Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5539, the North American Wetlands Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2006. I would also like to thank Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall for all their hard work and for ensuring swift consideration of this important legislation.

As a wildlife enthusiast, conservationist, and member of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, I am a strong supporter of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA). For that reason, I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 5539.

As this body knows, NAWCA is a unique public-private, partnership- based program that leverage non-federal funds to protect, restore and manage wetland habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. Since it was signed into law in 1989, NAWCA grants have spurred more than 2,000 partners to work on more than 1,100 projects, restoring nearly 23 million acres of wetlands in the United States, Canada and Mexico.

In addition, NAWCA provides an excellent return on a relatively modest federal investment. Over the years, the act has provided approximately $720 million in grant funds which have been matched by approximately $2.1 billion in partner funds.

Again, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Resources Committee for introducing this important legislation and look forward to continuing to work with him, Ranking Member Rahall, members of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus on this extremely successful program.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there is a more tragic day in the history of our Nation than September 11, 2001. Three thousand lives were snuffed out in the largest mass murder we have ever witnessed.

We are still grieving what was lost that day. The heroics of the fire fighters ascended the Twin Towers and the first responders who came to the Pentagon will never be forgotten. The passengers of United 93, who gave their lives to save ours, are heroes without parallel.

But I am saddened that the Republican leadership, rather than honoring the heroes and the victims of that day decided to offer a resolution that seems to be written by an RNC focus group rather than out of respect for the solemnity of the day.

When I woke up on September 12, 2001 this nation was as united as I had seen it since December 7, 1941. The intense partisan divide vanished overnight and was replaced by a national consensus. Political opportunism was replaced by notions of shared sacrifice for a common good.

Internationally, America had the world's sympathy. From London, to Tel Aviv, to Tehran spontaneous support rallies took place. American tourists spoke of hugs and flowers from complete strangers; in these days we had a chance to bring the world together.

Now we are more divided, more polarized, and more conflicted, at home and abroad, then ever before. The unanimity of purpose that we had on September 12 has been replaced by partisanship, and that partisanship has interfered with the very important work we must engage in to make this nation safe from terrorism.

Making America safe is work that cannot be reduced to simple slogans. Five years after however, Republican leadership has offered rhetoric but little more. We have yet to fully consider all of the bi-partisan recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Our ports still do not inspect even ten percent of the cargo that comes into them; air cargo is unscreened; and nuclear material across the world remains unguarded.

In Afghanistan, the war with Al Qaeda and the Taliban is at risk of unraveling. Radicals are once again barring girls from schools; the reconstruction has stopped; and terrorists are targeting the elected government.

There have been victories, but much more needs to be done. Symbolic resolutions are a poor substitute for concrete policy. Our struggle to make America safe and to discredit the terrorist ideology will be a long one. It takes more than rhetoric.

It takes actions like fully funding our security needs; making sure our armed forces have the resources they need; supporting our intelligence agencies; and having a foreign policy that changes societies through good will and diplomacy rather than at gun point.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the families who lost loved ones that day and those Americans who continue to risk their lives for our safety here at home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Eppinger Manufacturing Company on the occasion of its 100th anniversary.

Lou Eppinger created his simple metal spoon lure in 1906. It quickly became known for its fish attracting wobble. He patented it as the ``Osprey'' in 1912. Following World War I, he renamed the lure to ``Dardevle'' in honor of the 4th Marine Brigade the Allies nicknamed the Dare Devils. It has since earned such accolades as one of ``The 10 Best Lures in the World'' and ``50 Best Lures of All Time.''

In the beginning Lou Eppinger sold 500 Dardevles a year. Today Eppinger Manufacturing sells over 2 million a year and produces 17,000 different varieties of lures. This can be attributed to his strong belief in advertising. Before he turned over the company to his nephew Ed Eppinger, Lou advised, ``Advertise even if you have only a nickel left to your name.''

