Floor Statements

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, this week I received an e-mail message from a constituent of mine in Lawrenceville, New Jersey. She said: ``Please help turn the tide by doing not a little but a lot to help solar, wind, hydrogen become the mainstream energy sources and turn oil into the alternative.''

She is right. This legislation which will end the subsidies, renegotiate the leases, and use the revenues to develop sustainable energy technologies is a very good start.

There are any number of things. Take wind energy. The United States does not lead the world in total production of wind energy. We fall behind Spain, Germany, Denmark. It is because these governments have made commitments that we have not. We have lost some technological leads that we have had, and we won't lessen our addiction to foreign oil in the United States without making investment in these sustainable energy sources. Wind is just one example. Generating power from the oceans is another. This bill is not enough, but it is a good start.

I rise today in support of H.R. 6, the Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act or the CLEAN Energy Act. This is an important step for our nation in reducing our dependence on foreign oil and I commend Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Rahall, and Chairman Rangel for including this legislation in the first 100 hours of legislative business in the 110th Congress.

We have already heard from our colleagues today about the three major tenets of this bill--ending subsidies for large oil companies, renegotiating leases for oil companies that have avoided paying royalties on leases they signed in 1998 and 1999, and creating the Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve. I would like to take some time to speak about the importance of the Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve.

The new sustainable energy reserve created in this legislation will be funded by repealing the tax breaks that have been provided to the large oil companies, who consistently reap excessive profits at the expense of the American consumer. There is a lot that is funding can be used for. It is my hope that we focus our attention on research and development of sustainable energy sources and invest in the technologies needed to wean ourselves from fossil fuels.

One example of a real investment is the wind industry. It was once the case that the wind industry was based-only in California. Production across the country has increased, and I commend the industry for the progress they have made. There is, of course, still more we can do. The United States does not lead the world in total production of wind energy--we fall behind Spain and Germany. These countries have a greater commitment to wind energy than we. And Denmark has made a turnaround in the past thirty years, moving away from relying solely on oil to relying a great deal on wind power for their electricity. This is because the government in Denmark made a real commitment to investing in this technology. The United States can and should be the leader on wind energy. With the proper investment from the government, it will be.

According to the American Wind Energy Association, 46 of our states have the potential to produce significant wind energy. We must harness this potential across our country and make a real commitment to wind power. We can start by including a long term extension of the production tax credit. We can also adopt a renewable portfolio standard, which over twenty states have already done on their own.

We will not lessen our addiction on foreign oil in the United States without making the investment in alternative energy sources now. Wind energy is not the only solution to our energy needs. Neither is generating power from the ocean. But investing in research and development in a variety of different sustainable energy sources will lead us on our path to energy independence. But having a dedicated renewable energy reserve to fund this research and development is an important step.

Many of my constituents have written to me over the past few years passionately urging us in Congress to reverse our energy policy. Just last Friday, I received an email from a constituent of mine in Lawrenceville, New Jersey. She said ``Please help turn the tide by doing not a little, but a lot, to help solar, wind, and hydrogen [power] become the mainstream energy source[s]--and turn oil into the ``alternative''.'' She is right. We must do something drastic to change our energy policy and put our country back on a rational energy path. Making advancements in sustainable energy sources is a major component of where our energy policy should be.

Of course, this bill is not enough. But it is a start, and a very good start. Once we pass this bill, we will be able to consider other alternative energy legislation and I am confident that we will. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the most important political and moral issue of the day, the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq costs us dearly in lives, more than 3,000 Americans so far, in dollars, 471 billion by my count; in international prestige by compromising our ability to meet our other foreign policy goals.

President Bush has rejected the sensible recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and instead chosen an escalation of troops. Rather than sending more brave young Americans to fight in an undefined, impossible mission in an Iraqi civil war, we should be looking for ways to redeploy our troops responsibly.

Representative Murtha has courageously offered a framework for that redeployment, and the administration would be wise to heed his advice. The American people want to bring home their loved ones who are in harm's way. The Iraqi people want us to leave so that Iraqis can solve their problems.

