Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California, for organizing the time for this discussion this evening.

I think this resolution before us at the moment is very, very important. It calls upon the House of Representatives to recognize the importance of National Women's Health Week. The importance of National Women's Health Week is to draw people's attention from all across our country to the issues that affect the health of women in America. And those issues affect women of all ages.

One of the things that we are attempting to do with regard to National Women's Health Week is to draw attention to the necessity to try to live better lifestyles, healthier lifestyles, and to take advantage of the opportunities for medical screening.

One of the unfortunate situations that we confront in our country, of course, is the fact that we still do not have a system of national health insurance. And so consequently, many women will not be able to take advantage of opportunities to get medical screening because they do not have insurance.

But, in the meantime, this resolution focuses attention on the need to live healthier lifestyles, to be aware of the various diseases and other health concerns that affect women, to take the necessary precautions to deal with those issues, to live the healthiest possible lifestyle, and to get the best appropriate medical attention.

It also thanks all of the agencies, and organizations across our country that devote their time and attention to the issue of womens' health. Womens' health is important for all of us, and that is why this resolution is so important for the Members of this House and for all of our constituents all across America.

I ask my colleagues to devote their attention to this resolution, to support it favorably, and to ensure its passage, because this issue is critically important to every single family in America. I ask that we give it the appropriate attention that it deserves and that the resolution be passed unanimously.

Madam Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Oregon for yielding me this time.

I also want to express my admiration, respect and affection for the gentleman from California, who is the sponsor of this legislation. But I do disagree with him on the effects that this legislation would have.

I am a strong supporter of the State of Israel. As such, I believe it is important to maintain independent and principled positions on Middle East issues. I believe that that requires a ``no'' vote on resolution 4681.

Hamas' victory in the elections for the Palestinian legislative council was indeed regrettable, and Hamas government's failure to condemn, much less take steps to prevent acts of terrorism is abhorrent. It is appropriate that the international community, including, of course, the United States, make a concerted and coordinated effort to pressure Hamas.

However, H.R. 4681 risks undermining such efforts, harming United States national security and undermining those Palestinian officials and activists who do recognize Israel, who do reject terror, and who do support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

H.R. 4681 subjugates U.S. national security interests to political grandstanding. It does so by eliminating the President's authority to waive sanctions in the interests of United States national security, a waiver that is a standard component of virtually all U.S. sanctions legislation.

H.R. 4681 risks undermining Palestinian moderates and strengthening extremists by providing no political horizon that an alternate Palestinian leadership can strive to reach.

H.R. 4681 preconditions U.S. relations with the Palestinian Authority and imposes sanctions based on criteria that are unrelated to the issues raised by the Hamas elections, and 4681 makes it more difficult for the United States to engage with alternatives to a Hamas-led government like President Mahmoud Abbas or the PLO. This proposal, unfortunately, is itself extreme, and as such, I believe, would do no good.

Rather, it will strengthen the position of extremists and increase the violence and destruction which has become more prevalent as the result of the expression and implementation of policies such as those contained in H.R. 4681.

I believe that we should defeat this proposed legislation and instead focus on something that would be more productive to achieve the kinds of solutions that we need to the problems that exist in the Middle East.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), my friend and colleague.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of discussion about the amendment that has been put forward by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson). There are some technical problems with this amendment that I think have not been adequately addressed in the context of this debate thus far.

One of those technical amendments has to do with the fact that the experts on this issue, both within Interior and Energy, believe that it may not be possible to give leases for the extraction of natural gas alone. All the leases that we have currently are for natural gas and oil. And the reason for that is, if you drill for natural gas, the likelihood is that you are going to hit oil. And if you hit oil, and you are not capable or prepared to deal with that, then you are going to encounter some very serious problems.

So the amendment that Mr. Peterson is going to bring before the House sometime later this afternoon or this evening has within it this very serious technical problem, and for that reason alone it ought to be rejected.

