Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, in the United States this year alone we will see more than 500,000 people die from cancer, 200,000 people die from diabetes, 75,000 people go blind and 50,000 people will be added to the scores who already suffer from Parkinson's or Alzheimer's.

These are 825,000 reasons why my colleagues must vote today in support of Stem Cell research. As one researcher at Harvard Medical School wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine: ``the science of human embryonic stem cells is in its infancy.'' Restricting stem cell research now, he said: ``threaten[s] to starve the field at a critical stage.'' But that's exactly what President Bush has done.

In August 2001, the President ruled that federal funding couldn't be used to research new stem cell lines. In effect, he gave our scientists--the best in the world--only 19 stem cell lines, many of which were contaminated and unusable.

Today we can right this terrible wrong. With more stem cells available, our scientific community will have a better chance of making incredible discoveries--like curing cancer and diabetes, and saving kidneys and livers. Some opponents of this bill argue that there is no need for embryonic stem cell research. This is a false choice. We don't have to stop embryonic stem cell research and only focus on amniotic stem cells, or adult stem cells, or cord blood stem cells.

We can, we should, and we must research all areas of stem cells-- because anyone area could produce the miracle cure. This bill is as ethical as it is common sense. There are millions of reasons to say yes, and no good reason to say no.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, this is a historic day in this House: the first woman ever elected Speaker; the first woman, Louise Slaughter, to be chairman of the powerful Rules Committee. In addition to that, Ms. Slaughter and Speaker Pelosi have put together a package that is indeed a historic, comprehensive ethics package that deserves the support of each and every Member of this body.

In the last Congress, we saw egregious abuses of power by Members of Congress and lobbyists. These abuses tarnished the image of this great institution and caused Americans to lose faith with their government. In the face of these scandals, America had its midterm election and the American people decided decisively to put a new party in charge here in the House of Representatives. They sent a message loud and clear that it was time to clean up the Congress, and in fact exit polls showed that nearly 92 percent of the voters were concerned with the ethical cloud hanging over Washington.

What did they ask for? They asked for honest leadership and open government, and this package presented today by Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Pelosi and the leadership is the most significant, comprehensive ethics reform that has ever been presented on the first day of an opening of this Congress.

This is a rules package that cuts the ties to the old culture of corruption and in its place creates a new culture of disclosure, of accountability, and of oversight. Starting today, there will be no more lobbyist-funded junkets or vacations; starting today, no more corporate jets, where Members of Congress can be flown to their indictment arraignment; starting today, no more lobbyist-paid gifts; beginning today, no more K Street Projects. All of this is over with the passage of this package.

I have heard the other side say they had no idea what this party was going to come up with for a rules package. We have been talking for quite some time about the efforts to reform this institution, to get transparency in earmarks, to have an institution where lobbyists can't fund vacations. Now if a Member wants to take a trip, it has to be approved in advance by the Ethics Committee.

As a matter of fact, nearly every public interest group in America that has been fighting for reform over the last decade has stepped up to the plate to say this package is the most significant reform of ethics rules that we have had in a generation.

So the time has come for Democrats and Republicans to join together to pass this comprehensive ethics reform package, because the American people demanded it in the last election, and Speaker Pelosi and the new leadership in this House are delivering on that request.

Mr. Speaker, it has been indicated what this bill would do relative to small tracts of land.

I want to say that the Lowell National Historical Park was created in 1978, and it really created the vision for my hometown of Lowell, Massachusetts. Lowell was the cradle of America's industrial revolution, and it was determined by this Congress that it was worthy of preservation.

For 30 years, starting in the 1800s, Lowell led the Nation in cotton textile production. Harnessing the power of the mighty Merrimack River, it gave Lowell the fuel for this Nation's largest manufacturing engine.

Today, because of the work of so many people in the city of Lowell and the National Park Service, the Lowell National Historic Park continues to tell the story of America's industrial revolution right in Lowell.

The mark stands as a bridge to the past and a looking glass to the future. The same land that hosted textile mills are now home to high- tech companies and a university where nanotechnology research is flourishing.

The park, the first urban park of the Nation, is also a study in contrast. The old brick mills, emblematic of industry and development, are surrounded by pristine, open, green space. As the park has developed and improved, so too has the community around it. The park attracts three-quarters of a million visitors each year, and the ripple effect of that is significant.

Since the park has come into existence, Lowell has been named a distinctive designation city by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and an all-American city by the National Civic League.

