Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, during debate tonight on the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to the farm bill I offered with my colleagues Mr. Flake, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Ryan, and others, a false claim was made regarding the budgetary impact of the amendment, and I would like to correct the record to reflect the truth. While the error, to the best of my knowledge, was not intentional and the false statement was not made knowingly, I believe it is important that I make the accurate information known.

Tonight, Chairman Peterson stated that the savings claimed by the reforms made by the amendment were not realized, and he questioned, therefore, the validity of these reforms. Unfortunately, the statement was based on inaccurate information. After consulting with the Congressional Budget Office, it appears the Chairman was basing his comments on a comparison with current law rather than a comparison to H.R. 2419, which was how our amendment was drafted. The official CBO score shows that our amendment would have, in fact, saved the government billions of dollars during both the five- and 10-year windows in relation to the bill as reported by the Agriculture Committee.

It is unfortunate this mistake was made on the House floor tonight and was not corrected at the time. When writing policy that affects every single American, it is important that we base our decisions on timely and accurate information. I appreciate this opportunity to provide the real facts on our amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues of a Fair reform amendment that I and others will offer later in this debate.

For too long, our farm programs have given billions of taxpayer subsidies to a few, but very large and wealthy, entities. This has got to change. Our Fair reform amendment will reform these commodity programs so they act like a true safety net.

Simply put, let's help farmers when they need it. Let's not when they don't. The committee bill before us, however, will continue to give taxpayer subsidies to individuals with an adjusted gross income of $1 million. It will spend $26 million in subsidies to commodity producers who are receiving at or near record commodity prices.

Our reform, however, will establish a real revenue-based safety net in case prices collapse. But the savings we find in phasing out direct subsidy payments we reinvest in rural America: $3 billion more for voluntary conservation programs, $6 billion for nutrition programs to combat hunger in this country, $2.6 billion for specialty crops and healthy foods programs, $200 million for rural development programs, $1.1 billion for McGovern-Dole, all of which is paid for in this current farm bill.

The opportunity for reform has never been better, given the strong market prices that exist today. Our reform amendment is fair and completely justifiable.

I urge my colleagues to support real reform so we can help family farmers when they need it, and so we can go home and justify it to the American taxpayer.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for purposes of this debate that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) be allowed to control 10 minutes of my 20 minutes.

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

Madam Chairman, this farm bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation before this Congress in this session because it truly does affect us all.

It affects our family farmers. It affects consumers in America. It affects our wildlife and natural resources. It affects people who are hungry, both in this country and abroad, and it affects economic development opportunities in rural America but also in the developing world, and it affects my home State in Wisconsin, where agriculture is still the number one industry. I know, I have a 200-acre farm in western Wisconsin where we rotate corn and soybeans. I've got beef cattle on it from time to time.

But for too long farm policy has resulted in billions of dollars of subsidies going to a few, but very large and very wealthy entities who then gobble up family farms around them, drive up land values and make it virtually impossible for new beginning farmers to enter the business. These subsidies have distorted the marketplace, and they distort our trade policies. Too many farmers have planted for the government paycheck instead of the marketplace. This has got to change.

But instead of heeding the call for reasonable, justifiable reform in light of current market prices, the farm bill before us fails to even make token reforms under the Title I commodity programs. In fact, they still allow taxpayer-supported subsidies to go to individuals in this country with an adjusted gross income of $1 million. Over the next 5 years, there will be $26 billion in direct subsidy payments going out to commodity producers who are getting at or near record prices in the marketplace. And under these direct payments, the committee raises the cap from $40,000 to $60,000 and allows multiple entities on the same farm to collect the same type of subsidies. It also eliminates the cap with the loan deficiency program.

It's a missed opportunity. In fact, what we have before us today is a bipartisan, fair, reform amendment that takes light of the market conditions and offers reasonable and justifiable reforms under a very simple proposition: Let's give our family farmers help when they need it; let's not when they don't.

