Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay special tribute to my dear friend Jean ``Gene'' Normandin, who passed away on Thursday, May 4, 2006 at the age of 78. Gene was a devoted husband, loving father to his three sons an two daughters, man of compassion, and a

caring friend and mentor to many, including myself.

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Congressional Record the eulogy delivered by his son, Robert Normandin on May 10, 2006.

A Life Well Lived--The Eulogy for Gene Normandin

Dedication, determination and devotion, are terms that sum

up my father's life.

He was dedicated to his family, his 5 children, 13

grandchildren, and two great grandchildren. He was extremely

fortunate to be blessed with 2 successful marriages. First,

to our mother, to whom he was married to for almost 35 years.

When our mother became ill, he dedicated himself to her, for

every minute of every day for the rest of her life. His love

for her never ended.

He was so fortunate to meet, fall in love and marry,

Jeannine. Their marriage lasted almost 20 years and, as he

did with my mother, she dedicated herself to him, taking care

of him until the moment of his death. Jeannine, we are

eternally grateful for the love, devotion and care that you

gave him. We will never forget.

He was a successful businessman. He was a young man when he

went to work for Manzi Dodge, at the time a struggling car

dealership. Through this determination when he left, it was a

thriving business. He founded other businesses, Custom Sentry

Alarms and Normandin Liquors. He brought a determination to

any endeavor in which he become involved. As he was fond of

saying when someone said how lucky he was, ``yes, and the

harder I work, the luckier I get.'' He was truly a lucky man.

He brought that determination and devotion to his church as

well. When Frs. Hassett, Handley, O'Brien or Joyce had a

problem at the Sacred Heart, one of the first people that

they would seek out was Gene Normandin. Whether it was the

men's club, 1000 club, or Bingo he was always there for them.

When he moved to Florida, he brought that dedication there.

Whether it was serving food at a soup kitchen, clothing

drives or washing dishes, he assisted the indigent migrant

workers at Omoklee, Florida.

He was blessed during his life with many, many great

friends, people like Kay and Pat and Armand and Connie, with

whom he shared many laughs and a few tears.

It was in short, a life well lived. Dad, we will miss you.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his leadership and for making sure that our men and women in uniform get everything that they need.

This is an unfortunate day in the House of Representatives, the people's House, where Members of this body were told we could have a debate on Iraq. Surely it is time to have a discussion of our misguided policy in Iraq. But rather than give us a debate on Iraq, we see a resolution that comes from the Republican leadership that was drafted by political experts on spin.

We all support our troops. We merge the war on terror with the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq so that we can cloud the debate and make the debate about whether and who supports the troops.

Surely we can do better than that. 2,500 Americans have been killed; 19,000 brave men and women have been injured. And there is no accountability on the part of this Congress to the mistakes that have been made.

``They will welcome us when we get there.'' We had a window of opportunity, and we missed it. We didn't send enough troops in to secure the peace in Iraq. General Shinseki warned us, and they ignored him and sent him out to pasture.

We didn't vet Saddam's army so we could secure Baghdad. Mistake. Mistake. We have less oil production now than we did when Saddam was in power. The Iraqi people have lost their opportunity. They have 3.9 hours of electricity in Baghdad and we are talking about things getting better? In a time of war, this administration and this Congress has an obligation to tell the truth about what is happening in Iraq.

We also have a responsibility to provide the oversight so we correct mistakes, we get our troops into the background because we are sitting ducks up there because we have an occupation that our own State Department polls say is unpopular by 85 to 90 percent of the Iraqis.

I hear them talk about the terrorists and how we are fighting al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until this President stood before the world and said, ``Bring it on. Bring it on.'' Well, they brought it on and now 10 percent of the insurgency are actually terrorists. When we leave Iraq, they will leave Iraq.

We ought to listen to what the State Department told us in advance. We should look at our own investigations and analysis by the State Department that tell us we cannot win this war militarily. You don't beat an insurgency with military conflict; you beat

an insurgency through making the right planning decisions, by making the right decisions to give the Iraqis what they need to be upfront to keep their own security in that country. You give the Iraqis what they need to make their own determination of what their future is. The time has come for the United States to move into the background and bring our men and women home.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I want to commend his efforts as the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee for making sure, as other Democratic members have, that the men and women who serve this country get the equipment that they need to succeed. Many of us were stunned to see so many of our men and women put into harm's way without having enough uploaded Humvees and Kevlar vests.

