Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to an outstanding woman, Gloria Conway, the long-time editor of the Charlestown Patriot. She recently sold this neighborhood weekly, a publication that she owned with her husband, Jim, for nearly 40 years.

Gloria's passion for her neighborhood was evident in the pages of her paper and in the various charity events she champions with her husband. As editor of The Charlestown Patriot, she would honor a mother's wish to recognize a son's first little league homerun with the same importance as any news emanating from Washington, DC. Her paper creatively balanced a nostalgic tie to Charlestown's historic past while also covering today's relevant topics, and it was always done with a local flair.

The Patriot will remain in Charlestown with Gloria Conway as Publisher Emeritus. It has a different look and new owners, but the decades of positive influence that Gloria Conway provided will endure at the Patriot and within the Charlestown community for years to come. I wish Gloria, Jim and the entire Conway family all the best in whatever the future holds. I want to thank them for their friendship and commitment as they recorded Charlestown's most recent history in their pages.

Mr. Speaker, I just rise briefly to congratulate the chairman, the ranking member, and the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee.

This is a classic piece of legislation that hopefully will never, ever, ever be used. No one, hopefully, will ever know that we actually did this because if they do, it means we will have suffered another terrorist attack. At the same time, it is absolutely necessary.

We have heard of all the details of what is not here, but to me, the most important thing that is not here is the formal mechanism to make sure that we are not stuck in the same position a few years from now. I fear that if we do not get to work in an official way through a commission, that we will be here a few years from now doing this all over again, simply saying we could not get it done and we did not do it right, and that is a travesty to the American people. It is unnecessary, and I will tell the Members that, based on this experience and past experience, particularly with the chairman, he is a man of honor, he is a man of his word, and I know he will be pushing as best he can to get this Congress to pay attention to this issue for the next year so that we will not be placed in this position.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Roy J. Glauber, a distinguished professor of physics at Harvard University, who will be awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physics this weekend in Stockholm, Sweden. Dr. Glauber will share the prestigious prize with John L. Hall of the University of Colorado and Theodor W. Hansch of the Institute for Quantum Optics in Munich, Germany. All three will receive the award for their groundbreaking work in optics and the nature of light.

Dr. Glauber will receive the Nobel Prize for his contribution to the quantum theory of optical coherence. His research on the subject was published in 1963 and provided a theoretical description of the behavior of light particles. Dr. Glauber's groundbreaking work laid the foundation for the development of incredibly high precision instruments such as lasers and Global Positioning Systems.

As a teenager growing up in New York, Dr. Glauber became so fascinated by astronomy that he created his own lens for a telescope. His interest in physics and mathematics blossomed during his high school years at the Bronx High School of Science. During his undergraduate years at Harvard, Dr. Glauber also worked on the Manhattan Project, developing the first atomic bomb. He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard in 1946 and went on to earn a Ph.D. at Harvard in 1949. Upon graduation, Dr. Glauber conducted research at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton and at the California Institute of Technology. In 1952, he returned to Harvard where he has taught and researched ever since.

Dr. Glauber is a role model for young people all across this country. I hope that his extraordinary achievements and contributions will serve as an inspiration to students at all levels to pursue the study and career of science. As we honor Dr. Glauber and the other prize winners, it is critical that we also recognize our obligation to provide the next generation of Americans with the scientific and technological education that they need to succeed in today's global economy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I think it is a fantastic bill. I congratulate the chairman and ranking member for putting this bill forward. It has been wisely thought out and well written, and I look forward to voting in its favor. However, it is not the only ethics issue that we have.

I am not one who has ever in any situation said to anybody that anyone should be considered guilty until proven so; however, the process that we have here has not been working, and we all know it. And as one Member, while we are doing something on ethics, I thought it was important to mention that this House should also be moving forward on our own ethics investigations.

For 1 year we have had an Ethics Committee that really has not done much. It has been stalled. It has been delayed. It has been sidetracked. I am not going to presume what the results of any of the investigations would be. I think that would be wrong and inappropriate. Nonetheless, as one Member, I am embarrassed for this country that we have failed to do our job and our duty to look into the ethics issues of our own Members when allegations are brought forth.

