Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure I am actually speaking on the right bill, and I am speaking to the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, and I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding.

I do rise in opposition to a politically motivated bill brought to this House today to provide cover for certain Members who have tough elections ahead of them. It seems really simple: Vote for one type of stem cell research and then you can oppose another. This way you can appeal to voters on both sides of the issue.

But this bill is rather meaningless because there is nothing preventing researchers now from conducting research on stem cells derived from sources other than embryos.

I wish to enter into the Record a letter from the American Society for Cell Biology, which contains 27 signatories including Nobel Prize winners, chancellors of universities, researchers from across this country who are opposing this legislation not because it is evil but because it is a waste of resources.

The truth is there exists no way to extract embryonic stem cells without then having to discard those embryos, which, by the design of the underlying legislation, would have been discarded anyway. This would not be done without the expressed approval of the donating parent.

If you truly support giving hope to the millions of Americans who suffer today from diseases like ALS, cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, then you support feasible embryonic stem cell research that can be done today.

And those of you who claim that there is no hope for stem cell research are wrong. NIH-funded research, limited as it currently is, has already shown definite progress in this area. In the case of heart disease, scientists have been able to successfully use stem cells to create and transplant living heart cells in rats. The promise of these advancements for the human heart is incredible. This is surely a pro- life piece of legislation if there ever was one.

And there are so many more examples of the lifesaving potential of the

stem cell research we already know about, but our scientific researchers only need the resources to do this.

So I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this bill as a show of support for enactment into law of H.R. 810, voted for in a bipartisan way in this House, today voted for in the Senate. This is what the American people want. This is what we have supported. This is the only vehicle by which we can ensure expanded stem cell research and the ability to save lives.

The American Society

for Cell Biology,

Bethesda, MD, July 17, 2006.

Hon. Orrin Hatch,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Hatch: The Senate will shortly be considering

legislation to permit the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

to fund research with additional and new and existing human

embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines. As staunch supporters of

biomedical research and particularly research with hESCs, we

trust that you will exert your influence to ensure passage of

H.R. 810. Scientists engaged in ESC research are counting on

you and like-minded Senate colleagues to assure its passage.

The President must also be persuaded not to veto this

legislation, for if we continue on the path he set 5 years

ago, United States investigators will be out of the running

in converting embryonic stem cells into important new

therapies. It is especially frustrating and demeaning that

American scientists are prohibited from using their NIH grant

funds for research with the hundreds of hESC lines generated

outside the United States or generated in this country with

private funding.

Also, S. 2754, the ``Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell

Therapies Enhancement Act,'' sponsored by Senators Specter

and Santorum, seems to us, superfluous. Ostensibly, it is

intended to authorize research ``to derive human pluripotent

stem cell lines using techniques that do not harm embryos.''

However, at present, such research is currently permissible

and, therefore, does not require congressional legislation;

indeed, the National Institutes of Health may currently be

funding such efforts.

Moreover, all the alternative procedures advanced in the

report by the President's Council on Bioethics and other

alternative methods that have been suggested encounter

equally vexing ethical concerns. Hence, S. 2754 is unneeded

and if passed would deflect from the current urgent need for

generating new stem cell lines from excess IVF-derived

blastocysts.

Sincerely,

Peter Agre, M.D., Vice Chancellor for Science and

Technology, James B. Duke Professor of Cell Biology, Duke

University School of Medicine, Nobel Prize in Chemistry,

2003; Bruce Alberts, Professor of Biochemistry and

Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco,

President Emeritus, National Academy of Sciences; Mary C.

Beckerle, Ph.D., Ralph E. and Willia T. Main, Presidential

Professor, University of Utah, President, American Society

for Cell Biology; David Baltimore, President, California

Institute of Technology, Nobel Prize in Physiology or

Medicine, 1975; Paul Berg, Cahill Professor of Biochemistry,

Emeritus, Stanford University, Nobel Prize in Chemistry,

1980; J. Michael Bishop, Nobel Prize in Physiology or

Medicine, 1989; Helen M. Blau, Ph.D., Donald E. and Delia B.

