Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule.

I wanted to offer an amendment to remove the bill's special protection for MTBE manufacturers, but with this rule, the House is deprived of that vote. The Republican leadership knows it could well lose a vote on such amendment.

MTBE is responsible, after all, for polluting groundwater in hundreds of communities. Cleanup costs are estimated in the billions. Currently, MTBE manufacturers are being held accountable in court, but this bill gives them safe harbor.

Many of us have water districts or towns with lawsuits against MTBE manufacturers that will be voided under this bill. For example, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen);

And from Connecticut, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons);

And from my home State, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller), the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Just examples, all with pending lawsuits from a few of the 29 States being polluted with this MTBE in the groundwater. The special protection in this bill for MTBE manufacturers is completely unwarranted. It will cost our constituents a fortune.

This is an unfair rule, and we should vote it down.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, strong opposition to this bill. My colleagues have outlined the many problems with it. It does nothing to impact gas prices. In fact, according to the Energy Information Agency, it will raise prices at the pump. It gives billions to industries with already-soaring profits, and it weakens a host of environmental laws.

Mr. Chairman, one provision epitomizes the bill's failures. H.R. 6 grants liability protection for people who make MTBE who are responsible for polluting groundwater in dozens of States, leaving hundreds of communities saddled with billions of dollars in cleanup costs. Supporters claim it is fair to protect MTBE producers from liability since Congress mandated its use in the Clean Air Act, but there is no mandate for MTBE and even the chairman of the committee has acknowledged as much. In fact, 120 million barrels were added to gasoline before the clean air regulations were ever issued. Most damning, documents unearthed in court cases show that manufacturers knew the dangers MTBE posed to groundwater, and they still added it to gasoline. The result is what we have today, over 1,800 contamination sites in 29 different States serving 45 million Americans.

I wanted to offer an amendment to strike this provision because in its wisdom the House leadership would not want to vote on this. Perhaps it is because too many Members on both sides

of the aisle represent districts with bad MTBE problems in places where lawsuits are pending. Because of the MTBE provisions alone, we should reject this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is continuing the funding mechanism for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund or LUST fund.

Across this country there are hundreds of thousands of leaking underground storage tanks.

Many, if not most, of these have MTBE in them and have been linked to the contamination of groundwater in thousands of communities.

So it is important that we continue funding for the Trust Fund that helps communities get these messes cleaned up where responsible parties can't be found.

But I agree with my colleagues who, noting the needs that are out there, have called for a longer extension of this funding mechanism.

Clearly, we have to give states more support and the ability to know that the LUST fund will back up their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is also important to note how inadequate the efforts of this Administration have been in addressing the problem of leaking tanks.

For example, the LUST fund could take in approximately $200 million in revenues this year alone.

And yet the Administration proposes to spend only slightly more than a third of that to address the problems caused by these leaking tanks.

This is a completely inadequate response to addressing the 136,000 spills across the country.

We should be spending more to help these communities clean up.

We should also be enacting common sense reforms like requiring secondary containment for underground storage tanks.

We should be requiring more frequent inspections of all underground tanks.

And we shouldn't be taking steps like those in the energy bill that would weaken ``polluter pay'' laws.

The energy bill as currently drafted weakens EPA's ability to recover the money they spend to clean up sites.

We have to continue holding polluters accountable for the damage they cause.

So while I will support this bill, I believe we should be doing much more.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Nussle budget. This budget cuts $20 billion from Medicaid. Our friends on the other side of the aisle claim that this is not a cut, just a reduction in growth.

But it is a cut. When prices increase, and they surely have in health care, and spending does not match that increase, you are reducing the program's purchasing power. You are cutting the program. This budget is going to deny States, health care providers and low-income working families $20 billion for the health care services that they would have had. And there is no evidence that closing loopholes or fighting waste, fraud and abuse would save anywhere near this amount.

Medicaid provides health care, irreplaceable health care, to 52 million of our poorest children, poor pregnant women, parents and the elderly. It is a critical source of acute and long-term care for 13 million elderly people and disabled people. These are real people who would be affected by cutting $20 billion out of Medicaid.

Mr. Chairman, since the President took office, the number of uninsured has increased by 5.2 million. Without Medicaid, this number would surely have grown much higher. Medicaid enrollment grew by 6 million over the same period, covering many people who would otherwise have been uninsured. Even so, Medicaid costs have grown about half as fast as private health insurance premiums have grown. Between 2000 and 2003, Medicaid per capita spending went up 6.9 percent while private insurance premiums shot up over 12.5 percent. The growth we have seen is a result of the skyrocketing health costs that the President has allowed, not Medicaid itself.

