Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Barton for yielding, but I also want to thank him for his great work on this important legislation, H.R. 4157, which I support; and also the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) has worked on this for some time, and will be speaking shortly.

With recent reports estimating that medical errors may be responsible for up to 98,000 deaths and 1.5 million medication errors each year, there is no doubt in my mind that the time has come to move towards an electronic health records system.

I am pleased this legislation officially establishes the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, because it is absolutely vital that the Federal Government take the leading role in establishing such a system. Without a strategic Federal plan, I worry that each State will be left to their own devices and we will end up with a patchwork system. I am hopeful that the standards which are set will be easily adaptable for the States and regions that are already working on such connectivity.

In my State of Delaware, we have established the Delaware Health Information Network. It has secured a $4 million contract with the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality to establish an e-health system in our hospitals, physicians' offices, and laboratories. Eventually, we hope this will be extended to our nursing homes and community health centers as well.

Because Delaware is such a small State, it is quite possible that our network can spread across the Mid-Atlantic region to include New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, and that is why we have been working so hard to get it right and to make sure interoperability truly exists.

A national health electronic infrastructure could truly be lifesaving for the millions of patients who access our health care system every day, as we have seen in our VA hospitals. There is real opportunity here to have electronic patient records, with appropriate private protections, electronic prescribing, real-time understanding of prescription interactions, and improved outcomes.

I am hopeful this bill will be swiftly conferenced with the Senate version so every State may get involved. Real achievement only comes when we improve health care, reduce costs, and start saving lives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished majority leader very much for yielding.

I would just ask everybody, be they at home or here, look to your left and look to your right. There is one of those three people who probably has some form of illness which could be helped by good medical research, and we believe that is embryonic stem cell research.

It is ironic that the President is vetoing a piece of legislation that many of us here on this floor believe is the most significant piece of legislation that he could have signed in the course of time that he has been President of the United States of America. I am disappointed in that, but I would rather look at the bright side of things in the sense that we have advanced, I believe, the cause of medical research in this country.

We have had alternative proposals in terms of embryonic stem cell research. We have had a focus on it. There is a greater education about stem cell research than we ever had in this Congress before and certainly across the United States of America. Hopefully this will end up with greater research being done as far as the NIH and Federal medical involvement in that research is concerned.

The debate has sort of shifted. Back in May of 2005 when we had this debate, we talked about adult stem cells and how they could be better than embryonic stem cells. I think we all should recognize that there is some very good research on adult stem cells, which has been around for a long time, but we should realize now that the debate has turned to how are we going to obtain these pluripotent embryonic stem cells which can help research so much more than anything else we could possibly do. So there had been some progress as far as that is concerned.

A couple of points I want to make, and one is that everybody knows this research is about embryos. What is an embryo? It is a 5-day-old blastocyst no bigger than the point of a pencil. The ones that we are dealing with would never be implanted in a woman and are slated for medical waste. That is very important to understand. The decision has been made by the individuals who created that embryo to have it go into medical waste; and then they make the decision instead of doing that, it will be used for medical research. So these will never become people because that is a decision that has already been made and is behind us at that particular point in time.

It is also very important to point out that this legislation does not fund derivation or the so-called killing of the embryo to obtain the embryonic stem cells. That has nothing to do with this.

This simply funds the research, the potentially life-saving research, for the one in three, the 110 million Americans who have been referred to.

We are not going to stop here. I would just like to address those 110 million people and their families. We are not going to stop here. We are going to continue to advance research. We have offered alternatives to the White House before. They did not want those alternatives. They did not want this legislation. We will go back to that process. We will do everything in our power to help the patients nationwide who might need help.

I think there is more commonality of opinion on this than there was before. Hopefully there will be more openings than we have had heretofore as well.

I know that embryonic stem cell research will progress and eventually be a benefit to mankind. My concern is delay. It is going to happen at some point. It is a time issue. It is a temporal issue, but we are going to have this research. We are going to improve medical research opportunities for everybody.

I just want to quote Ben Franklin at the 1787 Constitutional Convention: ``I have often in the course of the session looked at that sun behind the President without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting. But now at length I have the happiness to know it is a rising and not a setting sun.''