The gentleman from Florida, the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, was up here just a few minutes ago talking about the serious damage that this amendment, if it is

passed and put into action, might have on the tourist industry in Florida and on the general situation of the coastal region in Florida and California and in parts of the gulf.

So when you are thinking about this particular amendment, keep in mind that if you think you are going to drill just for natural gas, the likelihood is if you hit natural gas you are going to hit oil too. And if you are not prepared for it, you are going to have some very serious problems. We ought to address this issue, but address it in a much more comprehensive way.

As has been pointed out, again by the gentleman from Florida on the other side of the aisle just a few minutes ago, we have not had adequate hearings on this. This is an issue that has not gone through the appropriate authorizing committee. We are attempting to inappropriately put it into the context of this appropriations bill, and for that reason also that amendment ought to be rejected.

Furthermore, we need to be conserving our natural resources, particularly our energy resources. Anything that you find anyplace in the world on energy resources, natural gas and oil, these materials are fungible. They go out anywhere. If we are smart about our natural resources, we ought to be doing everything we can to conserve them, keep them where they are because the value of those natural resources is going to dramatically increase over time. If we exploit them now, extract them now, exhaust them now, we are going to be very sorry for it later on.

In addition to that, we have another circumstance with regard to this amendment and the ideas behind it, and that has to do with the fact that we are not now receiving adequate royalties from the natural resources, particularly petroleum and natural gas, that are being extracted by oil companies from public lands, whether those public lands are dry or under water. And there will be an amendment coming up later this evening, in all likelihood towards the end of this bill, which will deal with the need to get those royalties.

So for those reasons I think that this amendment ought to be rejected.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have.

The entire time for the bill?

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have at the desk is a simple one. It says that none of the funds made available in this act may be used to issue any new leases that authorize production of oil or natural gas under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to any lessee under an existing lease where such lease is not providing the proper royalties based upon market price.

We have a situation here where the American public is being gouged for the price of oil on two separate occasions, once at the gasoline pump and once when their oil and natural gas is being drilled and obtained by oil companies that are not paying the royalties on those leases. This is something that needs to stop.

We have right now over 1,000 leases, roughly 1,032 leases, to major oil companies to drill in the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere, and there is no provision for those oil companies to pay royalties on the product owned by the American citizens that is being taken out of the ground, whether it is dry or under the Continental Shelf. That needs to change. We are losing roughly $1 billion a year, and unless this is changed over the course of the next 20 years, we will lose more than $20 billion.

So we need a situation that is going to address this, and this amendment will do so. It simply says that anyone who is interested in having leases to extract oil or natural gas from the Outer Continental Shelf, and they have already leases upon which they are not paying the proper royalties, is not going to be permitted to take those new leases.

Those new leases provide for royalties between 12 and 16 percent. The royalties are on a product that is owned by the citizens of this country, whether it is the oil or the natural gas; and any oil company that is taking those products out of the ground, out of public lands, taking this public property and not paying royalties on it should not be provided with additional leases unless they are willing to pay royalties both on the additional leases and the leases that they already have.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to my friend from Idaho that the Congressional Research Service has told us that the enactment of this amendment would not constitute a taking of existing leaseholders' rights, and goes on to say that this amendment is perfectly appropriate and should be adopted.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Chairman, the Bush administration has allowed these leases to continue for 5 years, and they haven't renegotiated them. I would just like to draw that to the attention of my friend from Idaho.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention that we have an administration now in the White House that is replete with oil contacts; and the transition team that set up the energy policy of this administration was made up entirely, except for one person, of people from the oil companies. That is what needs to be dealt with.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable and talented man, a man who I am proud to call my friend, Mr. Levon Helm.

Levon once said of the music of Bill Monroe and His Blue Grass Boys, ``it really tattooed my brain.'' That's how I feel about Levon's music, which I have had the pleasure of enjoying since the late 1960s, when he recorded ``Music from Big Pink'' in West Saugerties, New York.