This bill will keep the progress of this park rolling, allowing the last two miles of Lowell's historic canalway to be accessed by the public.

I want to thank the park superintendent Michael Creasey, Peter Aucella, and the others who are involved in this project. This is a community project that continues this resolve. This legislation is important for continued development of the park, and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the 10th anniversary of the Essex National Heritage Area and to congratulate the Essex National Heritage Commission on their outstanding work.

I can still remember when Tom Leonard came down to Congress in September of 1995 to testify in support of legislation that Senator Kennedy and I had filed to create the Essex National Heritage Area.

One of the most poignant moments in Tom's testimony was when he laid out his vision for a true public private partnership to preserve the rich history of Essex County.

During his testimony Tom said, ``Let me stress this point about cooperation. The legislation that is before you today anticipates a true partnership between the private and public sectors. We are not seeking federal handouts and controls.''

During the last 10 years that vision has ensured that the historical treasures in Essex County will survive for future generations.

As you all know, over two-thirds of the money used for the Essex National Heritage Commission's work is from private sources.

The Congress also plays a significant role in the important work of the ENHC, providing over $8.6 million in funding to date.

Over the last 7 years, ENHC has provided over $1.3 million for 195 projects in 33 communities in Essex County.

In my district, the ENHC has made a number of grants to Lawrence, Haverhill, Andover, and Methuen to preserve and educate residents about our rich history.

ENHC also organizes and funds a number of other programs including their groundbreaking History in the Making program and Essex Heritage Explorers.

Today, as we celebrate the accomplishments of the ENHC, we must also plan for the future.

In Congress, we have filed legislation to extend the authorization and increase the cap on the amount of federal money the Essex National Heritage Area can receive.

This legislation is crucial for ENHC to be able to continue the important preservation and educational work they do.

I would like to congratulate the staff and volunteers of the Essex National Heritage Commission on 10 years of outstanding work and thank them for preserving our national heritage.

Mr. Speaker, this week, due to a death in the family, I have requested and received a leave of absence. Since Monday, September 25, I have missed the following rollcall votes. I have noted how I would have voted had I been present:

Roll No. 471, September 25, H.R. 5059, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, ``nay''; 472, September 25, H.R. 5062, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, ``nay''; 473, September 25, H.R. 6102, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, ``yea''; 474 September 26, H. Res. 1038, on agreeing to the resolution, ``nay''; 475, September 26, H. Res. 1039, on agreeing to the resolution, ``nay''; 476, September 26, H.R. 5092, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, ``nay''; 477, September 26, H.R. 4772, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, ``nay''; 478, September 26, motion, motion to resolve into secret session, ``yea''; 479, September 26, S. 403, on passage, ``nay''; 480, September 26, H.R. 2679, on passage, ``nay''; 481, September 26, H. Res. 723, on motion to suspend the rules and agree, as amended, ``yea''; 482, September 26, H. Res. 992, on motion to suspend the rules and agree, as amended, ``yea''; 483, September 26, H. Res. 989, on motion to suspend the rules and agree, as amended, ``yea''; 484, September 26, H. Res. 1017, on motion to suspend the rules and agree, ``yea''; 485, September 26, H.R. 6164, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, ``yea''; 486, September 26, H.R. 5631, on agreeing to the conference report, ``yea''; 487, September 27, H. Con. Res. 483, on agreeing to the resolution, ``nay''; 488, September 27, H. Res. 1042, on ordering the previous question, ``nay''; 489, September 27, H. Res. 1042, on agreeing to the resolution, ``nay''; 490, September 27, H.R. 6166, on motion to recommit with instructions, ``yea''; 491, September 27, H.R. 6166, on passage, ``nay''; 492, September 27, H.R. 5637, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, ``yea''; 493, September 27, H.R. 6115, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, ``yea''; 494, September 27, S. 2856, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, ``yea''; 495, September 28, H. Res. 1045, on ordering the previous question, ``nay''; 496, September 28, H. Res. 1046, on ordering the previous question, ``nay''; 497, September 28, H. Res. 1046, on agreeing to the resolution, ``nay''; 498, September 28, H. Res. 1052, on ordering the previous question, ``nay''; 499, September 28, H. Res. 1052, on agreeing to the resolution, ``nay''; 500, September 28, H.R. 4954, on motion to instruct conferees, ``yea''; 501, September 28, H.R. 5825, on motion to recommit with instructions, ``yea''; 502, September 28, H.R. 5825, on passage, ``nay''; 503, September 28, H.R. 6143, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, ``yea''; 504, September 29, H. Res. 1054, on ordering the previous question, ``nay''; 505, September 29, H. Res. 1054, on agreeing to the resolution, ``nay''; 506, September 29, H. Res. 1053, on ordering the previous question, ``nay''; 507, September 29, H. Res. 1053, on agreeing to the resolution, ``nay''; 508, September 29, S. 8930, on passage, ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge this Congress to redouble its efforts in the fight against cancer.