At a time when many corporations are moving their business overseas, Eppinger has kept its manufacturing plant in Dearborn for decades. Many of its employees have been working at Eppinger for over 30 years. Today Eppinger is run by Karen Eppinger, the grand-niece of the founder, and her two children, Jennifer and Wesley.

I must also mention my own personal affection for Eppinger's quality products. Whenever I had a chance to fish, I knew that with one of Lou's masterpieces on my line, the brook trout didn't stand a chance. I owe many big catches and many fine meals to Lou's masterful work and durable product.

I would like to ask my colleagues to rise and join me in commending Eppinger Manufacturing Company for 100 years of service to the community and area sportsmen. I extend my best wishes to Eppinger for continued success in the fishing lure business.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I love the people who are pushing this bill, but it is a bad bill. It is triumph of emotion over common sense. We have before us a solution, a poor one, to a nonexistent problem.

We have many things that need to be addressed in this Congress, but here we are putting on the floor a piece of legislation poorly thought out, without having had proper hearings or proceedings, over the opposition of a committee, when we have many other things that need doing; health care for Americans, minimum wage, a budget deficit of terrifying proportions, and the appropriations bills and the budget have not yet been completed. While the Nation is at war, working families struggle to make ends meet, and government runs record deficits the leadership has put this curious piece of legislation on the floor.

The bill would eliminate humane slaughter of horses. If there is a complaint about how the horses are being slaughtered or transported, there is a way for this body to address that, and I am sure in good will this body would in the exercise of its oversight powers do exactly that.

The bill does not count for the high cost of caring for these unwanted animals, nor does it consider the impact that this legislation is going to have on the environment.

You know, we have a curious situation where we are going to have to wind up cremating every horse that dies in the country, or we are going to have to incinerate them. I have no idea how we are going to dispose of a huge number of 1,500 to 2,000 pounds of horse each time one of these events happens.

Now, basic care costs $1,800. There is no requirement here that a person sell or slaughter his horse. The owner of the horse can do what he wants with it. That makes eminent good sense to me.

But I don't think anyone has thought out the consequences of this legislation, what is going to happen with regard to the massive number of horses that are going to have to be incinerated or cremated and the consequences of that with regard to the environment.

This is a bad piece of legislation. It should be rejected.

I thank my dear friend for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, like many others in this chamber, I had the opportunity of knowing Bob Tisch, wonderful gentleman, great patriot, public servant, a man concerned about the well-being of his community and a man who greatly loved his family and the Nation of which he was a part. He was also a man who was extraordinary in his charity to America, to its people and to those of almost all parts of the country. He was a great human being, a wonderful friend. He will be missed.

I am delighted that we are honoring him. I thank the committee for what they are doing. I extend with them my condolences to the wonderful family of our dear friend Preston Robert Tisch, but I also rejoice that we are honoring a great American well deserving of that today, and I thank my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2491, the International Solid Waste and Management Act of 2005. I want to express my particular gratitude and commendations to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and for his leadership and the fine way in which he has handled this legislation. We in Michigan are grateful to the gentleman from Ohio and want him to know that he has our appreciation.

This is long overdue. It has been sponsored with great energy by the Members of this delegation in a bipartisan fashion, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Upton, Mr. Levin, Mr. Schwarz of Michigan, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Kildee, Mrs. Miller, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Ehlers and Mr. Camp have all worked very hard to bring this legislation to the floor in the shape in which it is.

The legislation came out of the Energy and Commerce Committee a year ago. It requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the notice and consent provisions of the bilateral U.S.-Canadian Agreement, an Agreement that the United States signed in 1986, to govern the transboundary movement of hazardous waste, and amended in 1992 to include municipal solid waste.

Unfortunately, the Administration has made no effort to implement the bilateral agreement. Legislation was promised ``soon'' by this Administration more than 3 years ago. It has yet to arrive. The bill provides criteria to ensure that the views of State and local governments are properly taken into account in implementing the bilateral agreement and adds the necessary statutory enforcement authority.