Baxter, Professor, Director, Baxter Laboratory in Genetic

Pharmacology, Stanford University School of Medicine.

Michael S. Brown, MD, Nobel Prize in Physiology or

Medicine, 1985; Linda Buck, Ph.D., Howard Hughes Medical

Institute, Division of Basic Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer

Research Center, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2004;

Johann Deisenhofer, Regental Professor, Investigator, Howard

Hughes Medical Institute, The University of Texas

Southwestern Medical Center, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1988;

Joseph L. Goldstein, M.D., Regental Professor of Molecular

Genetics and Internal Medicine, University of Texas

Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Nobel Prize in

Physiology or Medicine, 1985; Larry Goldstein, Investigator,

Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Cellular and

Molecular Medicine, University of California, San Diego

School of Medicine; Alfred G. Gilman, M.D., Ph.D., Dallas,

Texas, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1994; Paul

Greengard, Professor, The Rockefeller University, Nobel Prize

in Physiology or Medicine, 2000; Lee Hartwell, Ph.D.,

President & Director, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center,

Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2001; Dudley

Herschbach, Baird Research Professor of Science, Harvard

University, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1986.

H. Robert Horvitz, Professor of Biology, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, Nobel Prize in Physiology or

Medicine, 2002; Douglas Koshland, Carnegie Institution,

Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute; Paul C.

Lauterbur, Center for Advanced Study Professor of Chemistry &

Distinguished Professor of Medical Information Sciences,

University of Illinois, Nobel Prize for Physiology or

Medicine, 2003; Sean J. Morrison, Investigator, Howard Hughes

Medical Institute, Director, Center for Stem Cell Biology,

University of Michigan; Eric N. Olson, Department of

Molecular Biology, University of Texas, Southwestern Medical

Center at Dallas; Thomas D. Pollard, MD, Sterling Professor

and Chair, Molecular Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale

University; Randy Schekman, HHMI Investigator, Dept. of

Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California,

Berkeley; Phillip A. Sharp, Institute Professor and Center

for Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1993; Maxine F.

Singer, A.B., Ph.D., D.Sc., President Emerita, Carnegie

Institution of Washington; Harold Varmus, MD, President,

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Chair, Joint Steering

Committee for Public Policy, Former Director, National

Institutes of Health, Nobel Laureate in Medicine or

Physiology, 1989; Eric Wieschaus, Department of Molecular

Biology, Princeton University, Nobel Prize in Physiology or

Medicine, 1995.

Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago, this Congress enacted a protection, in a bipartisan, bicoastal way, protection for our coasts, recognizing that we have a Federal responsibility for our deep water oceans and the treasures that they hold in store for all Americans.

Today before us we will have a bill to undo these 25 years of bipartisan, bicoastal protection with a bill that is both unnecessary, environmentally damaging and fiscally irresponsible. It is a real budget buster, creating a new entitlement program for a few States and draining the resources to the rest of the States that will be left high and dry.

Don't be fooled by the bill's temptation because of a cost that is well below what eventually will end up into the tens of billions of dollars. The Bush administration says that over the next 60 years, it is a $600 billion giveaway. And this is something that happens at a time when we need to look for reducing consumption, more fuel efficiency and investing in alternatives.

Vote ``no'' on the Pombo bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.

Over the years I have served in this body, I have heard Members from both sides of the aisle talk about the benefits of democracy. Last night, for example, Mr. Diaz-Balart spoke quite movingly about the importance of democracy during consideration of an amendment to end bilingual voting. He spoke of, and I quote, that sacred right, that is, voting.

Today, with this rule, we see that this sacred right doesn't really extend to Members of the House of Representatives. The rule before us brings up a bill being furiously rewritten in the dead of night. It is unclear what some of these amendments or what their provisions really mean, and the House is certainly not being given a fair opportunity to consider competing views, other than that put forward by the Republican leadership.