I also want to acknowledge the gentleman for considering the casualties that we are taking. I believe the gentleman said a battalion per month. A battalion per month.

What effect is this going to have on the long-term implications for national security and our military? One of the things a country has to do in a time of war is tell the truth about what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the administration continues to think that the American people cannot handle the truth or do not want the truth. We experience setbacks. We have strategies that do not work. They continue to tell us we should stay the course and everything will be all right. We have no accountability on the part of the Congress, either the House or the Senate, to hold the administration accountable for what their policies are or aren't.

Members of the Armed Services Committee tonight, Democrats on that committee that have served on the committee traveled, I think every Democrat has been to Iraq at least twice, will follow me and tell you that the administration is simply not being candid, honest and truthful with the American people about the situation in Iraq. As Mr. Skelton indicated, we went into Iraq without enough troops. General Shinseki told us we were going to need a few hundred thousand troops. What did they do at the Pentagon, they put him out to pasture as if he did not know what he was talking about.

The reality is that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating. Mr. Skelton talked about the insurgency in Iraq. Ninety to 93 percent of the insurgents in Iraq are from within Iraq. There is an outside group of somewhere between 8 and 10 percent terrorists that have come over the border. It makes you wonder why the President said to every terrorist in the world, Bring it on. Bring it on.

There are more attacks today in Iraq by the insurgency than ever. The situation is growing worse because the insurgency is growing stronger. Sectarian violence is becoming more common, and violent crime is on the rise. I am not just saying these things, the facts support these things. Despite the claim that the available combat power of the Iraqi security forces is increasing and the operational tempo has significantly stepped up, violent insurgent attacks have increased every month this year. That is a fact.

Violent crime in Baghdad is at its highest level since August 2003. That is a fact.

Insurgent attacks have increased every month this year, and that is a fact. But we keep hearing about how things are getting better. Insurgency is as large today as it has been at any point in Iraq. That is a fact.

The administration has been stressing to us that reconstruction is going well and that progress is being made, and certainly in some parts of the country that is true. But you cannot look at the totality of the circumstances and say that the administration is being honest or truthful with the American people.

While we debate here tonight, residents of Baghdad receive 3.9 hours of electricity per day. Let me repeat that: 3.9 hours of electricity per day. So it is great that those satellite dishes are up, but people are unable to use them. Before the war, people in Baghdad could depend on 16 to 24 hours a day of electricity, and this past month, it is only 17 to 20 percent of the prewar output.

It is really hard to focus on democratization when you live by candlelight and cannot store your food. Drinking water is not readily available either. Back in 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority stated that the goal was to have 23 million of the 26 million Iraqis with access to potable water.

Do you know where we stand today in that goal? Just a little over 8 million Iraqis have safe access to drinking water. This is significantly lower than pre-war levels and about a third of what the CPA was aiming at. We have failed to do our jobs in terms of providing electricity, providing the water, providing the economic development, providing jobs. Any country in the world with a 40 percent unemployment rate is going to have an insurgency.

Now, maybe the administration could point to success in building a train station, but we can't have success without providing the necessities of life. So the administration talks about how much safer things are. But the reality is, if you look at the facts, you see that staying the course is just not an option for the United States. We have to look at the facts. We have to look at the fact that the challenges in Iraq are growing every day. Our military is stretched to the limits. 20,000 Americans, brave American soldiers have either been injured, seriously injured, or have been killed. So what we would like is a debate on Iraq, not some kind of political statement that merges Iraq with Afghanistan, with Spain, with London, and put it all together and call it the war on terror and say we support our troops. We all want to win the war on terror. We all want to make sure that we support our troops. But we really ought to have a discussion of what is going on in Iraq. And there are members of the Armed Services Committee who have been trying to get that discussion, trying to get that accountability who are here today. And I want to yield to the gentlewoman from California to continue this discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the sacrifice of an American hero, Army Specialist Gionet, who gave his life in service to our country.

Specialist Gionet was born in my hometown of Lowell, Massachusetts and grew up in the area. He was fulfilling his second tour of duty when he was killed in service to our country. Daniel died Sunday, June 5, while on patrol in Taji, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device exploded near his tank. He was 23.

