Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time, and I rise in support of this amendment.

Almost 400,000 children have become regular smokers in 2004 thus far. 124,000 of them will die prematurely because of their addiction. As a former school nurse, I can tell you the effects of smoking are devastating on our youth and on all Americans. The Surgeon General recently released a report showing smoking to be even more deadly than we had previously believed.

This is something we can and should do something about. Part of the answer may be buying out tobacco farmers, but only if it is done properly, as part of a proposal to give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco.

Unfortunately, last month this House included in the FSC tax bill a provision to just give almost $10 billion in taxpayer money to tobacco companies without getting any public health benefit. The bill would not guarantee the exit of tobacco farmers from the market. It would actually result in more smoking, because the price of cigarettes would go down. That is not the way to deal with a problem of this enormity.

In the other body, there has been considerable debate about passing a comprehensive approach that would improve public health and also provide assistance to struggling farmers. We should embrace such a proposal in this body, instead of just giving another payoff to big tobacco.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and protect the taxpayers' money.

Mr. Chairman, while I rise in support of the FY05 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, I am deeply disappointed in

the significant cuts proposed to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration budget.

As you know, the 23rd Congressional District, on California's Central Coast, is an incredibly diverse and productive coastal and marine area.

Tourism and commercial and recreational fishing are major industries on the Central Coast and a staple of our local economy. The money spent by tourists and the fish caught by fisherman pay the bills and put food on the table for the people living in these communities.

Unfortunately, they know better than anyone that our oceans and coasts are facing a greater array of problems than ever before.

The impact of coastal development, pollution and some fishing practices have led to declining prospects for many of our oceans, coasts and marine life.

With the recent release of the Pew Oceans Commission report and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy report, we have an unprecedented opportunity to move forward to dramatically reform ocean policy.

That's why investment in our nation's coasts and oceans is needed now.

Sadly, the bill before us proposes over $400 million in cuts--that's a 15 percent cut--to the agency in charge of caring for and managing these assets. I am particularly worried by the decrease in funds proposed for the National Ocean Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

The National Ocean Service is the primary federal agency working to protect and manage America's coastal waters and habitats. Unfortunately, this bill proposes a debilitating cut of $160 million from 2004 enacted levels.

Critical National Ocean Service programs have been severely cut, including activities that support managing coastal zones and national marine sanctuaries, restoring coral reefs, protecting sensitive coastal estuaries and reducing coastal pollution.

These cuts will cripple the agency and will impact all Americans who use our beaches and coastal waters for swimming, boating and recreation, in addition to threatening the 3 million U.S. jobs that our coasts and oceans support.

Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned by the proposed cuts to the National Marine Fisheries Service. The $96 million in cuts from the 2004 enacted level will further jeopardize our already troubled commercial and recreational fisheries.

While the bill does provide additional funds for expanding fisheries stock assessments, it fails to make available critical dollars for fishery observer programs, cooperative research, essential fish habitat protection, and efforts to conserve protected species like marine mammals and sea turtles.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize the Subcommittee has difficult choices to make this year. And, I appreciate the Chairman and Ranking Member's commitment to work toward rectifying the funding levels for NOAA in the final bill.

However, the verdict is in--our oceans and coasts are in trouble.

We need to invest in our oceans to ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy clean beaches, healthy seafood, abundant ocean wildlife, and thriving coastal communities.

As we move into conference, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Subcommittee to address the challenges and threats confronting our oceans and coasts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule on behalf of ratepayers in the West who depended on the Eshoo amendment being made in order.

Time and time again, members of the California, Oregon and Washington delegations have attempted to get this House to focus on the damage caused in the western electricity crisis a few years back. We have been trying to get the House to do something to return the money stolen from my constituents and millions of others. The electricity market manipulation that went on was shameful. It was surpassed, perhaps, only by the actions or rather inaction of the FERC and this Congress.

Literally billions of dollars were stolen from consumers and taxpayers by pirate firms like Enron. Recently, we were all treated to a front-row seat to the carnage demonstrated in tapes of Enron traders figuring out how best to create shortages, to drive up prices, and rip off consumers. It was sickening. But, in reality, there was nothing new in those tapes. It was just more evidence of what I and many in our delegation have been requesting for over 3 years. Enron and other power companies were shutting down power plants, diverting electricity, and engaging in illegal actions in order to drive up electricity prices.