H.R. 4671 affects some very important issues, our energy future, the preservation of our ocean resources, the impact on our budget. Yet this rule stifles debate and limits our understanding of how the bill affects these important issues and more.

The underlying bill is unnecessary, environmentally damaging, fiscally irresponsible. In addition to being irresponsible, it is also deceptive. Although the legislation has been in the works for months, as of 10:30 this morning, we still don't have a CBO score.

If you read the paragraph in the bill that describes it, you can't figure out, but you do know that it is fuzzy math, that it hides the true costs. The only thing that is clear is it postpones the bill's cost until later. It is a raid, this bill, on the Treasury, jeopardizing coastal environments and economies.

Mr. Speaker, time and time again this leadership brings bills to the floor with rules that skew our choices. It is undemocratic, it is cowardly, it is wrecking America. Afraid of losing and certain that their weak arguments can't carry the day, the Republican leadership abuses its power and degrades this institution and democracy. Members who continually vote for such stifled debate aid and abet this corruption.

We can do better. Vote down this rule. Restore democracy to the House.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in such strong opposition to this budget-busting bill that threatens our coastal communities. This bill is unnecessary, misleading and fiscally irresponsible.

The oil and gas companies, awash in profits from high energy prices, would have you believe these three things: That the offshore oil resources are off limits today. Second, that this bill will give States control over the drilling off their coasts. Third, that this bill is fiscally responsible.

All of it is hogwash.

First, here is a little secret supporters of the bill do not want you to know. The industry already has access to the vast majority of oil and gas on the OCS. According to the Bush administration, some 80 percent of the known reserves are located in areas where drilling is already allowed.

Furthermore, the oil and gas industry already owns the drilling rights to more than 4,000 untapped leases in the Gulf of Mexico alone. Why should we

open the entire U.S. coast to drilling when the industry will not even drill where it already can?

Second, this bill turns Federal efforts for coastal protection and public lands protection on its head. The Federal Government sets the rules on drilling and other activities in Federal waters. The impact on the environment and the fishing and transportation industries are just too broad to be determined by a single State.

But this bill turns these important decisions over to the States. It would be like letting California decide what should go on in Yosemite, or letting Pennsylvania set the rules for air quality on the east coast.

And as for the claim that the bill gives a State control of oil drilling off its coast, that is full of holes, too. The bill ends the current moratorium on new drilling immediately. In order to continue even parts of the current ban, a State has to clear numerous hurdles. It has to petition the Feds through separate legislative votes and actions by its governor. The petitioning has to be repeated every 5 years.

The Federal Government can simply ignore a State's request for continuation of the ban anyway, and that is hardly giving a State control over its coastal protection.

Finally, this bill creates a new permanent entitlement that will add billions to the Federal deficit.

The Bush administration says the bill would cost $74 billion over the next 15 years and a whopping $600 billion over the next 60 years. For my fiscally conservative friends who spent hours trying to strike $100,000 dollars from appropriations bills, let me repeat that. This bill will add $74 billion to the deficit over the next 15 years and $600 billion over the next 60 years.

And for my fiscally conservative Blue Dog friends, this budget- busting bill will add even more zeroes to those great deficit signs outside your offices.

I know that Chairman Pombo has spent the last couple of days trying to bring that cost down. But who really knows what the effect of his proposed changes are, given the little time anyone actually has had to digest his manager's amendment?

Mr. Chairman, if Members really want to put brakes on reckless budgeting, here is the chance to lower the deficit by dollars and not pennies.

This bill is a bad deal for America. It will unnecessarily put at risk protections for our coastlines that have been in place for 25 years. It will lead to even more control of our offshore waters by the oil and gas industry. It will lead to even larger Federal budget deficits. Vote no on this budget buster.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey amendment that would preserve the longstanding moratorium so important to coastal States. The amendment would also preserve the underlying bill's one redeeming feature, the renegotiating of the cash-cow leases now pouring billions of dollars into already stuffed oil industry coffers.