What we propose in our amendment would be phasing out these direct payments that were meant to be temporary in the 1996 farm bill, and now we're in the third farm bill, and they're increasing these subsidy payments and lifting the caps.

We also replace the current countercyclical program with a true safety net, a revenue-based safety net that even the corn growers have been working on as a replacement over the last few years.

We also place a tighter income limit at $250,000 adjusted gross, even slightly above the administration's own $200,000 limit that they recommend.

Plus, we call for long-overdue reform with the crop insurance program based on the good work that our friends Mr. Cooper and Mr. Waxman have been doing in this, and we all do this under justifiable market conditions, ending up with a farm bill at the end of the day that does not distort our market, nor our trade policies.

For too long family farmers have suffered due to the inequities of this farm bill, and with the savings that we use to reform the Title I programs, we make significant new investments in other priority areas. We have a $6 billion increase in funding under the nutrition title to deal with hunger in America.

We have a $3 billion increase of voluntary incentive conservation programs, when today three out of every four farmers applying for conservation funding assistance are turned away because of inadequacy of funds.

We have a $1.2 billion increase for specialty crops above what the committee did, and a healthy food program to combat the obesity epidemic which is ravishing our Nation.

We also have $1.1 billion in guaranteed funding out of the McGovern- Dole bill and $500 million for minority and disadvantaged farmers, $200 million increase for rural development to create economic job opportunities throughout rural America.

And at the end of the reform, we even have money for deficit reduction. How refreshing that we may have a bill coming out of this Congress that actually reforms enough to have some left over to reduce the massive budget deficits and prepare for the aging of our Nation.

What's really nice about this is it is all paid for. We don't have to go to the Ways and Means Committee or the Financial Services Committee to seek offsets in order to pay for these other priorities and still provide a safety net for our family farmers. This amendment gets us out of the box that my Republican friends find themselves in in not being able to support a tax increase to finance this farm bill.

And you guys are exactly right. If you had been pulling this on us while we were in the minority, we would be raising bloody hell as well, because if you lose the process in the place, you lose a sense of fairness, and if you don't have fairness at the end of the day, you can't get things done.

We're saying we don't have to go down that road. Let's make some commonsense reforms to find the offsets to deal with the other priorities while still maintaining a proper safety net so when the farmers are in trouble, if market prices plummet, there will be a safety net for them; but let's not do it when they don't need it, so we can go home and look the taxpayers in the eyes and justify exactly what we're doing here.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Madam Chairman, just to give you an indication of how effective the current safety net is, it was recently discovered there was $1.1 billion in subsidy payments that went out to farmers who had already passed away.

Now, I want to recognize for 2 minutes a champion of family farmers and an advocate for reasonable, justifiable reform, my friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to an advocate of much- overdue reform of the crop insurance program, the gentleman from Tennessee, my good friend, Mr. Cooper.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

Madam Chairman, change in this place is very difficult. In fact, sometimes the toughest thing to accomplish is changing the status quo.

But the fundamental fact is that when you've got two-thirds of the subsidy program in this farm bill going to just 30 congressional districts who are well represented on the committee, I think it's unrealistic to expect that that committee's going to produce a policy statement that embraces reform and new ideas. I should know. I used to serve on the committee. And I'm not being critical. That's just a fact. They have their districts to represent as we have districts to represent as well.

My district takes a hit under this reform bill. But sometimes it takes a group of well-intentioned individuals to move the cause of reform forward, and that's what we're trying to do tonight.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today with the gentleman from Tennessee, my good friend, Mr. Wamp, for the purpose of engaging the chairman in this colloquy about the National Youth Sports Program. While my purpose for rising today is to discuss the merits of NYSP, I would also like to commend the chairman on the work that the committee has done in crafting such a respectable bill before us. The subcommittee was able to restore several programs that otherwise would have been eliminated, while also increasing important investments in much-needed areas such as No Child Left Behind, IDEA, and the Community Services Block Grant.