The amendment brought before the Rules Committee by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) would be a great step in bringing some justice here. It would open up all the records at FERC on these cases of price fixing and market manipulation. It would force FERC to let States participate in the settlement negotiations, and it

would make some key changes in the Power Act to enable full refunds to these western States.

The Committee on Rules should have made it in order and the House should have adopted it, but that would be breaking the practice of this House and this administration in doing nothing in response to one of the great hijackings in American history. It is disgraceful. I urge my colleagues to vote against this unfair rule.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for the time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Spratt substitute.

The underlying bill continues to avoid the elephant in the room, the cost of endless tax cutting and its role in helping create the largest deficits in American history.

The Spratt substitute, on the other hand, will reinstitute real PAYGO provisions that might just reign in the reckless Republican majority's mismanagement of the Federal budget. I believe that this mismanagement is intentional.

While my colleagues on the other side say that they believe deficits do matter, their actions speak otherwise. In this session of Congress alone, the House has passed hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. The tax cuts come even as we do not even have a budget, and the supporters do not care that the cost of these cuts will be borne by our children in the form of more debt that they will get saddled with.

Why are we allowing these huge and growing deficits? It is called ``starving the beast,'' making the deficit so huge that it gives an argument against spending for the very programs the vast majority of Americans support, support because of our beliefs in what this country stands for and where we place our values.

This fiscally irresponsible underlying bill ill serves this country.

Also, disappointing, but not surprising, is the process under which these amendments are being debated, denying the House an opportunity to have a full and open debate on such an important issue. For example, the Stenholm substitute was not allowed on the floor and the reason is simple. It would probably win. The Republican leadership simply does not want to allow the House to vote on issues where the leadership cannot win, and we have seen this time and time again. Amendments where the majority of the House is in opposition to the leadership just never see the light of day.

It is wrong and I hope Members will support the Spratt substitute and help bring a little sanity to our Federal budget.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 4th of July, I rise in sharp disagreement with the priorities of this administration for our veterans. Americans everywhere will tell you that we owe our Nation's veterans a huge debt of gratitude. We must fulfill the promises we have made to them. During a time when hundreds of thousands of our troops stand in harm's way, we certainly must live up to our commitments to veterans. They deserve the very best health care our Nation can provide.

I believe all of us in Congress feel the same way, but why, then, will no one from the other side stand up to reject the Bush administration's plan to cut 900 million from veterans health care next year after the election? That is another massive cut coming on top of the budget that already underfunds veterans' health care by $1 billion.

Mr. Speaker, our veterans do not deserve this and they cannot afford it. I urge my colleagues to demand the Bush administration to stop the cuts in veterans health care.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my California colleague for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of the statements contained in this resolution. Most notably, it is important that Congress continue to recognize and endorse President Bush's vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.

I believe the resolution places too much emphasis on the recent exchange of letters between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon, but I am pleased the legislation notes that changes to a final status agreement based on new realities on the ground must be mutually agreed to by Israel and the Palestinians.

I join the authors of this resolution in support of Prime Minister Sharon's plan to evacuate all settlers from Gaza and at least some from the West Bank. This is an important step, but it must be a first step.

The proposed Israeli withdrawal will increase Israel's security. It will also ease the economic and humanitarian crisis faced by the Palestinians.

But this plan must not be mistaken for a complete and comprehensive agreement that must be reached. The only hope for resolving the deadly status quo is for Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a political settlement. For this to happen, both sides must live up to the agreements they have previously made. Palestinians must dismantle terrorist organizations, and Israel must impose a settlement freeze, knock down illegal outposts, and ease the harsh conditions of occupation.

None of this will transpire without the hands-on, vibrant commitment of the United States, election year or no election year. America's failure to engage in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not only doom those long-suffering peoples to continued violence and misery, but it harms vital U.S. national interests as well; and that is a risk we cannot afford to take.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 276, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to a very special person in the Santa Barbara community, Mike Couch, as he retires from the Santa Barbara School District after thirty-seven years. Mike Couch is more than a teacher, an advisor, a Principal or an Assistant Superintendent. He is a pillar of the Santa Barbara education community, a colleague and a friend.

Mike Couch began with the Santa Barbara School District as a social studies teacher at Santa Barbara High School, moving to Assistant Principal in 1989. In fact, while he was at Santa Barbara High, he was my daughter Laura's student government advisor. In talking to her about his retirement, she mentioned how she remembers fondly how ``he monitored our elections, taught us parliamentary procedure and allowed us to be involved in the policies which governed the student life and Santa Barbara High School. Most importantly, he took us seriously; he fostered a commitment within me to be an active participant in the way our school was run which resulted in a longstanding engagement in political life beyond high school.'' Due in part to this mentoring, Laura has served in the White House, worked for a University and now is working on a Presidential campaign.