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us represents what is wrong with the Republican energy strategy. We have something like 3 percent of the world oil reserves, and yet are responsible for 25 percent of the world's demand. A report out yesterday noticed that with only 5 percent of the world's population, the United States has 30 percent of the world's automobiles, and we produce 45 percent of the world's automotive carbon dioxide emissions.

This addiction harms our environment, our economy and our national security. Even oil man George Bush says we are addicted to oil and we must confront our problem. But the Republican strategy is just to drill more. Not too much concerned about energy efficiency or conservation, no real emphasis on alternative renewable energy. This is where we need to go in the 21st century with the many new jobs it would entail in the Midwest and all around the country.

Instead, what we have before us is a bill that attempts to bribe coastal States into drilling off their shores by promising them more money, a lot more money. Even the Bush administration says the bill would drive up the Federal deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next few decades.

The argument that the bill gives States control over their coast is specious at best. Control is mostly given to States that want to drill; those that do not confront numerous hurdles for temporary protection that can simply be overridden by Federal authorities.

Authority over Federal waters off our coast being moved to various State capitals is a bad idea anyway. These are Federal waters. They belong to all of us. The impacts from drilling, effects on fishing or shipping are bigger than the interest of one State. Mr. Markey's amendment would restore some sanity to this process. We should adopt it.

Mr. Chairman, I am honored to support this amendment because it properly refocuses the mission of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The goal is to ensure that all Americans are protected against discrimination in the workplace, and to do this, we should make sure that EEOC offices are properly staffed with workers to handle complaints and assist employees in taking action.

Instead, the current chair has pushed for the development of this National Contact Center. In effect, we are outsourcing the protection of civil rights on the job to entry level personnel who rely on scripts instead of expertise. The National Contact Center, which costs $2.5 million annually, continues to have a backlog of cases. The caseloads grow. The staff has expressed great frustration in dealing with this new structure.

In fact, 91 percent of the employees when surveyed reported that the process required through the call center is as long or even much longer than when calls come directly through the field offices. That doesn't sound like a streamlined process to me.

Focusing resources into the contact center is directly inhibiting the EEOC's ability to perform its duty of protecting victims of discrimination. I urge passage of this amendment that we may end wasteful spending and refocus our energies in hiring more qualified staff on the ground where the workforce is.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, and I also thank the chairman very much for his acceptance of this amendment already.

But I want our colleagues to know how much we all appreciate the fact that there was a tremendous bipartisan victory this past year with the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. In VAWA 2005, we were able not only to keep in place the successful programs of the past 11 years but also to initiate new programs to serve victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking.

One such program is the Jessica Gonzales Victim Assistance Program, which improves our local law enforcement agencies' effectiveness in complying with restraining orders.

Now that we have taken the initiative and instituted this program, we must also now take that next step and properly fund this program. That is why I thank the chairman very much.

Nearly one in three women experiences at least one physical assault during her adulthood, assaults by a partner, but far too many of these cases go unreported, often because victims are skeptical about receiving adequate protection against their attackers. Not surprisingly, nearly half of all victims who obtain restraining orders are abused again.

What kind of message does that send about our Nation's ability to protect victims of domestic violence? This newly authorized program to address the shortfalls of restraining order enforcement is named after, as my colleague has said, Jessica Gonzales who, as many of you may remember, was ignored when she informed police that her estranged husband had violated his restraining order and kidnapped their three children. Ms. Gonzales' three children were murdered that night by her husband, even though the police had been informed about Mr. Gonzales' whereabouts with the children. We must vow not to let this happen again.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that we can properly fund the Jessica Gonzales Victim Assistance Program. We owe victims enforced protection against their attackers, and we must ensure that the next time a woman is attacked, she knows that reporting a crime and obtaining a restraining order are not fruitless gestures.

I thank the chairman, and I thank my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Dr. Jarrell Jackman for his dynamic and committed leadership of the Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation.

