Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 177, 178, 179 due to bad weather, which delayed my flight. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 177, 178, 179.

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

Mr. Speaker, two wrongs do not make a right, and three wrongs do not make a right, and passing bad legislation a second and third time will not make it a good bill. And I do not believe the Senate is going to like it a bit better. As a matter of fact, if the problem is the United States Senate, the other body, it would seem to me that we could take the bill over to the other body and find out exactly what the problem is and not take the time of the House over and over passing a bill that will go nowhere.

Last year, the House considered and passed the legislation that is identical to two of the bills considered under the rule, and I do not believe the people of this great Nation sent us here to change the number on a bill and pass it again during the same Congress.

Instead of playing these legislative games, we should be working on the grave issues that face this country. Americans are out of work, the Federal deficit is reaching all-time highs, American troops are in even greater danger in Iraq, the serious abuses of Iraqi prisoners and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq should be aggressively investigated, and our hard-earned reputation and relationships throughout the world are in a shambles. So why, Mr. Speaker, are we on the floor of the people's House doing the same thing we did last year?

Why are we wasting valuable time reconsidering the bills that were passed and sent to the other body? The bills do nothing to help the more than 40 million uninsured Americans. It is shameful, with so many issues facing this Nation, that so many pieces of good legislation languish while we waste valuable floor time on bills that have already been passed and are not expired.

Why are we not considering bipartisan legislation to expand access to preventive health care services and to education programs that help to reduce unintended pregnancies, reduce infections of sexually transmitted diseases? And why are we not considering legislation that would allow children of deployed servicemembers to remain at their public schools in the event of a temporary residences change? Why do we not consider legislation to keep law enforcement uniforms out of the hands of criminals and terrorists? Why are we not on the floor debating and passing important bipartisan genetic nondiscrimination legislation?

This replay game is not even an effort to improve the earlier work. The bills are not new and improved. Last year's medical malpractice legislation was considered under a closed rule, and this year the same malpractice legislation is subject to a closed rule. In the Committee on Rules hearing on each of the medical malpractice bills, Democrats offered a total of 39 amendments. Zero were made in order. Last year, the rule on the association health plans, the AHP bill, was restrictive, allowing only one amendment. This year, the same AHP bill with a new number is subject to a restrictive rule and again only one amendment is made in order.

I make the point again, Mr. Speaker, there is no change in the bill that has already passed the House.

Mr. Speaker, it does not help the millions of uninsured Americans at all. The wealthy are able to take advantage of the health savings accounts, but the poor are not. The uninsured will continue to be the uninsured.

H.R. 4281 suffers from the same fatal maladies as last year's bill creating the AHPs. The Congressional Budget Office found that under this proposal, now this is very important, the Congressional Budget Office found that under the proposal passed that the premiums would increase for 80 percent of workers in small firms, and that 100,000 of the sickest workers would lose coverage all together.

The bill would eliminate the protection of over 1,000 State consumer protection laws and vital State oversight. AHPs are likely to destabilize the health insurance market. Over 850 organizations oppose this legislation, including the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislators, and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

The cure offered by the same medical malpractice bill is worse than the disease. Just like last year's bill, the bill ignores the major player in rising malpractice insurance premiums: the insurance corporations. Why we do that, I do not know; but they are continually left out of this equation. Proponents want to blame the jury awards for rising insurance premiums, but a study by Americans for Insurance Reform reported that rising insurance premiums are in no way tied to jury awards.

Nothing in the bill requires the insurance corporations to lower premiums for medical malpractice insurance. Nothing in this bill requires the insurance companies to pass along to the physicians any savings the corporations might gain from this legislation.

And, disappointingly, nothing in this bill gets rid of incompetent doctors.

Statistics say that 5 percent of doctors are responsible for 54 percent of all medical malpractice claims paid. Logic cries out that those 5 percent of doctors be dealt with. Now, this legislation punishes injured patients with valuable claims against negligent or reckless physicians and allows repeatedly reckless doctors to continue to practice medicine. We should weed out the 5 percent of physicians causing most of the harm and who force the insurance to pay again and again for their mistakes.

