Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Marilyn W. Grounds for over 10 years of extraordinary service on the board of the Planned Parenthood Association of the Mercer Area.

Ms. Grounds is best described as a ``professional volunteer.'' Active in her children's schools and the community, she was at first focused in serving the arts community. It was the great fortune of the Planned Parenthood Association of the Mercer Area to have her join their board in 1995.

The Planned Parenthood Association of the Mercer Area provides comprehensive reproductive health care which contributes to both

individual well being and community stability. These services are provided in settings which preserve and protect the essential privacy and rights of each individual. The organization advocates public policies which guarantee these rights and ensure the understanding of the individual and societal implications of human sexuality. The Planned Parenthood Association encourages research and the advancement of technology in reproductive health care and the understanding of inherent bioethical, behavioral, and societal implications. In addition, the agency employs trained educators who conduct extensive community outreach and educational programs, offering comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education and health programs to thousands of New Jersey residents every year. Everyone is welcome, regardless of race, age, income, sexual orientation, or disability. Fees are based on the ability to pay and no one is turned away.

First as board vice president in 1997, then as board chair, Ms. Grounds successfully led the PPAMA through several managerial transitions. She has had leadership roles on Development, Finance, Facilities, Personnel, and Public Affairs Committees. She was an incentive for the board to re-evaluate its own role in the organization. A modest, exceptionally organized woman, Ms. Grounds excels at ``the big picture,'' keeping the board cohesive and efficient, while recruiting extraordinary leaders.

Ms. Grounds is a phenomenal fundraiser. Through both Annual and Capital Campaigns, she has made possible the improvement of services offered to clients, and during her tenure the number of patients treated has significantly increased. This is no small task. The annual budget of the PPAMA is about $2.8 million, making possible the service of about 15,000 clients per year.

Ms. Grounds has been an editor, writer, fundraiser extraordinaire, and tireless worker for the Planned Parenthood Association of the Mercer Area. She leaves a legacy of fund raising skill, governance expertise, and strong board leadership that benefits not only the organization, but also the individual, community, and State.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the entire 12th district of New Jersey, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in thanking Marilyn W. Grounds for her service on the board of the Planned Parenthood Association of the Mercer Area.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to my colleagues' attention an October 10, 2006 article in the Wall Street Journal by Amy Dockser Marcus, entitled ``Advocacy Overload?'' The article reviews the current state of disease-funding advocacy, and specifically cites the efforts of the Princeton-based Melanoma Research Foundation to coordinate the advocacy activities of a wide variety of melanoma organizations. In the past year, MRF has worked to organize a coalition of these groups in order to develop a coordinated message to Congress and the National Institutes of Health. The goal of this ``One Voice'' for melanoma research is to develop a common agenda, focused on securing the additional resources to fund the research into better treatments and cures for melanoma.

The Melanoma Research Foundation (MRF) was founded 10 years ago and has become the leading research foundation for melanoma. The Foundation has worked closely with the research and medical communities encourage dialogue and education about melanoma through their research congresses; participated in National Cancer Institute initiatives; organized the first steps of a melanoma coalition for advocacy; and hosts an interactive website for patients and caregivers. Their three part mission--supporting basic and translational research, education of patients and caregivers, and advocating for the melanoma community--is funded primarily through community fundraisers across the United States organized and managed by MRF volunteers. Other primary sources include memorial donations, individual gifts, and unrestricted grants from pharmaceuticals.

The need for a coordinated attack on melanoma is more critical now than ever before. Here are some of the facts about melanoma: It's the fastest growing cancer currently in the U.S.; It's the most common cancer in young adults aged 20 to 30; For women, age 25 to 30, melanoma is the primary cause of cancer death; For women, age 30 to 35, it's the second leading cause of cancer death, after breast cancer.