Mike Couch later moved on to be Principal of Dos Pueblos High School and then to serve as Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Education for the Santa Barbara High School District. He taught for 22 years, first as an economics teacher when 30 students signed up for the newly offered class and there was nobody to teach it. His willingness to step into this assignment as a new teacher is indicative of the type of person that Mike Couch is. He is willing and able to step in and serve the school community and indeed the Santa Barbara community as a whole, in any role that is asked of him.

I am honored to have worked with Mike Couch over the years, and am so pleased by the positive affect that he has had not only on my daughter Laura, but also on so many students whose lives he has touched. I commend Mike Couch for his years and service and wish him well in his much-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4517, the Refinery Revitalization Act. This bill would give the Department of Energy unprecedented authority over all environmental permitting of refineries, with serious environmental consequences, creating yet another governmental bureaucracy. This bill has not been examined by any committee with jurisdiction over these laws and would create serious conflicts between the Department of Energy and State and Federal agencies charged with protecting our environment. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

The premise of this bill is that environmental regulation is hindering refinery expansion. There is no basis for this conclusion. Refining capacity has actually increased in recent years, and environmental requirements have not prevented that increase.

While there has been a decrease in the number of refineries, not the capacity, but the number, this is due to increasing market concentration resulting from refinery mergers. Thus, Big Oil, and not environmental laws, are to blame for fewer, but bigger, refineries.

Even if environmental permitting requirements were not the problem, this bill would make the situation worse, not better, by wreaking havoc with the well-established system partnership in place today. Under this bill, the Department of Energy would be given lead authority over environmental permits and would be given the ability to overrule permit denials by other State and Federal agencies. DOE lacks the experience or the ability in interpreting or implementing our environmental laws, because DOE's mission is not focused on environmental protection.

I am surprised at my colleagues' support for this bill, which would actually remove power from the States, from local control, and transfer it to a centralized bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. This runs counter to the themes of anti-big government that the majority professes to champion.

While this bill is no doubt supported by the refineries, it is not supported by anyone with a stake in environmental protection. All of the major environmental organizations oppose this bill, and the list of State organizations that have opposed the bill includes the Environmental Commissioners of the States, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the State and Local Air Directors, and many other groups.

This bill is also opposed by the League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC, and the National Hispanic Environmental Council, because of the environmental justice issues that it raises.

Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record letters from both of these organizations.

In addition to giving the Department of Energy the ability to override Federal and State permitting agencies, this bill also creates a special consultation process for industry. Before any other parties would even know that a permit is being planned, H.R. 4517 would require that DOE provide any permit applicant with a chance to meet with the permitting agencies, an inside track if you will, and obtain an informal reading regarding the agency's plan for granting the permit.

So much for competitive processes. This would give the inside track to the permit applicant over the public, which has overriding environmental and public health concerns.

Finally, DOE would also be given the ability to shape the record and the timing and procedure for the granting of permits. That power in itself is highly significant since a major part of permit evaluation is whether the permittee has supplied sufficient information and, in many cases, the environmental statutes and regulations specified, precise permit content. Under this bill, the Department of Energy would be allowed to determine that ``such data as the Secretary consider necessary had been submitted,'' centralized power, and move to permit issuance in 6 months or less. That would allow DOE to move a permit forward even where a permit applicant had clearly failed to meet the fundamental requirements for basic information.

The bill has not had any benefit of review by anyone except its sponsors. No hearings have been held, no agencies, not even DOE or EPA have testified to its effect. In essence, it makes a mockery of the legislative process that we are all committed to in this body.

Before we move to place an overlapping and inconsistent permitting scheme on top of already complex Federal laws that govern environmental permitting by State and Federal agencies, we should at least undertake a basic analysis of the bill's impact and validity. If the Congress is serious about examining refineries, we should do the work that would let us understand the effect and meaning of such a bill.

That has not been done, and in urging my colleagues to oppose this bill, I remind us all that the passage of this bill is going to ensure that disadvantaged communities are going to rise up in strong opposition to being dumped on, yet another time, by the government. And it also will open up serious discussion of what big government is really about.

League of United

Latin American Citizens,

Washington, DC, June 14, 2004.