As former Secretary of State Albright has pointed out, the only ones who want us to stay are those who will leave Iraq when we leave.

Mr. Speaker, Congress should reject the President's last ditch effort to salvage a botched execution of a flawed strategy.

I thank my friend from Michigan.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5, a bill that would cut in half student loan interest rates and make college more affordable, improve our economy, and improve the quality of lives across America.

The average student graduates with more than $17,000 in loan debt, almost 45 percent more than just a decade or so ago. In New Jersey, in my State, this bill would save the average student 4 or $5,000 over the life of the loans.

According to the Congressional Research Service, half of the student loan borrowers who benefit under this legislation have family incomes under 60 or $70,000, and the median income of family borrowers is $45,000. These are ordinary folks. Now, each of my colleagues can find thousands of stories of citizens in his or her own district where these loans have given a greater lease on life and livelihood to ordinary folks.

We can talk about might have been, should have been, things we can do to make college more affordable. This is something we can do right now. The legislation we are considering today will provide needed relief for cutting interest rates from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, and it will be a vital step toward making college more affordable for millions of Americans.

If we are going to stay competitive in the global economy, we must make access to higher education more possible; and helping qualified students pursue higher education is good not only for the individual students, but also for our economy, our competitiveness, our security, the future of this Nation.

We have an opportunity to do it. The opportunity has been passed over sometimes in the past, but let's do it now.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the extraordinary life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Few individuals have left such an indelible mark on society through their selfless and tireless actions to improve the lives of those around them. Dr. King was a powerful voice for justice and equality, and we must remember his legacy, not simply by reading aloud his works, but by heeding his call for action.

After receiving his doctorate from Boston University, Dr. King worked to confront the civil rights abuses that targeted the Black residents of Montgomery, Alabama. After the Montgomery bus boycott earned him national attention, Dr. King used his platform to highlight other forms of racial segregation in the South. His actions, including nonviolent civil

disobedience, laid the foundation for passage of both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Despite his myriad accomplishments, Dr. King continued to work day and night until his death, often delivering rousing speeches even when physically and mentally exhausted.

These later speeches included powerful denunciations of the Vietnam war, and calls for a more just and peaceful society. Dr. King recognized that resources that could have been used to fight racial and economic inequalities at home were being squandered on an unnecessary war half a world away. Dr. King demanded that people sacrifice their energy to fight for causes larger than themselves. I am glad to see that the Corporation for National and Community Service has asked Americans to honor that call by volunteering their time on Martin Luther King, Jr., Day. We must all actively work to achieve peace, both in our communities and abroad, and I am proud to stand before this body today to celebrate the life of Dr. King.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have an obligation to ensure that our Nation's seniors have access to the world-class prescription drugs which have been developed to improve their quality of life and, in some cases, to save those lives. That is why I thought that the previous Congress did a disservice to our Nation's seniors when the flawed prescription drug benefit was created.

I want Medicare part D to work as well as possible for America's seniors, and that is why Congress needs to address the gap of drug coverage that occurs when a senior enters the so-called doughnut hole and does not get financial help.

I want Medicare part D to work as well as traditional Medicare, which does work well. I will soon reintroduce legislation to help those who have experienced the predicament of being stuck in the doughnut hole by increasing the types of expenses that are counted toward their total out-of-pocket costs. This will help seniors get through the doughnut hole.

Now, today, the House passed legislation to give seniors access to affordable medicines. I supported this legislation because I think we need to act to improve the drug benefit and ensure that our Nation's seniors are properly taken care of.

I am pleased that the legislation maintains the prohibition on formularies contained in the original 2003 drug benefit legislation. It seems to me that national formularies, to limit available medicines, would do more to undermine patient health than to lower costs and, therefore, should not be imposed.