One of the primary causes of melanoma is UV exposure, most of which comes from too much time in the sun. Melanoma is survivable, if diagnosed early. When a superficial melanoma is found and diagnosed early, the 5 year survival rate is 100 percent. But at the opposite end, when the melanoma advanced to what's called Stage IV, when it's disseminated to major organs, the 5 year survival rate drops as low as 7 percent. Yet, despite these figures and the growing incidence of melanoma, no significant advances in medical therapies (or survival) for patients with advanced melanoma has occurred in the past 30 years.

Clearly, there's a great need for public awareness of the dangers of overexposure to the sun. There's also a need for increased research in identifying the causes and potential cures for melanoma. Once again, I commend the good work of the Melanoma Research Foundation in bringing greater public awareness to this disease, and advocating for more

public and private sector funding for melanoma research.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 10, 2006]

Advocacy Overload?

Activists Seek to Unify Efforts Of Groups Targeting Diseases; A Brain-

Tumor Collaborative

(By Amy Dockser Marcus)

At the national Brain Tumor Foundation, executive director

Rob Tufel has a standard reply for well-meaning families and

patients who want to set up a patient-advocacy group:

``Please don't start another organization.''

There are 141 patient-advocacy groups that cover brain

tumors, according to Mr. Tufel, while 43,000 people in the

U.S. are diagnosed every year with primary brain tumors,

benign or malignant. That's roughly one group for every 305

new patients. ``It just doesn't make sense from the point of

view of funding, or from the point of view of patients and

families,'' who must sort through the numerous organizations

and Web sites for information, Mr. Tufel says. ``Competition

is good because it keeps us on our toes, but at some point .

. . it becomes ineffective.''

Competition is an issue that many patient-advocacy groups

wrestle with as they struggle to raise funds for research,

attract greater interest in their diseases, and speed up the

search for a cure. Increasingly, advocates are asking: When

it comes to a disease like cancer, is it possible to set a

common agenda and speak with a unified voice?

Now some groups have begun to debate whether the large

number of organizations may be hindering as much as helping

in their efforts. Many diseases--including AIDS, autism and

Parkinson's disease--have more than one group that lobbies

Congress for more funding and reaches out to patients and

families. With cancer, in particular, there has been an

explosion in the number of foundations and advocacy groups in

recent years, as the Internet allows patients to connect with

one another more easily. It's particularly true in rarer

cancers such as brain tumors or melanoma, where the ratio of

the number of groups to the number of people who actually get

the disease is especially high. There are an estimated 40

groups in the U.S. for melanoma--a disease that will see

about 62,190 new cases and 7,910 deaths in 2006, according to

the American Cancer Society.

Many of these groups wind up competing with each other for

the same donors and the same researchers to sit on their

boards. There is the chance that groups will duplicate one

another's efforts, wasting resources by offering the same

programming or services. And busy legislators find themselves

uncertain about what the greatest need is for patients

because each group emphasizes different issues or aspects of

the disease.

There is also recognition that as cancer research

increasingly focuses on using costly, cutting-edge technology

to identify genes and cellular changes as an avenue to

new treatments, progress is going to take huge sums of

money that small patient-advocacy groups are unlikely to

be able to raise on their own.

Advocacy groups need to ask, ``Couldn't we better leverage

some of these resources that you're all spending?'' says

Paula Kim, whose Translating Research Across Communities

consulting group in Green Cove Springs, Fla., and Fallbrook,

Calif., works with patient advocates. Many times, groups end

up ``recreating the wheel'' in doing very similar work, she

says.

Different strategies are being tried in order to organize

the patient-advocacy community. Some advocacy groups for

major cancers, such as breast cancer and prostate cancer,

have formed coalitions that have been effective in lobbying

on common issues. Others end up merging; two separate

lymphoma patient-advocacy groups decided to join forces and

create one organization instead, the Lymphoma Research

Foundation. ``One Voice Against Cancer'' is a coalition of

many public health groups that lobbies Congress for more

federal funding for cancer research. Eight brain-tumor

foundations, including Mr. Tufel's group in San Francisco,

formed the Brain Tumor Funders' Collaborative to pool money

to fund large projects. Earlier this year, they announced

their first joint funding initiative, giving grants of $2

million to each of three scientific projects.