I am disappointed, however, that this year, due to funding constraints, the National Youth Sports Program was not funded in this appropriations bill. The National Youth Sports Program program is an educational partnership that has worked successfully for over 37 years. It provides low-income children ages 10 to 16 a 5-week summer program offering sports and academic programs at colleges and universities nationwide.

While touring the NYSP program on the UW-Eau Claire and UW-LaCrosse campuses in my district on several occasions, I have witnessed firsthand how this program reaches beyond academics and sports to provide opportunities for learning about good nutrition, developing leadership skills and developing good character.

In previous years, the program served approximately 76,000 children at 201 colleges and universities across the country. The loss in Federal funding, however, has had a dramatic effect on the program's operation. It is expected there will only be 50 programs and 10,000 students participating this summer nationwide.

In our home State of Wisconsin, close to 1,600 young people once participated in this program, yet this year, unfortunately, that figure has dramatically declined to approximately 400 children.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

As the chairman is aware, earlier this year we sent a bipartisan letter to the committee requesting an $18 million appropriation for NYSP, and given the importance of this program to many children throughout the country and the fact that NYSP has successfully leveraged Federal funding to secure substantial matching community investments, we would hope that if funding is found on the Senate side, that both the House and the chairman would be supportive of the funding level coming out of the Senate in conference.

It is also our hope that in the future NYSP will receive an outreach of support to continue its agenda for organizations that specialize in assisting at-risk youth. This program is too vital for the health and well-being of our young people for it to be left unfunded for another year.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2956, Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act of 2007.

For months, I, along with many of my colleagues in this chamber, have been calling on the President to forge a new direction with the war in Iraq. Our pleas have fallen on deaf ears.

Despite failing to meet his own benchmarks of progress, despite new reports of the unsustainable cost of this war, despite the tremendous dissatisfaction and disenchantment of the American people and members of his own party--the President recently made public statements to the effect that he is unwilling to change the course and try a new strategy.

The American people are dissatisfied with the deteriorating situation in Iraq. They are tired of finger-pointing and political gamesmanship. They want some answers, and they quite rightly expect and deserve one. As their elected representatives and leaders, I believe it is our responsibility in Congress to work together to move this country forward to an honest solution.

It is clear that American troops have accomplished their military mission. Yet we have now tasked them with forging political compromise as well, leaving them in the middle of a burgeoning civil war in Iraq. It is widely recognized that the sectarian strife taking place in Iraq right now cannot be solved through military means alone, and the President's refusal to entertain any new strategies has put our troops in an untenable position. I cannot continue in good conscience to ask our brave troops to risk their lives because I don't believe their sacrifice is being met with an equal commitment from the Iraqi people. The tough but necessary political compromises are not being made.

While the Iraqis are moving toward a transparent and effective government, what is missing is the necessary political accommodation to move the country towards reconciliation. Unfortunately, Iraqis by themselves appear incapable of achieving political progress. Instead, years later, they continue to lean on the United States and our military for stability, teetering on the brink of full-blown civil war without the will to make the political compromises necessary to peace.

Be assured that I am the last person in this chamber that wants to take irresponsible actions that would take the country into complete chaos. But American military power is not the solution to the war. More troops, more time, more money--these are not the answers. Congress needs to understand, as the American people do, that we must begin planning for a responsible withdrawal and redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq. H.R. 2956 provides for a safe and orderly reduction of troops in Iraq and a transition to a limited presence of American troops in country for force protection, training of Iraqi Security Forces, and counterterrorism missions. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

We must send a clear message to the Iraqi government that the patience of the American people is not endless, and that they must take control of their future. Passage of H.R. 2956 will help send that message.

I believe strongly that we must not wait any longer to send this message. The time to act is now, to force the hand of this Administration and the Iraqi government. Waiting any longer will simply lead to more fatalities for U.S. soldiers, Iraqi military, and civilians.

Finally, I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks and undying admiration for our men and women in uniform for their service to our country. May God bless them and their families during this difficult time. May God provide his special blessings and care for those who fell in the line of duty. And may God continue to bless these United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a bill I have authored that will help scientists and local officials make informed, scientifically based decisions about one of the most important natural resources in this country, the Upper Mississippi River.