That is how I feel about stem cell research: One day the sun will rise on it, and people will be helped.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for the wonderful job he has done on this.

We started on welfare reform in Delaware very early on, long before the Federal Government started to look at it, and, obviously, it involved people having to go to classes and having to go to work. It was rather unique at the time.

I remember going to the first class, it was 19 people, 18 women and a man, and I sort of trembled. I was Governor of Delaware and I was a little nervous about that because I figured they wouldn't be receptive at all.

My mind was completely turned around going to that class when those 19 individuals said thank you for giving us the opportunity. They were being educated at that point. I went to their graduation later. They then went on to get jobs, and they subsequently went off welfare and became contributing citizens.

I can't tell you the value of this program, the self-esteem of individuals who have been through this. You can look at the statistics, be it 40, 50, 60 percent, in the various States, and that is about where it is, for the reduction of people on welfare. And you say perhaps it saved money, although, frankly, it doesn't save a lot of money. It costs a lot to educate and day care and everything else.

But the bottom line is that we have actually helped individuals. Indeed, it is a program which I think Republicans and Democrats have been supporting and should take credit for. And I certainly give some credit to President Clinton, because I worked with him as a Governor on this program as well.

But it has made a huge difference in their mindset. It has made a huge difference in their families' mindset. It has made a difference in the children of these individuals, who see their parents going off to work and earning a living, perhaps having a little more spending money and being able to hold themselves high as far as their immediate society is concerned.

This has been a highly successful program. It is true, I think, what Tommy Thompson said about it, and that is it is perhaps the greatest social reform program we have seen in this country.

Every now and then something comes along which really can make a difference in the lives of people. I just would like to thank all those who worked on this, and I worked with some of them, mostly members of the Ways and Means Committee when they were working with Clay Shaw and others, because there was a lot of opposition to this.

But, indeed, it is a program which worked, it is a program which should be continued and expanded if possible, and it is a program for which I think we will always look back and be able to take some good positive credit for.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I hope I have the right bill. I am a little confused, too, the way bills are flying through here.

I do rise in support of the bill the chairman has spoken of, S. 3504, legislation which is aimed at preventing so-called fetal farming; and while such fetal farming may not be taking place now, I applaud my colleagues for being forward thinking and targeting such an exploitive practice now.

This legislation is critical because it places ethical restrictions on what can and cannot be done in federally funded research.

Ethical guidelines are absolutely critical to guide all federally funded research. That is exactly why Representative Diana DeGette and I have been pressing strongly for President Bush to sign H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, into law. Contrary to popular belief, H.R. 810 does not increase funding for embryonic stem cell research, nor does it fund the creation or destruction of embryos. Rather, it allows researchers access to the best and most promising stem cell lines, while creating for the first time an ethical construct to guide this research at the National Institutes of Health.

H.R. 810 has strict financial prohibitions in place, and it prohibits the creation of embryos for research purposes. It enables the creators of the embryo to first make a decision about what they want to do with leftover embryos, which are really 5-day-old blastocysts, no bigger than the tip of a pencil. If they choose discard, it allows them the option to donate these embryos to research, instead of medical waste. No money can exchange hands throughout the process. The legislation only allows federally funded research on stem cell lines derived ethically with private funds. No Federal funds can be used.

Mr. Speaker, biomedical research is something that must be carefully monitored and rigorous guidelines must be established. That is exactly what this bill, S. 3504, aims to do, and it is what H.R. 810 aims to do. I ask my colleagues to support the underlying legislation and to urge President Bush not to veto H.R. 810.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I do rise in opposition to S. 2754, which is the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. This is authored by good friends and people I respect greatly, Senator Santorum and Senator Specter and particularly the gentleman in this House who is here on the floor, Mr. Bartlett, for whom I have great admiration. But I have looked at it considerably, and after many discussions with him and others, I disagree this is the way to go about this, and I must oppose it.

Put simply, the legislation mandates the National Institutes of Health to support highly speculative research, some of which has been deemed unethical by the President's own Bioethics Council, and this mandated research may violate current law because embryos will be destroyed with Federal dollars.