Dr. Jarrell Jackman has been a leader of the Trust for Historic Preservation for 25 years, serving first as Historic Projects Administrator and, since 1987, as Executive Director. In a unique partnership with the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, the Trust operates El Presidio de Santa Barbara State Historic Park that attracts 50,000 visitors annually from Santa Barbara and from around the world.

Under Dr. Jackman's leadership, the Trust bought and maintains for future generations the Mission Santa Inez Mills, significant remains of mission-period grist and fulling mills. In addition to acquiring and maintaining historic sites, the Trust preserves the diverse cultural heritage of Santa Barbara through its research, interpretation, educational programs, archeological work, historic restoration and preservation efforts. They work cooperatively with local jurisdictions and with dozens of state agencies, museums, private foundations, schools, and businesses to ensure that the rich cultural history of the central coast not only lives on for future generations but is accessible today.

The Trust has completed major construction projects for El Presidio de Santa Barbara

State Historic Park: the Chapel, the Comandancia, the Northeast Corner and (the soon to be completed) Northwest Corner, making El Presidio the most fully restored Presidio in the United States. The restored Casa de la Guerra and El Presidio have become significant museums, hosting many lectures, performances, visiting exhibits and celebrations, due in large part to the dedication and expertise of Dr. Jackman.

Dr. Jackman served honorably on the Santa Barbara County Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission and has consistently been a forceful voice for the preservation of county historic structures. Among his many honors are the prestigious Norman Neuerburg Award from the California Mission Studies Association in February 2001 and the 2006 California League of Park Associations' Dewitt Award for outstanding partnership.

I have seen firsthand many of the great programs and preservation efforts of the Trust. We, as a community, benefit greatly from the skill and leadership of Dr. Jackman. I am pleased to commend Dr. Jarrell Jackman for his dedicated service to the Trust for Historic Preservation and to the preservation of many of the Central Coast's treasures. I look forward to the Trust's continued success. Congratulations on 25 great years!

I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. It is laughable to use this bill for our friends in the majority to preach about responsible budgeting. We have a huge budget deficit precisely because of Republican budget policy combining endless tax cuts with endless spending, including hundreds of billions of dollars in so- called emergency spending.

For example, last week the House spent another $94 billion off the books mostly to pay for the Iraq war. No offsets, nothing to pay for this spending, just pass the cost on to future generations to worry about it.

Later today we are going to vote on another $300 billion tax bill. Again, no offsets. Is it any wonder that we have $300 billion to $400 billion annual deficits as far as the eye can see? And this bill before us is supposed to rein in wasteful spending? This President hasn't vetoed a single bill or used the rescission powers he already has.

I have a better idea, Mr. Speaker, than gimmicks like this bill. This Congress needs a new direction. We need new leadership. And there is a party that can and will do this job. We don't need to shift Congress' responsibility to control wasteful spending to the White House; we just need to change direction. We need new leadership, as I said, to have that responsibility reside right here in the Congress where it belongs. This weak and irresponsible legislation is just more proof. So I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill and against this gimmicky rule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support as well of the Health Centers Renewal Act, and commend all of our colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee, but especially the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Deal, and the ranking member, Mr. Brown, for working together in this bipartisan fashion to pass this legislation.

Community health centers are vital to our Nation's delivery of primary care services to those who otherwise would lack access to health care. In my own district, we are fortunate to have several excellent health centers, including Clinicas del Camino Real in Ventura County, the Santa Barbara and Isla Vista Neighborhood Clinics in Santa Barbara County, and Health Care for the Homeless in San Luis Obispo County.

At a time when this body often seems too willing to divest from primary and preventive care, health centers are a model of success. They ensure that individuals in low income and medically underserved communities can receive checkups, screenings and early interventions, especially in a culturally sensitive environment. This is essential.

It means that conditions can be diagnosed and treated before they unnecessarily progress, at which point they often require very expensive treatment and sometimes hospitalization.

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that care at our health centers is the most cost effective care there is. We would do well to look at the lessons learned at our community health centers' focus on primary and preventive care and expand this to all areas of health care delivery in this country.