I remain concerned that there is no such language concerning price controls. I don't think the government can effectively establish prices. The marketplace is the best place to set prices that will help ensure the continuing pipeline of lifesaving and life-improving drugs. Historically, price controls have proved to be an awkward, clumsy way to allocate goods and services under ordinary circumstances.

But I want to talk for a moment about the great research that is being done at a number of different pharmaceutical companies in my district, in my State and across America. Research and development is the lifeblood of America's economic growth. Let me repeat: research and development is the lifeblood of America's economic growth.

I am proud to be the founder and co-chair with the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) of the Congressional Research Service and Development Caucus.

Now, every time this House acts, we should make sure that we protect the vibrant, path-breaking research that is occurring in the United States.

Now, there is a reason that we had a debate today on the prescription drug bill. We had the debate and the vote on this because the pharmaceutical research has been extraordinarily effective. Pharmaceutical companies have produced medicines that are not only very good for keeping people alive, improving their lives and reducing suffering, but medicines that were even inconceivable a decade or two ago. These medicines are truly a matter of life and death, and we would not be having this debate, but for the success of the pharmaceutical companies.

I don't want today's debate to leave anyone with the impression that this body wants to demonize the industry and make them stop doing their lifesaving work. None of the drugs we hear about were created overnight. They took years of effort by thousands of talented researchers and scientists. Starting with maybe half a million chemical compounds after years of basic research, a company might end

up with, say, 10 safe and effective compounds. The best one, after 8 more years of clinical trials, might receive FDA approval. And then, and only then can they begin to bring this medication to market.

This research is costly, but vitally important. At every step along the process the research might prove to be noneffective, and the process would have to start over again. It is not easy; it is not cheap. These companies spend more money on research and development than any other industry.

I often point out that we in the United States fail to invest sufficiently for research and development in every sector of our economy, with the possible exception of pharmaceuticals.

Let us not punish these companies for their very success and research that will be to the possible benefit of nearly every person in America.

While we must ensure that all Americans get the full benefit of that research, and that is part of what today's legislation was about, it is essential that we do everything in Congress we can to ensure that America maintains its innovative edge and continues to grow as a leader in research and development.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that with the vote recently completed, we will move toward research in embryonic stem cells.

My home State of New Jersey asserted real national leadership on stem cell research. In 2005, New Jersey became the first State in the Nation to award public funds for research on human embryonic stem cells. But one State or another supporting this research is not a substitute for Federal support.

Opponents of this legislation that we passed say that we should pursue alternative avenues for research such as adult stem cells, cord blood cells, amniotic fluid cells, and they are correct. We should investigate each one of these avenues. Yet that is not a compelling reason to block the researchers from pursuing embryonic stem cell research, which experts agree hold the greatest potential because of the truly broad nature of these embryonic stem cells.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, we finally are going to raise the minimum wage. No gimmicks, no combination with extraneous legislation, just a straight up or down vote to raise the minimum wage from what has become the lowest purchasing power in half a century.

New Jersey instituted a fair living wage a year or so ago; and, guess what, the increase did not result in layoffs. That indeed has been the experience of every previous increase around the country. With a minimum wage salary of a little over $10,000 a year, health premiums are that much, how do you expect a family to get along? This will benefit 13 million people, millions of children, millions with children to support, millions as head of household.

Now, you have heard about the fairness and the compassion arguments for this increase. We really must emphasize the solid economic arguments that this increase, like all previous increases, will benefit the entire economy. Workers will benefit. Businesses will benefit. Far from lopping off the lowest rung of the ladder, as our colleagues have argued, this will raise the entire ladder. The economics are clear. We have seen it again and again.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I am pleased we are considering this bill today because it moves us closer to dealing with an issue identified by the 9/11 Commission as a problem. Not that we needed the commission to tell us this; we know it is a problem. I think we would all agree that congressional oversight of intelligence programs should be improved. This bill would do that by creating a standing body in which both the authorizing committee and the relevant Appropriations Committee come together to examine the requests and performance of the intelligence community's many agencies. This has never been done before, and I certainly believe it is a significant step in the right direction.