While I appreciate the fact that this legislation acknowledges the very real fact that embryonic stem cells have more potential for treatments and cures than adult stem cell research, and I think that is a very important point, I might add, this legislation is a delay to cures. Why is it a delay? It requires researchers to develop new ways to create or isolate embryonic stem cells before the research with embryonic stem cells can even begin. So you add a whole additional step to the process. And in speaking with Dr. Leon Kass, the former director of the President's Bioethics Council, it could take years to develop these isolation techniques, which means the research is being held up even further.

Why not go with the tried and true method of isolating embryonic stem cells from 5-day-old blastocysts created for the purposes of IVF, no bigger than the tip of a pencil, that would never be implanted in a woman and are slated for medical waste. And then let the research begin immediately.

It would be one thing if these methods were scientifically proven, but they are not. And if they are not, they may never be. My friend from Maryland may talk about single-cell biopsy and its promise in mouse stem cell research, but the Bioethics Council deemed that particular procedure unethical as well because it may very well lead to the destruction of the embryos.

Why not leave the current law alone? The National Institutes of Health can already fund research grants examining alternative methods of derivation. In other words, most of this can be done without being mandated. There is absolutely no reason to mandate this research.

I ask my friends who support embryonic stem cell research to vote against this legislation. It is a distraction for the NIH. It is a distraction for our researchers. And it is a delay to cures, which is most important. The only legislation which provides a direct path to potential cures is H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Put together, this bill would mandate research, some of which the President's own Bioethics Council has concluded is unethical. And for those who have raised this issue repeatedly, it permits the possibility of destroying embryos as part of the mandated research.

I would encourage all in the House to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 576) celebrating Advancement Via Individual Determination's 25 years of success, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 576.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 576, celebrating the success of the Advancement Via Individual Determination program, also known as AVID.

AVID began in one classroom in 1980, and has now trained more than 98,000 educators and nearly 260,000 student alumni. Fortunately, AVID is beginning to spread to the East Coast, and has already reached five schools in my home State of Delaware.

The accomplishments of AVID extend beyond the growth and expansion of the program. AVID seeks to help underachieving students by providing them with the support they need to take challenging classes and go on to college. School officials select average students making Cs and Ds, but have the potential to do better, and then place them in honors and college-prep classes with academic and motivational support. Over the past 25 years, more than 95 percent of the almost 260,000 students who have participated in the program have gone to college.

AVID takes strong evidence of what we know to be true about closing the achievement gap and provides it for those students who not only need the assistance, but also want it. In addition to providing assistance and guidance to help students achieve, the program drives success by promoting rigorous standards, coupled with professional development not only for teachers, but also for school and district administrators. These are key components to any successful education program.

Over the course of the past several years, there has been a growing debate surrounding our high schools. There is much to do, but I am thrilled by the response from all levels of government, as well as the private sector. Some of what we have heard about the struggles in our high schools is exactly what AVID embraces, the notion that there is a silent majority, average students who do okay in ordinary classes. The fear of failure often steers them away from more challenging course work or from seeking a postsecondary degree. I commend AVID for recognizing this need 25 years ago, and I commend those school districts that have incorporated the program into their schools.

I would also like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) for bringing this program to my attention, and I congratulate our Delaware schools and students who participate. Here is to another 25 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like again to thank the gentlewoman from California. It is her initiative that brings us here to the floor today to recognize this excellent program, and I encourage everyone to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act, which would end a twenty-five year oil and natural gas drilling prohibition for most of the country's offshore waters.

The increased strain that high-energy prices are having on the pockets of many Americans, and the national security concerns over the United States' dependence on foreign oil are real problems that deserve thoughtful, multi-pronged policy solutions. While the severity of current energy trends cannot be ignored, we cannot rush to drill before first crafting a comprehensive energy policy with solutions for meeting both our immediate and future energy needs. We must work to increase vehicle fuel efficiency, spur investment in efficiency and renewable energy research and technology, and improve conservation methods.