We should stop playing games and consider legislation that will really help patients and that will really aid the doctors in providing quality health care. What we need is a reasonable regulation of the insurance industry, aggressive removal of bad doctors, and affordable prescription drugs.

Mr. Speaker, my concern goes beyond this obvious waste of time and resources and the poor substance of these three bills. Once again, the House is denied the opportunity to engage in full and open debate. Members are being muzzled. This abuse of process is becoming the norm rather than the exception.

Excluding H. Res. 638, the Committee on Rules has produced 22 rules this year: one open rule, 14 restrictive, five closed, and two procedurals. Debate is narrowed and stifled. Amendments and policy alternatives routinely are made out of order and not allowed on the floor. The body is elected to deliberate and debate, but the process is becoming much less democratic and much less deliberative.

This abuse of power and process harms this institution and does nothing to help the over 40 million Americans without health care insurance. Reconsideration and repassage of these bills is a meaningless exhibition of political theater, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule so the House can get down to some serious work on behalf of the American people.

I must also say, Mr. Speaker, that I am particularly aggrieved at the portion of this bill that allows the pharmaceutical companies and the producers of medical devices to get off without being sued.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Not only for the drug industry, Mr. Speaker, but for the

people who manufacture medical devices. I know that is hard to believe, given that the drug companies just cleaned up from the Medicare bill passed here, but they are indemnified in this bill if the FDA has approved what they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, this is the same FDA that just last week threw science overboard and declined to approve a drug that has been found safe in 36 countries and by 24 of 29 scientists that studied it for the FDA. I do not trust the FDA anymore. But the FDA gives it approval, and then says citizens will have no recourse.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, there is no punitive damage; none. In addition to that, just last week it was reported that science in the United States is falling considerably behind. We are no longer the leaders. This is the same leading by this FDA. I am very sorry to see that in this bill, and I believe most Americans will not approve it being in this bill. Frankly, I hope the Senate will again refuse to take it up.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. CBO reports that proponents of limiting malpractice liability argue greater savings in health care, possible through reductions in practice of defensive medicine. However, the defensive medicine is motivated less by liability than by the physicians, by the money it generates for them. And on the basis of existing studies and its own research, the Congressional Budget Office says savings from reducing defensive medicine would be very small.

Also, there is no evidence that restriction on tort liability reduced medical spending.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 1 minute to respond to my colleague who did misunderstand what I was saying. The speaker had said that practicing defensive medicine was one of the reasons that the costs were so high. What the CBO has said was that defensive medicine is motivated less by liability concerns than the income it generates for the physician. On the basis of CBO's own studies and research, they believe that savings from reducing defensive medicine would be very small.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to add two more important health-related bills to this multibill rule.

Since we are revoting on health initiatives that have already passed the House in some form in this Congress, I think we should take this opportunity to consider two other very important pieces of healthcare- related legislation. My amendment would allow for the consideration of a bipartisan drug reimportation legislation. If the purpose of this rule and these bills is to restate our commitment to House-passed health-related matters, this bill certainly deserves to be included. It has been passed several times. Drug reimportation legislation would provide relief for millions of Americans including the over 40 million uninsured. The House overwhelmingly passed similar legislation last year but it is worth

considering again, now that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has said that he supports reimporting drugs from Canada.

The second bill would amend the Medicare Prescription Drug Act to provide for negotiation of fair prices for Medicare prescription drugs. I cannot think of a more important correction to the Medicare prescription drug bill than fixing the irresponsible language in that bill that prohibits the Federal Government from negotiating lower prices for prescription drugs for our Nation's senior citizens.

Let me emphasize that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the three bills already covered by the rule. It will allow the House to add these two important health bills to this multibill rule. However, a ``yes'' vote will block Members from considering two more critical health initiatives. Again, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order out of turn.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of a consummate patriot Mary McGrory, who passed away 2 weeks ago, and we may never see her like again. Mary was a loyal friend, a generous humanitarian, and most of all, a brilliant writer. Her lyrical commentary illustrated a command of the English language that was unparalleled. She used her talents to craft tough commentary, softened only by her steadfast compassion. Her allegiance to the defeat of injustice and the exposure of political phonies made her a champion to the underprivileged, a thorn in the side of policy makers, an icon to many, and a hero to me.