We know we need to be doing much more to expand access to care to encourage Americans to take advantage of primary care services available to them. Oftentimes, the community health center is the only care available to our constituents, so I support the reauthorization of health centers, and I hope we can use this as a stepping stone to further improve access to primary care for our entire Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following rollcall votes. Had I been present I would have voted as follows: rollcall No. 289--``yea''; rollcall No. 290--``yea''; and rollcall No. 291--``yea.''

I thank my colleague, whose resolution I support, for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the resolution before us. Let us be clear from the outset that those who have opposed the Iraq war stand solidly and proudly in support of our troops and their families. To suggest that calling for the return home of our brave troops somehow denigrates their service and their sacrifice is absurd. We can best support our troops by bringing them home.

Mr. Speaker, the terrible numbers we have bandied about here are not mere statistics. Each one represents the tragic story of a ruined life and a shattered family, 2,500 troops dead, more than 18,000 wounded, many so grievously. The average tour for National Guard members has been 342 days, turning the lives of countless American families upside down.

The material cost of the Iraq war is about $320 billion. But you can never put a price on its toll in human suffering, nor can you realistically argue, Mr. Speaker, that the war in Iraq has made our country safer or advanced our effort to combat global terror.

Those that come to the floor and link Iraq to 9/11 are certainly wrong. They are factually wrong, because there remains no evidence that Saddam was involved in the al Qaeda attacks on our Nation, and they are morally wrong to invoke the memories of the victims of September 11th to justify this indefensible war of choice.

I am pleased that al Zarqawi is dead, but his death does not change the fact that Iraq has become a haven for terrorists and the best recruitment tool we could have handed our enemy. No, Mr. Speaker, those who oppose this war are not soft on security. We believe strongly and passionately that keeping the troops in the middle of this increasingly bloody civil war only weakens our security.

It is a disgrace it has taken so long for Congress to spend a few hours of this day debating the Iraq war, but the American people will not be fooled. They recognize that a debate on a cynical and politically motivated resolution is no substitute for a thoughtful Iraq policy that advances our national interests and listens to the voices. Let us vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of the Markey amendment to maintain network neutrality on the Internet.

This is probably one of the most important issues this Congress will face this year.

At issue is whether we maintain the current system of nondiscrimination on the network or whether we allow this engine for innovation and progress to be controlled by a few large corporations.

As we all know, the Internet has a history of openess and freedom. To be sure, all this freedom has its questionable effects--an enormous amount of chaos, loud and intemperate voices opining on everything under the sun, and an unparalled proliferator of unfounded rumors.

I'm sure we all remember the infamous--and mythical--Congressman Schnell who was introducing legislation to tax the Internet? Only the Internet could start and rapidly transmit--and keep going for years-- such an easily knocked down rumor.

But it is precisely this unbridled freedom on the Internet that has also brought us innovation on an almost unimaginable scale over the last decade or so. The explosive growth of everything from web-based businesses to politically-based sites to newsgathering sources has been nothing short of amazing. And much of that growth is attributable to the ease with which anyone can access the world wide platform of the Internet.

We simply have to protect that level of freedom and openess on the Internet.

And yet, the head of AT&T is loudly calling for changes that could seriously undermine the Internet and perhaps marginalize its innovative qualities in the future.

I am extremely concerned about what the Internet might look like under a regime where one--or more likely, all--of the big broadband networks decides what data bits can move at what speeds across the network.

The large phone and cable companies will tell us all that they have no desire to reduce the freedom of the Internet. They will tell us such a move would be bad for business if nothing else. And they are telling us that there is no problem to be solved, that all this talk about network neutrality is just theoretical.

But how can we believe any of this when AT&T's CEO refers to the paths for Internet access as ``his pipes'' and he vows to make some users pay for access to these pipes? That sounds very clear to me and I find some agreement with one Internet expert who referred to this as the ``Tony Soprano business model.''