Levon Helm was born on May 26, 1940 in Elaine, Arkansas. From an early age, Levon had a musical gift. He performed all over Arkansas with his sister Linda, entertaining crowds with a homemade string bass, harmonica and guitar. As a teenager he formed his own band, The Jungle Bush Beaters, and honed his musical gift by watching entertainers such as Johnny Cash, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, and a young Elvis Presley.

After The Jungle Bush Beaters, Levon joined The Hawks, which recorded such hits as ``Forty Days'' and ``Mary Lou.'' The Hawks sold 750,000 copies of their record and appeared on Dick Clark's American Bandstand.

After splitting with The Hawks' founder, Ronnie Hawkins, Levon and his band mates signed on as Bob Dylan's backup band, and followed Dylan to West Saugerties, New York, where they took up residence in a pink house, wrote and rehearsed. The group became known simply as The Band, and the outcome of that period was one of the most important albums of the 20th century, ``Music from Big Pink.'' It was the album that introduced Levon Helm to America, and it introduced me to their amazing sound.

Luckily for Levon, he didn't put his roots down in the Hudson Valley just yet. While working in Los Angeles in 1974, he met the lovely Sandra Dodd who would become his wife seven years later. I am happy to know her and call her a friend.

The Band continued to prosper in the early 1970s and in 1975, the barn and studio that Levon built in Woodstock was complete. Unfortunately it was just a year later that we said goodbye to The Band, but it would not be goodbye for Levon Helm.

Over the next seven years, Levon continued pursuing his own musical career with cutting-edge albums like ``The RCO All-Stars,'' the self- titled ``Levon Helm'' and ``American Son.'' Then in 1984, much to their fans' delight, The Band reunited, performing together and recording three more albums.

In 1996, Levon was diagnosed with throat cancer, and we all feared we would never hear his voice again, but he miraculously recovered, and I, and so many others, still enjoy Levon's music at the Midnight Rambles he holds in his studio in Woodstock.

For the past 30 years, Levon has been much more than our famous neighbor in Woodstock. He has, quietly and unobtrusively, been a very generous and committed member of our community. He has worked hard for and supported cancer centers, local little leagues, volunteer firefighters, members of the armed forces and school music programs.

It is because of this great man, and the great music he produces that the Village of Woodstock, New York, has declared May 20 as Levon Helm Day. It continues to be an honor and a great pleasure for so many of us in New York and across America to bear witness to the incredible career and life of this very strong, extremely talented and generous man. I look forward to many more Midnight Rambles.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend warm birthday wishes and to pay tribute to a dear friend and great woman, Mrs. Mildred Resnick.

Mrs. Resnick was born to Russian immigrant parents who migrated to Ulster County, New York around the time of World War I. She was raised in Kerhonkson, in the congressional district I represent, and continues to reside nearby in Ellenville. Together with her late husband Louis, Mildred has generously contributed to and nurtured the surrounding community.

The Resnicks have embodied the true meaning of philanthropy. Through their generous donations and personal involvement, they improved the material, social, and spiritual welfare of their community through thoughtful and charitable activities.

Lou and Mildred dedicated themselves to giving young people the opportunity to pursue higher education. Through generous scholarship assistance from the Resnicks, many students have been able to attend SUNY New Paltz to pursue their education. In addition, students' educations at New Paltz, SUNY Delhi and Cornell University have been enriched by the engineering school, gymnasium and library, respectively, that the Resnick family endowed.

The Resnick's impact on our region extends far beyond their support for higher education, however. Through their contributions to the Ulster County Mental Health Clinic in Ellenville, the Ellenville Community Hospital, and countless other institutions, the health and well being of the surrounding community has been greatly improved.

Together, Lou and Mildred also made their mark on the region's economy. The Channel Master Corporation, founded by Lou and his brothers, was a steady, faithful employer in Ulster County for decades. The Resnicks also invested in several other enterprises to boost the local economy, including the construction of the Joseph Y. Resnick airport, and support for the revival of the Catskill region's tourism industry.