Over 33,000 people in my home state of Massachusetts will be diagnosed with some form of cancer this year.

I recently met with a number of constituents about the importance of increased funding for cancer research. One of my constituents, Judith Hurley, shared her cancer story with me. After extreme weight loss and extensive testing, Judith was diagnosed with stage 4 metastatic breast cancer, which had spread to her bones. Judith endured a variety of treatments, and made one thing clear to her doctors: she was not through raising her children.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that in July, Judith became a 5- year cancer survivor.

Another one of my constituents, Sue Tereshko is a two-time breast cancer survivor.

Mr. Speaker, constituents like Judith and Sue are the beneficiaries of advances in cancer treatment.

Congress must do more to fund cancer research and treatment programs.

First, we should pass the National Institutes of Health Reform Act of 2006, which authorizes a 5% increase in funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Congress must also appropriate a 5% increase for the NIH in the

FY 2007 Labor-HHS Appropriations bill. A 5% increase over last year's levels would give an additional $240 million to the National Cancer Institute alone. This funding would allow the Institute to further fund the basic research necessary to determine the root causes of cancer and improve care.

However, a 5% increase in NIH funding will only maintain pace with rising costs and inflation. It is essentially flat-funding for the NIH. Therefore, I challenge this House to support a 5% increase in NIH funding in addition to any increase to cover the cost of inflation, which Democrats have previously proposed.

Second, Congress should pass the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act and the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act.

Next week will begin National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. While important advances have been made, we still do not know what causes this disease, or how to prevent it.

Breast cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer death among women. The American Cancer Society estimates that a woman in the United States has a 1 in 7 chance of developing invasive breast cancer during her lifetime--this risk was 1 in 11 in 1975.

Congress has failed to act on the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act, a bill with the overwhelming bipartisan support of 255 members. The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act will further our understanding of the impact that environmental factors have on breast cancer. For the 3 million women living with breast cancer and their families, we should pass this important legislation.

Congress should also pass the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act.

My constituent Donna Carbone was lucky to have her surgeon override a hospital's decision to send her home less than 24 hours after her mastectomy in 1998. We must ensure that Donna's experience is no longer the exception to the rule, but instead becomes the standard quality of care.

The Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act, which has the bipartisan support of 180 members, would prohibit an insurer from limiting impatient care following a mastectomy to less than 48 hours.

On the eve of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, let's recommit ourselves to finding the root causes of breast cancer and improving patient care. Let's not offer just false hope, let us fight a real war on cancer by investing in the tools necessary to eradicate this disease.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Ms. Leslie Blair and the hundreds of other individuals from Massachusetts who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. This September 11th, I attended an event at the Massachusetts State House with Ms. Blair and other families who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001 to commemorate and celebrate their lives. The day of remembrance and reflection was filled with heart wrenching testimonials of loss, powerful tributes to inspirational courage, and life affirming stories of love and family. Ms. Blair's testimonial about her sister, Susan Leigh Blair, was truly moving.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include Ms. Blair's remarks in the Congressional Record.

Good morning. My name is Leslie Blair. My sister Susan Leigh Blair was one of the beautiful faces you just saw in that extraordinarily moving tribute video. Sue was killed on September 11, 2001, as she went about her normal routine on an exceptionally beautiful Tuesday in the South Tower of the World Trade Center.

That video is such a moving tribute to the beautiful souls we lost on horrible and hateful day. Now I have seen a lot of beautiful memorials to the tragedy of September 11, but in static, granite ways, they tend to honor the memory of a day where nearly 3000 vibrant individuals died. This video montage honors the lives, not the deaths, of our loved ones. In those faces, we see the joy of today. And in those eyes, we see the promise for tomorrow, a tomorrow that never came, and a promise that could not be fulfilled.