I met Mary McGrory shortly after coming to Washington when I was first elected in 1986. And as part of my campaign, I had run against the Contras. I thought everybody was. But Mary singled me out as being somewhat unusual, and she interviewed me for an article shortly after I got here that she was writing about the Iran Contra hearings, and we became very fast friends. I certainly never expected that wonderful national icon Mary McGrory to seek me out, but I had always loved her articles and I was awestruck by the fact that we were friends.

The passion with which she approached her life was remarkable. Nothing she did was done half-heartedly or without absolute conviction. As a result, her achievements as a journalist were preordained.

Mary's story serves as an inspiration to women working to achieve their dreams. When she entered the field of journalism, men dominated it. Journalism was not an easy profession for a woman to break into. Her first assignment in Washington was ``gender appropriate'' for the time, writing the book reviews for the Washington Star. But then she covered the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954. Mary McGrory was the first person in the country to announce and denounce Joe McCarthy

as a bully. She then earned a national reputation as a serious and credible journalist of the first magnitude.

She grabbed the heart of the Nation with her coverage of President Kennedy's assassination. Her poetic tribute to his life and gentile commentary of his funeral comforted a grieving Nation.

The national spotlight shined on Mary again in 1974 when she was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for commentary for her coverage of the Watergate scandal. She was most proud that her coverage landed her a spot on President Nixon's notorious ``enemies list.'' That recognition served not as a warning to tame her merciless analysis but as a validation for her relentless work ethic.

When the Washington Star closed its doors in 1981, Mary was devastated. I am convinced, I believe, that she had lost her own true love. Although she would continue to write for the Washington Post, whom she also loved, her first allegiance was to the Star.

My colleague has already talked about the wonderful work that she did with the orphans and the children needing help in this city for more than 5 decades, but I can never forget Mary McGrory the entertainer. I was a proud member of the Lower Macomb Street Choral Society for which we had to audition. Whether one was a diplomat, a media member, or anybody, they had to audition for that group in the comfort of her living room. Her infamous lasagnas fed our stomachs and her favorite Irish songs fed our hearts. It was a coveted invitation to go to McComb Street, and then for the last 10 years, Mary and I have had dinner together here in the Capitol just before the State of the Union address, and the next one for me will be extremely lonely.

I last spoke with her on the day that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) rescued the portrait of Mary Theresa Norton from one of the Capitol closets. She had been the Chair of the Committee on Labor and was responsible for child labor laws and the fair labor standards, and we knew nothing about her. We were happy that day to find an article that Mary had written about Congresswoman Norton where she quoted the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Dingell) father as saying that Mary Theresa Norton could do anything that any man could do and do it better and do it faster, and it was a great honor to pay to her.

I would like to end with one of Mary's favorite songs that we sang together with Phil Gailey sometimes at 2 and 3 in the morning, and they sang this at her funeral, and I know the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who is here in the audience, will know this.

I'll meet you in the morning

With a how do you do

And will sit down the river

And with rapture old acquaintance renew.

You'll know me in the morning

By the smile that I wear

When I meet you in the morning

In the city Four Square.

I will meet you there, Mary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Village of Youngstown, New York.

The Village of Youngstown is a small village that has evolved with the times, but whose residents have never lost touch with their roots. Its history resembles that of many of the small towns on which our Nation was built. The area began to grow after the American forces took over Historic Old Fort Niagara. Many tradesmen and shopkeepers came to the area during the War of 1812 to provide needed supplies and services to the Fort, which sits at the edge of the village. The village was the site of many major battles during the War of 1812 and was also a major shipping port in the 1800's.

The village was named for John Young who originally came from across the river in Canada. One hundred fifty years ago, the Village of Youngstown was officially incorporated in Niagara County, on the shores of the mighty Niagara River and Lake Ontario.

The village sits on beautiful, fertile Western New York land which is renowned for its sailing regattas and year round sportfishery. The surrounding area is home to many of New York's famous apple orchards. Youngstown is an internationally designated important Bird Area.