Chairman Joe Barton,

Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Barton: On behalf of the League of United

Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the oldest Latino civil

rights organization in the United States, I am writing to

express deep concern with the introduction of HR 4517

directing the Secretary of Energy to designate ``Refinery

Revitalization Zones'' in areas of the country with high

levels of unemployment. Although we strongly support

revitalizing areas of the country with high unemployment and

the stabilization of oil workers is a LULAC priority,

unfortunately LULAC feels that HR 4517, as it stands today,

fails to reach this threshold in a number of ways. LULAC

believes that HR 4517 is structured so as to continue a race

to the bottom in labor and environmental standards and will

encourage members to reject this legislation.

LULAC is concerned about the stability of oil prices and

its impact on oil workers, many of whom are Hispanic. LULAC

supports state and federal efforts to stabilize the price of

oil and prevent the displacement of Hispanic oil field

workers and federal tax incentives to domestic oil producers

to reduce dependency on foreign oil. Therefore, LULAC is in

support of a federal energy policy that encourages the

development of alternative fossil fuels and other

environmentally friendly energy sources. However, the devil

is in the details. We support efforts that contain the rules

necessary to ensure balanced and equitable sustainable

development, stable economies and a healthy environment but

do not feel H.R. 4517 meets those standards.

LULAC believes that the efforts to create Refinery

Revitalization Zones in areas with unemployment rates more

than 20% unfairly targets area that are heavily minority

populated and already disproportionately impacted by

refineries and other industries. The environmental and public

health impacts of refineries that are required to meet all

existing environmental laws, including those state

regulations that may be more stringent than federal, are

still disproportionately felt by underprivileged communities.

This legislation would exacerbate these problems.

Lastly, the legislation places the power to designate a

revitalization zone with the Secretary of Energy with little,

if any review from other agencies. If we are to grow jobs, it

is critical that this be done in a substantive and

sustainable manner--over the long-term--and not with a short-

term vision that merely places a band-aid on real development

needs.

Sincerely,

Hector Flores,

LULAC National President.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

May I inquire of the Speaker, please, the time remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, my colleague.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

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

In closing, I would observe to the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce that on our side we have needed to roll into this 1 hour of discussion all of the customary hearings and studies which should have been undertaken. I know the gentleman has made apologies for it, but it is clear to me in listening to the debate that this bill before us is based on such a faulty premise, an unproven, untested premise, that public health and environmental protection laws are to blame for the shutdown of refineries. There is no evidence to support it, and there is no documentation that passage of this bill would increase the number of refineries reopened or produced.

We are being asked to support this legislation with no knowledge base on which to make our actions. As I have said earlier, to me this is a mockery of the system we are about, particularly for the committee which is such an important, prestigious committee within the House of Representatives and which I am so honored to be a part of.

The solution that I understand is being offered is to let the Secretary of Energy, a czar is what my colleagues have called him, we will have to build him a special throne because he is going to be able to override the Environmental Protection Agency, one whole agency that will just be emasculated, never mind State houses emasculated, to have a say in the environmental and public health regulations that their State has authority over. That will all be set aside in favor of this hope that by giving the power to the energy czar, we will see oil refineries opened. We do not know for sure but we hope so. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) eloquently noted for us that oil companies are awash in profits and could if they wished today build new refineries.

In sum, this is a bad bill. We can consider the topic but we certainly should not support this legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. If this bill goes into law and is signed into law, we will begin a strong conversation with the American people about environmental justice issues and about the engorgement of big government here in Washington, D.C.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4513. Like many Members, I applaud the topic of the legislation. I support wind, solar, and other clean renewable energy projects. They are a critical part of a clean energy future. But renewable energy projects could have adverse impacts on the environment and also on public health if they are not sited, designed, or operated properly. This needs to be a part of the topic. It is about a local voice in having a say in what happens.

That is why projects, whether they are clean or renewable or whatever kind of project it is, must be subject to a full environmental and public health review as required by the National Environmental Protection Act, or NEPA, a process which results in a better project.

With all due respect to the Chair of the committee, H.R. 4513 seeks to remove this requirement of having a local voice in the process. Under the bill, any Federal agency would be exempt from considering alternatives when assessing the environmental impact of a project. It would virtually eliminate input from local communities, States, and the public by allowing only a 20-day comment period and only allowing comments on the proponents' proposal.