Daniel married his wife, Katrina, on November 26 of 2005 before being deployed for the second time. He had been looking forward to buying a home, going to college, and starting a family. Daniel enjoyed fishing, fixing cars, and was a fine cook. On his first tour, he put his culinary talents to work in Afghanistan as a chef based at the Kandahar Air Field. In between his first and second deployment, Daniel decided that he wanted to more directly help his comrades in the field and volunteered to re-train as a medic. His selflessness should be an inspiration to us all.

Daniel served the United States Military courageously. He enlisted in the Army in 2001 and served in Afghanistan. In 2004, he went above the call of duty and reenlisted, this time deploying to Iraq. Specialist Gionet comes from a long line of distinguished service to country. His grandfather served in the Air Force during the Korean War and his father was a Marine.

Daniel graduated from Pelham High School in 2001. He was an athlete and distinguished himself on Pelham's baseball, football, and wrestling teams. He envisioned a career in criminal justice or the culinary arts. Daniel joined the Army, in part, to help finance a college education.

Daniel Gionet's family is proud of him for the supreme sacrifice he made on behalf of his country. He is lovingly remembered by his family and friends as a selfless, brave, and a genuine ``angel,'' as his mother, Denise Gionet, described him. He will be dearly missed.

I have requested that an American flag be flown over our United States Capitol in memory of Specialist Daniel Gionet to honor his noble service to our country. This flag will be delivered to his family. Daniel died fighting for the country he loved, alongside comrades he respected, and with the family he adored looking on. Our Nation is humbled and grateful for his sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I request that we take a moment to recognize Specialist Daniel Gionet, United States Army, who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to his country.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Not long into my first term in Congress back in 1993, an article was published in Newsweek titled, ``Running a School for Dictators,'' about the School of the Americas. The School of the Americas was supposed to instill democratic values in foreign military officers, and it was exposed as being a breeding ground for murderers, thieves and common thugs.

I said at the time that ``if the School of the Americas held an alumni reunion association meeting, it would bring together some of the most unsavory thugs in the Western Hemisphere.'' Thankfully, the School of the Americas was closed in 1999, but soon after WHINSEC opened in the same building, with much of the same faculty that had been part of the School of the Americas.

WHINSEC's record has been little better than the School of the Americas. Many of its graduates have returned to their home countries to repress, abuse and kill fellow citizens.

There can be no doubt that our own recent record on human rights leaves something to be desired. We have operated secret prisons, propped up corrupt regimes, and overlooked human rights abuses in others. The administration has done little to hide its contempt for international convictions on human rights, notably the Geneva Convention and the protections that it contains for enemy combatants.

Our own recent record has been bad enough, but we certainly do not need to be exporting techniques overseas by teaching them at WHINSEC. Our credibility in the world is at its lowest point in memory. The road back to respectability will be long and slow. Cutting funding to WHINSEC is a small step in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, recently a paper in my district ran a series of columns on the problem of gambling addiction, and its effect on society, and individual families. I commend the Lawrence Eagle Tribune, its editor-in-chief, William Ketter, and the series' author, Denise Jewell, for their hard work and attention to this serious issue.

One piece in the series focused on the federal role in help for gambling addiction--and in some cases, where there is no federal role. Gambling addiction can be as destructive as addiction to alcohol or drugs, and destroys countless families every year.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include these articles in the Congressional Record, and once again, offer my gratitude to the staff of the Eagle Tribune for their fine work.

[From the Lawrence Eagle Tribune,

June 4, 2006]

Gambling Series Shows Value of Public Service Journalism

(By William B. Ketter)

The gravitational pull of state-sponsored gambling to stave

off traditional tax increases, pay for public services and

drive economic development has created a split-screen social

condition in America: a lucky few people and the hapless

many.

Sadly, that is the message that underlies much of the

economic as well as cultural conclusions of our three-part

Sunday Forum series on the causes, costs and consequences

associated with the rapid spread of legal gambling across the

country.

The state-by-state study--which concludes with today's

installment--was conducted by the Community Newspaper

Holdings Inc. News Service, the editorial arm of our parent

corporation, under this editor's oversight. It was ambitious,

public service journalism that encountered numerous

obstacles, including uncooperative casino operators, tribal

leaders and state officials.

It was a measure of reporter Denise Jewell's persistence

that she got around the roadblocks and produced the first

national statistical picture of the canyon between sums

gambled and money spent on the prevention and treatment of

problem gambling.