If these cuts in Medicaid are made, the ranks of the uninsured will surely increase, the economy will become weaker, and health care costs would skyrocket even more because fewer people would be unable to afford regular checkups and preventive measures but would be stuck by going to the emergency room as a last resort. That is why the National Governors' Association opposes these cuts. It is why faith-based organizations oppose these cuts. And it is certainly why organizations, which I have a list of here, like the March of Dimes, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the AARP, all of these groups and many more oppose the cuts that this budget puts into Medicaid.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget and these draconian cuts in Medicaid.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak very briefly about an aspect of fiscal responsibility, the rule called pay-as-you-go, because there is a connection between our lack of fiscal responsibility and these draconian cuts we are seeing in vital services, like the $20 billion that people who are poor and dependent on Medicaid will be forced to endure.

Our colleagues in the majority have consistently opposed Democratic efforts to reinstall pay-as-you-go rules for both entitlement spending and new tax cuts. In fact, they just denied the House the ability to vote on such a proposal offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) and the Blue Dogs.

These PAYGO reforms were put in place in the 1990s and were essential to the successful effort achieved then to balance the budget. PAYGO reforms have been endorsed in their entirety by Alan Greenspan, but the Republicans do not want them applied to tax cuts. Why? Because doing so would require that they identify specific revenue measures, most likely spending cuts, which would provide the offsets, vital spend services being cut, such as Medicaid.

So we should reinstate PAYGO. We should not support this budget, that destroys so much which is a part of our health care delivery, Medicaid.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I wish to discuss one critically important component of this bill, the $200 million in aid to the Palestinians. The President has requested $350 million for the Palestinians, and he asks that $200 million be included in today's supplemental bill.

The President believes, as do I, that it is imperative to deliver U.S. assistance quickly to improve Palestinians' quality of life and empower their democratically elected leadership. I am pleased this bill funds the Palestinian assistance request. This money will be used on critical projects, such transportation infrastructure, drinking water, business and trade, education and democratic and legal reforms.

Mr. Chairman, on January 9, I was privileged to witness the remarkable Palestinian presidential election firsthand. I saw democracy taking hold in Palestine. I saw the mandate being handed to President Abbas. The Palestinian people support their new president's goals, to end the armed intifadah and to create a viable state living in peace alongside Israel.

Mr. Chairman, the Arafat era is over. The new Palestinian president and his government are making great strides. They are committed to political reform. Their financial reform efforts, which are led by Minister Salaam Fayyad, have produced profound accountability and transparency.

On the critical question of security, President Abbas is also off to a good start. He has clearly and unequivocally condemned terrorism. With the exception of one horrific bombing in Tel Aviv, the cease-fire has held. The Palestinian security forces have begun to fight terror and incitement. They have arrested terrorists for the first time in many years.

Yesterday, here on Capitol Hill, the ambassador of Israel sat next to the Palestinian ambassador and praised the Palestinian Authority for their security efforts. Prime Minister Sharon has welcomed the Palestinian moves as well.

Mr. Chairman, the real question before us today is not whether to keep the $200 million for Palestinian assistance in this bill. Clearly, this package serves U.S. national interests and will enhance Israel's security and the quality of life for the Palestinians. But the real question is whether the U.S. Congress is serious about working with President Bush, Prime Minister Sharon, and President Abbas to seize this historic opportunity.

The excessive conditions and limitations placed on this package may undermine progress toward peace. Of course, we must secure transparency and accountability; but the requirements in this legislation go far beyond what we demanded in the Arafat era.

Imagine that. President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon are helping to strengthen and empower President Abbas, but at the same time Congress will slap more conditions on them than they ever did on Arafat.

One especially troubling provision in the bill strikes the national security waiver under which the President could provide some of this aid directly to the Palestinian Authority. President Bush has decided in the past that some U.S. aid be directed to the authority. This bill would prevent him from doing that, tying his hands at the very moment that he most needs flexibility to promote our interests in the Middle East.

My colleagues should understand this bill puts more restrictions on the President than we ever placed on President Clinton.