The Mississippi River is one of America's great national treasures, running right through the heart of this country. It is North America's largest migratory bird flyway, with 40 percent of the continent's waterfowl species using this corridor during their annual migrations. It also waters the Nation's breadbasket, providing the nutrient-rich soils we enjoy in the midwest and water for irrigation. It also provides drinking water for nearly 30 million Americans and a passageway for billions of dollars in commerce.

But, the Mississippi is threatened by increasing sediment and nutrient flows that gum up the river and poison its ecosystems. H.R. 2381, The Upper Mississippi River Basin Protection Act, is a commonsense piece of legislation that would establish a coordinated public-private approach to reducing these threats, which affect all parts of the river and even the Gulf of Mexico where nutrients have created and continue to enlarge the gulf dead zone.

We can address these issues, but we need hard scientific data to do it. That is where this bill comes in. H.R. 2381 establishes a sub-basin monitoring program whereby the United States Geological Service will monitor where nutrients enter the river and use computer modeling to follow the nutrient flows downstream. This will allow local conservationists and land managers to pinpoint exactly where conservation and education are most needed.

This scientific approach has received widespread approval and been endorsed by the five Upper Mississippi State Governors. I thank the Natural Resources Committee staff for helping put this innovative piece of legislation together, and I thank the chairman for his support of the bill. This bill has passed the House in each of the last three Congresses, and I urge my colleagues to support it again today.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, June 25, 2007, I was detained in my district due to a canceled airline flight and was unable to have my votes recorded on the House floor for H. Res. 189 (Roll no. 549) and H.R. 2546 (Roll no. 550). Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of both measures.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2740.

I want to thank my friend from Washington for yielding me this time. And, unfortunately, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I have had numerous conversations with Mr. Inslee, who I consider one of my closest friends and colleagues in the House, and I certainly understand the appreciation that he has in light of the challenges we face with global warming and the potential impact it's going to have on polar bears. But as one of the cochairs of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus in the House, we think this amendment is unnecessary and, in fact, counterproductive.

I contacted the Canadian embassy and the Canadian Government, who opposes the amendment. They say it would risk crucial conservation funding streams and habitat protections for the very polar bears that we're all interested in protecting. Also, our own U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service opposes this, again because of the cooperative alliance that we've established not only with Canadian officials in the proper wildlife management of this special species, but the fees collected from hunting that go right back into a conservation program that the U.S. and Russia have partnered with in order to enhance the protection and the growth of this population.

Now, I've got a letter from the Canadian Government, as well as from the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, that I will submit for the Record that states forth more fully the science behind their calculation and the limited number of permits that they're allowing in Canada.

Association of Fish

& Wildlife Agencies,

Washington, DC, June 22, 2007.

Dear Member of Congress: The Association of Fish and

Wildlife Agencies strongly opposes H.R. 2327, the so-called

``Polar Bear Protection Act'', both as a stand-alone bill and

as an amendment to any other legislation. This bill, which

would ban the importation of trophies of polar bears legally

taken from polar bear populations in Canada, will further

complicate polar bear management and not contribute to polar

bear sustainability.

The Association was founded in 1902 as an inter-

governmental organization of public agencies charged with the

protection and management of North America's fish and

wildlife resources. The Association's members include the

fish and wildlife agencies of the states, provinces, as well

as federal government agencies in the United States and

Canada. The Association provides a forum for hundreds of

senior level fish and wildlife public agency biologists

across North America to develop positions on public policy

issues involving wildlife conservation. The Association has

been instrumental in promoting sound resource management and

strengthening federal, state, and private cooperation in

protecting and managing fish and wildlife and their habitats

in the public interest.