Nobody in state or tribal government or the gaming industry

wants to say or do anything that might derail the full steam

ahead gambling locomotive and the billions of dollars it

generates from casinos, racinos, video poker terminals,

lotteries and other sanctioned games of chance.

That's an understandable, though myopic, attitude when you

consider the primary benefactors are the states that

authorize, promote and regulate gambling; and the gaming

companies that manage the Indian and commercial casinos. In

their universe, frequent gamblers are not only prized, they

are essential to success.

``It is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank,''

remarked State Sen. Susan Tucker, D-Andover in the first part

of our series. Only the blood is dollars, Tucker points out,

``and for the states to get their few hundred million their

constituents have to lose a few billion.''

A lot of those losses come from problem gamblers, many of

whom are already poor and desperately in need of professional

help to overcome their addiction. Yet their plight goes

unlamented under the logic that gambling is a voluntary act.

Who should care? The federal and state governments. They

hold responsibility for the general welfare, and compulsive

gambling is a national public health issue--for the same

reason drinking, smoking, and drug abuse are treated as

public health matters. It is destructive, anti-social

behavior. The difference is the latter receive billions for

research, prevention and treatment and problem gambling gets

a pittance.

In fact, Dr. Howard Shaffer of Andover, director of Harvard

University's Addiction Center, identified pathological

gambling as a public health problem 4 years ago in a national

study, and still nothing has been done to expand federal

programs to deal with it. He compares it to government

inaction during the early stages of the AIDS crisis.

Ignoring the people who impulsively gamble beyond their

means--causing serious financial, criminal, family and

psychiatric problems--is a counterproductive approach that

social experts predict will cost more over time than the

money the states reap from gambling.

To grasp the wide disparity between taxes and treatment you

need to reflect on the numbers.

States now receive $21 billion in taxes from the $136

billion spent annually on legal gambling in the United

States. In turn, they spend only $36 million on programs to

assist problem gamblers. That's less than one-fifth of 1

percent of the profit.

Yes, gambling taxes help finance schools, teachers, fire

engines, roads, parks and other core public services. And the

infusion of revenue has allowed many states to avoid raising

income, sales and property taxes. Even lower them, in some

instances.

There are, however, related consequences. Evidence in our

series showed problem gamblers commit forgery, credit card

fraud and embezzlement at a higher rate than the general

population. They also exceed the norm on bankruptcy,

homelessness, divorce, substance and spousal abuse, and

suicide.

No government or private agency has done a current analysis

of the actual social cost of legal gambling. But the now-

defunct National Gambling Impact Study Commission pegged the

annual toll at $5 billion 7 years ago. It estimated the cost

to society of each addict at $13,200 per year.

``There are undeniably many millions of problem and

pathological gamblers causing severe harm to themselves,

their families and many others,'' concluded the commission

after a two-year study. Greater public understanding of this,

it added, ``is crucial to the health and stability of these

families, their communities and many businesses.''

The outlook is even darker today. More states have come to

rely on gambling revenue to balance their budgets. Those

without slot machines at race tracks, including

Massachusetts, are talking seriously about adding them. And

states without commercial or Indian casinos are seen as

fertile possibilities for both.

Congress and state legislatures need to slow down the

locomotive, and require that the casinos and the states

appropriate serious dollars to research, prevention and

treatment of problem gambling. They should also review how

they're spending current public health dollars on compulsive

behaviors, and appropriate some of that money to addictive

gambling. It is growing faster than other social

dysfunctions.

There's another thing federal lawmakers can do to do help.

The Americans With Disabilities Act should be amended to add

compulsive gambling to the list of mental disorders covered

by the law. Because it is excluded, addictive gamblers can be

denied insurance payments for medical expenses and short-

changed on other benefits available to alcohol and drug

abusers.

Gambling taxes and money spent to deter compulsive wagering

are going in opposite directions on the economic chart. There

is little chance the two curves will ever cross, given the

acceptance of gambling as an all-American pastime. But the

CNHI News Service ``Hooked on Gambling'' series made a

powerful case for narrowing the gap, and bringing the

multiplying victims side of this split social screen into

sharper focus.

By so doing, it served the purpose of public service

journalism--something we need more of in this era of flash

news reports that often lack context and meaning.

Offered By: Mr. Meehan

Amendment No. 9: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Meehan

Amendment No. 9: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a true hero, Army Sergeant Pierre A. Raymond, who gave his life in service to our country.