Although Lou and Mildred worked together on so many important projects in Ulster County and the surrounding region, we must also commend Mildred's many accomplishments in her own right. She has chaired the March of Dimes fundraising campaign and has been an instrumental supporter of the Eleanor Roosevelt Institute for Cancer.

It is impossible for me to list here all of the wonderful and generous contributions Mildred has made to the lives of people in her community and all over the country, but this fact is clear: I, like so many others, am truly grateful to have known and worked with her. Mildred has been a dedicated and loving wife, a beloved mother and grandmother, and a faithful friend. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to publicly say ``thank you'' and to wish her a very happy birthday.

Mr. Chairman, I thank very much my colleague from the State of New York, our ranking Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee, for her leadership here and for yielding me this time.

This debate in which we are engaged in this afternoon is a critically important one for the future of the American economy. As my colleague Mrs. Maloney pointed out just a few moments ago, we are currently facing the largest budget deficits in the history of our country. According to the budget resolution itself, this burgeoning budget deficit will grow by $372 billion just over the course of the next fiscal year. Many people regard that number as conservative.

Many people who are analyzing the economic circumstances that we are confronting as a result of the incompetent budget policies of the Republican Party here in the Congress estimate that this budget deficit can be substantially more than $400 billion. In any case, even if it is only $372 billion, that sets another record. Now, maybe they are proud of the record that they are setting, and that seems to be the case based upon what we have just heard.

In addition to the record budget deficit this year, we are also facing record debt. The national debt has now grown to more than $8 trillion, and the majority party here in the Congress very, very quietly, under cover, raised the debt ceiling to almost $9 trillion.

This majority party is the biggest borrow-and-spend operation that we have ever seen in the United States of America, totally and completely irresponsible in their approach to dealing with the American people's money. As a result of that, the economic circumstances that we are confronting are becoming increasingly difficult.

A major portion of their failures has been their approach to the tax system. We just heard my friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle say that the Democrats are in favor of a tax increase. That is completely fraudulent. It is another part of the propagandistic approach that the majority party has taken to dealing with these most significant issues in which we are presently engaged.

We are not in favor of tax increases; we are in favor of reducing the irresponsible tax reductions that the Republicans have engaged in over the course of the last 5 years. Those tax reductions have benefited primarily the wealthiest 1 percent of the population of America.

Let me give an example of that. If you are a person making $10 million a year, if that is what you made last year, $10 million, the effect of the tax cuts on your budget is very, very significant. When you factor in the deductions and investment approach, you find that your taxes have fallen by $1 million. Your taxes have fallen by $1 million if you are making $10 million a year. That is what they have done. They have cut taxes for the very wealthiest people, and they are increasing the budget deficit that is going to have to be paid back by the vast majority of working people in this country, this generation and future generations.

This is the borrow-and-spend approach to governance that the Republican Party in this House has put forward and which they continue to advance in the context of this budget resolution.

What has been the effect of all this on the average American? What we have seen is that wages and salaries of the working people of our country have risen at their lowest rate since 1981. And I am talking about over the last 5 years. They have risen at their lowest rate since 1981. When you look at what has been happening in the last 2 years, you find that wages and salaries have actually been in decline. People are seeing their wages and salaries, when you take into effect inflation, actually going down.

So if you are a wealthy person, the Republicans are taking very good care of you. If you are an average American working for wages and salaries, you are finding your situation in desperate shape. So this budget resolution is another failure on the part of the majority party in America. They are creating deeper deficits for us. They are putting us into deeper and deeper debt. Their approach to taxation has been for the rich and against the working class; and in an economy which is based upon demand, it is forcing that economy down, and we are seeing it broadly all across the American economy, losing manufacturing jobs at record rates. All of that is as a result of the economic policies that have been put forth by the majority party here in the House of Representatives.

So the point we are making right here now is once again we have a budget resolution on the floor of this House which is incompetent and irresponsible, which is going to mean higher taxation in the future for the average working families in our country while it cuts taxes for the wealthiest and most privileged and while it increases the national debt.