The situation in Michigan with regard to Canadian waste continues to get worse. Since 1996, when Michigan started collecting data, the amount of Canadian waste being disposed of in Michigan has risen by 335 percent. Essentially, our State is being used as a dumping ground by the Canadians.

Now, I note that the Administration should be complying with the notice and consent provisions of the bilateral agreement which requires that both countries use ``best efforts'' absent regulations. The bilateral agreement is especially important because Canada is a party to the Basel Convention and the United States is not. The Basel Convention specifically prohibits Basel parties from exporting waste to a nonparty. Thus, the United States-Canadian bilateral agreement is the only way waste can travel between the two countries at all.

Unfortunately, despite several letters that I, along with our two capable and hardworking Michigan Senators, Senators Levin and Stabenow, have sent to the Administration, the White House has decided to turn a blind eye to the needs of Michigan.

More than 400 trucks carry waste into Michigan every day from Canada. These are more than just a nuisance. The trucks and the cargo pose an environmental risk, a security risk, a potential hazard to health, as well as being detrimental to our roads. And they have even been used to smuggle narcotics into Michigan.

The citizens of Michigan need action by this Congress, and I am pleased that we are moving forward in the House. This legislation must be made a priority in the Senate. It will do much to help a situation that is intolerable.

While I am pleased with the bill coming to the House floor, and while Canadian waste makes up the majority of waste imports into Michigan, we have a significant amount of waste coming in from other States; and as such, I

look forward to working with my colleagues on a comprehensive bill giving the States the right to regulate unwanted trash imports into their borders.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 2491.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to Mr. Levin from Michigan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this has been, I think, a very useful and very respectful debate. It has been one which does credit for all concerned, and I repeat my commendations to my colleagues who have done such a fine job of bringing this legislation to the floor, and I particularly commend my friend from Ohio, Mr. Gillmor, for his labors.

We have before us in Michigan a situation which we clearly find intolerable. It is one which has to have something done. Happily, over here, we have been able to get this legislation to the floor. I hope that this bill will be taken up by the Senate in proper fashion and time so that it can go to the President and can be signed and become law. That would be wonderful.

I also hope that the deal which has been cut by our two Senators will be able to bear fruit because it will result in termination of a massive amount of waste coming in from Canada if it is implemented according to its terms.

I want to commend also our Senators, and I think our people back home are very appreciative of what the Senators did because what they have accomplished is to give us something which will have immediate effect if the agreement is honored by the Canadians. I have received assurances from our senior Senator that our Senators will do everything possible to get this legislation which we are now considering, H.R. 2491, enacted into law in the Senate.

We have two arrows rather than one for our bow. We are able to move forward towards the implementation of the agreement achieved in the Senate; and we are able, with the help of everybody concerned, including the leadership in the Senate, to move forward on a piece of legislation which will offer significant relief to our State. Much more will remain to be done after we have concluded, but at least we are beginning to make strides forward, and we are doing so in two ways, in two places, with prospects of success for each.

I urge us not to fall into any partisan arguments here.

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

If the gentleman will yield, to that I say a very pious amen.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation responds to the fact that physicians are currently scheduled to receive a significant reduction in their Medicare payments over the next 5 to 10 years. The Medicare Trustees have projected that Medicare payments to physicians will be cut by 4.6 percent in January. And, if Congress does not act, physicians will see a cumulative cut of approximately 37 percent through 2015. Providers in Michigan alone stand to lose $8 billion over this time period if the cuts that are forecast are allowed to take effect.

My legislation would provide a temporary halt to these Medicare physician payment cuts. It would provide a positive physician update, expected to be between 2 and 3 percent, in both 2007 and 2008. The update would reflect physician practice cost inflation. This follows the advice of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission's recommended formula of increases in physician practice costs minus productivity adjustment.

This legislation would also protect beneficiaries from any additional premium increases that would otherwise be caused by this change in physician payments for these 2 years. For seniors living on fixed incomes, unexpected increases in their living expenses can impose hardship. The Part B premium already consumes 9 percent of the average Social Security check. Thus, the bill ensures that beneficiaries would not see an increase in beneficiary premiums due to Congressional action to increase physician payments.