Under current law, interested parties have 45 days to comment and analyze the environmental effects of alternative locations and actions of a project. The bill's intentionally broad definition of renewable energy leaves the door wide open to waivers for environmentally harmful projects, such as some solid waste incineration, hydroelectric projects, or LNG terminals and pipelines, not just on public lands but everywhere according to the OCS.

While I salute the fact that this bill recognizes renewable energy development and its importance, it fails to ensure that environmentally important renewable energy development occurs in a timely manner, in the right locations, subject to the terms that fully protect the public's interest, and through a process that ensures ample public input and trust.

Mr. Speaker, let us make sure that all energy projects meet environmental and public health standards. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 4513.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, if there were the kind of local processes that are in place now in NEPA to allow for that full discussion and have alternatives that are available for the public to have an input.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I would have to be assured that the other pieces for having a local say would be there as well. But lengthening it to the 45 days would be more in compliance with the way it is now.

Yes, there are; and I would be happy to discuss it further.

That is one step. I would defer also to the ranking member and an ability to work that out.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Michigan for yielding to me.

I want to welcome back our distinguished colleague from Louisiana and note that his old fire is still with him, and that is a pleasure.

I do rise in strong opposition to this legislation and to the rest of these ill-conceived energy bills. This much-vaunted Energy Week is not about enacting solutions to our energy problems. It is about election- year politics.

The Republican leadership wants to look as if it is doing something about these record-high gas prices. If they were serious about addressing this and a myriad of other energy issues, we would not be addressing this bill today.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, is a monstrosity. At a time of record-high deficits, the bill itself costs a whopping $31 billion. At a time of record-high oil industry profits, the bill would shovel billions in taxpayer subsidies to these very companies. At a time of record-high gas prices, this bill would actually raise gas prices, but that is not all.

The bill drills holes in the Clean Water Act; the Safe Drinking Water Act; NEPA, the National Environmental Protection Act; and the Coastal Zone Management Act. It lets MTBE producers off the hook for groundwater contamination their product caused, and it gives these same companies $2 billion of our constituents' money to get into a new line of work. What a deal.

Mr. Speaker, as we know, this is the same bill that passed this House last November and was thankfully not brought up in the Senate. The American people owe a debt of gratitude to the other body for stopping this awful bill last year. This House should follow such a good example and kill it today.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following rollcall votes and would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 229--``yes''; Rollcall No. 230--``yes''; and Rollcall No. 231--``yes''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Santa Barbara Jewish Federation as they celebrate their 30th anniversary of service to our community. The Santa Barbara Jewish Federation contributes to the entire Santa Barbara community through their educational programs, art exhibits, festivals, and other programs.

The mission of the Santa Barbara Jewish Federation is to create and advance a cohesive Santa Barbara Jewish community by promoting identification and connectedness to the Jewish community, generating mutual respect amongst Jews of different practice, promoting cooperative relationships among the Jewish organizations and promoting positive relationships between the Jewish community and the community at large. The Santa Barbara Jewish Federation promotes charity and justice in all that they do.

The Santa Barbara Jewish Federation contributes to the community by helping to care for those in need, helping elders live in dignity and they work to build respect and trust among religious and ethnic groups. In their mission statement, the Jewish Federation stresses the Hebrew Phrase Tikkun Olam, meaning ``healing the world.'' The work that is done here in Santa Barbara helps not only our local community, but sets a positive example for all. Their work truly goes a long way in helping to heal the world.

I have been honored and privileged to attend the Federation's ``Super Sunday'' telethon to raise funds for all of the critical programs they provide to our community throughout the year. I am pleased to help commemorate the Santa Barbara Jewish Federation for all the wonderful, positive ways they contribute to the community as they celebrate their 30th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that the House of Representatives is considering the Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act, or STOP Stroke Act, today. As my colleague from Mississippi has just said, this bill is past due and it is time for us to act today.

Right now stroke is the number three killer in the United States and it is one of the major causes of serious disability. Each year more than 700,000 Americans suffer from a stroke, as has been said, and 170,000 people die from a stroke every year.

Of national significance, nearly 4\1/2\ million Americans are stroke survivors today, at tremendous cost personally to families, to all of us. And as has been said, this is a very personal story. Whether it is Senator Coverdell or my father-in-law, each of us is involved in the story of stroke. But what makes this so heartbreaking is the fact that many of these deaths and disabilities can be prevented with the treatments available today.