The panel is charged to look at whether the current programs that we support make sense in the world we live in today, how they perform, how they spend money, and whether they make us safer. The 9/11 Commission stated on page 420 that any congressional reform in this area should produce an entity that allows ``a relatively small group of Members of Congress, given time and reason to master the subject and the agencies, to conduct oversight of the intelligence establishment and be clearly accountable for their work.'' This bill does that.

The gentlewoman from New Mexico said the 9/11 commissioners surely don't approve. Well, Commissioner Roemer, a former member of this body who understands how things work here, said yesterday: ``They,'' meaning these recommendations, ``do one of the most important things for congressional reform, that is, strengthen the oversight process.'' He goes on to say: ``Empowering both committees will significantly improve our oversight.'' He strongly endorses this, as do the other members of the 9/11 Commission.

Money spent in inappropriate collection systems, questionable covert activities, or dubious intelligence community reorganization schemes is money wasted; and it shortchanges our ability to protect our troops and our people here at home.

Those who will serve on this panel truly will have their work cut out for them. Many intelligence programs have not received the type of scrutiny that they should have, and the success of this new panel is not guaranteed. But I can assure you, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, that we need for this committee, this panel to succeed. I applaud the leadership of the House for moving this bill, and I look forward to voting for it and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, after more than 2 years of needless delay, the House is finally taking action on the balance of the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission.

This is a large bill that tackles a range of critical issues, but I want to comment on three areas in particular: risk-based funding for homeland security needs, making our first responder's communications truly interoperable, and measures we need to take overseas to stop the terrorist from getting here in the first place.

For the past several years, I've sponsored a series of homeland security grant writing workshops for first responder organizations in my district. These workshops are always well attended and I'm pleased that they've been of value in helping various fire, EMS, and police departments cross central New Jersey become competitive in applying for these grants. However, the one question I get most often from these professionals is ``Why aren't these grants allocated on the basis of risk?'' I know many of my colleagues were hearing the same thing from their first responders, which is why last year I joined a number of my colleagues in sending a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff asking him to make grant award decisions on the basis of risk. While DHS has made some progress in this area, it hasn't come far enough quickly enough. That's why I'm pleased that this bill requires DHS to use a risk-based funding formula when allocating these grants. New Jersey is at far greater risk of attack--and it has more infrastructure targets, like chemical plants--than more rural, less densely populated states. Our vulnerabilities require commensurately greater resources.

Another critical fix contained in this bill is a grant program dedicated to communications interoperability. As incredible as it may seem, 5 years after the 9/11 attacks, and one year after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Department of Homeland Security still does not allocate funds specifically for the purpose of helping local first responders coordinate in an emergency. As a result, states and localities are forced to rob Peter to pay Paul by using large chunks of homeland security grant funding--in some instances 80 percent--to purchase communications equipment. As a result, fewer resources are spent securing bridges, ports, and buildings. This is a false choice being forced upon local officials. Today's legislation is a down payment on those needs.

Importantly, the federal grants can be used only for equipment, technology, and systems that have been determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security to meet emergency communications equipment and technology standards. Therefore, State and local governments will be protected from relying solely on the claims of vendors, and can use the grants to invest in emerging technologies, not the same dinosaur systems that first responders historically have been forced to rely on. Also, this bill also takes steps to ensure the completion of a National Emergency Communication Plan. Such a plan will help to ensure that Federal, State, and local governments are developing plans and systems to improve multi-jurisdictions communications in an emergency that is truly ``National'' in scope.

Finally, while this bill includes useful provisions for strengthening our outreach to the Islamic world, we have to recognize that defensive measures at home are necessary in part because of a failure of our policies abroad.

For decades, our government has had a devil's bargain with a number of corrupt, despotic regimes in the Middle East and South Asia: they help us maintain order in the region, and we help them maintain order at home. We don't like to talk about this hypocritical double standard, but it exists, and it is impossible to truly quantify how much damage that hypocrisy and our support for such dictatorial regimes has cost us.