It is critical that Congress protect the right of beneficiaries to see their doctor in Medicare. The vast majority of seniors and people with disabilities are and will remain in Medicare where they have the freedom to choose their own doctor and get the care that is right for them.

While ideally we will develop a new payment system that integrates payment and quality, we do not have enough information and data to implement such a system at this time. My legislation would provide a temporary increase for doctors while Congress continues to work toward a permanent solution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my dear friend, Mr. James J. Padilla, as he retires from a rewarding career with Ford Motor Company, where he served as President and Chief Operating Officer.

Born in Detroit, Mr. Padilla earned his bachelor's and master's degrees in chemical engineering, as well as a master's degree in economics all from the University of Detroit. Mr. Padilla started his career with Ford Motor Company in 1966 as a quality control engineer. Ten years later, he accepted the first of what would be many managerial positions he would hold during the balance of his tenure with Ford.

On his way to becoming the President and Chief Operating Officer of Ford Motor Company, Mr. Padilla served as Manufacturing Operations Manager for several of Ford's most successful lines of cars. He is also largely to thank for the dramatic turnaround of the Jaguar line, for which he served as Director of Engineering and Manufacturing.

As Ford's Executive Vice President of the America's, Mr. Padilla spearheaded Ford Motor Company's North American recovery, vastly improving the quality and innovation of this division's products.

In 2004, Mr. Padilla became the President and Chief Operating Officer of Ford Motor Company and took his seat on the Company's Board of Directors. In his final post with Ford, Mr. Padilla was responsible for the global automotive business, overseeing marketing, manufacturing, engineering and other operations in more than 200 markets with over 327,000 employees.

Over the course of Mr. Padilla's illustrious career, he has received numerous honors including Mexico's Ohtli Award, the Society of Plastics Engineers 2004 Executive Leadership Award, and the Society of Automotive Engineers' Manufacturing Leadership Award. Mr. Padilla is also a member of the Hispanic Engineer National Achievement Awards Conference Hall of Fame. In 2003, Mr. Padilla was honored by the Gabriel Richards Historical Society for his outstanding vision and leadership toward the revitalization of Detroit and the surrounding communities.

As James J. Padilla enters his retirement years, I wish him and his wife, Alice, the best and I sincerely hope that he can enjoy a relaxing and rewarding future. I thank him for everything he has done for Ford Motor Company and the State of Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to join me and all of my colleagues in honoring James J. Padilla for his leadership, dedication, and drive over the course of his 40 years of loyal service with Ford Motor Company.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. There once was a time when we considered legislation under open rules. Any Member could offer an amendment. That was the way I, as chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, brought bills to the House floor.

Eventually amendments were limited, perhaps under the guise of efficiency. But certainly the minority should be allowed to offer an alternative. Democrats brought an alternative to the Committee on Rules. It was supported by every Democrat on our committee.

It was not a radical alternative. It was identical to the bill that passed the Senate unanimously, with the addition of language to protect patient privacy. Yet this rule blocks the offering of our proposal.

If my Republican colleagues disagree with this substitute, fine--vote against it, but don't hide behind a rule that prevents us from offering it.

If we had an open rule, we could fairly debate this important issue. All of us want to improve health information technology. One hundred Senators voted for a bill to do so, but under this closed rule, if a Member of the House wanted to offer that Senate bill, which was sponsored by Republican Majority Leader Frist, along with Senator Enzi, Kennedy, and Clinton, he or she could not do so.

That's right--my rubber stamp Republican colleagues are about to pass a rule that makes sure that a bill that passed unanimously in the Senate cannot even get a vote in the House. It is a closed rule and that

means only amendments that the Republican leaders can accept will get a vote.