The danger is twofold. First, it means that small players on the Internet will find it harder to use the world wide reach of the Internet to bring their new ideas to market.

The danger is not to Google, but to the next potential Google. That new idea that might upend Google or MySpace won't get very far if it can't match the reach of those behemoths. The inability to pay phone and cable company fees for the ``fast lane'' will keep new ideas out of the market.

Second, the lack of net neutrality allows for the distinct possibility that the phone and cable companies could block or slow the sites and services of their competitors. I don't see in the phone and cable companies the kind of wide open competition that is present today on the Internet. And given that lack of competition in the phone and cable industries, I question the commitment to competition of its players and what that means for consumers under the provisions of this bill.

This legislation is supposed to be about creating more competition, giving consumers more choices and lower prices. But without this amendment to ensure that network neutrality remains the fundamental principle governing the Internet, this bill will result in fewer choices and higher prices.

I urge the House to adopt this amendment and ensure the Internet remains a platform for innovation and choice.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the Santa Barbara School Districts as we celebrate the 140th anniversary of their founding on June 6, 1866.

Santa Barbara's educational tradition is one of the oldest in the state. This tradition is rooted in the 18th century Spanish era where historical records indicate that in 1795 Santa Barbara had the second school in Alta, California (San Jose had the first, which was opened one year earlier). Santa Barbara's first school was located at the Presidio where the teacher was paid $125 per year, with each soldier of the Presidio paying a tribute of one dollar toward the teacher's salary.

When the Santa Barbara School District was formed in 1866, County Superintendent Alpheus B. Thompson reported that there were three school districts in Santa Barbara County: San Buenaventura, Montecito and Santa Barbara. By 1866, the schools had moved from county control to control by the electorate of the city.

The three school districts had two schools each and together there were a total of six teachers. By 1867, the three districts served 340 students, with 243 of them in the Santa Barbara district. The average salary in the county was $70 per month for male teachers and $62 per month for female teachers and the length of the school year varied from 3 to 5 months.

In 1870 a new school house was built on Cota Street and the first playground was established in the city. The playground was turned over to the school by the city council after the school trustees agreed to plant at least 20 shade trees and care for their growth. Voters decided, in April of 1870, to impose a tax to construct Lincoln School. In 1884, Eugene Fawcett sold a tract of land to the school district for the construction of Franklin School. The school district paid $1,000 for the property where Parma School is located.

As a former school nurse in the Santa Barbara school district, I am absolutely delighted to celebrate the 140 years of strong public education that the district has provided. I am proud of the district for its vision and dedication to quality over the years and I look forward to the continued success of the district and its many programs. Congratulations on 140 years well done!

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Dr. Jarrell Jackman upon his retirement from his position as Executive Director of the Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation.

Dr. Jackman has been a leader of the Trust for Historic Preservation for twenty-five years, as Historic Projects Administrator and, since 1987, Executive Director. In a unique partnership with the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, the Trust operates El Presidio de Santa Barbara State Historic Park that attracts 50,000 visitors annually from Santa Barbara and around the world.

Under Dr. Jackman's leadership, the Trust bought and maintains the Mission Santa Inez Mills, preserving significant remains of mission- period grist and fulling mills. In addition to acquiring and maintaining historic sites, the Trust preserves the diverse cultural heritage of Santa Barbara through its research, interpretation, educational programs, archeological work, historic restoration and preservation efforts. They work cooperatively with local jurisdictions and with dozens of State agencies, museums, private foundations, schools, and businesses to ensure that the rich cultural history of the central coast not only lives on for future generations, but is accessible today.

The Trust has completed major construction projects for El Presidio de Santa Barbara State Historic Park: the Chapel, the Comandancia, the Northeast Corner and (the soon to be completed) Northwest Corner, making El Presidio the most fully restored Presidio in the United States. The restored Casa de la Guerra and El Presidio have become significant museums, hosting many lectures, performances, visiting exhibits and celebrations, due in large part to the dedication and expertise of Dr. Jackman.