This legislation would diminish the bear's value to the

local communities which depend on hunts by United States

hunters for income. We know from long experience that most

successful wildlife conservation programs have, at their

core, value to local people and communities. We are advised

by our Canadian colleagues that many native communities

earnestly engage Canada's polar bear management programs

because these animals have value--funding schools, community

centers, etc. in those northern communities. This

legislation, if passed and enacted, would just add to the

list of other factors already complicating polar bear

management--melting ice pack, warming seas and loss of snow

cover.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act prerequisite that imports

come from certified stocks is an important tool for those

biologists working with these local communities to regulate

the harvest of the various polar bear populations. These

carefully set and intensely monitored harvests are critical

for the local community and are an important negotiating tool

for the biologists. Science-informed regulated hunting

ensures sustainability of polar bear populations.

Passage of this bill would not result in the taking of

fewer polar bears; it will just complicate the work of those

trying to conserve them. We urge that you not favorably

consider H.R. 2327 either as a stand-alone bill or as an

amendment to other legislation. Thank you for your sincere

consideration of our perspectives.

Sincerely,

Matt Hogan,

Executive Director.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.

Just to reiterate, Mr. Chairman, numerous agencies that have looked at the science of polar bear management in Canada and other places feel that the limited permits that are issued for this hunting purpose is conducive to conservation efforts and habitat protection up in Canada, especially through the indigenous tribes there that are issued these permits every year.

The Canadian letter that I just referenced earlier stated, ``Removal of the sports hunting exemption from the Marine Mammal Protection Act would have no impact,'' no impact, ``on the numbers harvested, but would cause economic hardship to the Canadian northern indigenous communities.''

Again quoting from the letter from Canada, ``Any action such as that proposed in the amendment is premature and should at least await the outcome of the two reviews.'' The two reviews they are referring to is our own Fish and Wildlife review and also a Canadian review in regards to the status of polar bear populations, those reports are going to be coming due some time early next year.

Also, the National Wildlife Federation, I want to clarify, the National Wildlife Federation has not endorsed nor opposed Mr. Inslee's amendment, but they stated in a letter submitted to Members of Congress yesterday, ``We understand that there may be a debate about managing polar bear populations, which we believe is a distraction from the real issue of global warming.'' They go on to state that the only thing that could adequately protect the polar bear population is prompt action taken on global warming.

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) on the importance of that issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding me this time.

I rise, as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, in strong support of this 8-month extension of the Andean Trade Preference Act. It is the right thing to do at the right time, Mr. Speaker.

There is no question, as my friend from New York just referenced previously, that our image has been tattered and beaten abroad. That is no less true here in the Western Hemisphere, especially with our neighbors to the south, through Central and South America. And I have always believed that our trade policies are more than just the exchange of products and goods between our Nation and others but also an important tool in our diplomatic arsenal. An arsenal that needs to be rebuilt now even in our own Western Hemisphere.

But I also want to remind my colleagues that this is not a free pass for these four Andean nations to get this trade preference. They have certain strict criteria that they have to meet first to gain eligibility for these preferences. Criteria such as respecting internationally recognized worker rights, treating the United States investors fairly, providing market access to U.S. goods, demonstrating a commitment to implement its WTO obligations, and, finally, to meet the U.S. counter-narcotics criteria.

And on that last point, it is not insignificant that there has been substantial progress, according to our own State Department and USTR office, of the drug eradication efforts and partnership that we have established with these four Andean nations. They have also met the criteria, again, through reference of our own State Department, but ATPA is perhaps the single most effective alternative development program we have going in the region. By providing these local citizens with long-term alternatives to narcotics trafficking and illegal immigration, ATPA has helped the governments, especially in Colombia and Peru, to isolate violent extremist groups; to revise their economies; and increase their investments in their education, health care, and infrastructure system.

And I submit that if we are not trying to actively engage these nations to help them build their economy and expand economic opportunities, they are going to come to the United States to realize those opportunities that they are not receiving in their own countries.

That is why I encourage my colleagues to support this extension.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I just want to take a moment to congratulate the Chair and the ranking member and the entire committee for the wonderful job they did in regards to the stewardship of our public lands.