My son, Nicolas is three. He and I watched this video together, and he asked me what it was. Looking at the smiles, the celebrations, the graduations and weddings, the sun and the sea, the embraces, the families, he looked at all of these lives, and he said, ``It's too much.'' And as you and I know too well, the loss of one is too much. This video memorializes the loss, not just of individuals, but their lives, their promises, their hopes and their joy, and it's just too much.

I was asked to speak today about the value of one life and what one life means--how powerful and impactful one life can be. And like you, I know what I have lost because Susan isn't here. But magnify that loss by all of the families and friends and factor in thousands of coworkers and clients from a today five years ago, and then somehow add in the tomorrows that will never come, and I mean, our country, our world has truly suffered an amazing blow by not having them here. What have we lost as a society because just one of these beautiful smiling faces is no longer here? That is a big question. Let me tell you how I tried to answer it.

I started off by reading recent commentary by some of today' s most intelligent economists, authors, politicians, sociologists. Surely the war on terror, the unease and unrest, the social upheaval can somehow be related to our loss. But that didn't seem to answer my question very well. So I turned to the great philosophers and thinkers from a world before 9/11 to see how they had answered that question. The meaning of life--very academic and metaphysical, but, in fact, not very helpful in answering my question.

Then, I looked through my copy of the Portraits of 9/11 book--a consolidation of many of the NY Times obituaries. Certainly we lost smart, successful people in the prime years of their contributions to the world. We lost bankers, investment brokers, insurance executives, servicemen and women, rescue workers, flight crew, corporate management, consultants, technicians, hockey scouts. To lose the brightest, most productive individuals in a society certainly has an economic impact, a social impact. But that didn't seem to answer the question either.

Then I looked my copy of We Remember, a compilation of tributes from Mass 9/11 Fund members, from us. There I found the heart wrenching loss of children, spouses, siblings, parents, friends, and more photos of life and love. I tried, but I couldn't read it cover to cover. So I flipped around. I landed on Capt. John Ogonowski's tribute, and in there, John's family included a poem by Bessie Anderson Stanley. In 1904, Bessie entered a magazine contest and won $250--so maybe not a great thinker of her time, but her definition of success started to get at what we lost.

He has achieved success who has lived well, laughed often,

and loved much; who has enjoyed the trust of pure women, the

respect of intelligent men and the love of little children;

who has filled his niche and accomplished his task; who has

left the world better than he found it, whether an improved

poppy, a perfect poem, or a rescued soul; who has always

looked for the best in others and given them the best he had;

whose life was an inspiration; whose memory a benediction.

And I read the rest of John's pages, and I read Ann's pages, and Ace's pages, and Fred's pages, and Betty's pages, and Robin's pages, and it was easier to read more and more pages of these beautiful people whose lives, by Mrs. Stanley's definition were clearly successful. Their lives inspired others and their memories have been a blessing to those who loved them.

And I read the little booklet in front where I found pages of scholarships and funds, awards, forums, lectures, and music. These beautiful souls, through the inspiration and blessing of their living, of having been here and made a mark, these people are still contributing to society today. They are no longer corporate executives or technicians or bankers, or hockey scouts but through their memory and in honor of their lives, we are able to perpetuate their success.

My sister's scholarship rewards teachers so that her passionate commitment to children and her unfulfilled dream of teaching can live on. Mark Bavis' foundation provides college funding and leadership training. Todd Hill's scholarship awards sportsmanship and perseverance. The list goes on. Surely the promise of Susan and Mark and Todd has not died.

So at this point in my research, I abandoned my original question, because inspired by these individuals and how much they were loved and how unique they were and how their promises could be fulfilled, I think I found a more important question. If we, as individuals, incorporate the spirit of our loved ones, their vibrancy, their vitality, their potential, their love, can we not change the world? Can we not increase the potential we had before 9/11 by carrying the potential of our loved ones in our hearts and in our lives and in our own successes?

We all know, too well, the devastating impact of a few evil individuals. But we, as individuals, can and are counteracting that evil impact. In honor of those vibrant successful lives, we can make a more significant impact on society, in our communities, our schools, our businesses, by our own individual actions.