Mr. Chairman, there is a broad consensus in the American pro-Israel community in support of the President's aid request for the Palestinians. The Jewish Council For Public Affairs, the umbrella group of 13 prominent national organizations and 122 local Jewish communities, has recently urged Congress to fund the Palestinian request in its entirety.

The Union For Reform Judaism, representing 1.5 million American Jews, believes the aid should go directly to the Palestinian Authority.

Americans for Peace Now wants us to support this package and remove the excessive conditions that the committee has placed on it.

In asking us to support a clean aid package, M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum states the following: ``Israel wants a strong Palestinian Authority that can and will liquidate the suicide bombers and build a democracy that will live in peace with Israel.''

The Arafat years are over. Fragile as it may be, a new flame of hope and optimism has been kindled in the Middle East. Shame on us as Americans if we do not do whatever we can to seize this historic opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the $200 million in Palestinian assistance, I urge us to reject any amendments to strip this aid, and I hope in the conference with the Senate that we can give back to the President the flexibility he needs to promote U.S. security interests in the region.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

This amendment will only hurt the Palestinian people. It will harm Israel security and undermine our own national interests.

The Arafat era is over. In contrast to the partners in the previous agreements, Palestinians have a new president, Mahmoud Abbas, who was chosen in a free and fair election. His government has instituted excellent financial reforms. His security efforts are paying off and have gained the praise of Prime Minister Sharon.

We must strengthen and empower the new Palestinian government. President Bush has requested this aid package to help fund a number of critical humanitarian and infrastructure projects. Israel's safety and security will only be assured if the new Palestinian leadership gains credibility with its own people, and that is why the Israelis support this aid package.

That is why many pro-Israeli-American groups support it as well. In fact, a number of national Jewish organizations would like Congress even to put fewer restrictions on the aid bill than the bill contains.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the Weiner amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Lifetime's Stop the Violence Week and highlight the epidemic of domestic violence in our Nation; 85 percent of the victims are women. But only half of them report an injury. And of these, only a few percent even seek out medical assistance.

Domestic violence is a serious health concern but for too long has been treated solely as a criminal issue. So I will soon reintroduce the Domestic Violence Screening Treatment and Prevention Act. This bill would train health professionals to assess victims for signs of abuse and prepare them for intervention if needed.

Routine screening by a physician or a nurse could unlock options for thousands of women. Mr. Speaker, Congress must ensure domestic violence screening is common medical practice, in every doctor's office in every State.

Routine screening will enable early detection of domestic violence before it becomes life threatening. So I urge my colleagues not to ignore this nationwide epidemic. And let us work hard to institute a public health protocol for addressing this major epidemic in our society today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my thoughts in remembrance of our dear friend and colleague, Tillie Fowler. I pay tribute to her, her service here, the events in her life that made her who she was with respect to her family and her community. I knew her here in this place.

I first got to know Tillie through her friendship with my late husband, Congressman Walter Capps. Walter and Tillie served only 10 months together before his death in 1997, and it might have appeared that they did not have much in common, but, in fact, they did. Tillie had been elected to a district that had been represented by a Democrat for 42 years. Walter's district had been represented by Republicans for 50 years. Both Tillie and Walter understood that it was more important to try to reach bipartisan solutions than to engage in partisan politics.

Even as she rose through the ranks of her party's leadership, and that has been attested to this evening, a strong and loyal leader within the Republican Conference, Tillie always tried to work across the aisle on issues that were important to her. One such issue where again she worked closely with my husband, Walter, was her support for the humanities. Like Walter, Tillie had once served as her State's humanities chair. And back in the days when funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities was in the crosshairs of congressional budget cutters, Tillie stood up to protect that program. The fact that support for the NEH is now stronger than ever in Congress is due in no small part to all of Tillie's efforts a few years ago.

She also helped to pioneer the bipartisan nature of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues. Here again, she tried to bring Members of both parties together to address the serious issues affecting American women, and she bravely challenged her own party leaders to moderate their relentless focus on reproductive rights.

After leaving the House, Tillie combined her military expertise with her support for women's rights when she headed up the panel to review sexual misconduct at the Air Force Academy. She also served on the panel charged with investigating prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. These difficult assignments demonstrated Tillie's belief that we can best support our military by uncovering the truth and ensuring that these horrible scandals never be allowed to repeat themselves.