This is another legacy of the Cold War, where any country--no matter how brutal its government--was a potential ally for us against the Soviets. The same misguided approach is now being applied in our relationships with various countries with corrupt, brutal governments that ruthlessly suppress dissent at home even as they proclaim their solidarity with us in the war against Al Qaeda and like-minded groups.

The reality is that by viciously obliterating the voices of moderation in their societies, these despotic regimes are paving the way for Al Qaeda. By eliminating those calling for a free press and free elections, these governments are driving ever-greater numbers of Muslims into bin Laden's ranks. So long as we stand by and let them repress or destroy the voices of moderation in these countries, will we be complicit in the creation of the next generation of people who reject democracy in favor of the Kalishnikov rifle or the car bomb.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the House will pass this bill today and I will gladly support it. But we must know that even if this bill becomes law, the work of protecting our citizens and restoring our country's standing in the world has only begun.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join all Americans today in mourning the passing of President Gerald R. Ford and support.

Gerald Ford became President in the aftermath of Watergate, a scandal that shook to the core the confidence that Americans place in their government. His unquestioned integrity, good humor, and unimpeachable personal character carried this nation through one of the toughest periods of American history. Gerald Ford's legacy is one of steadiness in a time of crisis and of selfless service for his country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). And I look forward to joining him again in the Apollo energy legislation as I did in the last Congress, and this time I hope we will get it through because the way we produce and use energy in the United States is the greatest insult to our planet.

There are a lot of things that we do that are dangerous, unclean, unproductive. But the way we produce and use energy is the greatest insult. And I think what we want to talk about is the word ``sustainable.'' We should be in this for the long haul for centuries to come.

As we look back on a day like today when we celebrate the ongoing experiment of the American republic, we should be thinking, as those who wrote the Constitution were thinking, about something that would last for centuries. We should be embarking on a sustainable energy path. Not just clean energy, not just renewable energy, but a sustainable energy path that is environmentally sustainable, that is economically sustainable, and that is climactically sustainable.

One of the big changes that has occurred, and I think Mr. Inslee would agree, in the last year or 2 is here in Washington, and I think around the country, we have come to the conclusion, some of us years ago, but most people very recently, have come to the conclusion that global climate change, human induced global climate change, is real. They have come to the conclusion that it is real and they have come to the conclusion that it is serious.

They have not yet come to the conclusion that it is harmful. I would argue that it is costly and deadly. They have not come to the conclusion that there is something that we can do about it. But, indeed, I would argue that there is a great deal we can do about it. Some damage has been done.

There is much more we can do.

The gentleman makes a very good point, but this is not just a matter of the frost line moving a little bit north or spring coming a little bit earlier so you can get your tomatoes out sooner. No, it is much more serious than that. The pattern of storms, the pattern of droughts, even the pattern of freezes will change. Ocean currents are already showing signs of changing. That is what I mean when I say this is very costly and even deadly.

It is not just inconvenient. It does not just mean that, well, they are going to start growing sugar cane in Minnesota as the climate warms up. No, it means that lives will be lost and huge expenses will be incurred.

So that is the point. Let me just finish the two further steps we need to take in public understanding and, I would say, in legislative understanding. Once we recognize that human-induced climate changes, that it is real, that it is serious, that it is costly, and that something can be done, we have to figure out what those things are, and the new Apollo Energy Act of the last Congress that we will get in shape for this Congress will give you some of those ideas, I think. But then we have to convince ourselves that it is worth doing these things, that the benefits will be greater than the cost.

Well, I can assure you the cost will be great. But even more, we can make this a winner by stopping climate change, and we are in the best position in the world of all countries to do that

because we have set the pattern for energy use for a century, and we can set the pattern for the coming century.

We are behind other countries, are doing more, we are buying windmills from Europe, not the United States, just to take one example, but we can go on and on. We could take the lead, and I can assure you, I can assure the gentleman from Washington, and anyone else, that it will be better to sell these technologies to the world than to buy them, and there is going to be a huge market for alternative sustainable technologies.