This bill is a good bill. This bill is something that we should be doing. But it is not enough if we really want to deal with the ethics issues that are facing the American people today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the chairman of the committee and the subcommittee and the ranking members of the committee and subcommittee. This is a classic example of perfect legislation because no one involved with it is happy, but we are all satisfied. We are satisfied on a bill that will not get any one of us a single vote or win us a single friend at home.

This bill is being done for the simple reason it must be done for the security and stability of the American economy. And the fact that we are getting it done, I think, is an amazing statement of progress. All congratulations are due to the people who sat around the table, worked out some deep philosophical differences of opinion, and did it in a way that lived up to the chairman's commitment, his public commitment a few months ago that some people questioned, though I never did, that this bill would be done before we went home.

Again, I just stand to congratulate him and to thank him and the other people involved with this bill for getting it done in a manner that should make us all proud.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Margaret A. McKenna, president of Lesley University since December 4, 1985.

Dr. McKenna became president of Lesley College 20 years ago and her leadership has created Lesley University, with a School of Education, a Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, an Art Institute and the School of Integrative and Experiential Studies. Over these two decades, Lesley University's enrollment, endowment and programmatic reach have each expanded dramatically. While these achievements would be laudable on their own for any university president, they are only a portion of the success Dr. McKenna has fostered at Lesley University.

Dr. McKenna has placed a very strong emphasis on educating our educators. Under her stewardship, Lesley has grown to be the Commonwealth of Massachusett's largest producer of new teachers. Lesley has also become one of the largest providers of graduate professional education to classroom teachers in the Nation. The faculty and students have become an important resource to local public school districts. This is due, in no small part, to her commitment to pioneering on-line and distance learning. With President McKenna's imprimatur, Lesley University has placed many resources and much energy toward providing quality education for teachers specializing in the hard sciences.

President McKenna has also used her position as the head of a leading university to call attention to important causes. One need only glance at her published work to know she sees education as an opportunity to build a citizen, not just a student. Clearly, from her perspective, there is no civics topic that is not enmeshed with higher education.

In closing, I salute President Margaret McKenna for 20 years of outstanding leadership and vision.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to Mary M. Lassen, who has served more than a decade as president and CEO of the Women's Union in Boston. Mary Lassen has been an extraordinary force for social justice and effective reform. The Women's Educational and Industrial Union, established in 1877, supported suffrage, legal rights, and wider opportunities for women. Mary Lassen built upon those historic triumphs and led the union into a new century, working with and on behalf of poor and immigrant women. Under her leadership, the union has provided job training for women moving from welfare to work, supportive housing for survivors of domestic abuse, and compelling advocacy for family economic self-sufficiency.

Mary Lassen graduated summa cum laude from Radcliffe College, determined to secure liberty, justice, and opportunity for all persons. Her struggle against poverty and injustice has been both intellectual and pragmatic. She believes in rigorous analysis and sustained collaboration. After working as a community organizer, she became executive director of the Committee for Boston Public Housing. In that office, she introduced early childhood, antiviolence and community building programs in several of Boston's public housing developments, and then, characteristically, she took time to reflect. In a sabbatical year, as a fellow of the Mary I. Bunting Institute at Radcliffe College, she produced a study of ``Community-Based Family Support in Public Housing.'' During a public policy fellowship sponsored by the Japan Society, she explored women's employment and workforce development in East Asia. She has inspired the union's important research on Family Self-Sufficiency and helped forge the Massachusetts Family Economic Self-Sufficiency Project, MassFESS, a statewide coalition of organizations, to measure the real costs of living, working and paying taxes without subsidies and to frame policy in terms of these real costs.

Under her leadership, the Women's Union opened Horizons II, increasing by 30 percent the number of supportive transitional housing units for battered and homeless women and their children in the city of Boston. This year, the Women's Union celebrated the opening of a newly designed, state-of-the art, woman-focused technology training center. The title of their report expresses their goal: Achieving Success in the New Economy.

Several of the most daring, inspiring, and influential women in the history of our country have been associated with the Women's Union, sometimes as supporters, sometimes as clients: Louisa May Alcott, Julia Ward Howe, Helen Keller, and Amelia Earhart. Mary Lassen deserves a place among them.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize Michael Lussier, the President and CEO of Webster First Federal Credit Union, headquartered in Webster, MA, on his recent election to the Board of Directors of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU). As a Member of the Financial Services Committee, I have enjoyed working with NAFCU to address the needs of our nation's federal credit unions. Mr. Lussier has been a vocal supporter of credit union issues at both the state and national levels and I know he will be an asset to the NAFCU Board.