With a population of nearly 2,000 people, Youngstown is a close-knit community where everyone is a neighbor. Most people know each other, and even if you are not well acquainted, faces smile with recognition and greetings are exchanged with warmth. Friendly inquiries are made when there has been an experience with pain--or joy. Anytime a neighbor is suffering from ill health or some loss, the community is there to help, to lighten the burden, and to express its loving concern. Beyond the village's long and distinguished history, Youngstown is simply a place residents are proud to raise a family.

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the Village of Youngstown's 150th birthday, I unite with its residents to celebrate their accomplishments and contributions to Niagara County, our state, and our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the world recognizes Earth Day, to express my strong concern with a recent proposal by the administration to weaken standards on mercury emissions from power plants.

This administration seems to have forgotten that Earth Day is our special day to look at the planet and see what needs changing. We should be moving forward with environmental policy, as we have done for nearly 35 years. Unfortunately, I fear that this administration is set on reversing these decades of progress.

My constituents and other Americans are being shortchanged by attempts to weaken clean water and clean air standards, particularly the mercury proposal. As co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, I am very concerned that women and children, the groups who are at most risk from mercury exposure, are hurt by this proposal. A recent analysis by the EPA indicates that 1 in 6 women of childbearing age have levels of mercury in their blood at unsafe levels; 1 in 12 women of childbearing age has enough mercury in her system to pose a potential threat to fetal health. This contamination results in more than 600,000 newborns at risk of neurological problems due to mercury exposure.

We need to take immediate action to reduce women and children's exposure to mercury. Under the Clean Air Act, toxic substances like mercury must be controlled at each and every power plant by using the maximum achievable control technologies. Two years ago, EPA estimated that under this standard, existing technologies could reduce 90 percent of mercury pollution from power plants, bringing mercury emissions down to roughly 5 tons per year by 2008.

Unfortunately, EPA's proposed mercury standards are not protective of public health. The emission limits proposed are 10-20 times higher than what some plants achieve today. In the end, EPA's proposal allows power plants to emit six to seven times more mercury into our airways for a decade longer compared what EPA has said is achievable. I call on the administration to significantly strengthen this approach so that as much mercury as possible is removed from the emissions of each and every power plant.

It is sad that this administration has absolutely no environmental accomplishments on its record. The administration has repeatedly ignored the dangers that environmental toxins like mercury pose to women and children, and instead bends over backwards to cater to their friends in polluting industries. We cannot continue to play politics with human health, the environment and our children's futures.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to re-introduce the Eliminate Colorectal Cancer Act, a bill that can save the lives of thousands of people who might otherwise fall victim to the only completely preventable form of cancer.

Few people realize that colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the U.S. for men and women combined. It kills more Americans every year than either breast cancer or prostate cancer. An estimated 146,940 people will be diagnosed with this cancer in 2004, and 56,730 will die from it.

This is an unspeakable tragedy because colorectal cancer is preventable, treatable, and curable when detected at an early stage. When colorectal cancer is detected before it has spread, the five year survival rate is over 91 percent.

Further, colorectal cancer is the only cancer we know how to prevent. If polyps are discovered in the colon, they can be removed before they become cancerous and the cancer will never develop.

And yet tens of thousands of Americans continue to die from this disease, mostly because their cancer is detected at a later, less treatable stage.

No one should die of colorectal cancer. This cancer is preventable and detectable. It is slowgrowing and easy to stop in its tracks. The fact that over 56,000 Americans die of this disease is nothing more than a massive failure of our preventive health system.

For most Americans, two barriers effectively block their access to colorectal cancer screening: ignorance, and lack of insurance coverage. Many people simply don't realize they are at risk. When they are educated by their doctors and other sources, however, the vast majority are ready to undergo screening.

This brings them to the second major obstacle--insurance coverage. Not all insurers cover colorectal cancer screening, even for those groups at higher risk. All men and women over the age of 50 should be screened regularly, as well as those under 50 at high risk. Screening tests are crucial because colorectal cancer often causes no symptoms until it is widespread.

A recent Lewin Group study of the insurance plans offered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) is illustrative. Lewin researchers reviewed the plan materials offered to subscribers to determine which covered the full range of colorectal cancer screening methods. In 2002, only 3 percent of FEHBP plans covered screening colonoscopy. In 2003, that number jumped dramatically to 28 percent. Clearly, insurers are realizing that these screening exams make sense. Colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective, considering that treatment for a patient with an advanced form of cancer can easily be $40,000 or more. Preventive screening is good policy, good health care, and good economics.