They talk about the economy growing. We have had an economy that has experienced the most stimulation, both monetary policy stimulation and fiscal policy stimulation, in the history of the country. The lowest interest rates and huge amounts of spending have increased the national debt. That is the situation we are confronting here today, and that is why this budget resolution needs to be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague from New York for her leadership on this Joint Economic Committee.

As we have heard over the course of the period of this debate, we have had in the last 5 years huge amounts of economic stimulation in this economy. The amount of economic growth dropped off sharply when the Republican Party took control of both the executive and the legislative branches of government in 2001. With the cooperation of the Federal Reserve, huge amounts of monetary stimulation were injected into the economy, and they dropped the interest rates to zero. And this Congress engaged in a spending program which was enormous, huge amounts of spending coming out of these congressional resolutions, these budget resolutions and appropriations bills.

That kind of economic stimulation should have been very positive, but it was not. One of the reasons it was not is because it was done in a very irresponsible way. It was done by borrowing huge amounts of money, and that borrowing has created record amounts of debt for the American people, which they will have to pay back over the course of generations.

As we have heard, the national debt now exceeds $8 trillion, and the majority party has risen that level to almost $9 trillion. With that kind of economic stimulation, huge amounts of spending and very low interest rates, we would have had every reason to anticipate that unemployment would drop, that more and more people would be employed, that they would be employed progressively, that their wages would be increasing, and the economic circumstances for the American workers and for American families would have gone up, except that, as I pointed out, it was done so irresponsibly so that most of the benefits have gone to the wealthiest people in this country and little or no benefits have gone to the middle class.

So the effect has not been that we have cut unemployment and increased employment. We now have 1.2 million more people in America who are unemployed than there were 5 years ago.

Long-term unemployment is even worse: 1.4 million Americans are suffering long-term unemployment.

They have talked about job growth. Well, of course there has been some job growth. What has that job growth been? It has averaged about 38,000 jobs a month. Normally, even without that huge amount of stimulation, that huge amount of spending, normally what we have in America is job growth at the rate of 125,000 to 150,000 jobs a month. Job growth under their economic program has been down to 38,000. That is why we have more and more people unemployed, short term and long term.

Manufacturing jobs, the essence of our economy, the most important aspect of our economy, manufacturing jobs, have gone down by 2.9 million jobs since they have taken over both the executive and legislative branches of government. Real wages for working people in this country have not gone up as you would expect with that kind of huge amount of spending, but real wages have fallen in the past 2 years. In fact, in the last 2 years, they have gone down by nearly 1 percent after inflation for American families.

So the budget resolution that we are seeing today is consistent with the economic policies that the Republican Party has put forth over the last 5 years, which have been so devastating to the American economy, to American workers, and to American families. And that is the reason why this budget resolution must be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great man, a great American, and a great friend of mine, Dr. Herman Ash, who passed away in Saugerties, New York at the age of 96 earlier this month. I have had the pleasure of knowing Dr. Ash for most of my life, since he treated me for a football injury in high school.

After fleeing Germany in 1937, Dr. Ash and his wife, also a doctor, settled in Saugerties and opened a medical practice. What many will remember most about Dr. Herman Ash, in addition to his medical practice, was his love of music. Dr. Ash was an accomplished pianist and violinist and enriched the small town of Saugerties with music that he played, composed, and taught. In addition to his own musical talents, he brought the Saugerties Pro Musica to town in 1995. This organization continues to host regular performances each year.

Not only was Dr. Ash's service to his community commendable, he was a true American. Endeared to the country that gave him refuge in 1937, Dr. Ash joined the U.S. Army and served as a captain in the European Theater of Operations during World War II. He was also a member of the Lamouree-Hackett Post #72 American Legion for over 60 years, most of which he served as the Post's medical officer.