Mr. Lussier's election to the NAFCU Board is just one more in a long list of accomplishments that has spanned his 19 years with credit unions. He has served as the Chairman, and is currently a Board Member, of the Massachusetts Share Insurance Corporation (MSIC). His illustrious experience further includes service as the Credit Union Ambassador for the United States for Australia and New Zealand and he is a former Director of the Credit Union League of Massachusetts Insurance Agency.

As the President and CEO of Webster First, Mr. Lussier has focused on ensuring his members receive helpful, personal service that caters to the needs of his members and their financial goals. Through his credit union, he is teaching kids necessary life skills by fostering a ``Credit Union at School'' program to teach the importance of savings to elementary aged children.

Mr. Lussier's involvement to improve the lives of others can be further illustrated in his commitment to the American Red Cross where he presides as a local Board Member. He spearheaded an effort to build a much needed Red Cross facility in Worcester, MA, by coordinating area credit unions to donate funds to pay for the facility.

It is because of the good work of Mr. Lussier, and others like him, that the credit union movement enjoys the success it has today. Such service is the hallmark of the credit union movement and I wish him the best of luck in his new role as a member of the NAFCU Board of Directors and look forward to working with him in that role.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4128, The Private Property Right Protection Act of 2005. This bill is overbroad and unreasonably restricts States and municipalities from crafting practical legislation that addresses their specific needs.

H.R. 4128 is Congress' response to the Kelo v. City of New London decision. The Kelo decision allows local governments to take private property to build the tax base and promote economic development. H.R. 4128 prohibits government use of eminent domain where private property is taken for economic development purposes. It unduly restricts States and local governments from exercising their sovereign powers to eliminate abuses in eminent domain, while maintaining an ability to develop their community. As a former Mayor of Somerville, MA, I am very familiar with the issues surrounding municipalities exercising eminent domain for public use.

While I do not wish to see local government recklessly and irresponsibly take property from private owners, especially the low- income and

disadvantaged, I cannot support a bill that preemptively acts before a municipality has an opportunity to develop its own policies. Some 30 States have either already drafted legislation concerning this issue or are working on legislation. It is unfair to invalidate State and local attempts to adjust, legislatively, to a Supreme Court decision just issued in June of this year.

The House should have spent more time developing legislation that was less intrusive on States' and local governments' sovereignty. For example, this bill could strip Federal economic development funding for two years from a State or local government that exercised eminent domain, even if the project taken did not receive Federal funds. All economic development funds, including those not involved with the condemned project, would be lost. Projects worthy of being built might be eliminated due to the lack of economic development funds. This can be disastrous for a local government's economic growth and sustainability. Local officials would be constantly concerned that exercising eminent domain could result in lawsuits and loss of funds.

I voted for an amendment that would have added some sense of fairness to the government's use of eminent domain, but it did not pass. The amendment, offered by Congressman Michael Turner of Ohio, would permit cities to continue using eminent domain to redevelop a Brownfield site. It also enumerated several instances where, for the public's health and safety, the government could use eminent domain when necessary to rid the community of a hazardous property.

I could support a bill that strikes a balance and is fair to State and local governments. This bill does not meet that threshold.

Mr. Speaker, I voted in favor H. Res. 523. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats against Israel are appalling and contemptible. I believe that all nations should strongly condemn these remarks. However, I do not want my vote to be misconstrued as a vote in support of a carte blanche measure to wage war against Iran, or any other country. The language in this resolution calls on ``all civilized nations to consider measures to deny Iran the means to carry out its threats and to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.'' This statement means just that, all nations should consider measures against Iran, it does not authorize the use of force against Iran. I share the world's concern about Iran acquiring weapons of mass destruction and it is imperative that we continue to pursue diplomatic avenues. I do not support, at this time, the use of military force and my vote in favor of this resolution is and should not be interpreted as a vote authorizing such action.

Mr. Speaker, it is great pride that I rise to congratulate the United States Capitol Page School Class of 1981 on their upcoming 25th anniversary. The Class of 1981 served the Congress honorably both in this chamber and in the other body.