The Chinese will be buying technology. There is no question. They would prefer not to pollute their skies. They are trying to clean up for the Olympics; but they are growing fast, they need the power, they would welcome cleaner power. As evidence of that, I would say that their auto fleet is already more efficient than ours.

Because the technology is available, that is what they are buying. It would apply across the board in energy technologies, China, Southeast Asia, India, yes, and Europe.

The gentleman from Washington spoke about American ingenuity. You know we in Jersey call it Yankee ingenuity, but no aspersions on those from Southern States or Western States. That is what it was known as, or good old American know-how. We can do it.

The new Apollo Energy legislation that I joined the gentleman in the last Congress, talked about incentives, demonstration projects and investments and research and development. They are, indeed, investments that would pay off big.

If the gentleman would yield, I would like to elaborate on a point that Mr. Blumenauer made about transportation. Not only do we use a lot of energy going to and from work, we waste a lot of energy that no one wants to use sitting in congestion. There are some parts of the country, we certainly see it in my State of New Jersey, where an enormous amount of energy is lost. And if we could avoid that congestion, it would make everyone happier, I can assure you, not just at a sense of savings, but it would remove the aggravation.

Well, it is a whole lot easier to move electrons than it is to move chunks of metal. Smart transportation systems that take account of where the traffic is and where it can go, and compute in real time where you should go, rather than you running a car-sized computer system where you are trying this and you are trying that and you have got a million cars in this computer system in real-time trying to figure out the best routes. You can do that with smart transportation system cheap, relatively, save energy, save money, save aggravation. That is just one example of what we should do.

If I may just insert, some of those choices have been made by our now-colleague, Mr. Blumenauer. Much of the success of Portland traces back to some of the decisions that he had a part in some years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. For years, ethanol was dismissed as a net energy loser. It cost more energy to grow the crops and ferment them and produce useful fuel; it took more fuel than it provided. It was a net energy user. So it was easy to dismiss that and not invest much money in distribution systems and so forth.

Then, because there were not distribution systems, there was not much motivation to develop more efficient catalytic processes, to work with the waste, as you would be doing with cellulosic ethanol, for example. It really was, if we may mix an agricultural metaphor here, a chicken and egg problem, and we need to step in.

This is the sort of thing that the government can do at low cost without picking winners and losers by actually providing more choice, by making it possible for people to distribute the fuel as the new technology makes it economical and efficient to produce that fuel. It is a matter of investment in research and investment in infrastructure. Some of this is done through incentives, some of it is done through demonstration projects, some of it is done through direct investment of research and development. We can break out of this self-defeating chicken and egg cycle, or chicken and egg restriction.

I have a parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

In light of the fact that there are nonpartisan and partisan lawsuits under way with regard to Florida's 13th Congressional District and that the votes of 18,000 voters were not recorded on the paperless electronic voting machines in an election decided by only 369 votes, may I ask for the record whether a notice of contest has been filed with the Clerk on behalf of Christine Jennings pursuant to law and what effect, if any, today's proceedings have on the pending contests?

I thank the Speaker.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, December 28 will mark the 150 anniversary of the birth of our 28th president, Woodrow Wilson. Throughout 2006, a number of organizations--including the Woodrow Wilson House, the Boyhood Home of President Woodrow Wilson, the Woodrow Wilson Family Home, Princeton University, and the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library--have held multiple public events to commemorate the life and work of President Wilson. Today, along with my colleague, Mr. Goodlatte, I'm pleased to offer a resolution both recognizing the 150th anniversary of President Wilson's birth and the contributions of the many organizations that have made this sesquicentennial successful. It also affords us a moment to reflect on how important Woodrow Wilson's legacy is for the United States.