As cochair of the Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition, it is our goal to improve that disparity. If a stroke victim can get quick treatment within 2 to 3 hours of the onset of symptoms lives can be saved and many disabilities can be avoided or curtailed. But fewer than 3 percent of stroke patients now receive the state of the art medication, and only one in 10 stroke patients are monitored by a neurologist. Sadly and tragically, most Americans cannot today identify the signs of strokes, and many emergency room technicians are not trained to recognize and manage its symptoms. That is why I am proud to introduce the Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act, or STOP Stroke Act, and I am so pleased to work with my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).

I am very proud also to be associated with the work of Senator Cochran, Senator Frist and Senator Kennedy on this important legislation. The bill creates a stroke prevention and education campaign. This campaign, much needed, will be a national multi-media awareness effort to promote stroke prevention and encourage stroke patients to seek immediate treatment. We will also establish the Paul Coverdell Stroke Registry and Clearinghouse in the law, and this program will collect data about care for stroke patients and foster the development of effective stroke care systems, streamlining the response time and the response efforts.

The bill provides for medical professional development to make sure our health care providers are up to date on the newest and best treatments and technologies.

And finally, the STOP Stroke Act creates a pilot program to provide grants for Statewide stroke care systems, so that States can develop and implement stroke prevention, treatment and rehabilitation systems. The various States then would be able to use these resources to improve telehealth programs, train emergency medical services personnel, identify stroke care, treatment, and rehabilitation centers and create a system to set standards of care for stroke patients and develop and evaluate their stroke care systems.

Passing this bill will be a great step forward for stroke care in this country. It has the potential to help millions of Americans avoid stroke and/or better cope with its effects. It is a good example of what bipartisan negotiation and compromise can accomplish.

I want to take a moment to thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) for this leadership on this issue. He and his staff have been strong partners in this effort. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for his early support, as well as the former chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the ranking members, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for all their efforts on this bill's behalf.

I make a point of thanking our counsel Cheryl Jaeger on the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Barton) staff and counsel John Ford on the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Dingell) staff, and my own staff member Jeremy Sharp for the many hours of work put into this effort.

It is very important I believe to thank the American Heart Association, the American Stroke Association and the many members of the STOP Stroke Act Coalition for their efforts to get this passed. The members are as follows:

American Academy of Neurology

American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

American Association of Neurological Surgeons

American College of Chest Physicians

American College of Emergency Physicians

American College of Preventive Medicine

American College of Radiology

American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

American Occupational Therapy Association

American Physical Therapy Association

American Society of Interventional and Therapeutic

Neuroradiology

American Society of Neuroradiology

Association of American Medical Colleges

Associaiton of State and Territorial Chronic Disease Program

Directors

Association of State and Territorial Directors of Health

Promotion and Public Health Education

Boston Scientific

Brain Injury Association, Inc.

Congres of Neurological Surgeons

Emergency Nurses Association

Genentech, Inc.

Johnson & Johnson

National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems

National Stroke Association

North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology

Partnership for Prevention

Society of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology

Stroke Belt Consortium

It underscores for us all that there is cooperation within the constituency of health care providers and now it is time for us to become partners in this effort.

I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and move this process forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 664 honoring the late Honorable Ronald Wilson Reagan. I was proud to add my name as an original cosponsor of this resolution.

The former president was devoted to his country and will long be remembered for his service to America. My heart goes out to his family during this time of loss.

President Reagan was also a long time member of our Santa Barbara community. Santa Barbara County was home to the spectacular mountaintop ranch the former president and first lady affectionately referred to as the ``Western White House''.

President Reagan carried with him traits characteristic of California's Central Coast--a sunny disposition and optimistic outlook--to Washington and to the world. His ``morning in America'' slogan changed the tone of politics in our Nation's capital and enabled him to work in a constructive bipartisan manner on a number of important issues.

The Reagans should also be commended for the strength and honesty they demonstrated during their long struggle with Alzheimer's. Their example brought much needed attention to the challenges facing millions of American families that deal with this affliction every day.

And their ongoing commitment to this disease is demonstrated at the various Alzheimer's research, awareness, and prevention efforts around the country. On the Central Coast, for example, The Ronald and Nancy Reagan Family Fund provides grants for respite care services for Alzheimer's patients in Santa Barbara County.

Today I join my colleagues in celebrating the service of the late President Ronald Reagan. The best honor we can bestow upon him is to carry on his optimistic spirit and faith in the American people for generations to come. That is what Ronald Reagan--a great American and great Californian--would have wanted.