I am therefore proud to introduce today the Eliminate Colorectal Cancer Act, a bill to require insurers to cover a regular colorectal cancer screening exam. Doctors and patients will be able to decide together the appropriate screening method and frequency of testing. My friend and colleague, Rep. Peter King, has joined me as original cosponsor of this vital initiative. In the Senate, a companion bill is being introduced today by Senators Edward Kennedy and Pat Roberts.

I am pleased to report that a wide range of respected organizations have already lent their support to this initiative, including the American Cancer Society. These organizations will be working diligently to educate Members of Congress about the need for this legislation and to urge their support for it.

The wall at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial lists the names of 58,235 Americans who lost their lives over the course of that conflict. Every year, we lose almost that many men and women to colorectal cancer. But we have the power to eliminate colorectal cancer. I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor the Eliminate Colorectal Cancer Act and put us on the path to realizing this worthy goal.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks against the Republican budget because it cuts funding for Violence Against Women programs and in 10 years has cut Family Violence programs 10 percent.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our men and women in uniform. I cannot however, in full confidence, rise in support of statements that the world is a safer place for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. The human and financial costs of war are colossal. This action has been no exception. With the details of the tragic bombing of a hotel in Baghdad still developing as we debate this resolution, we are once again reminded of the horrors of war--and the long road ahead. Based on today's events, and the recent bombing in Spain, how can the authors of this resolution say that we are safer?

No one has borne the costs of this military action more than our soldiers and their families. No one understands these sacrifices

greater than the spouses and children of soldiers who spend month after month, deployment after deployment, in far away lands. No one understands sacrifices greater than the soldiers themselves who volunteer their time, but must sometimes pay with their health, their jobs, or even their lives.

All of us in this Congress want to honor these men and women in uniform. I am sure that we all want to minimize their hardships and that of their families. A bipartisan piece of legislation that I recently introduced, H.R. 3779, the Safeguarding Schoolchildren of Deployed Soldiers Act, would seek to bring us one step closer to this goal. At a time when Reservists and members of the National Guard are being used at unprecedented levels, many of them are experiencing new problems when they leave home.

According to the Department of Defense, there are currently 1.2 million children with military parents in the United States. This number is only slightly less than the total number of adults currently serving in the Armed Forces.

I learned firsthand how deployments can cause significant upheaval in a child's life when the brother of a deployed soldier recently contacted my office. He explained that his niece had moved to live with her mother while her father was away fighting in Iraq. As a result, she was prevented from attending her normal high school because she no longer resided within the school district.

The Safeguarding Schoolchildren of Deployed Soldiers Act would ensure some measure of continuity for children who change residence as a result of their parent's military service by allowing them to continue to receive an education at their schools, even if they are temporarily residing outside the school district.

While I will vote yes on today's resolution, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake that it is a vote of support for our troops and their families; troops such as Sgt. Christopher Kreiger from the 105th Military Police Company, who was informed this week that his unit's tour of duty has been extended indefinitely. It is my hope that he will come home quickly and safely to see his one-year-old daughter for the first time.

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

I am pleased to join my colleague in the consideration of H.R. 3733, legislation naming a postal facility in Altamont, Kansas after Myron George. This measure was introduced by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) on January 27, 2004 and unanimously reported by the Committee on Government Reform on February 26, 2004.

Myron Virgil George was born in Kansas in 1900 and attended grade school and high school in Altamont, Kansas. He served in the United States Army for 2 years before he learned the printing trade at the Altamont Journal.

After serving as an officer with the Kansas State Highway Commission for 11 years, Myron George ran for Congress in 1950 in a special election. He served in the United States Congress until 1959. He returned to his home State and engaged in public relations in the transportation and construction fields until his death in 1972.

Madam Speaker, I urge the swift adoption of H.R. 3733.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, the term ``renaissance man'' is tossed around far too casually because people do not truly understand what it means. The artist and scholars in the Italian Renaissance venerated people who were accomplished in many different fields. Present diversification rather than specialization, was the ideal of the time. As a term of admiration, ``renaissance man'' has few peers. It is a term that was often used to refer to Luis A. Ferre, the former Governor of Puerto Rico, who passed away in October of 2003.