If you take a look at the budget, and this was eloquently stated by my friend from New Mexico, whether it was the National Park Service, whether it was the National Wildlife Refuge, if you take a look at funding for our public lands in recent years, it has been static at best and having severe consequences in regards to the management of our national park system but also the national wildlife refuges.

As one of the cochairs of the Congressional Wildlife Refuge Caucus, along with my colleagues, Jim Saxton, Mike Castle, Mike Thompson, we have taken it upon us to try to educate our fellow colleagues in both the House and the Senate with regard to the real challenges that we are facing throughout the refuge system.

While there are over 500 refuges nationwide right now, over 20 percent of them are not staffed and not offering any educational value to visitors, more refuges being prepared to be mothballed in the future, serious staff cuts with the agency budget, given the limitation of funds that they have seen.

Now with this $56 million increase, the first increase since 2003 when we celebrated the centennial anniversary of the creation of the refuge system, this will go a long ways as far as stemming the cuts in personnel, staff, educational opportunities, but also the importance of maintaining and operating these refuges which are currently facing about a $3 billion backlog in routine maintenance and operation.

I commend the committee, again, for their devotion and their attention to this very serious issue. But they are also recognizing we have another centennial anniversary coming up, and that's for the park service in just a few years, and a lot of work that needs to be done to bring that up to par so that they are worthy of the public attention and hopefully the increased visits that will lead up to this centennial anniversary of the national park system as well.

I just want to take a moment to commend one park service person in particular, who my family and I had the privilege of spending Father's Day Sunday with, and that was at the Antietam National Battlefield, just outside of Washington here.

The gentleman's name is Mike Gamble, and he works for the Park Service at the Antietam Battlefield. He was a 30-year history teacher for a local high school. He has been with Antietam Battlefield now for the last 9 years conducting tours and offering services to the visitors.

If there is anyone with greater depth of knowledge of what took place, that crucial battle, the Battlefield of Antietam, the bloodiest day in American history, I don't know who that could be.

He was incredibly well versed, extremely interesting, very educational, and even for my 9 and 10 year-old little boys, he brought that battlefield to life with great personal relevance in their lives. It's people like Mike and those who serve in our park service, whether it's Civil War battlefields or national parks or in our refuges, that really make this the great monuments to civilization that we have in this country.

I would be happy to yield.

Again, I appreciate this gentleman's leadership and the committee's work in regards to refocusing our attention on a great need in our Nation.

I wanted to also mention to my colleagues that I, along with the other cochairs of the Wildlife Refuge Caucus, recently introduced legislation called the Repair Act. We had a nice hearing before the Natural Resources Committee last week that would hopefully provide singular focus on one of the great threats facing our refuge system, and that's invasive species, plants, animals. What we are trying to do is establish an important public and private partnership by working with friends groups, with Federal, State, local agencies, but other nonprivate organizations, so we can develop a battle plan to deal with these invasive species, try to get out ahead of the curve, which is one of the great threats facing the entire refuge system today.

So I would hope my colleagues would take a look at the legislation that we have recently introduced. Hopefully we will have the cooperation of the committee, be able to move it to the floor for consideration, so we can start providing a singular focus and a good plan in place to deal with the invasive species threat that we are facing in this Nation.

Again, I thank the committee for the work that they have done, they have produced a good product here, and I would encourage its passage.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) for the Cooperative Conservation award they received from the U.S. Department of Interior.

Established in 1986 through the Water Resources Development Act, the LTRMP plays a key role in the Environmental Management Program. It is implemented by the United States Geological Survey office in Onalaska, Wisconsin in cooperation with five Upper Mississippi River States: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.

This model partnership of Federal, State and local agencies is an integral part of research done on the Upper Mississippi River System and a prime example of teamwork.

Congress recognized the Upper Mississippi River System as both a nationally significant ecosystem and a nationally significant commercial navigation system. Accordingly, the mission of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program is to provide decision makers with the information needed to maintain the Upper Mississippi River System as a viable multiple-use large river ecosystem. The long-term goals are to understand the system, determine resource trends and impacts, develop management alternatives, manage information, and develop useful products.