Sergeant Raymond was a resident of Lawrence, MA, and was deployed with the brave men and women serving in our armed forces as part of Operation: Iraqi Freedom II. David was in Iraq just one week before sustaining fatal injuries from an explosion that ripped through his barracks in Ramadi, Iraq. He died five days later on September 20, 2005, surrounded by his family in the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Landstuhl, Germany.

Pierre was preparing to celebrate his 29th birthday in early October. He looked forward to returning to his family and his girlfriend, with whom he had lived before deployment, and was planning to finish a college degree in psychology. His friends and family recall his playful nature and his wonderful laughter. He was courageous to the end. Even as he lay wounded in his hospital bed, he is reported to have been talking and joking with doctors and nurses and was in good spirits. Friends and family also remember David's passion for cars and his talent for repairing them--a technical ability that served him well as an Army mechanic maintaining Bradley Fighting Vehicles in the Army Reserve's 228th Forward Support Battalion, 28th Infantry Division. His zest for life should be an inspiration to us all.

Pierre graduated from Salem High School in New Hampshire in 1994, and joined the Army in 1998, serving for thirteen months in Bosnia as a member of the U.N. peacekeeping force before being discharged in 2001. As a member of the Individual Ready Reserve, he was recalled in June of 2005 to serve in Iraq. While he was overseas, he called his family every morning. In his final hours, they joined him at his bedside in Germany, and his mother accompanied him on his journey home to the United States after his tragic death.

Pierre's family is proud of him for the supreme sacrifice he made on behalf of his country. He will always be remembered for his kindness, enthusiasm, his faith, and his desire for peace. He will be sorely missed.

I have now requested that an American flag be flown over our United States Capitol in memory of Sergeant Pierre Raymond to honor his brave service to our country. This flag will be delivered to his family. Pierre 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 Sergeant Pierre A. Raymond, United States Army, who gave his life in service to his country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a true hero, Marine Lance Corporal Nickolas D. Schiavoni, who gave his life in service to our country.

Lance Corporal Schiavoni lived in my district in Haverhill, and was deployed with the brave men and women serving in our armed forces as part of Operation: Iraqi Freedom. Nickolas died tragically on November 15, 2005 when a suicide, vehicle-borne, improvised explosive device was detonated while he was conducting combat operations against enemy forces near Al Karmah, Iraq during Operation Steel Curtain. He was twenty-six years old.

Nickolas leaves behind his beloved wife Gina, and two young children, Marissa and Alex. He is also survived by his mother, Stephany Kern, his grandfather, David Swartz, and his sister, Vanessa Schiavoni. Nickolas treasured his time with his family and was very fond of their time together at his mother's home in Westerly, Rhode Island.

Nickolas served in Iraq with the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, based in Camp Lejeune, N.C. He was serving on his second tour of duty in Iraq when he was killed. He was very proud to be a Marine.

Nickolas' family is proud of him, not just for the supreme sacrifice he paid on behalf of his country, but for the honor he brought to them as a Marine. He strove to protect his family and his country. His courage will not be soon forgotten.

I have now requested that an American flag be flown over our United States Capitol in memory of Lance Corporal Nickolas Schiavoni to honor his brave service to our country. This flag will be delivered to his family. Nickolas 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 Lance Corporal Nickolas D. Schiavoni, United States Marine Corps, who gave his life in service to his country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay special tribute to my dear friend Kelly Keefe Brooks, who passed away on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at the age of 43 after a courageous battle with breast cancer. Kelly was a devoted wife, loving mother of two girls, and a warm and caring friend.

Kelly fought a courageous battle against her cancer while remaining the same loving, jovial, and caring woman that her friends and loved ones will always admire. She has become a role model and inspiration to all who knew her and all who face the same struggle against cancer. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Congressional Record the eulogy delivered by Kelly's good friend Suzanne Galvin Harvey on Saturday, April 29, 2006, which was partially written by Kelly Keefe Brooks herself.

Good Afternoon.

First let me begin by saying that Kelly did a very unusual

thing before she died; she wrote her own eulogy. Anyone that

knew her would not be surprised. Kelly knew what she wanted

and was not afraid to tell you. I asked her if I could add to

it and surprisingly, she agreed. Her words are all about

saying goodbye to the people in her life. I'd like to start

first by saying goodbye to her.