Over the past 25 years these young men and women have started families and become leaders in our society.

As they gather in our Nation's Capital for their reunion this weekend, I offer my congratulations on behalf this body and ask all of my colleagues to welcome them back to the hallowed halls of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This is a very simple amendment that will simply specifically authorize the Attorney General to make grants to State and local prosecutors and law enforcement agencies to help the young witnesses that have the courage and temerity to stand up to crime when they see it, to do the right thing in their community.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to first of all thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) for being so dogged on this issue. As we have heard already, this is a relatively simple item. We have people who need treatment. I thought we were here to try to help people seek treatment and to provide it and we have an anomaly in the law that prevents them from getting the treatment that they want and that we want to provide them. This bill fixes that anomaly. It is very simple.

I will fully admit that I did not find this on my own. I found this because a doctor in my own district called me, Dr. Schmitt from Mass General Hospital, who works out of the Charlestown Community Health Center. He treats these people. He wants to be able to treat more. Unfortunately, he works in a group practice and is limited to 30. He will be able to help more people in his own community, which will help the community at large.

This bill is a modest piece of legislation. It simply allows more people to be treated. It is not a panacea, it is not going to fix our drug problem, but it is going to increase access to these treatments I believe that all Americans want us to do for their sons and daughters who have fallen victim to the terrible sins of drug abuse.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this bill. Again, to repeat, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana for his tenacious push of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3199-- the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act of 2005.

Mr. Chariman, we could be voting today on a bill that would receive almost unanimous support in this House. We could be voting on a bill that represents our best attempt at achieving the delicate balance between protecting our Nation from the threat of terrorism and preserving our treasured liberties. The reason I know that we could do it is that every Member of this House cares about protecting our constituents from terrorists and every Member of this House believes that in the United States of America, there are certain liberties and freedoms that must be preserved.

Unfortunately, the bill before us today fails to achieve this balance. Despite the fact that we may adopt several amendments that will institute some minimal safeguards, H.R. 3199 still fails to protect our treasured liberties.

I voted against the PATRIOT Act the first time it was before the House, because I believed that certain provisions in the bill simply went too far and undermined our American values of freedom and justice. Many of the provisions that had me worried are up for reauthorization today. The final bill we will vote on today will contain most of them in the same exact form as four years ago, and that is unfortunate.

This is not to say that I oppose the entire PATRIOT Act. In fact, most of the PATRIOT Act is important and noncontroversial. We all want our law enforcement officers to have the tools they need to protect us.

However, I believe that when Congress greatly expands the government's powers, as it did in many of the provisions before the House, we also have an obligation to build in safeguards to protect the average American citizen. I do not believe this bill meets our obligation to the American people, and I cannot support it.

I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3199.

Mr. Speaker, today we are failing the people of Darfur in the Sudan.

In July of 2004, this Congress called what is happening in Sudan a genocide. In September of 2004, President Bush said it was a genocide. There is no place else on the face of the Earth today that carries such a distinction. But both the President and the Congress have said there is genocide going on.

The words we have spoken have not stopped the government in Khartoum. Four hundred thousand people have died. Three and a half million people are at risk.

Again, everything we have done so far is words, very little action. We have supported the African Union Mission, assisting in the transport of troops and providing funds, and we have helped some of that. But it has been over a year since the African Union began their mission in Darfur, and nothing has changed. There are currently only 2,600 troops in a region the size of France with a plan for another 7,000 odd to be there later on this year. Plus the mission does not even have a mandate that includes the protection of civilians. We need troops there now. We need the American Government to step up now.

The U.S. has been generous in its contributions in support of the AU and humanitarian aid, but it is not enough. The regime that runs Sudan is genocidal, as stated by this Congress and our President.

We send incredibly mixed messages to both the people of Sudan and the people around the world when we say there is genocide going on, we say it is terrible, the people of Sudan are inflicting tremendous actions on their own people; yet our own government, the CIA, sends an executive jet to pick up the head of the Khartoum intelligence service who is seen by many to be the architect of the genocide in Darfur, and we fly him to Washington for secret talks. What message does that send?

We are failing the people of Darfur, who continue to die. We need to stand up. The amendments that were offered yesterday should have been allowed so that this Congress can make the decision whether to stand up or whether to sit idly by while millions more die.