The LTRMP, through six remote State-operated field stations, has provided critical data collection, analyses, research and modeling of the environmental components of vegetation, water levels and quality, fishes and invertebrates. It was one of the pioneers in geo-spatial information systems, documenting land use and land cover mapping and analysis. This data is vital for planning, design, and assessment of restoration and rehabilitation projects. It is the LTRMP that provides a knowledge base for effective, cost-efficient habitat projects and then documents their success.

The LTRMP continues to be the most consistent, comprehensive large river monitoring program in the world. More than 200,000 data observations have been collected to evaluate important short- and long- term changes associated with ecological components of the UMRS.

On multiple occasions, I toured this amazing facility and witnessed the ongoing and award-winning research. I am proud to have it not only in my district, but in my hometown.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill would expand the current Federal policy on embryonic stem cell research by allowing federally funded research on stem cell lines derived after August 9, 2001, while implementing strong ethical guidelines to ensure Federal oversight of the research. I am pleased the 110th Congress has taken immediate steps to address this important issue, and it is my hope that members will once again unite in support of this bill.

Biologists, medical experts, and the vast majority of Americans agree there is a reservoir of discovery in embryonic stem cell research that offers hope for over 100 million

Americans afflicted with life-threatening and debilitating diseases. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act allows this critical research to move forward in an ethical way by expanding the number of stem cell lines readily available to scientists, while implementing strong ethical guidelines to ensure federal oversight of the research. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), of the 78 stem cell lines that were declared eligible for federal funding in 2001, only about 22 lines are actually available for study by researchers.

We are already at risk of losing our scientific and technological edge because of increasing competition around the world. As a Nation of opportunity and innovation, we have a responsibility to embrace policies that create breakthroughs in both medicine and technology for the benefit of our citizens.

From its earliest days, The University of Wisconsin-Madison has been one of the leading facilities for stem cell research, and I believe with continued study, the possible medical benefits of stem cell research are limitless; lives affected by diseases, damaged tissue, and faulty organs would be greatly improved. Additionally, this legislation would ensure the important work of our scientists is not unnecessarily sidetracked by politics.

The significance of this legislation extends beyond the potential for advances in science and technology. More importantly, embryonic stem cell research could lead to new treatments and cures for the over 100 million Americans afflicted with life-threatening and debilitating diseases. Scientist believe these cells could be used to treat many diseases, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and spinal cord injuries. However, the promise of this research may not be reached if the Federal policy is not expanded.

Mr. Speaker, it has become increasingly clear that the American public supports expanding the Federal stem cell policy. From the study of human development to the discovery of life-saving cures,there are just too many potential benefits to allow Federal policy to roadblock the continuation of this groundbreaking research that holds promise and hope for so many lives. Thus, I strongly urge my colleagues to respond to the interests and needs of our Nation's citizens. Please join me in supporting this important legislation that will reinvigorate embryonic stem cell research in this country and allow science to move forward unimpeded, revolutionize the practice of medicine, and offer hope to the millions of Americans suffering from debilitating diseases.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer strong support for House Resolution 421, honoring the extraordinary accomplishments and courageous journey of the Mercury 13 women. Though largely unrecognized in history, these 13 female pilots displayed determination, bravery and strength in their quest for space exploration.

Selected from a large group of women, the Mercury 13 pilots endured and passed the same grueling physical and psychological tests as the Mercury 7 male astronauts. These women however, were tested not only on their ability to withstand the toils of space exploration but also on their capacity to overcome extensive discrimination in both their careers and personal lives. When championing their cause, the women were repeatedly told by government officials that any effort to put a woman in space was a waste of time and money. Given this lack of U.S. support, Valentina Tereshkova, a Russian engineer, became the first woman in space on June 16, 1963. It would be many years later, in 1983, that Dr. Sally Ride would become the first American woman in space.

Although the women of Mercury 13 were barred from space travel, disappointment did not lessen their pioneering spirit and quest for equality. We must follow their lead. Given our country's shortcomings in 1963, it is our responsibility today to ensure that future generations of women are granted equal opportunities to follow their dreams.