Tillie Fowler was a very proud Republican, and her party can be honored and proud of her. But she did not put her party over her principles. During one particularly tough election that I was engaged in, my opponent announced that Tillie had endorsed and would campaign for him. But she came up to me on the floor one day and told me that it was not true. As Eleanor Clift just wrote in her heartfelt Newsweek obituary, Tillie always said, ``I can't sit next to them one day and campaign against them the next. If I'm your friend, then I'm your friend.''

We will all dearly miss our friend Tillie and we mourn today that there simply are not enough people like her. She will be missed, and she will always be remembered with great honor.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the UCSB Men's soccer team, following a spectacular 2004 season where they placed 2nd in the NCAA.

The Gaucho Men's soccer team finished their remarkable season with a 21-3-1 record. In addition, four players were honored on the 2004 NCAA Men's Soccer College Cup All-Tournament Team. Their season, as well as their performance in the NCAA Championship match, gives all UCSB students, faculty and Alumni something to be very proud of. During the final home matches, community members and students alike flocked to UCSB to support the Gaucho men. The talent of this team has certainly brought UCSB to the forefront of Men's soccer, proving again that UCSB should be known not only for its academics and physical beauty, but also for its many outstanding athletic programs.

Mr. Speaker, raw talent and the ability to beat virtually any opponent are not the only attributes of this team, however. The Gaucho Men are also community volunteers, setting a positive example for their peers and for younger players in the Santa Barbara community. They recently participated in a fitness day at Santa Barbara City College, aimed at encouraging kids and adults alike to maintain healthy lifestyles. Many young people in the Santa Barbara community love to play soccer and being able to interact with the UCSB players is a wonderful opportunity. As a nurse, I understand firsthand the importance of encouraging our youth to get physically active. The Gaucho Men help to achieve this goal by mentoring young players and leading by positive example.

I am so proud to represent the UCSB campus, and the Gaucho Men's soccer team has given me one more reason to boast to my colleagues that Santa Barbara truly is paradise.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for this time that we can share together. Now the gentleman has been joined by two colleagues who have been engaged with some of our leaders in the community.

Women's Policy, Incorporated, is a nonprofit organization that provides resources in the way of information and policy awareness and opportunities for us as women to pool our resources intellectually and our moral courage, if you will, to join with Members of the House.

We were recognized this evening, along with one of our pioneer women, Shirley Chisholm, in memory of her, and also today the knowledge that our former colleague, Tillie Fowler, is no longer with us on Earth, people who have paved the way for us as women Members of Congress to join with our colleagues who are of the other gender, but who together recognize that we are speaking on a social program, Social Security, which has now a 70-year history with us.

I am going to ask the gentleman to yield first to my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), who is the newly elected cochair of the Women's Caucus from our side of the aisle, to join with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) on the Republican side, to lead our women Members in voicing our concern about women's issues, one of which has got to be Social Security, which impacts women to a greater degree than it does men for the reasons we will state.

Thank you. And thank you to my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), both of us serving on the Health Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, where this issue has particular relevance for women and thinking about the health priorities that women always hold dear. We thank our colleague from Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for organizing this with us to focus on the effect that Social Security has on womens' lives.

I speak from a public health perspective as someone who is engaged with families in our communities on public health and the devastating effect that privatizing Social Security would have on the majority of its women, recipients who are women.

As has been mentioned already, but I do not think we can say it often enough, women on average earn 77 cents to the dollar, to every dollar that a man makes. Yet, they live longer and rely more heavily. This is a demonstrated fact that women rely more heavily on Social Security to support them in their later years.

Women are more likely to interrupt their careers to stay at home to care for children, therefore are significantly less likely than men to receive a pension. And for those women who do receive a pension, their benefits are about one-half of the benefit that men receive.

Fortunately, Social Security is more than just a retirement program. It is a social insurance program structured to help women such as those Ms. Solis and I know very well, to overcome the hurdles that they face after raising families, caring for their parents, working, but not as much as men do, most likely because they have interrupted their careers, then to face widowhood. And I am a widow. I know very well some of the challenges that widows face, to overcome the hurdles of older years.

For example, lower earning workers earn higher benefits relative to what they have paid into Social Security taxes. Social Security also has spousal benefits. For example, a wife gets half of her husband's benefit at age 65 and the full benefit should he die before her as is often the case. But oftentimes this is the sole life support for such a woman in her older years.