Mr. Ferre, in addition to being the Governor, was a successful businessman and a philanthropist and engineer, a classically trained musician, a political pioneer, and a patron of the arts: a renaissance man indeed.

Luis A. Ferre was born in Ponce, Puerto Rico on February 17, 1904, the son of an engineer of French descent. After spending his early childhood in Ponce, he attended high school in Morristown, New Jersey, before enrolling at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he received degrees in mechanical engineering and electrical engineering. In addition, he studied at the New England Conservatory of Music where he became an accomplished classical pianist.

Mr. Ferre is perhaps best remembered as an advocate for Puerto Rico statehood. After running for Governor twice on the ticket of the Republican Statehood Party, he formed his own party, the New Progressive Party, on whose ticket he was elected Governor of Puerto Rico in 1968. He served for one term, from 1969 to 1973, during which time he established his legacy of positive progress for Puerto Rico. He granted property titles to those living on public lands, built housing for low-income families, and made a positive step forward for gender equality in Puerto Rico by appointing the Commonwealth's first female Cabinet Secretary.

After leaving office, Mr. Ferre continued his advocacy of Puerto Rican statehood. He was passionately dedicated to the principle that not only should Puerto Rico be made more fully a part of the United States, but the United States should be aware of how important Puerto Rico was to it. During one of his many appearances before Congress, Mr. Ferre reminded the Members of how much Puerto Rico is engrained in the American experience. ``Not only are Puerto Ricans citizens by birth,'' Mr. Ferre said, ``but one would be hard-pressed to find a Puerto Rican without a sister in New York, a son in Chicago, a cousin in Orlando, or a daughter in Honolulu or Oklahoma City.'' A statement such as this from a man born just 6 years after Puerto Rico was taken from Spain as a prize of war shows just how far Puerto Rico came in his lifetime.

Mr. Ferre's dedication to the arts defined him almost as much as his political accomplishments. Realizing that culture was as important to the future of Puerto Rico as prosperity, he founded and endowed the Ponce Museum of Art and the city library in Ponce. He saved the local newspaper from folding, and El Nuevo Dia, now based in San Juan, is the island's biggest newspaper.

Luis A. Ferre, one of the finest and most prominent Puerto Ricans of the past century, liked to describe himself as a revolutionary in his ideas, liberal in his objectives, and conservative in his methods. He was a friend to Presidents and a titan to Puerto Rican politics. He was an honorable protector of Puerto Rico's past and its future. And, with the condolences of the House, he

is deserving and worthy of this resolution in his honor.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I will reserve my remarks for the Record and yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my colleague and cousin.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in support of H.J. Res. 87, a timely resolution that expresses Congress's admiration and respect for the 20th century's greatest American leader.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt started his political career in New York State by working vigorously for reform movements that would redefine the role of government, and he never stopped. The programs that epitomized the New Deal, had their genesis in Albany. As governor, Roosevelt implemented many of the innovative, progressive policies he would later introduce to the Nation as President. He expanded state assistance to social services and state agencies and eased the hardships on New York's agricultural industry by encouraging tax cuts for small farmers. Upon the onset of the Great Depression, he authorized the New York State Unemployment Relief Act and the Temporary Emergency Relief Administration.

In 1928, Roosevelt won the Democratic nomination for Governor at the Naval Armory in my home city of Rochester, New York. While serving as Governor, his successes elevated him to national prominence, and in 1932, he was elected President of the United States for the first of an unprecedented--and never to be repeated--four terms in office.

In 1932, the Nation was plunged into the Great Depression that affected every American. Businesses failed; soup kitchens were set up to feed the longer and longer lines of the unemployed. Banks failed, mortgages were foreclosed and the Nation was filled with fear and despair. Roosevelt began the most comprehensive and innovative programs to put Americans back to work in our history. The Public Works Administration alone funded over 34,000 projects that put people to work building airports, highways, hospitals, schools, and universities.