I have read that many of my Republican colleagues are trying to distance themselves from the policies of the House Republican leadership. Well, here is your chance. Reject a rule that prohibits Members from offering a substitute that consists of a bill passed unanimously by 100 Senators. Reject a rule that prohibits an amendment dealing with the privacy of personal medical records.

But we know the fix is in. Why else did not a single Republican Member go to the Rules Committee to ask for a rule to allow them to offer a bill supported by 100 Senators? Why else did not a single Republican Member care to offer an amendment to protect the privacy of medical records?

A vote for this closed rule is, quite simply, a vote against bipartisanship. It is a vote against privacy protections for Americans. And it is a vote against getting a bill signed into law this Congress.

Well, Mr. Chairman, here we are again. Bad legislation, bad procedure, unfair behavior by the majority, and the inability to have a proper discussion of the matter before us or to have an honest chance to amend a bad bill.

My Republican colleagues are wasting a fine opportunity to make real progress in an area in which most Members of Congress are highly supportive, health information technology. We have a chance not only to save money and time, but we also have a chance to save lives. But we won't even allow a proper discussion or fair and decent amendments.

We have a chance to help providers to transform their practices so that they could better serve the needs of their patients and so that there could be electronic communications with providers, health plans and with the government.

The Democrats sought a substitute to the committee bill under the rules. The Rules Committee, as usual, rejected it. So we are functioning under a gag rule. This alternative was identical to the bill the Senate passed unanimously last November with strong privacy protections, and with bipartisan sponsorship and support. The Senate bill, S. 1418, was jointly introduced after being negotiated between Senators Frist, Clinton, Enzi and Kennedy. But we won't be permitted to vote on it today. We must hear from our Republicans as to why it is they are afraid to allow proper debate, or why it is that they won't allow a proper vote on matters which could strongly, broadly and importantly affect their constituents and mine.

The bill before us falls short. First, it makes no progress towards protecting the privacy and security of health information. Expanded use of electronic health care systems clearly has a great potential benefit, but it also poses serious threats to patients' privacy by creating greater amounts of personal information susceptible to thieves, rascals, rogues and unauthorized users.

President Bush said something to my Republican colleagues, and I hope every once in a while they listen to their leader. He said this: ``I presume I am like most Americans. I think my medical records should be private. I don't want people prying into them. I don't want people looking at them. I don't want people opening them up unless I say it's fine for you to do so.''

Well, why is it that you won't protect, then, the records of people and share the concerns of the President?

Second, H.R. 4157 fails to include sufficient Federal funding to foster the adoption and implementation of health information technology such as electronic medical records. Start-up costs are a very significant failure and a barrier that physicians face.

Third, H.R. 4157 goes too far in undermining fraud and abuse laws as its response to needed investment. The exceptions provided in this bill to the Stark self-referral and anti-kickback statutes potentially encourage biased decision making about a patient's treatment, and it sets up a situation where a doctor may be compelled to be confined in a system run by a particular hospital or health care provider.

Fourth, the bill falls short in establishing comprehensive standards. It does little or nothing to promote the adoption of standards by providers. The fastest way to accomplish this would be to have the Federal Government to abide by the standards that it adopts for electronic communications so that others in the private sector will follow. H.R. 4157 does none of this.

The bill fails seriously on issues of patient privacy, funding for health information technology, providing and promoting electronic communications between providers, and protecting against fraud. This is a bad bill. A chance to write good law has been rejected. The bill should be rejected, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on the two sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished friend from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose these Internet predators. My good friend, for whom I have great respect, the chairman of this subcommittee from Michigan, opposes them. Everybody else in the Chamber opposes them. Every right-thinking and decent American opposes this practice. What we need, however, is good legislation which will address the problem. What we need is legislation which will be effective.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce had a number of hearings on these matters. It is interesting to note that, in the process of that, you can't find anything about there being a problem at schools and libraries. Now, this legislation has attracted both the strong opposition of the schools and the libraries and the Chamber of Commerce, which points out to us that this bill needs more work. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not ready for prime time.