President Wilson lived to see three major wars in his lifetime, each of which reshaped America's role in the world: the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and World War I. In the wake of the First World War, President Wilson had the vision to understand that if America was going to prosper in the 20th century, it needed to be a part of the world, not separated from it. That vision was encapsulated in the last of his famous ``14 points'' in his January 8, 1918 address to a joint session of Congress:

XIV. A general association of nations must be formed under

specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual

guarantees of political independence and territorial

integrity to great and small states alike.

Wilson sought to create a just peace for the defeated Triple Alliance powers and a secure world for all nations. He understood both the value and need for collective security, and above all the moral imperative underlying it, as he revealed in his 1918 State of the Union speech:

We have spoken now, surely, in terms too concrete to admit

of any further doubt or question. An evident principle runs

through the whole program I have outlined. It is the

principle of justice to all peoples and nationalities, and

their right to live on equal terms of liberty and safety with

one another, whether they be strong or weak. Unless this

principle [can] be made its foundation, no part of the

structure of international justice can stand.

Wilson's vision for America's role abroad--U.S. participation and leadership in the League of Nations--was ultimately undone by his lack of vision in dealing with a Senate that his party no longer controlled and by some flaws in the design of the League. Then-Senate Majority Leader Henry Cabot Lodge was skeptical of the value of the League and wary of the risks of committing America to a permanent, high-profile role in international affairs. The personal animosity between the two men undoubtedly contributed to Lodge's opposition to ratification of the League treaty. The intransigence of both men doomed the League treaty's chances in the Senate.

Today, there is little debate among historians about the consequences. Had Wilson and Lodge been able to set aside their differences and ensure Senate passage of the treaty, America's membership in the League might well have moved the body to take far more decisive action against the fascist dictatorships that emerged in Germany, Italy, and Japan in the 1920s and 1930s, perhaps preventing the Second World War. Other presidents since have relearned the lesson that unless the Congress--the representatives of the people--are true partners in America's foreign policy initiatives, the results are usually tragic. Such was the case in Vietnam, and it is the case in Iraq today.

History ultimately validated Wilson's vision for America's role in the world, and his dream of an international body designed to mediate conflicts between nations did become a reality in the form of the United Nations. Wilson was an innovator in international affairs, and we need to recapture his spirit of innovation and inclusiveness if we are to meet both the threats and the opportunities that lie before us. I want to once again thank all of the fine organizations involved with the Wilson sesquicentennial celebrations for reminding us all what President Wilson has bequeathed to our Nation and the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. This legislation is based on the scientifically unsubstantiated assertion that a fetus feels pain at 20 weeks of pregnancy.

This is not the first time this Congress that Members have been asked to substitute our judgment for that of scientists or physicians. It is bad policy for Congress to substitute its opinion for the considered medical judgment of doctors and I have consistently opposed legislation that does this.

By passing this legislation, Congress will force doctors to provide information to patients that is not scientifically proven to be true. These doctors will be subject to fines if they do not provide women with a brochure published by the Department of Health and Human Services explaining that a fetus feels pain at 20-weeks and that administrating anesthesia for the fetus will reduce pain. The bill goes so far as to outline for the Department of Health and Human Services what must be included in the brochure. The language that this bill requires HHS to include in the brochure asserts that there is conclusive scientific evidence that a fetus feels pain. According to the legislation, the brochure must read: ``There is a significant body of evidence that unborn children at 20 weeks after fertilization have the physical structures necessary to experience pain. There is substantial evidence that at least by this point, unborn children draw away from surgical instruments in a manner which in an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain. There is substantial evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will cause the unborn child pain, even though you receive a pain-reducing drug or drugs.'' This is, at best, misleading. We should not use legislative language to interpret scientific data that we do not understand and to direct physicians in their considered professional practice.

In August 2005 a literature review in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that ``evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.'' The review also concludes that administering ``fetal anesthesia or analgesia should not be recommended or routinely offered for abortion because current experimental techniques provide unknown fetal benefit and may increase risks for the woman.''