Dr. Herman Ash's commitment to service to his community is something to be celebrated. Over his lifetime he tutored young musicians in Saugerties, was a literacy volunteer, taught English as a Second Language classes, volunteered for the Heart Association, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and the Juvenile Diabetes Association, a cause near and dear to my own heart.

Words cannot express the gratitude and appreciation felt by those whose lives, including my own, Dr. Ash touched. The world would be a. much better place if everyone gave back to others just a fraction of what Dr. Ash gave throughout his life. My thoughts and prayers remain with the family and friends of this great man.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the gentlewoman from California for this amendment, which prevents funding for permanent bases in Iraq, and also because it draws our attention to other consequences.

One is the tragic occupation, which has been going on in Iraq now for almost 3 years, and the consequences of that tragic occupation, which has been endorsed and supported by this Congress over and over again. It also draws our attention to the rationale for the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation, a rationale which was presented to this Congress and to the American people in the most fraudulent and deceitful way.

It draws attention to the fact that it is a criminal violation of Federal law to present false and misleading information to the Congress in order to get them to take action. Most importantly, it draws our attention to the fact that the Congress has done nothing about it. We are now facing the third anniversary of the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, and we must face the fact that this Congress has failed in its obligations and responsibilities to oversee the executive branch.

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, Madam Speaker, I am.

Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit is very simple and direct. It says that the appropriations that were directed toward the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program for the year 2006 must be spent in

that year, not moved over to the year 2007.

We are doing this for obvious reasons. The high cost of energy is making it extremely difficult for low-income people, particularly elderly, low-income people, to meet their home energy assistance payments, and also to meet their other needs.

It is also affecting large numbers of other people in our communities across the Northeast, the upper Midwest, and elsewhere across the country.

That, and the drop in temperatures recently, is causing some serious problems for many people. We want to make sure that the money that was appropriated for the LIHEAP program is used this year, appropriately so that people do not suffer as a result of its not being used.

I think the case has been made.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is just another example of why the people of this country need to fear this Congress and the people who lead it. What this bill does is preempt State laws on food safety.

We have people who come down here to the floor of the House and argue for States rights. Now they present to us a bill which denies States rights; denies the States the ability to protect their citizens by watching the food that they eat. All of those State laws are going to be washed away by this legislation. It is probably even unconstitutional. The Constitution provides the States with the authority to protect its citizens. But we are now hearing from the majority party that they want to pass a law which denies States that right. No longer will they be able to protect their citizens.

Eighty percent of our Nation's food safety inspection is regulated by State and local entities. As we have heard, there are 200 laws. It has taken us more than 200 years to get those 200 laws in almost 50 States. Those laws protect our people. Now they are going to turn that over to the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA is not adequately protecting the people of our country today with regard to drug safety. The FDA is too close to the pharmaceutical companies. Yet now they are going to pass a bill which stops the States from protecting citizens, whether they are eating in a cafeteria, a lunchroom, a hospital, or some other situation, from passing a law that is going to make certain that the food that they are eating there is not going to cause them to be ill, maybe poison them in some way.

That is what they want to do, have the Federal Government step in here on top of the States, deny the States the right that they have under the Constitution to protect the health and safety and welfare of their citizens by passing legislation which preempts all of those State laws. This is a very bad idea and it must be defeated.

The National Uniformity for Food Act is poorly-drafted legislation that would preempt state law on food safety.

From Consumer's Union: ``This bill would eliminate critical state laws that protect consumer health while leaving in place an inadequate federal system based on the lowest common denominator of protection.

Eighty percent of our nation's food safety inspection is regulated on the state and local levels.

If enacted, the measure would essentially abrogate at least 200 state laws that build on federal law, as well as state laws that exist in the absence of any federal regulation (such as state laws on items including shellfish and smoked fish safety, milk, nursing home food, and cafeteria food).

If states wished to continue enforcement of their laws, they would need to petition FDA for permission.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the FDA could spend upwards of $100 million over the next five years on those petitions.

The measure would also stop states from creating food labels if they are not identical to federal labels.

