.

The bill is based on several recommendations of the Institute of Medicine report, ``Enhancing the Vitality of the National Institutes of

Health.'' I hope that the provisions on greater accountability and transparency will help NIH use its resources in the most effective, efficient, and equitable manner possible.

The greatest problem this Congress has created for NIH, however, is tight funding. After years of significant funding increases for NIH in its fight against disease, this Congress has effectively chosen to provide flat funding for NIH. After adjusting for inflation, this actually is a funding cut.

Further compromising NIH's funding stream is the House budget resolution, passed on a partisan basis, that has resulted in a budget allocation for the House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee that virtually guarantees the flat funding of programs in its jurisdiction, including NIH. Tax cuts for the wealthy have a higher priority than domestic programs such as education or preventing and curing diseases.

A vast increase in the number of grant applications coupled with a frozen level of funding has forced NIH into a fiscal crisis. This year, the NIH budget decreased for the first time in over 30 years. President Bush has asked that we keep NIH's funding at the same level as FY 2007, but doing so would demonstrate a lack of commitment to the goals and ideals of NIH.

We are voting today on a bill that purports to authorize a 5 percent increase in the NIH budget over each of the next 3 years. This is too small. And when the Congressional Budget Office scores this bill, it will score it as costing nothing. That is because it merely authorizes appropriations, and there is no reason to believe that there will be any increase this year, no matter what we do today.

But despite the shortcoming in authorization levels, the bill contains many useful reforms, and has the overwhelming support of those organizations in the front lines of the fight against disease. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to show my appreciation to the distinguished gentlewoman by revising and extending my remarks and also my respect and affection for the gentleman from New Mexico.

I rise to support the legislation. I urge the House to pass this legislation. It was the bloodiest battle. It commemorates the bloodiest battle in the history of Michigan, the bloodiest battle in the War of 1812, and the loss of 700 citizens and more, mostly from Kentucky, who came to Michigan to save it from the British and the Indians. The end result was that ``Remember the River Raisin'' became the battle cry in the War of 1812.

Our work today, I want you to know, makes a very important contribution to us remembering the history of Michigan, the history of the War of 1812 and matters important, not just to my people in Monroe, but to all of us.

I thank the gentleman from New Mexico and the distinguished gentlewoman from Guam and my friend, chairman of the committee, Mr. Pombo

Mr. Speaker, in six years our nation will mark the bicentennial of the War of 1812. The War of 1812 is one of the least studied, but most important episodes in our nation's history. Following the Revolutionary War, America was a weak nation and was preyed upon by Britain, France and Spain. Britain aimed to re-conquer the newly independent former colonies.

The legislation we are considering here today will preserve one of the most important stories of that war, the Battle of the River Raisin.

This legislation, quite simply, would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability of including the site of the River Raisin massacre into the National Park system.

The legislation already has support from the people of Monroe, Michigan, our governor, historians, archeologists and the National Park Service.

When the war broke out, it was expected that Britain would quickly defeat the poorly equipped and poorly trained Americans. Washington was burned, and British troops torched the Capitol.

Along the Western frontier, in what is today Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky, the war raged. When Detroit fell to the British a contingent of Kentuckians, under the direction of Gen. William Henry Harrison marched to retake the city.

On January 18, 1813 American forces crossed the River Raisin and attacked the British encampment on the other side. They forced the British to retreat. Four days later, British forces and their Native American allies counter-attacked. The Americans were routed.

When the British withdrew, they took with them any American who could travel as a prisoner. The injured were left. The next day, the Native allies returned and massacred the Americans and burned the surrounding town to the ground.

Of the 900 strong American force only 33 escaped death or capture. Throughout the American Army the cry ``Remember the Raisin'' rallied our troops. Soon thereafter, spurred by the memory of the Raisin, the Americans liberated Detroit and won the decisive Battle of the Thames in Ontario--guaranteeing America's victory in the war.

The River Raisin Battle is still the bloodiest battle ever in Michigan, and was the most violent battle on continental U.S. soil outside of the Civil War. It is an important episode in American history that needs to be recognized.

Since 1813, the site of the battle and massacre has been encroached upon increasingly by the town of Monroe. What was once a small farming settlement is now a bustling city.