Dr. Jackman served honorably on the Santa Barbara County Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission and has consistently been a forceful voice for the preservation of county historical structures. Among Dr. Jackman's honors are the prestigious Norman Neuerburg Award from the California Mission Studies Association in February 2001 and the 2006 California League of Park Associations' Dewitt Award for outstanding partnership.

I have seen firsthand many of the great programs and preservation efforts of the Trust. We, as a community, have benefited greatly from the skill and leadership of Dr. Jackman. I am pleased to commend Dr. Jarrell Jackman for his dedicated service to the Trust for Historic Preservation and to the Central Coast.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Herman E. Warsh, and to honor his life of dedicated service to his community and to his country.

Born on March 28, 1924 in Calgary, Canada to Samuel Warshovsky and Rebecca Wietstinietski, originally of Poland, he emigrated with his parents, his sister and his brother to the United States in 1925. The family made a home in Los Angeles, California and Herman attended public school until the 10th grade. In 1941, he married Lorraine Rack and in 1942, enlisted in the Navy and served in the South Pacific through 1945.

Upon his return, he passed the GED and in only two years he received his BA while working full time. He went on to earn his Masters degree in history at UCLA while working as a teaching assistant and continued his education by working on three doctorates, eventually earning his PhD in Education from Wayne State University in 1969. Herman Warsh taught from 1952-1965, serving in many different capacities. He also taught at the college level at USC, the University of Hawaii at Hilo and at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Mr. Warsh also taught literacy to the U.S. troops in Germany, to First Nations' peoples in Alaska and to incarcerated men in the California penal system. Following the awarding of his doctorate, he was recruited to be the Director of Educational Programs for the Mott Program in the Flint Public School System. In 1974, he became head of the Department of Elementary Education at the University of New Mexico. In 1977, he moved to Santa Barbara to work with and, in 1980, to wed Maryann Mott. Together they devoted the bulk of their philanthropic efforts to their two family foundations, C.S. Fund and Warsh Mott Legacy.

In addition to financial resources, Herman Warsh gave selflessly of his time, serving on the Board of the Fund for Santa Barbara and of Pacifica Graduate Institute. Nationally, he served as Chair of the Environmental Policy Institute, which under his leadership, merged with Oceanic Society and Friends of the Earth USA, to become a key progressive, national environmental institution.

I am honored to recognize the life and work of Herman E. Warsh and I believe, as many do, that Santa Barbara is a better place for having him a part of this community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 833, which celebrates National Women's Health Week. I would like to thank my colleagues, Mr. Hinchey, Mrs. Bono, and Mr. Hayworth, for their work on this issue, as well as our chairman, Mr. Deal.

This week is celebrated annually in order to raise awareness about diseases and conditions that specifically affect women. This also includes how common diseases affect women differently than they affect men. For too long research lacked gender specificity, and because of that, we lacked vital information about how women experience disease differently from men. This is especially true with respect to heart disease, and that happens to be the number one killer of women.

Women's Health Week is also a time to raise awareness about important preventive care measures that all women should take. With the growing number of uninsured in this country, it is no surprise that women are skipping doctor visits that ought to be routine. Knowing that this is especially true for low-income women and minority women, I applaud national efforts to use National Women's Health Week as a time to offer free screenings and conduct outreach to communities that are often left behind.

National Women's Health Week is not just a concept, but it truly is a large-scale effort by individuals, government, local and national organizations in order to highlight practical steps women can take to improve their lives and their health.

During this week, women can access essential checkups, services like mammograms and bone density screenings. These screenings can catch serious conditions like breast cancer early before it is life- threatening, and osteoporosis before it results in fractures.

I support this resolution celebrating National Women's Health Week because it focuses attention on gender disparities in health care delivery. I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Speaker, I actually have no additional speakers, and so I would yield back the balance of my time, by urging our entire body to follow as we seem to be in unanimity here this evening discussing this legislation that we adopt this resolution unanimously in the House as well.