The unfortunate thing about this legislation is that, rather than dealing with the real problem, which is kids and young people who are making these communications with sexual predators from their own home or their own den or from their own basement or from their own room, it deals with schools and libraries. Now, that is very fine if we had some record which would show that this is a real problem or that there is not a better cure somewhere else, which in fact there is.

The regrettable thing about this legislation is its rush to the floor. I can't tell whether it is a bunch of Republicans who are panicky about the next election or whether it is a situation in which everybody is trying to rush to get out of town to go on an August vacation. But the simple fact of the matter is this legislation is not going to do anything to stop the abuses about which there is a very legitimate complaint.

So here we are passing legislation, I suspect, to help some of my panicky Republican colleagues save themselves in a difficult election, or which will let people go home and say, oh, look what we did. But this process has not only been flawed, it has guaranteed that the matters that we discuss now do not really address the situation which confronts us.

And worse than that, we are going to be right back here at some future time, after the folks at home tell us what a sorry job we did in dealing with this matter. Because the problem of sexual predators continuing to work the young people is going to continue under this legislation, unabated; and we are going to come back here with red faces and say how we have made a mistake and we have to do more.

The simple fact of the matter is this legislation was sprung on us. I am told that it was written last night. We barely saw it before the process on the floor started. And the committee process, which enables us to look at legislation in a sound and responsible way, and the committee process, which enables us to work together to put good legislation on the floor, legislation which is carefully thought out and which the wisdom of all of the Members is brought to bear on the question, is not something which we find in the process in which we are now engaged.

So now we are on the floor with a piece of legislation poorly thought out, with an abundance of surprises, which carries with it that curious smell of partisanship and panic, but which is not going to address the problems.

We have a piece of legislation on which we have less than an hour to talk, and we have no opportunity whatsoever to amend the proposal. We can vote ``yes'' or we can vote ``no.'' Well, most Members, I suspect, will do the politically wise thing, and I will join them in it, and that is, I am going to hold my nose and vote for this legislation in the full awareness that it is not going to address the problem at all and that it is a political placebo for a very, very, serious problem.

This is, essentially, a shin plaster on a cancer. This is a piece of legislation which is going to be notorious for its ineffectiveness and, of course, for its political benefits to some of the Members hereabout.

It is, in a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, going to be as useful as side pockets on a cow in addressing the problem about which we are all deeply concerned, where we have a duty to our constituents to legislate strongly and well and where we have a duty to have an open process to hear the comments of our people, those that we serve, about what the legislation does to find out how we do the best job of serving the American people. Those events are absolutely not to be found in the history of this legislation.

I really regret that my colleagues on the other side have chosen to behave this way, but it seems to be a characteristic of this House under the leadership with which we are afflicted. Good legislation is withheld, poor legislation is written, and the opportunity for the people to be heard or for the legislation to be protected is totally unavailable.

The process stinks. The legislation is weak. The legislation will be ineffective, it will accomplish nothing, and we will all share red faces about this bumbling endeavor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a distinguished public servant, Mr. Tim Friedman, on the occasion of his retirement from the U.S. House of Representatives and the House Democratic Cloakroom.

Mr. Friedman has shown exceptional commitment to public service throughout his career in the Democratic Cloakroom of the

House of Representatives. A native of Lackawanna, NY, Mr. Friedman arrived in Washington in 1976 to start his career with the House of Representatives under the patronage of the Honorable Dan Rostenkowski. He began his career as a Doorkeeper and transferred to the office of the House Sergeant at Arms in 1982, working as an assistant to the Honorable Jack Russ. In 1985, Mr. Friedman was appointed as Assistant Manager of the House Democratic Cloakroom by Speaker of the House Thomas P. O'Neill.

The last 30 years, Mr. Friedman has served the House as a tireless and diligent worker. Under his guidance and hard work, the Cloakroom has become a place fitting for the U.S. House of Representatives. He has become an institution to those Members who have served this legislative body and he will be deeply missed.