As policymakers, we should consider very seriously our actions that may overstep what is scientifically proven. In formulating public policy on scientific issues like global warming, stem cell research, alternative energy, and others, it is essential that we use science as a basis for legislation and not use legislation to attempt to make science.

I oppose this legislation because I believe that the decision of whether to have a baby should be left to individuals, their doctors, and their families without interference from the Government. I also oppose this legislation because of its circumvention of scientific evidence.

I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 6099.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sentiment that motivated the gentleman from California, Mr. Hunter, to offer this resolution. I agree with him that our Government must set the example when we choose to exhort employers to hire veterans. That's why I was pleased that in July of this year, the House passed by voice vote a concurrent resolution I offered with Mr. Brown of South Carolina that calls upon the President to establish a permanent national ``Hire a Veteran Week.''

The purpose of our bipartisan bill is simple. On a yearly basis, the President would lead a week-long effort to remind employers--both government and private sector--of the importance and value of hiring veterans. According to the most recent U.S. Labor Department data, in August 2005, 20- to 24-year-old veterans had an unemployment rate of 18.7 percent compared with their nonveteran counterparts. For all of 2005, the annual rate was 15.6 percent for 20- to 24-year-old veterans compared with 8.7 percent for non-veterans in that age group. Women veterans also suffer higher rates of unemployment than nonveterans. The unemployment rate for women veterans aged 25-34 stands at 6.9 percent versus 6 percent for their civilian counterparts. More alarmingly, women veterans aged 45-54 have twice the rate of unemployment than their non-veteran counterparts--7.1 percent versus 3.3 percent.

These aren't simply numbers; these are men and women who put on our country's uniform to protect each and every one of us. We can and must do more to help them find good-paying jobs that allow them to build a career and a life in the Nation they served and protected. That process should begin with a yearly reminder to all employers to actively seek out veterans as potential employees. I have been deeply disappointed that to date the Senate has not elected to follow the House's lead and pass my ``Hire a Veteran Week'' legislation. Should the Senate not pass this bill before the 109th Congress adjourns sine die, it will represent yet another failure of this Congress to meet the real needs of veterans.

My colleague from California, Mr. Hunter, is correct that Congress should take the lead and set the example when it comes to veterans' employment issues. That's why in 2005 I introduced the American Veterans Congressional Internship Program, H.R. 1242, a bipartisan bill that would allow each Member of Congress to hire a veteran as a paid intern for 1 year.

The benefits of this bill are clear. House and Senate Members would be able to take advantage of the experience and can-do work ethic of veterans, while veterans would get the chance to directly influence policy decisions and contribute to legislation that will affect them and their fellow veterans. I regret the 109th Congress failed to act on this commonsense bill, and I intend to reintroduce it and push for its speedy passage in the 110th Congress.

One thing we should all be able to agree on is that our outreach to veterans seeking jobs should be buttressed with concrete action by Congress to fund job training and placement programs, particularly for young veterans and women veterans.

That we have a long way to go in meeting the employment and training needs of our veterans was made clear by John Rowan, the current president of Vietnam Veterans of America, in testimony he gave before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee on March 30 of this year. Mr. Rowan noted that:

In fact, there is no real national strategy to assist

returning veterans, including National Guard and Reservists,

who are unemployed or under-employed--and some 15 percent of

our newest veterans have yet to find

gainful employment. Similarly, there is no effective

mechanism in place for enforcing veterans' preference, and we

have an Administration that appeals a case against a disabled

veteran who had finally won his case before the Merit System

Protection Board pursuant to The Veterans Employment

Opportunities Act of 1998.

It is imperative that re-education and work skills

upgrades, including selfemployment, be made a priority by

those agencies of government that provide these services,

especially considering the battalions of seriously and

permanently disabled veterans returning from Afghanistan and

Iraq.

This indictment of our current federal efforts on behalf of veterans seeking employment is a wake up call. I hope that when the 110th Congress convenes in January 2007, my colleagues will join me in helping create a national strategy to help returning veterans get the job training and employment opportunities they've earned for their service to America.