His Works Progress Administration (WPA) hired artists to enhance the projects and many of our most beautiful public buildings today were the work of the WPA. These publicly funded arts initiatives put famous artists such as Jackson Pollack, Milton Avery, and Stuart Davis to work. As an interesting side note, the red, white, and blue WPA logo remained on theater playbills and its initials were said to mean ``Work Pays America.'' We cannot forget the Civilian Conservation Corps which built national forests and did remedial work to restore and protect the land.

Banking legislation protected deposits, and Social Security ensured that the elderly would not be destitute. The Tennessee Valley Authority brought electricity to parts of the country for the first time. Veterans returning home were given free education under the GI bill and bought homes with the VA low-rate mortgages. The middle class that emerged as a result of the policies of the Roosevelt administration has been the key to American economic stability, success, and innovation.

He understood the desire of able bodied and able minded Americans to work and created jobs. He led America out of an economic depression not merely by giving government handouts, but by creating jobs.

President Roosevelt showed his natural and inspiring leadership throughout World War II. When the nations of Europe began falling to the Nazis, one by one, the United States was hardly a military superpower. If anything, we were poorly prepared and equipped. In 1939, the U.S. Army had barely entered the new century; we still had cavalry troops. In record time, the innovative partnership Franklin Roosevelt established between government and private enterprise enabled American industry to provide the U.S. military with a fleet of 300,000 planes, 100,000 tanks, and 87,000 warships to contribute in record time to the Allied cause. When the war effort outgrew all available space in Washington, Roosevelt's Department of Defense built the Pentagon in a scant 16 months. Roosevelt's creative, visionary leadership enabled the Allies to marshal the resources, troops and equipment to defeat the Nazis and free most of Europe from their domination.

Franklin Roosevelt embraced the unique capabilities of very individual and worked tirelessly to ensure that all Americans would be able to earn a living and build this great Nation. As a result of initiatives like the PWA, the WPA, and the CCC, the unemployed got jobs, people were able to support their families, and this Nation was able to grow and prosper. I hope that, as public servants, my colleagues will join me in following in his example by supporting honest policies that work to better the lives of American people.

Franklin Roosevelt had great regard for public service, and served with a sense of responsibility and honor. His respect for the American people and the value he placed on their well-being and security drove everything he did. President Roosevelt came to embody strength, hope and resolve during some of the most difficult days in our Nation's history. From the economic distress of the Great Depression to the horrifying attack on Pearl Harbor that caused the Nation to enter World War II, Roosevelt's steadfast leadership ignited an economic engine and calmed a frightened nation.

The legacy of his policies will certainly outlast my lifetime and will continue to benefit my children and grandchildren for years to come. We owe home an unpayable debt of gratitude.

Only those closest to him realized that he couldn't walk unaided. As former Governor of New York, Mario Cuomo said ``Franklin Roosevelt lifted himself from his wheelchair to lift this nation from its knees.''

Franklin Delano Roosevelt left us with some of the most memorable quotations of the century. He told us that, ``We have nothing to fear but fear itself.'' He offered ``a new deal'' to the Nation, and so perfectly encapsulated the American spirit by saying we would rather ``die on our feet than live on our knees.'' Of all his many wise and eloquent pronouncements, however, I would leave you with this one:

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the

abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide

enough for those who have too little.

I am honored to rise today to celebrate the extraordinary life and contributions of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce important legislation that seeks to undo--in some small measure--an injustice done to thousands of American workers in the years following the Manhattan Project.

Beginning in the 1940s, throughout the United States, the government secretly contracted with hundreds of private-sector factories and laboratories to develop, test, and produce atomic weapons. For well over a decade, many of these facilities processed enormous amounts of radioactive materials such as thorium, uranium and radium. Yet, when the government contracts expired in the 1950s, few of these facilities were properly decontaminated.

In 2000, Congress saw fit to establish a reparations program for workers who developed diseases because of their work on our nation's atomic weapons program. Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA), workers could receive a one-time payment of $150,000 and medical coverage for expenses associated with the treatment of diseases contracted due to this exposure. One major shortcoming of the program is its failure to compensate individuals made sick from their work in former atomic weapons plants--where the walls and floors were permeated with radioactive residue--for decades following the end of Cold War era production.