I respect the attempt to increase the states' ability to participate in the planning of oil and gas development off their shores, however H.R. 4671 goes too far and undermines the strong federal protections for our coastal waters. H.R. 4671 purports to allow states to maintain control of activities in their coastal waters, but instead ties states' hands in many ways with unprecedented provisions. It subordinates every other use of coastal waters to oil drilling, blocking any effort to use waters in a way that could ever limit drilling, undermines states' authority under the Coastal Zone Management Act, changes state marine boundary maps, and it eliminates many environmental reviews and public participation requirements for issuing oil leases and for exploration and drilling activities. Clearly, this is of concern to our State and other nearby States too (see attached Governor's letter).

I am also concerned that this legislation lifts the offshore drilling ban, while we continue to ignore many conservation and alternative fuel proposals, which would have a more immediate and beneficial effect on meeting our energy needs.

H.R. 4761 does not simply deal with increased drilling, but instead has other far-reaching implications for coastal states and federal revenues. This legislation would create an open-ended fund for drilling states, with no reporting requirements, at a time when we have a huge federal deficit. The estimated cost of this transfer from federal revenues to states is estimated to be several hundred billion dollars over 60 years, according to President Bush's Statement of Administration Policy.

While a thoughtful approach to offshore drilling is worthy of consideration, this legislation is not good policy for Delaware or the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to pay tribute to the Homes for Life Foundation, a non-profit organization that strives to provide safe and comfortable group housing for people with developmental disabilities in Delaware. Through this organization's efforts, many disabled individuals now have greater opportunities to lead productive lives in safe and attractive homes. The builder, Ryan Homes, does an amazing job of incorporating the needs of these individuals into communities throughout Delaware.

Every house built by the Homes for Life Foundation includes a common room, in addition to private bedrooms and a counselor's suite. This design provides the residents with the ability to enjoy both privacy and the opportunity to socialize. Hundreds of people with developmental disabilities are currently waiting for these unique homes to become available and the work done by the Homes for Life Foundation increases the number of disabled individuals who are able to find these residential housing opportunities.

The work of the Homes for Life Foundation has been greatly furthered by the efforts of Ryan Homes. To date, Ryan Homes has built thirteen group homes, with two more under construction, for people with developmental disabilities in Delaware using the funds raised by the Homes for Life Foundation. The work done by these organizations is an excellent example of President Bush's New Freedom Initiative. Providing group residential housing to citizens with developmental disabilities is a proven method for successfully promoting access to community life and a greater sense of belonging.

I congratulate and thank the Homes for Life Foundation and Ryan Homes for all they have contributed to the State of Delaware. Many disabled Delawareans are grateful for them and I am pleased to be able to vocalize their appreciation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for what he has done and for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add this as my own personal perspective. I was a State legislator and lieutenant governor and I was a governor. So I had this both used in a situation in which I was worried about it, in a situation in which I used it, and then I came to Congress and I actually introduced legislation on this early on and later was a cosponsor of that legislation which became law and was later overruled by the Supreme Court.

I have heard a lot of arguments today, and I have listened to this both in the rule debate and here pretty intently. And there were discussions like, oh, we are taking away revenue at the same time we are trying to do this, how can this be fiscally responsible?

This is not all that big a deal. The bottom line is it is another measure which will help us move in the direction of transparency, which will help us move in the direction of perhaps balancing the budget. This itself will never balance the budget. It is too small an item as far as that is concerned. It is similar to a rainy day fund. It is similar to earmark reform or a sunset provision or a variety of other budgetary process matters that I think that we should take up in an effort as Republicans and Democrats to do this.

This particular President, if people are concerned about that, will only be President 2\1/2\ more years. At some point we will have a different makeup of the Congress, a different makeup of the Presidency, and hopefully this will be around for 100 years.

But it is a very significant budgetary tool. The reason it is significant, Mr. Speaker, is because it makes people get together and talk about this, and people are very reluctant to proceed with something that may put in the light of day that which they may not want to see in the light of day. So you see a lot of restrictions.

It brings the executive branch and the legislative branch together in terms of planning where we are going to go as far as budgets are concerned. Unfortunately, that is not happening enough today. I think we are all concerned about budget deficits, we are all concerned about a lot of the problems which exist out there, and I think we need to work together to get this done.