And I think back to that video, the smiles of a today that has passed and the hope for a tomorrow that will never come. And I remember the success described by Mrs. Stanley. Surely our loved ones left a mark on the world in their own right. And we, by loving them and remembering them, make their mark deeper. And we, by doing that, make our own mark. Honoring the characteristics that we loved about them and carrying those characteristics into our today's, do we not carry our loved ones into the future? We have the opportunity today to continue their success. And despite our loss, or maybe because of it, we have the opportunity to live our individual lives successfully, as if tomorrow may never come. Individually, yes, together certainly, we can leave the world better than we found it, as they did. And we can give their promise for tomorrow, through our own promise, to those who love us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell the Nation this fact: Right now, the world is less safe than it was a year ago, or even before the terrible events of September 11.

We should be confronting violent extremism and people who want to destroy our life and our Nation. We should be chasing them around the world and giving them no rest or refuge.

Yet, after nearly 5 years of the war on terror, where are we?

The Taliban is growing stronger in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is firmly entrenched in Iraq, where it never had been before. Hamas and Hezbollah are acting with impunity.

This country needs a new strategy in the struggle with extremists, not one that is hamstrung by the mess in Iraq, sidetracked by political finger-pointing, or beholden to special oil interests.

This country needs new leadership that will safeguard our children's future rather than send them to war without equipment that they need.

This country needs a new direction, a direction that will make tomorrow safer than today. The American people deserve nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, the European Union agreed today to continue its funding for embryonic stem cell research, research specifically involving the use of embryos that would otherwise be discarded from fertility clinics. Today's agreement among the European nations paves the way for a 55 billion Euro science program designed to improve and move this important research forward. Unfortunately, Europe's progress is in stark contrast to the embarrassing path chartered by the White House.

Mr. Speaker, America has long had a history of leading the world in scientific discovery are. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy made it a national priority to be the first Nation in the world to send a man to the moon. His leadership showed the rest of the world that the United States was the undisputed international leader in scientific progress.

By using his very first presidential veto to continue a misguided ban on stem cell research, President Bush has diminished American scientific standing in the world.

Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago, President Bush said that stem cell research had profound ethical questions. Today, I say that there are no more profound ethical questions than the fate of 100 million American lives, lives that can be saved, lives that will be lost if we don't move this vital research forward.

Last week, we sent to the White House a bipartisan bill that ethically advances stem cell research, a practice supported by 70 percent of Americans. Instead of embracing stem cell research, President Bush chose this moment in time to strike a blow against science and against hope and against saving lives.

The promise of stem cell research is great. One researcher at Harvard Medical School wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, ``The science of human embryonic stem cells is in its infancy,'' but he cautioned restricting stem cell research would ``threaten to starve this field at a critical stage.''

Last October, the prestigious, peer-reviewed Journal of Immunology featured a study by four researchers from the University of Minnesota who developed human embryonic stem cells that could destroy cancerous cells.

Mr. Speaker, when we tout the potential for stem cell research to develop future treatment for diseases like cancer, like Parkinson's, opponents of the research will say we are just dreamers, that the proof just isn't there. Well, Mr. Speaker, four cancer survivors live on my street in Lowell, Massachusetts. Shame on anyone who would take a dream away from them.

Nearly 35,000 cases of leukemia were diagnosed last year. In fact, about 30 percent of cancers in children from birth to 14 years of age are leukemia. Today, scientists are using embryonic stem cells to treat leukemia and lymphoma.

We are dreamers, Mr. Speaker, but those dreams are supported by hard science and research. Stem cells have the potential to develop into any kind of body tissue, including blood, brain, or nerve tissue. Scientists believe that this unique ability can lead to even more breakthroughs in the number of illnesses that now are untreatable.

With his rebuff of stem cells, just like ignoring the warnings about global warming, this President has put his head in the sand at America's peril. America needs a new direction that supports science and promotes innovation.

As one of the world's foremost medical science centers, my home State of Massachusetts has played a critical role in the stem cell debate. Not only are our hospitals, research facilities and institutions of higher learning on the cutting edge of conquering disease, they are also major economic drivers keeping us competitive in the global economy. The life sciences industry employs roughly 30,000 people in Massachusetts alone.

The President's rejection of domestic stem cell research does not mean an end to the research elsewhere in the world. This research will go forward. But the President has chosen to leave America behind and hamper our scientific competitiveness.

The President's veto also has put Massachusetts, the world's most powerful engine of innovation and progress, on the sidelines. To put it in perspective, consider that Massachusetts alone has over 250 biotechnology firms, and that is more than all of Western Europe combined.