We wish Mr. Friedman well, and we all deeply appreciate his dedicated and decent service. I will certainly miss him. I wish Tim and his wife Colleen many good years, filled with family, friends, good health, and plenty of golf. On behalf of my staff, myself and my lovely wife Deborah: Thank you, Tim.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the tremendous works of Reverend S.L. Roberson, of Ypsilanti, Michigan as he marks his 52nd year of service to his church and his community.

Born in Moundville, Alabama, Reverend Roberson moved to Ypsilanti when he was two years old and has remained there since. He attended school in Ypsilanti and went to Eastern Michigan University for his undergraduate degree and continued his education at Detroit Bible College, ultimately earning his Doctorate of Divinity at Urban Bible College.

While honorably serving his country in the United States Marine Corps, the Reverend formed the unique perspective he has on the world, one that would help him in his decision to serve his fellow man. After his military service, Mr. Roberson went to work for Ford Motor Company in their Labor Relations and Personnel Services of Industrial Relations Department ultimately staying for 33 years. Through this position, he was able to help many individuals find employment, in turn bettering their own lives. The Reverend's other services are numerous, including posts as Treasurer of the Huron Valley District Association and President of the Ypsilanti Housing Commission.

In 1954, Reverend Roberson heard the call to service and became the Pastor of the Metropolitan Memorial Baptist Church in Ypsilanti. He has stayed with Metropolitan Baptist for 52 years and by every account his service has been productive. He provides leadership and moral guidance for his congregation, in turn leading the community through his example. His tenure has been so successful that he has received the Lawyers Association's Liberty Bell, the Ypsilanti Police Department's Honor Award, the Washtenaw Community College's Service Award and the city of Ypsilanti has designated December 14th as Reverend S.L. Roberson day. His faith also led him to serve as Chaplain of the Ypsilanti Police Department.

Reverend Roberson is a man of faith who embodies the characteristics of service, love and decency. I am glad and fortunate to know the Reverend and the people of Ypsilanti have truly benefited from such an upstanding and committed civic and spiritual leader. I thank the Reverend for his service and wish him the best in his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with great sadness over the events in Lebanon.

I believe we must speak with one voice that Israel has a right to defend itself. I believe we are unanimous in our opinion that Hezbollah began this conflict; and I believe that we are unanimous that Iran and Syria continue to destructively meddle in the emerging democracy of Lebanon.

This resolution comes at a time when Lebanon--a potential unwavering ally to the United States, a western looking democracy, has become an unfortunate proxy in a war between Israel and extremism.

Right now, there are 5,000 of my constituents who are facing bombing raids and a harrowing escape from war. They were in Lebanon visiting friends, relatives, childhood homes, or just enjoying Lebanon's sites, and now they are in a war zone. As their representative, my first responsibility is to them.

The events of the last week have been horrific. The violence on both sides of the Israeli-Lebanon border has escalated, and more and more people, mostly civilians, have seen their lives forever changed.

Innocent Israelis and innocent Lebanese have been pulled into a conflict not of their own making. The ``Peace of the Brave'', that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin gave his life for, is today a lost hope.

Diplomacy, which the last Administration was criticized for using too much, seems to be a dirty word today.

This House, which after each Middle East conflagration brings a resolution of resolve and solidarity to the floor, could do much more to alleviate the suffering of the Lebanese.

Last summer, we passed unanimously a resolution that said, the United States would support efforts to enhance Lebanon's sovereignty. The same resolution said, ``The United States should aid the people of Lebanon in their efforts to restore the separation of powers, the rule of law, and a proper respect for fundamental freedoms of every citizen.''

We promised a commitment to the people of Lebanon that is not entirely reflected in this resolution. We said we would support them, and in my view the best way we can support them is to bring about a cessation of violence.

Israel's right to defend itself is absolute, but I am concerned that the current action will make it impossible for Lebanon's small military to properly assert itself along the troubled border.