Social Security also has survivor benefits that help families when the primary owner has died prematurely. Sometimes and often that primary worker is a man, is the husband, and the provider for the family. So that young widow who is raising now by herself her children and is engaged in all of the other responsibilities that she has, now she is left to live on the Social Security benefit provided her as a survivor. In these cases, benefits are paid to the surviving spouse and dependent children. These are all critically important benefits, important to millions of women and these are all benefits which are at risk of being lost in a privatized system. And I will yield back now for further comment from my colleague from California (Ms. Solis).

If my colleague would yield, thank you. Your numbers and your graph, the pie chart are graphic and significant, and I would like to put a face on that so that I can give you an example from one of the non retirees that I met this past week in my district who are one of the one-third of

the Social Security benefits who are not seniors.

Last week, I held discussions with my constituents to hear their thoughts on the President's plan to privatize Social Security. I heard from many women, several in very different circumstances, yet each of them depending on Social Security in order to make ends meet in their lives.

I heard for example from a 54-year old woman from San Luis Obispo County in California who receives Social Security disability payments due to a work-related injury which occurred 8 years ago. At that time, she earned a considerable salary and she and her husband had invested 15 percent of their income to save for retirement. One could point to them as a model for the kind of American family that we like to hold up as an example of people who work hard, earn a good salary, and then are also saving for retirement.

However, an injury prevented her from returning to work so that she and her husband subsequently divorced and her investments that she had carefully set aside plummeted during the market turndown a few years ago. And here she was, ready, she said, to be turned out on to the street after living what she called an exemplary life. As a divorcee with a chronic injury, she is now forced to rely on disability payments. She said to the group, she said, I never thought I would be in the position where that Wednesday of every month that that check comes is like a birthday, it is a big celebration in my life to know that that Social Security check is there for me. She said I never even dreamed about how I would be dependent on this.

And these are the disability payments she and her young daughter now are receiving that are the essential platform for how she is able to live. Though she does gets some income from disability insurance, these payments, these disability payments will end when she turns 65. And when she turns 65, that is just 10 years in the future for her, she is going to have to further rely on Social Security because the majority of her retirement investments were lost in the unstable markets, and that is why she knows very well how important keeping Social Security, that covenant, that trust between generations, because of what the difference is that it has meant in her life. It is designed to be the one thing that is not a risk in the inevitable ups and downs of the market of the stock market.

We cannot afford to jeopardize this critical safety net. Too many of our fellow citizens rely upon it. So we must get the word out that our constituents are telling us and not be fooled by the rhetoric of an administration which is really seeking to gut Social Security.

Social Security, as we know it, has been the cornerstone of American life for the past 70 years. And I believe that my children, daughters and sons, and my grandchildren should be able to enjoy that which we believe in so much. And I know that my colleague has some concluding remarks as well.

I think the gentlewoman is right, that this is a message that we are echoing here on the floor of the House, that we have been hearing from our constituents. Their voices need to be heard as we debate one of most, if not the most important program that we have as a country determined is important within our values framework, what we believe in, that it is to be an American, that we are going to look out for those who are elders and those who are frail and have disabilities, widows and orphans living among us. There are lots of scripture texts that reinforce the importance of doing this. So we will use the opportunity that we have for Special Orders to do this. And I believe we now will yield back any remainder of the time that we might have.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, the oldest and largest voluntary organization in San Luis Obispo County, on the occasion of their 100th Anniversary.

Rarely has a local organization done more to improve the quality of life of an entire region than the San Luis Obispo Chamber.

When the Chamber opened in 1905, the railroad had come to town just a few years before, and San Luis was developing an economy that went beyond farming for the first time. Led by CEO Dave Garth for the last 32 years, the Chamber now boasts 1,389 members and a staff of 15.

The Chamber will celebrate its centennial with a dinner at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo on March 12, 2005. This vibrant and active organization has contributed an enormous amount to a community that I am terribly proud to represent.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, January 9 was an important and historic day. For many Palestinians it was a once-in-a-lifetime event. They went to the polls and elected a new president in a contested, free, and fair election. The Palestinian election was a milestone not only for the Palestinian people but for the safety of Israel and for our own national security as well.

I was privileged to witness this remarkable event with my own eyes. From 5:30 in the morning until nearly midnight I traveled in and around Bethlehem in my capacity as an election observer for the mission co- sponsored by the National Democratic Institute and the Carter Center.

Let me first take a moment and commend President Carter, Governor Christie Todd Whitman, former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, and NDI President Ken Wollack for leading our delegation and the 80 participants from 16 different nations who did a remarkable job. With a few exceptions, what I observed in Bethlehem held true across the West Bank and Gaza. The balloting process was exceptionally well organized, in part because nearly 14,000 public school teachers were deployed as election officials.