I believe the choice is clear: We should support stem cell research in Massachusetts and throughout the country. It is our tradition of innovation and science and, most importantly, it will offer hope to millions of Americans suffering from diseases that one day may be cured.

The President has shamefully put a roadblock in the way of scientific progress. The American people deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a true hero, Marine Cpl Paul Nicholas ``Nick'' King, who gave his life in service to our country.

Corporal King was a resident of a community in my district, Tyngsboro, and was deployed with the brave men and women serving in our Armed Forces as part of Operation: Iraqi Freedom II. Nick arrived in Iraq just a few months ago and served as a mortarman with the 1st Battalion, 25th Marine Weapons Company, Regimental Combat Team 5. On Sunday, June 25, 2006, he sustained fatal injuries when his unit was attacked as they patrolled Fallujah, Iraq.

Nick was just 23 years old when he was killed. He leaves behind his beloved wife Becky who was his high school sweetheart. He is also survived by his loving parents Paul and Julie, and his siblings, Julie, Dianna, and Daniel. He was looking forward to starting a family with his wife and finding a new home upon his return. He was also planning to restore a motorcycle that the couple had bought shortly before his deployment. His friends and family recall his zest for life as well as his courage and sense of duty. Although he was safely stationed with a support unit in Korea, Japan, and Thailand, Nick volunteered for deployment to Iraq because he wanted to fight alongside his fellow Marines. He loved being a Marine and his courage will not be soon forgotten.

Nick graduated from the Greater Lowell Vocational High School in 2001. He enlisted in the Marines during his final year in school and wore his uniform to his wife's senior prom. Nick was very proud to be a Marine.

Nick's family is proud of him for the supreme sacrifice he paid on behalf of his country. He will always be remembered for his kindness, his zest for life, his courage, and his love for his family. He will be sorely missed.

I have requested that an American flag be flown over our United States Capitol in memory of Cpl Paul Nicholas King to honor his brave service to our country. This flag was recently presented to his family. Nick died fighting for the country he loved, alongside comrades he respected and with the family he adored, forever in his heart. Our Nation is humbled and grateful for his sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, we should all take a moment to recognize Cpl Paul Nicholas King, United States Marine Corps, who gave his life in service to his country.

Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago, President Bush said that stem cell research raised ``profound ethical questions.'' There is no more profound or ethical question than the fate of 100 million American lives. Lives that can be saved, and lives that will be lost if we don't move forward with this vital research.

This Congress sent the White House a bipartisan bill that ethically advances stem cell research--a practice supported by over 70 percent of Americans. Stem cell research may one day provide a cure for Alzheimer's, juvenile diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease, and spinal cord injuries.

The promise of this research is enormous, but regrettably, the President used his first veto to deny hope to millions of Americans whose lives could be improved by stem cell research. The answer to this profound ethical question is clear--yes to stem cell research would mean yes to saving lives.

Mr. Speaker, you are the Republican Party in America and what do you do? You have had control of the House of Representatives, you control the Supreme Court, you control the United States Senate, you control the White House. What are you going to do?

Seven million people in America are unemployed.

There are 46 million Americans that don't have health insurance.

The minimum wage hasn't been increased in nearly a decade. The gap between people who are wealthy and people who are poor is getting wider and wider.

We have a war in Iraq that has killed 2,500 Americans, 20,000 Americans have been seriously injured, and a policy going in the wrong direction.

You have a failed prescription drug plan, written by the prescription drug industry behind closed doors, that is confusing seniors. It is going to cost taxpayers $700 billion.

Gasoline is $3 a gallon at the pump.

Global warming is threatening our environment and our health. What are you going to do? Let's have a debate about gay marriage again on the floor of the House.

We are not going to debate an exit strategy in Iraq. We don't have a plan to lower the cost of gasoline. We don't have a plan to provide health care or to give American seniors the ability to buy prescription drugs at a low cost in bulk. Oh, no. Oh no, this is Tuesday in Washington in the House of Representatives, and we are going to debate gay marriage.

This debate is meant to do nothing more than get the American people to look at other issues, ignore gas prices, ignore the unemployment rate. Let's talk about gay marriage.

I am proud to be from Massachusetts and represent 8,000 couples who have been married. And let me tell you about one of the couples in my district, Bonnie Winokar and her partner Mary McCarthy. They have been together for 19 years. But for 17 of those years, Bonnie was unable to provide Mary with the health care benefits that she

was afforded as a high school math teacher. Two years ago they got married and now this happy couple has health insurance. They have coverage. They have family visitation and inheritance rights that every other married couple in America has.