In fact, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health released a report in the fall that found ``significant'' residual radioactive contamination existed in many of the former contractor sites well into the 1970s, 80s and beyond. Today, we see the legacy of this failure to properly decontaminate. Employees who, unbeknownst to them, worked in facilities with significant residual contamination, have contracted or succumbed to radiation-related cancers or disease.

The enactment of the EEOICPA was recognition that the federal government bore a responsibility to workers who were made sick and even died because of the work they did on the nation's atomic program. It is long since past the time for our government to take responsibility for its role in allowing these Cold War era facilities to remain dangerously contaminated and place workers needlessly at risk.

Mr. Speaker, the bill I am introducing today with my colleague, Mr. Quinn, the Residual Radioactive Contamination Compensation Act (RRCCA), would extend eligibility for the EEOICP to workers who were employed at facilities where NIOSH has found potential for significant radioactive contamination. For instance, of the fourteen facilities in and around

my congressional district, NIOSH found that five of the sites had potential for significant contamination well into the 1990s and beyond. At the same time, NIOSH reported that it could not make a determination at three of the sites without additional information. For this reason, the bill I am introducing would require NIOSH to update its report on an annual basis to include new information when it becomes available.

Mr. Speaker, the RRCCA seeks to open the door of eligibility for valid claims. At the same time, passage of this bill will mean very little if the chronic problems that have plagued this program are not addressed. As you may know, the implementation of this important program has been plagued by bureaucratic red tape. For far too many claimants, it's a waiting game. I know of dozens of constituents whose work and health history leave no doubt about eligibility but are still waiting to have their records reviewed. In those rare instances where the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has managed to evaluate claims, the approval rate has been abysmal.

Moreover, the Department of Health and Human Services has failed to issue one of the key regulations required by the law nearly 3\1/2\ years since the law was signed. The ``Special Exposure Cohort'' regulation is needed to address situations where the records needed to estimate radiation dose are not available, where the workers were not monitored, or the monitoring data is unreliable or altered. We note, for example, that NIOSH was unable to produce individual monitoring records for workers at Bethlehem Steel plant in Lackawanna, New York, where uranium billets were rolled into rods used as fuel in the government's plutonium reactors during the years 1949-1952. Just this week, a group of 25 Bethlehem Steel workers boarded a bus for Cleveland, to stage a protest outside of the Northeast Regional Headquarters of the program. These workers and others have been denied the right to petition for eligibility in the Special Exposure Cohort because the Department of Health and Human Services has failed to issue its regulations in a timely manner. Further delay is simply inexcusable.

As I have said, over and over again, this is an aging and ill population. Time is of the essence. Congress must act to ensure that the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program is properly administered.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Residual Radioactive Contamination Compensation Act to help our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the designation of the post office located at 2 West Main Street in Batavia, NY, as the ``Barber Conable Post Office Building,'' I want to commemorate the life and achievements of former Congressman Barber Conable. At the time of his retirement in 1984, he was ranking member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, bringing to it intellect and an unparalleled love and knowledge of the law. Barber passed away last year and I must say, Western New York has lost a true statesman.

He took time out of his law school courses and Cornell University to serve in the Pacific during World War II. Later, after completing his law degree, he served his country again in Korea.

Shortly after returning from Korea, he started his career in public service by running for and winning a seat in the New York State Senate. Two years later, he was elected to serve in the House of Representatives in a district representing parts of the City of Rochester, the western half of Monroe County, and Genesee, Wyoming, Orleans and Livingston Counties. From 1966 to 1986, Barber Conable's integrity, hard work, and determination created an environment in which Members worked with each other across party lines for the good of all Americans. As a result, he earned the respect of his colleagues, both Democrat and Republican.

It was an honor for me to be elected to serve a portion of the area he represented when I was first ran for Congress in 1988, and I take pride in continuing to serve the part of Western New York I know he loved so much. I remember when I first came to Congress, Barber came to visit me in my new office. We were both delighted to realize that I was occupying the very same office that he had occupied as a freshman. Barber was always so kind with his counsel and his advice. He was the greatest kind of friend.

Barber Conable will be remembered for a countless number of contributions he made during his years of public service. The spirit Barber Conable brought to the House of Representatives is inspirational and it is my hope that we will continue to remember and honor his memory.