So in my mind, adopting this is relatively simple. It is something we should be doing; it is something I would hope 100 percent of this Congress would support. I urge everyone to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Monday Club as it celebrates its 112th anniversary of serving the Delaware community. The Club was incorporated in 1893 for the promotion of the moral and intellectual welfare of its members.

The Monday Club is a male leisure organization, and the oldest chartered African American organization in the State. Early members of the Club consisted of butlers, waiters, coachmen, cooks, and janitors who encompassed the economic, social and religious life in the community. Later, the Club expanded to include businessmen, politicians, men working in industry, as well as workers and laborers of all skills in every area of Delaware's economy.

Through the years, the Monday Club has developed into more than just a social club. In fact, due to its members' strong community ties, the Monday Club has contributed to many local churches, individuals and charities. In doing so, the Monday Club provides support for numerous charitable organizations in Delaware and has established scholarship funds for students, such as the Dr. Woodrow Wilson/Senator Herman H. Holloway Scholarship Fund, which awards four $1,000 scholarships to graduating high school seniors planning to attend college each year.

I congratulate the Monday Club for reaching this extraordinary milestone. The dedication of its members to the community enhances the quality of life for many Delawareans and provides opportunities for children across the State. I would like to thank the Monday Club for their valuable impact on Delaware.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor and pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to State Representative Roger P. Roy, who after 30 years of service has chosen not to seek another term in the State House of Representatives. This extraordinary man is undoubtedly a valuable asset to the State of Delaware and a friend to all. He has been described as not only a compassionate and accomplished citizen, but also an admirable leader. An enduring professional representing his beloved Limestone Hills-area district, he truly is a distinguished Delawarean.

In addition to serving his district, he serves as the Chairman of the influential State Bond Bill Committee, where his leadership has been instrumental in the Committee's sound financial management, earning Delaware's bonds the highest rating. Representative Roy has also worked to protect Delawareans, authoring the State's version of Megan's Law and sponsoring legislation that requires registered sex offenders to have their status indicated with a designation on their driver's license. Currently serving as the Executive Director of the Transportation Management Association of Delaware, he has worked to bring innovative transportation solutions to the State.

As his 15 consecutive terms in office acutely demonstrate, he is well recognized and respected by his constituents and colleagues. He actively participates in the community through sponsorship of youth athletic teams, American Legion Post #29, and by serving on the Board of Directors of the Central YMCA and the Mid-County Senior Center.

I congratulate State Representative Roger P. Roy for his years of remarkable service and countless contributions to the State. I am sure that as he begins to spend more time with his wife, Paula, their two daughters, Michele and Tanya, and their grandchildren, he will remain an integral member of the community. I would like to thank him for the many contributions he has made to the State of Delaware.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to State Representative Gerald A. Buckworth, who after 26 years of service in the State House has chosen not to seek another term in office. Throughout his political, professional, and private life, he has tirelessly worked to better the Delaware community

In addition to raising four children, and six grandchildren, with his wife Vicki, he served as a teacher, principal, and coach in the Caesar Rodney School District for more than 30 years. His extensive involvement in the Delaware public school system made him one of the General Assembly's foremost authorities on public education. His dedication to helping Delaware youth has eased the transition to adulthood for many young Delawareans. He is a key supporter of the State Police Cadets, a program in which college students learn skills in preparation for careers in law enforcement. Without a doubt, one of his top priorities has always been encouraging children to realize their goals.

As his thirteen consecutive terms in office demonstrate, he has been a prominent and well-respected member of the Delaware General Assembly. In addition to serving 5 years as the Majority Whip, he also served on multiple committees including: appropriations, corrections, joint finance, labor, public safety, and tourism. Additionally, he chaired the Family Law Commission, a General Assembly organization that examines family court proceedings in an effort to make recommendations for improvement.

I congratulate and thank State Rep. Gerald Buckworth for his valuable contributions and many years of admirable service to the State of Delaware. I am sure that as he begins to spend more time with his family and enjoy retirement, that he will remain an active and influential member of the community. Thank you, for all you have done and continue to do for the people of our State.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me just start by thanking the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Pennsylvania and their staffs for their exemplary work on what is not easy legislation. What I am about to discuss is something that has been brought more to light this spring than it had been brought heretofore, but I think it is documented enough that we should try to add it to this bill. It is a simple but, in my judgment, much-needed amendment to the legislation before us today.