The measure is opposed by the National Association of State District Attorneys, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Humane Society, and Physicians for Social Responsibility, which calls this a ``major health threat.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor James D. Scanlon for a distinguished professional career that has spanned more than 39 years. As Jim prepares for his retirement as president of BAE Systems Platform Solutions, I would like to recognize and thank him for his tremendous leadership of one of our region's biggest and most stable employers, as well as his leadership in the Greater Binghamton business community.

After serving in the U.S. Army as a nuclear weapons officer, Jim began his career in the private sector with General Electric's Engineering Career Development Program, developing design and management systems for military aircraft. In 1992, he was named General Manager of GE's Control Systems business, retaining that position when the business was acquired by Martin Marietta and then merged with Lockheed. In 1995, as president of Lockheed Martin Control Systems, Jim led the acquisition of GE Aircraft Engines' engine control manufacturing operation. When Lockheed Martin Control Systems was combined with BAE Systems in 2000, Jim was named president of BAE Systems Controls. During the course of his career, he has overseen the development and production of mission-critical control systems used on all U.S. military aircraft and most of the global military aircraft, as well as every regional and large commercial aircraft worldwide.

In addition to his broad engineering and management experience, Jim has been an invaluable resource for our community, ensuring that BAE Systems and the previous owners of the Johnson City, New York, plant were involved and committed partners in the redevelopment of the Greater Binghamton region's economy. He has matched his professional commitment to our communities with a personal one, serving on the directorial boards of several local organizations, including the United Way and the SUNY Binghamton School of Management. He has justly received the many honors bestowed upon him by community organizations.

In addition to these numerous professional credentials, it must be noted that I, like so many others in Broome County, regard Jim as a friend. He inspires great loyalty in his employees and affection from the countless others with who he has worked over the years, in the defense industry, in the government, and in his home community of Vestal. He will be sorely missed by those of us who have had the pleasure of working with him.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to congratulate Jim Scanlon and his family on his retirement. I offer my very best wishes to him and his wife Dolores as they begin this new chapter in their lives, along with my deep appreciation for his innovation, dedication and hard work for the past 39 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 612, and in honor and support of our military personnel, I earnestly request an open debate on the war and occupation in Iraq.

I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 612, the measure offered by Representatives Hyde and Ros-Lehtinen.

In pushing this measure rather than the one offered by Congressman Steny Hoyer, Republicans are once again denying the House of Representatives the opportunity for free, fair, and open debate on our continued involvement in Iraq. This maneuver is pure subterfuge designed to hide the Bush administration's continuing coverup of the rationale behind their behavior in Iraq, as well as the incompetent and corrupt manner in which American occupation of Iraq has been carried out.

The Republican leadership has the responsibility to bring a genuine and serious debate over Iraq to the floor, so that all of the implications of our continued involvement can be thoroughly debated before the eyes of the American people. H. Res. 612 does nothing to address this responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, there are more than six million grandparent-headed and other relative-headed households in the United States. In my home state of New York, 9 percent of the children live with non-parent relatives. These relatives have opened their hearts and homes to children who can no longer, for a variety of reasons, live with their parents. During this holiday season, I would like to recognize these relatives for providing safety, shelter, food, and love. Their kindness and generosity is acknowledge. I extend my most sincere appreciation for the selflessness these families demonstrate and note that their selflessness provides a benefit not only to the children under their care but also to the community at large.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear member of my staff, Marsha McElligott, who will soon retire after nearly 31 years of service to the House of Representatives. I have been fortunate enough to work with Marsha since I was sworn into office in January of 1993, but that was not the beginning of her congressional career. In fact, nearly her entire working life has been devoted to public service.

After graduating from the Katharine Gibbs School, she went to work for my predecessor in representing this district, Congressman Matthew McHugh. She served as his assistant in the Ithaca city prosecutor's office, in the Tompkins County District Attorney's office and then in his private law practice. When Matt was elected to Congress in 1974, she joined him as a caseworker on his staff and stayed through his retirement in 1992. I am very grateful to have inherited her service when I was elected in 1993.