These courageous women demonstrate that the sky is not the limit and that as a Nation we must ensure that all individuals, regardless of gender, race or ethnicity, are encouraged to venture into the fields of math, science, technology and engineering. I believe we must instill the spirit of the Mercury 13 into our children today, by supporting innovative programs such as the National Science Foundation that promote technology in the classroom. By creating an environment in this country that fosters innovation and growth, we will ensure our businesses and workforce can stay competitive in the global economy of the 21st century. From new education technology and better math and science teachers to train the next generation of innovators, to the promotion of new sources of energy and the expansion of markets for our products, this comprehensive agenda will create a strong foundation to build the economy of the future.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to capitalize on this opportunity to extend an honor to the women of Mercury 13 and to ensure we never again allow gender inequality to restrict our citizens' ambition and potential.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Terry Erickson, a man who has dedicated his life's work to helping children. Terry has tirelessly served western Wisconsin youth for over 40 years, mainly as the executive director of the Boys and Girls Club of Greater La Crosse, a place I proudly called my second home while growing up on the north side of La Crosse.

For over 100 years, the Boys and Girls Club of America has been fostering an environment of hope and opportunity for all children. In addition to promoting character development and educational progress, the club creates a safe environment so kids can simply play and enjoy themselves. In fact, some of my fondest childhood memories are a result of my participation in the La Crosse club.

At a time when many temptations existed in our neighborhoods for children and when there were plenty of opportunities for us to get into trouble, I found the club to be a safe haven for me and many other students for playing sports or just hanging out with our friends.

Since the creation of the Boys and Girls Club of Greater La Crosse in 1966, Terry has been a champion for youth programming and a father-like figure for many of us. Terry's devotion to the club's goal of inspiring all young people to realize their full potential is unrivaled. It is this passion and enthusiasm that has resulted in unprecedented growth for the organization.

Under Terry's leadership, the Boys and Girl Club of Greater La Crosse has flourished, growing from a small organization into one of the premier clubs throughout the country. The organization has expanded to six different locations, including a partnership with Viterbo University. Recently, Terry's university president, Bill Medlandis, and the Mathy family's dedication to this partnership resulted in the Amie L. Mathy Center, a club located on the campus of Viterbo University that enriches academic support for children.

The number of lives Terry has positively affected throughout the years is impossible to quantify. I know my two boys have greatly benefited from their experiences with the club and from Terry's selfless example. Because of Terry's guidance, the Boys and Girls Club of Greater La Crosse has created a haven for youth and a sense of community in the area.

Terry simply brings out the best in people, whether they are young children and students who benefited from the club's many activities, or the countless adults who have volunteered their time to make the La Crosse club one of the premier models in our country.

It has been said that great teachers enjoy a special immortality because their influence never stops radiating. I just hope that upon his retirement, Terry appreciates the wonderful teaching that he has done and the countless lives that he has influenced.

I am proud to count myself as one of Terry's products, and I am even prouder to call him my friend. Although Terry's service and commitment to the children of the La Crosse area will be deeply missed upon his retirement, the solid foundation he has laid for the club will empower children for decades to come.

I also want to congratulate my childhood friend and classmate Kevin Johnston, who was chosen to take over for Terry at the club. I couldn't imagine a better selection, given Kevin's history with the club, his passion for youth of our community and his close relationship with Terry throughout the years. I know Kevin will excel in his new position.

I commend Terry for his unyielding service and dedication to the community. As in any lengthy undertaking, Terry's service to our children required tremendous personal time and sacrifice by himself and his entire family. That's why, on behalf of all the children in the La Crosse area, I would like to thank Terry, Sue and their entire family for the impact that they have had in the La Crosse community. I wish Terry and Sue all the best as they close this chapter in their lives and begin a new one. But knowing Terry, I am sure the best interests of our youth will be close at hand.

Congratulations, Terry. Thank you for a job well done. We all wish you Godspeed.