I ask my colleagues, how do Bonnie and Mary threaten other marriages? I don't feel threatened by the 8,000 couples in Massachusetts who have been married. As a matter of fact, I want to tell you something. People in Massachusetts overwhelmingly now realize that approving gay marriage has not in any way negatively impacted heterosexual couples. That is why, overwhelmingly, people in Massachusetts support the SJC decision.

But we ought to keep clear and keep in mind that this debate today is not really about gay marriage. It is about the failure of this administration and this Congress to do the right thing by the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Voting Rights Act and urge my colleagues to pass it today, clean, without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am honored to represent one of the more diverse districts in America today. My neighbors came to Massachusetts from all of the nations of Europe, Southeast Asia, West Africa, Latin America, French Canada and the Caribbean.

In Massachusetts, the Voting Rights Act remains a necessary tool to ensure that people are able to participate in our democracy. In fact, it is because of the Voting Rights Act that many of my Asian American neighbors can challenge voting procedures and get multilingual ballots.

It is simple. The availability of multilingual ballots mean more people will vote. Cities that have added multilingual ballots have seen double-digit increases from those benefited populations. What more could one ask from a functioning democracy than a higher participation of people voting?

By reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act without amendment, America will do more than honor its legacy. We will also ensure our future, and to do anything less than a clean reauthorization insults the hard work and bloodshed that brought us to where we are today.

Today, we have an opportunity to honor great men and women who have dedicated their lives to making America great: Dr. King, Coretta Scott King, Rosa Parks and our esteemed colleague, my friend, John Lewis.

Let us reauthorize the Voting Rights Act without these terrible amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important bill to stop Internet gambling. Mr. Speaker, I do not have a problem with gambling; but the fact is that the Internet has grown, and gambling on the Internet has exploded. In 1995 the first online gambling site was born.

By 1999, that number had grown to 100 sites. Today there are more than 2,300 gambling Web sites. This increase in availability has mirrored an explosion in the amount of money spent on online gambling. In 1999, online gambling revenues were estimated at $1 billion. By 2002 that number had tripled to $3 billion. Today that number has quadrupled to $12 billion.

Within those $12 billion are stories of families that are finally ruined, and children that are addicted to gambling. We take this drastic action today because the problem of Internet gambling is so unique. Because it is so accessible and unregulated, Internet gambling is marketed to minors.

Now, I have been a leader in this institution in trying to prevent cigarette sales on the Internet. Why? Because if you go to try to purchase cigarettes at a convenience store, you have to demonstrate you are an adult or 18 years of age. When children can buy cigarettes on the Internet, they are able to get access. Young people, it is the same way with gambling. They cannot get in to brick and mortar casinos, but they can get onto a computer.

Because Internet gambling does not know borders or boundaries, it does not recognize State law, or any law for that matter. That is one of the reasons why 48 State attorneys general support the action that this Congress is taking today. Congress has a unique opportunity today to pass a strong anti-Internet gambling bill.

This bill does not do anything to affect legitimate gambling that is going

on in brick and mortar establishments. But the fact of the matter is when you allow unlimited, unregulated gambling, particularly in a country where States rely on gambling for revenues, but we see little money being spent on dealing with those people who have a problem, an addiction with gambling that has ruined literally thousands and thousands of lives across this country, we need to deal with this.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill and put the brakes on Internet gambling.

Mr. Speaker, high fuel costs are having a devastating effect on family budgets. Since President Bush took office, gas prices have risen 162 percent to almost $3 a gallon.

Today, I am releasing a report that shows that Massachusetts' families will pay nearly $400 more for gasoline this summer than they did last summer.

Congress must start to address this energy crisis. This week, I will introduce legislation to give tax credits to consumers that buy flex- fuel vehicles. Flex fuel costs 30 to 60 cents less per gallon than conventional gasoline, and it is better for the environment.

Flex-fuel vehicles emit 25 percent less greenhouse gases, 40 percent less carbon monoxide and 80 percent less cancer-causing sulfates.

Mr. Speaker, this is a no-brainer. Why would anyone oppose paying less and breathing cleaner air?

As we approach the Fourth of July, Congress should declare our independence from foreign oil by passing this

commonsense legislation to help lower fuel prices.