It has been my distinct honor and privilege to have called

Kelly Keefe Brooks my friend for almost thirty years. We met

as freshmen at Lowell High School when she asked me to share

a locker with her. She introduced me to the seven friends we

still have to this day--Our Girls Club. I'll be forever

grateful for that gift she gave me.

Kelly was fortunate to have married Billy, who she called

``the love of her life''. A few days ago she said, ``Sue,

let's face it, who else could have stood me?'' I repeated

that to Billy recently and he said he ``enjoyed every minute

of the ride.'' ``Well maybe not every minute!''

Kelly gave Billy the same wonderful gift she gave me . . .

an abundance of friends. She had a way about her that drew

people to her in droves. She crammed many of us into her

short life with 4th of July cookouts by the pool on Wilder

Street; Superbowl parties; Cinco de Mayo celebrations on

Clark Road; and founding Our Girls Club and presiding over it

with an iron fist. From the folks at the Post Office to her

golfing buddies at Longmeadow; from Our Girls Club to her

sisters' original Girls Club; and from Billy's mom and family

to her own family, there is no shortage of supporters for

Billy and the girls with this entourage she built for them.

We all admired Kelly and Billy's love for each other so

much. God sent her a peach when he sent her Billy Brooks. His

devotion was unending and he would have done anything for

her, whether she had cancer or not. His only regret is that

Kelly wanted to see Hawaii before she died. When he got the

news that her health was declining, he was thinking of ways

to get her there just to see it. ``I was thinking maybe I

could get her on a medical plane--but it would be too far if

something happened,'' he said. That's the kind of guy Billy

Brooks is.

Together they were blessed with two beautiful daughters--

Emma and Molly. She may have seemed a little tough on you

girls at times, but she loved you with all her heart. These

past few months she spent so much thought on giving you both

special memories and personalized mementos to last a

lifetime. Her likes have become your likes--New York City,

General Hospital, stalking celebrities outside the Daytime

Emmy awards and looking for stars around the streets of New

York. I know she will always be the real star in your eyes

and has become a celebrity in her own rite, which was evident

from the turnout at her wake last night. Your mom also liked

pictures--not so much taking them as having people take them

of her and plenty with both of you, those pictures are a

chronicle of your life with her. Another wonderful gift she

gave you, gave all of us.

Kim and Sharon. She couldn't have asked for two better

sisters who were always there for her and the girls. Auntie

Sharon, always thinking of ways to help with the girls, or

buying things for the house, or helping Kel decorate for the

holidays or change of seasons. So glad you could be with her

the morning she died. Auntie Kim, always there with at least

seven or eight phone calls a day, checking in with her and

being there for the girls as well. I cannot imagine the loss

the two of you will feel. Not only sisters, you were true

friends.

And finally her loving parents, Paul and Maryanne. Tomorrow

was supposed to be a surprise 50th Anniversary party for you.

Kelly has been feverishly planning that for the last few

months. The video she created for you and the songs she

chose--what a tremendous gift she has left for you. No parent

should have to bury a child, and that is what bothered her

the most when she was diagnosed--worrying about what that

would do to her Mom and Dad. You should be so proud of the

wonderful daughter you raised.

Kelly has been a role model for hundreds of us: family,

friends, medical staff, and even to complete strangers right

here in Lowell, who have been inflicted with this devastating

disease. Never complaining, showing tremendous courage and

spirit, fighting the uphill battle against all odds, always

with a smile on her face, and never losing faith in her

doctors and caregivers or in her God. There was no time for

tears with Kelly--she had much to do before she left us. Like

demand a list of exactly what people were bringing over for

meals. ``Enough pasta!'' she'd say ``Can't a girl get a

couple of pork chops?'' Thanks to Denise Perrin and Lesley

Byrne for spearheading all those dinners and house cleanings.

Goodbye Kelly and in the motto of Our Girls Club, which is

engraved into the gold heart shaped charms that hang from our

bracelets, we will truly be ``friends forever'' and we will

all miss you dearly.

That is the end of my portion of this--my tribute to her. I

think she asked me to do this because she thought I was

funny. I'm glad I could provide you with some comic relief

but sorry Kel I didn't have them rolling in the aisles

because I didn't feel much like entertaining and laughing

today. I did, however, briefly consider wearing my nun

costume up here. But I think I traumatized my mom enough with

that once before. Thank you mom for helping me write this for

Kelly--she would really have been happy that it came from

both of us. And now for Kelly's own words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-called Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act. A poll released just last week found that the Congress had a dismal approval rating of just 22 percent. That is an unprecedented 10 percent drop from the last poll. With this closed rule and this bill, we can see why the American people have lost faith in their elected representatives. This is not real reform; it is a sham.