Homes have been built where the American soldiers crossed the river. A factory, at one time, operated on the site; buildings were built and later torn down. Now, most of the land where the battle took place is in the possession of the City of Monroe and they want to make sure that it is protected for all Americans to visit.

The State of Michigan has provided $1 million for Brownfield redevelopment and rehabilitation of the site. The City of Monroe and the Monroe County Historical Society have each pledged $35,000 for the creation of a master plan for the entire battlefield site, and they will soon be applying for a Battlefield Protection Grant through the National Park Service.

A citizens' group has also formed to guide the development of the battlefield, raise funds for historic preservation and develop educational programs.

I am confident that the energy and commitment of the community would make this a wise inclusion into our National Park system.

I can think of no better way to honor the hundreds who gave their lives at the River Raisin than to make the site a permanent memorial to their bravery and sacrifice.

We need to do this in order to protect an important piece of our Nation's heritage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the three bills being considered today in House. The rush to bring these bills to the floor for a vote makes it clear that the majority has one thing on its mind, election year political concerns. As far as I can tell, these bills were not given hearings or marked up in committee. In fact, two of these bills were just introduced this week. Members have had very little time to look at these bills, and to consider the ramifications should these bills be enacted into law. This is no way to craft good, solid legislation.

These bills represent a half-hearted attempt at beefing up immigration enforcement and border security. Instead of taking a rifle shot approach to the immigration issue, the House and Senate should have went to conference on the immigration bills that passed each chamber. Unfortunately, rather than coming together and hashing out differences, the two Chambers began holding field hearings about why their Chamber's bill was better than the other Chamber's bill. It is time to stop these antics and appoint conferees so we can create a good bill.

Mr. Speaker, given the fact that we have had very little time to consider this legislation, and that we cannot even offer amendments on the floor to try and do what the committees could not, I will vote ``no'' and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, too many people, either personally or through a loved one, have felt the pain of cancer. It strikes 1 out of every 2 men and 1 out of every 3 women and will tragically claim more than 570,000 American lives this year alone.

Cancer is a complex disease that takes many forms. It can attack a single organ or the whole body. It can be caused by genetic factors, environmental circumstances, or both. Without early detection or treatment, it can lead to debilitating illness and often death.

On behalf of the Federal Government, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has led the fight against cancer since its inception in 1937. NCI conducts and supports research, training, health information dissemination, and other program with respect to the cause, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of cancer, rehabilitation from cancer, and the continuing care of cancer patients and their families.

The National Cancer Institute set for itself the goal of ending cancer suffering and death by 2015. Over the last several years, NCI has taken on this challenge by working with expert staff and identified critical paths needed to make the vision a reality. This includes developing a strategic plan and framework for use of funding, infrastructure, tools, and other resources.

Eliminating cancer suffering and death is a true possibility. Americans have already received the benefits of investment in research and other cancer programs--between 1991 and 2001, cancer deaths declined by more than 9 percent. Moreover, doctors are able to help patients defeat a number of cancers if detected early, including cervix, breast, colon, and prostrate cancer. And today 3 out of 4 children with cancer are cured.

The resolution that we are discussing today expresses Congress's, support of ending suffering and death due to cancer. But we can best push for the continued decline of cancer death and suffering by making it a national priority and making the right budget and policy choices to meet this goal by 2015.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the legislation before us today. This legislation is not real reform; it is merely an empty shell riddled with loopholes that will allow the culture of corruption that has infected this House to continue virtually unchecked.

This bill--for which the text has only been available for less than 12 hours--is simply a poorly masked effort by Republicans to distract voters from the fact that they have failed to live up to their promises to pass real ethics and lobbying reform. The only reform they can claim victory for is banning former Members who are now lobbyists from the Members' gym. While this is of course an admirable step, it is a baby step at most.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant--and I can truly say that this House has never been more in need of a good dose of sunshine. Over the past few years, we have seen some truly appalling abuses of power. Legislation has been passed without Members even knowing what they are voting for; votes have been held open for record amounts of time; and lobbyists have had more access to conference negotiations than Members of the conference. This shameful behavior should not be acceptable to Members of either party, and this bill is just another example of how Congress has done nothing to stop it.

I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and to make valid, meaningful reform a genuine priority for the 109th Congress.