Currently the Department of Defense spends over $200 billion annually to acquire products and services from defense contractors, including everything from spare parts to major weapons systems. In an effort to encourage contractors to perform at the highest level possible, the Department often gives its contractors the opportunity to collectively earn billions of dollars through monetary incentives known as award fees.

Unfortunately, while there is no doubt that U.S. weapons programs continue to be the best in the world, the Department's acquisition process has at times run into problems such as dramatic cost increases, late deliveries, and significant performance shortfalls, wasting billions of dollars in critical funding.

In response to these setbacks, Congress recently asked the General Accountability Office, known as GAO, to study the Department's use of incentives and the role they play in the acquisition system. On April 5, the GAO reported that the Pentagon's current incentive practices often do not hold contractors accountable for achieving desired outcomes and routinely undermine efforts to motivate contractor performance.

Specifically, the GAO noted that the Department regularly provides these bonuses to contractors, often giving them second, third and fourth chances, despite the fact that the contractor's work does not fulfill the Department's expectations.

As part of its report, the GAO issued detailed recommendations for how the Department could improve its strategy for using incentives to motivate exceptional performance. The Pentagon has concurred with the majority of GAO's suggestions, and during consideration of the fiscal year 2007 defense authorization bill in May, I successfully included an amendment by voice vote that would implement these reforms.

While the language included in the authorization bill is a crucial step forward, the effectiveness of these changes will ultimately be determined by how well GAO's recommendations are executed.

The Pentagon recently identified significant cost overruns in 36 of its major weapons systems. With such costs rapidly increasing, my amendment ensures that none of the funds provided in this bill will be used to continue the wasteful incentive practices identified by GAO.

As the Department moves forward in complying with GAO's findings, this amendment will provide an additional safeguard, to make certain that these funds are not wasted in violation of the new incentive guidelines.

Mr. Chairman, cost increases and business management weaknesses damage our government's ability to provide our men and women in the military with the resources to keep us safe. While we obviously have a lot of work ahead of us to improve the efficiency of military spending, I believe this amendment is a simple way to work with the Department to make certain that incentives are being used to maximize its return on investment and provide soldiers with needed capabilities at the best value for the taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, and I commend the brave American and coalition soldiers who have risked their lives to fight terror and promote freedom around the world, including the 14 courageous Delawareans who have lost their lives while honorably serving their State and this Nation.

Despite weeks of significant progress, we are now facing a critical stage in the war on terrorism. I believe an immediate withdrawal or the establishment of a hard deadline to withdraw will be comparable to an abandonment of the new Iraqi Government and would encourage the terrorists and violent factions to bide their time, inviting mayhem and guaranteeing chaos.

Such a decision may also embolden our enemies to, once again, attack our homeland and interests abroad, thus further endangering American citizens. The future of the Middle East and the security of free nations around the world depend upon the development of a strong and stable democracy in Iraq.

Therefore, in order to reach an acceptable level of stability in Iraq, it is extremely important that we, as an international community, intensify our efforts to reduce the influence of militias, restore electricity, rebuild schools, and assemble a modern and sustainable economy for the benefit of all Iraq's citizens. A greater emphasis on the development of the Iraqi security forces, with a focus on the selection and education of effective military officers, is absolutely imperative so that we may begin supplanting our forces in the region with Iraqi troops at the earliest date possible.

Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we honor our brave soldiers by continuing to work with our international partners to promote democracy and protect freedom around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and I commend the brave American and coalition soldiers and all other personnel who have risked their lives to fight terror and promote freedom both at home and abroad. These courageous men and women have made tremendous sacrifices to ensure our security, and they deserve our utmost respect and appreciation.

There have been three successful elections held in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, and in recent weeks significant progress, both politically and militarily, has been made in the region. As a former member of the House Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the elimination of al-Zarqawi will prove to be a key psychological and organizational blow to al Qaeda's terrorist network.