We should support Prime Minister Tony Blair's plan to expand the international force along the southern border. We should also begin to rethink our own aid package to Lebanon's democratic government.

The United States can truly change hearts and minds in the Middle East if we commit ourselves to helping to rebuild Lebanon's infrastructure, help professionalize and equip their national military, and provide the economic assistance they will need to keep their restive population employed and prosperous.

That is where I believe this resolution should be focused, and I believe it is in that omission that this Congress' policy is woefully inadequate.

The events of the past few days are heartbreaking. Not only because the unfolding violence involves our dear, and unwavering ally, Israel but also because it has sucked in Lebanon, a fragile nation that has had a bitter history and has only recently begun to reemerge from its dark past.

Madam Speaker, most tragically it was only 6 years ago that we were on the cusp of something almost magical--peaceful coexistence in the Middle East. The engagement of the United States was vital to that.

The brave dream laid out by Yitzhak Rabin was shattered by an assassin's bullet. The brave concessions by Ehud Barak and the support of President Clinton almost realized that dream.

But I believe we can get back to that moment. I believe it will take a fully engaged United States. I believe it will take a substantial investment on our part as a Congress to provide Lebanon and Israel with the assistance they need to overcome this crisis and reestablish security along their border.

Unfortunately, this resolution does not address these issues, and is an inadequate statement of policy to the parties who are friends of peace.

Madam Speaker, at this time I want to enter into the Record the names of twelve members of the Bzeih family who were killed as a result of the fighting--they have family in Michigan that held a memorial service for them on Sunday.

Hajji Fatme Bzeih, 80 years old; Hajji Thanya, 74 years old; Souad Nassour, 38 years old; Mariam Naem, 52 years old; Mohamad Naem, 17 years old; Malaak Naem, 17 years old; Hussein Naem, 11 years old; Naeem Naem, 24 years old; Ammal Bzeih, 42 years old; Khouloud Bzeih, 18 years old; Farah Bzeih, 12 years old; and Aziza Bzeih, 9 years old.

Mr. Speaker, helping children learn and be successful in life should be a priority for us. It is unfortunate the Bush administration does not agree. This bill, the ``Protecting Children's Health in Schools Act of 2006'', will stop the harmful Medicaid cuts proposed by the President so that disabled children can continue receiving the medical services they need in order to continue to learn in school. Without this bill, the administration's actions are placing children's health and education in jeopardy by leaving the brunt of the burden on already stretched State education systems.

Since 1986 Federal Medicaid policy has explicitly recognized the essential nature of the link between Medicaid and health care for low- income children whose special healthcare needs make management of and access to treatment in school settings an imperative. Recent actions by the administration, however, including audits and proposed regulatory cuts in payments to schools for providing healthcare services in the President's FY2007 budget, have created an atmosphere of uncertainty about the continued ability of children with serious and chronic health conditions to get the health care they need that will allow them to attend school in mainstream, community settings.

Rather than discouraging the provision of health care in schools, the administration should be providing extensive technical assistance to States to optimize children's opportunities to receive needed school- based health care. This would enable them to learn in community educational settings instead of being forced to remain at home, which is fully permitted under the current law. Close to 7 million children currently receive education and related services through school districts ranging from assistive technology for students with hearing disabilities to personal aides for students with several developmental or physical disabilities. These services are determined, based on a student's medical needs, to be necessary for the ``appropriate'' education of that student.

This bill I am introducing with Representatives Whitfield, Miller, and many others, would set forward clear guidelines in the statute for providing and receiving reimbursement for this care, rather than put schools, families, and their disabled children, and States in a situation where they are uncertain whether or not these medically- necessary services and the related administrative and transportation costs will be covered under Medicaid. This legislation has the support of the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, the National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition, the Council of Great City Schools, and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, among other organizations.

The administration's current moves and proposed budget cuts curtailing Medicaid coverage and provision of health services in schools endanger the health and educational opportunities for 7 million children. This bill, in essence, maintains and protects current law coverage for children with special needs.