Congressman Shays and I tried to offer a package of amendments to bring transparency and credibility back to the ethics process. Our amendments would have created an office of public integrity, increased grassroots lobbying disclosure, increased general lobbying disclosure, required Members of Congress to pay charter costs for planes made available by corporations, and limited gifts.

I have also worked with Mr. Emanuel on two more amendments to strengthen this bill. Both were denied.

Instead of allowing an open debate on our proposals, the leadership proposed and decided that it would be business as usual.

What do I mean by ``business as usual''? Well, I mean last year we voted an energy bill written by big oil companies loaded with $12 billion in tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. What was the result? Consumers are suffering with high gas prices at the pump today, over $3 a gallon for gasoline.

Recently, lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry wrote a prescription drug bill that increased their profits and did nothing to help seniors. The result: seniors are stuck with a confusing prescription drug plan that does little to help them with their costs.

Today, the Republican leadership has chosen to continue to be an outlet for moneyed special interests that are not accountable to anyone. Real lobbying reform must end the practice of corporate lobbyists writing our laws. The so-called Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act is neither accountable nor transparent. It does nothing to address the problems in the current lobbying system. This bill is not going to fool the public.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 4318.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, although I have been listening to the debate. This will be an amusing, if not interesting, debate as those who supported campaign finance reform are opposed to 527 reform, and those who opposed campaign finance are for campaign finance reform. I guess everyone is changing around their positions, so we should have a very good time. Actually, I want to compliment the chairman of the Rules Committee. At least the debate is only going to last an hour, so it won't be too tough on all of us.

Just for the record, this is basically a legal issue. 527s are political committees that are designed to influence an election, either the election or defeat of a candidate. The legal basis for regulation by the FEC comes from the reform act that was passed not in 2000 but after Watergate. That is where the legal basis is to regulate 527s.

The Federal Election Commission decided not to regulate 527s, hence there was a lawsuit that was filed in Federal District Court in Washington. There was a decision by Judge Sullivan recently in that case basically saying that the FEC did not have justification to not promulgate rules and regulations with regard to 527s. So regardless of what happens here today, ultimately, I think the court is clearly going to instruct the FEC to promulgate rules and regulations relevant to 527s.

In any event, I think we should have an open debate on this and discuss the merits of 527s and campaign finance reform. I am particularly troubled that this rule also allows the repeal of coordinated contribution limits, or a vote

on coordinated contribution limits. I believe a repeal of coordinated spending limits may make it easier for wealthier individuals to use donations to the political parties in order to evade campaign finance laws. I also think we should have had an open debate on this and been allowed to offer other amendments that would strike this controversial provision.

Furthermore, there are a number of Democrat amendments that had been offered in the Rules Committee. Rahm Emanuel, who has been active on this, had two amendments related to this debate but, unfortunately, those amendments were ruled out of order.

In any event, for this reason I believe that the rule should be defeated. But, Mr. Speaker, I really look forward to this interesting, if not amusing, debate we are about to have on 527s.

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

Mr. Speaker, basically this is a legal issue. 527s are legally established because their primary purpose is to influence the election or defeat of a Federal candidate. They have to file with the FEC because after Watergate in 1974 this Congress passed a law that said if you are going to have a political committee whose primary purpose is to influence an election, then they have to register with the FEC.

The FEC ignored 30 years of congressional actions and Supreme Court jurisprudence in allowing 527s to evade the law. In short, the FEC failed to do its job and regulate 527s as required under the Watergate statute. So in September of 2004, Congressman Shays and I filed a suit against the FEC for failing to enforce the regulations.

You know what is interesting, just last Wednesday the U.S. District Court Judge Sullivan ruled in favor of our position that the FEC had failed to present a reasonable explanation for its decision in 2004 not to regulate 527s. Judge Sullivan remanded the case back to the FEC and said either you articulate a reason for not regulating 527s or promulgate a new rule. A new rule that regulates 527s is called for under the law. That is all we are seeking to do here. That is all we are seeking to do. One way or the other, the court is going to rule in favor. This is one way for us to do it quickly.