Still, the facts are undeniable--progress in Iraq and Afghanistan has come at a tremendous cost. My small State of Delaware alone has lost fourteen brave soldiers, each of whom honorably served their State and Nation. My heart goes out to these noble Delawareans and their families.

And while elections and military victories are crucial, many challenges still lie ahead. We are now facing a critical stage in the war on terrorism, and it is essential that the international community come together to support Iraq's efforts to build a strong, unified government capable of steering the country toward a path of peace and democracy.

Although, several of my colleagues have suggested that the U.S. should set a hard deadline for withdrawal from the region, I believe such a course would be unwise. An immediate withdrawal, or the establishment of a hard deadline to withdraw, would be comparable to an abandonment of the new Iraqi government and would encourage the terrorists and violent factions to bide their time, inviting mayhem and guaranteeing chaos. Such a decision may also embolden our enemies to once again attack our homeland and interests abroad, thus further endangering American citizens. The future of the Middle East, and the security of free nations around the world, depends upon the development of a strong and stable democracy in Iraq.

Therefore, in order to reach an acceptable level of stability in Iraq, it is extremely important that we intensify our efforts to reduce the influence of militias, restore electricity, rebuild schools, and assemble a modem and sustainable economy for the benefit of all Iraq's citizens. A greater emphasis on the development of the Iraqi security forces--with a focus on the selection and education of effective military officers, is absolutely imperative. Over the last few years, we have trained and equipped thousands of Iraqi soldiers and police officers and it is now crucial that we do more to improve this process, so that we may begin supplanting our forces in the region with Iraqi troops at the earliest date possible.

Mr. Speaker, the thousands of Americans who have served in the war on terrorism exemplify the very courage and honor on which our Nation was formed. It is essential that we recognize their service by continuing to work with our international partners to promote democracy and protect freedom around the world.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to restore funding for Amtrak. I appreciate Mr. LaTourette's work on this effort and I thank the chairman for his willingness to work with Members on this extremely important issue.

While I strongly agree that reforming our rail system is essential, and I am supportive of efforts to ensure the Inspector General plays a key role in the rail system's oversight, the level of funding included in this bill is simply unrealistic.

Unlike aviation and highways, there is no dedicated fund for investing in passenger rail development. Although these other modes rely on user fees for a great deal of their funding, they still receive a large amount from the general fund. In addition, these other modes all operate on predominantly federally owned or federally assisted infrastructure, and rely largely on Government-supported security, research, and traffic controllers.

Rather than constantly looking for ways to shortchange passenger rail, we should be working on a comprehensive strategy to make Amtrak the best high-speed rail system in the world.

When you consider the fact that 20 percent of all Americans live in the North-East and approximately 1,700 commuter trains travel the Northeast Corridor everyday, we need to seriously consider the amount of congestion and overcrowding that would occur if these trains stopped running.

Passenger rail can be extremely effective in relieving congestion, cutting pollution, and lowering our demand for oil while creating jobs and increasing security. We have barely scratched the surface of passenger rail's potential, and a commitment from Congress to improving the viability of this system could lead to greatly expanded possibilities.

In addition, it is my firm belief that improving passenger rail service in this country depends on strong and experienced leadership at Amtrak. Unfortunately, over the past year, the Amtrak Board has made several important decisions, despite the fact that close to half of its seats remain empty.

Frankly, I believe the failure to appoint a fully functioning Amtrak Board is disgraceful,

and it stands as an enormous disadvantage for this rail system. Members of Congress can stress the need for accountability and reform until we turn blue in the face--but in the end, what Amtrak really needs is leaders with vision, who attend and participate in board meetings and who are genuinely committed to improving passenger rail.

Everything starts with the leadership provided by this board, and as we work to ensure adequate funding for passenger rail, it is crucial that Congress continue to advocate for a fully functioning Amtrak Board of Directors.

The facts are clear; Amtrak needs Federal support to survive, just like highways, ports, and airlines. America is a world leader in all other modes of transportation. When it comes to rail, we are quickly falling behind.

Mr. Chairman, many Americans, including thousands in my state, depend on Amtrak for both business and pleasure. Instead of shortchanging the organization, we should work together to improve passenger rail.