The Israeli Government did a good job facilitating freedom of movement in the territories. There was little violence. In fact, an almost reverential quiet enveloped the polling places. It was truly moving to see Palestinian people, young and old, embracing this democratic exercise with such purpose and resolve.

Mr. Speaker, Israelis and Americans should welcome the choice of the Palestinian people. Abu Mazen is a proven leader with a long track record of negotiating for peace. He is off to a decent start. Abu Mazen cannot prevent terrorism overnight, neither can we; but he has already sent a strong and successful message to Hamas and the Islamic Jihad to halt the attacks. His security forces have deployed in Gaza. He has unequivocally condemned terrorism.

Prime Minister Sharon's response to the new President has been commendable. Israeli and Palestinian security officials and top negotiators have been meeting. Sharon has praised Abu Mazen's efforts and will meet with him shortly. Despite fierce opposition from the settler movement, Sharon is sticking firmly to his plan to withdraw from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. Fragile as it may be, a new flame of hope and optimism has been kindled in the Mid East.

That is why I am pleased that the House bipartisan leadership has brought a resolution to the floor today. The bill commends the Palestinians for conducting the elections, congratulates Abu Mazen on his victory, and encourages both sides to take steps toward peace.

Mr. Speaker, last night a similar resolution was passed in the other body that I had hoped the House could adopt as well. The language of the Senate resolution is more comprehensive and

balanced and lays out a bolder diplomatic vision to achieve Israeli- Palestinian peace. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that both Houses of Congress are on record commending the Palestinian people and their new President. Let us all commit ourselves to seizing this historic opportunity and hastening the day when Israelis and Palestinians will live side by side in peace.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the life of a very special young man, Mark Gomez, who recently passed away at age 18. Mark and his parents, Mona and Rudy Gomez, impacted my life very deeply along with many of my staff. Mark was a quietly determined young man who never let his devastating diagnosis of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy interfere with his desire to attend school or excel in his classes. Neither did his parents, Mona and Rudy.

When he could not attend public school on his own, they adjusted their work schedules (as U.S. Postal Service employees) so that one of them, usually Rudy, could serve as his attendant. Just as remarkably, Mark loved trains. He rode them and drew beautifully detailed pictures of them. One of his pictures hangs in the Santa Barbara Amtrak Station. Just last year, he fulfilled his longtime dream of circumnavigating the United States by train.

I first met the Gomez family when Mark enrolled in kindergarten at Peabody Charter School in Santa Barbara. I was the school Nurse. From the first, making it through the day was a challenge. As his muscles grew weaker and his dependence became more acute, his determination seemed to grow. His parents hosted a fundraiser for the Duchenne Parent Project and family and friends came from far and wide.

When I first ran for public office, Mark, Rudy and Mona were super volunteers. We are among those who mourn his passing and are touched by his legacy. So are students, family and staff at Peabody Charter, La Colina Jr. High and Dos Pueblos High School where Mark had just begun his senior year.

Mark's steady determination and positive outlook on life, despite his challenges, reminds all of us to be strong in the face of adversity. His spirit and passion live on through his artwork, and his enthusiasm for life will always be remembered. I pledge to Mark's parents to dedicate my efforts to combat Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy to the memory of their son.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the artistic contributions of Ray Strong, on the occasion of his 100th Birthday.

Ray Strong has contributed to the Santa Barbara community not only through his art, but also through his passion and commitment to education and his dedication to the preservation of our environment. His generosity has touched many, including those young artists fortunate enough to paint with Ray as part of the Oak Group. Ray Strong has assisted in raising money for a number of environmental causes and has brought awareness to many conservation issues through his work.

In addition to exhibiting throughout the United States, Ray Strong's work is held in the permanent collection of the Smithsonian Institution. I am fortunate to have had some of Ray's pieces grace the walls of all three of my Congressional district offices. Locally, Ray has been honored by Santa Barbara Beautiful and is revered by many in this community for his generosity, spectacular talent and his passion for our physical environment.

Ray Strong's enthusiastic dedication to recording the landscape around us reminds me just how precious our natural surroundings are. His commitment to environmental causes and his contributions to the American realist tradition are commendable. Ray Strong is a talented artist, generous teacher and role model to many. I am privileged to know Ray and I continue to be awed by his many talents.