Most of the people in Ithaca, where she's worked for all 31 years, would be surprised to learn that she's never lived in the congressional district. Rather, she's lived all of her life in Watkins Glen, in a neighboring county. It's remarkable for the fact that her knowledge of the communities of this congressional district is so deep and her work has always been so seamless that I think most of my constituents would assume that she had, in fact, been an Ithaca native.

Her service is also unusual in that she has devoted so many years to two members of Congress, Matt McHugh and myself. While we undoubtedly have different styles and have run our congressional offices in different manners, Marsha never missed a beat when she came to work for me, and I doubt that constituents who had received her help ever noticed any transition. They only noticed how very well served they were in her hands.

A congressional career that spans more than 30 years has become very rare, and I fear that there are few Marsha McElligotts left in congressional employment, staff members who are so deeply, personally dedicated to serving the public, serving the Members for whom they work, and upholding the very best goals and ideals of this institution.

I've always said that being a caseworker is the hardest job in a congressional office--it's demanding, it's stressful, and it requires infinite patience and persistence. It takes a very special person to do that job well and for such a long time. I can think of no finer embodiment of these qualities than Marsha McElligott. She has true respect for the role of Congress and for the difference that an individual Member can make in the lives of his or her constituents by providing access to the halls of government.

Like many of our longest-serving and most dedicated staff, Marsha has been relatively anonymous. Constituents may remember for decades the name of the Member of Congress who helped them earn their citizenship, or get their veterans' benefits, or solve a problem with the IRS, but they probably won't remember the name of the staff member who helped them.

That anonymity is a testament to how deeply dedicated to the greater good that Marsha, and staffers like her, truly are. I offer it as a compliment. Some people who work in a public service position for a long time come to be known for their own personalities and their own political careers. For Marsha, her devotion has been to Congressman McHugh and me and to the people of the congressional district. She has been utterly selfless, subsuming her own opinions to be instead the voice of the members of Congress she has served and working always for the good of our constituents, not her own personal gain. Because she is always the picture of discretion, she has the unfailing trust of our constituents, my staff and me.

There are thousands of people in the congressional district I represent--immigrants and new citizens, college students, veterans, people with disabilities, young, old, rich and poor--whose lives have been bettered by the efforts of Marsha McElligott. Marsha's a very modest person, but I believe there's no exaggeration in saying that she's made a difference in the future of our nation, because of her particular devotion to two areas of her work: bringing new citizens into our country and helping to select the finest leaders of our armed forces.

For hundreds of refugees, visa applicants, or those needing help with the naturalization process, Marsha's patience and compassion has meant the difference between hope and despair, success and failure, united or divided families. The long and exhausting process these special cases require have proven no match for Marsha's limitless diligence and desire to serve those in need of help. Many of these cases were presented by people who didn't speak English or didn't know our customs, people who were scared and intimidated. She made a good introduction to these people of what America was all about, and what American government means in the lives of individuals. People who were frightened by the immigration process when they came to our offices were reassured by her direct personal contact, her no-nonsense attitude and the confidence she inspired that she'd sort out whatever sort of bureaucratic mess they were in. A generation of immigrants to the Finger Lakes region from all over the world became citizens because of her.

Hundreds of young men and women seeking appointments to the nation's military academies also have Marsha to thank for their entry into these elite institutions. Marsha's ability to coach these future leaders of our armed forces successfully through the nomination process is worthy of great admiration and praise.

I could go on and on about her professional accomplishments, but I want to close by saying what she has meant to me personally. She has been a pleasure to know and to work with, and I've relied on her wisdom and experience in these 13 years more times than I can count. Day in and day out, she has regularly, faithfully and loyally provided the very best service any Member of Congress could hope for, for more than three decades. I congratulate her as she prepares for this new chapter of her life and know that her husband David, their children and families look forward to spending more time with her.