Not all smaller groups see the proliferation of foundations

as a problem that needs fixing. Many advocates started their

work because they lost someone to the disease, and want to

focus on highly personal goals or local projects. Small

groups also sometimes worry about having to divert too much

of their meager funds to big projects. ``I don't agree with

the idea that there are too many melanoma groups,'' says

Colette Coyne, who founded the Colette Coyne Melanoma

Awareness Campaign in New York with her husband, Patrick,

after their daughter died of melanoma. ``Many work in their

community. I think it is a healing thing for people to create

a foundation when they have lost someone.''

The Coynes concentrate their efforts in New York, where

they live. They have helped promote shade coverings in

playgrounds and helped push through tough legislation

regarding the use of tanning salons by minors. But they rely

mainly on volunteers and raise around $50,000 through a

yearly walk and dinner dance. ``I'd be concerned about being

committed to large amounts of money for a coalition when

we're never very sure what our income will be,'' says Ms.

Coyne. Nonetheless, Ms. Coyne says she believes a coalition

is necessary, and she wants to find a way for her group to

join.

It is within the melanoma community that one of the most

interesting and important debates is going on regarding

advocacy groups, amid growing attention to the disease.

Steven A. Rosenberg recently announced that he and other

National Cancer Institute scientists genetically engineered

advanced melanoma patients' own white cells to recognize and

attack their cancer cells. In a report published about 15 of

the patients, two of the patients saw their disease regress.

Translational Genomics Research Institute in Phoenix and the

H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa,

Fla., are working together to create a kind of map of the

human melanoma genome for researchers. These are the kinds of

projects that a coalition of melanoma advocacy groups could

help by lobbying for more federal funding and generating

greater public awareness about the projects and the need

for support.

Nineteen different melanoma groups came together in

Bethesda, Md., in late March for a meeting planned by the

Melanoma Research Foundation in order to debate whether they

should form a ``One Voice Melanoma'' coalition to increase

the impact of the community on a federal level. At the

melanoma coalition meeting, one of the key speakers was

Connie Mack, who was the U.S. senator from Florida from 1989-

2001, and is a melanoma survivor. Sen. Mack, who now serves

as chairman of the board of the Moffitt center, told the

patient representatives that their organizations could do

much more, especially on Capitol Hill, if they joined

together. ``Our challenge is to see that our voice is

heard,'' he told the advocates, ``but the only way that this

will occur is if we speak with one voice.''

In an interview later, Sen. Mack said that the individual

organizations were all doing important work, but that members

of Congress and officials at the NCI were constantly meeting

with patient advocates, including melanoma groups with

different ideas and requests. Congress has limited resources

available to give these groups, says Sen. Mack, and without a

common agenda, ``funding levels haven't achieved the level

where they can accomplish anything of significance.''

Linda Pilkington, a melanoma survivor who is executive

director of the Melanoma Research Foundation in Princeton,

N.J., says that the coalition talks had already made a

difference. In the wake of the meeting, the groups agreed on

some common goals. While discussion about the coalition's

structure and mission continue, as a result of the group's

discussion, the Melanoma Research Foundation was able to work

with a lobbyist and Ms. Kim to craft language that was

included in the current Senate Labor, Health and Human

Services, and Education appropriations report for fiscal

2007. It calls on the National Cancer Institute to convene a

group of patients and researchers to develop a five-year

strategic plan for melanoma research, including focusing on

the issue of how to speed up the development of new

therapies.

The effort hasn't been easy. ``Putting groups together is

like having your children work together,'' says Valerie

Guild, president of the Charlie Guild Melanoma Foundation in

Richmond, Calf., and part of the steering committee working

on the melanoma coalition. It seems to make sense because

they're all siblings, ``but try to get someone to decide what

movie to go to on a Sunday night.'' Despite the challenges, a

coalition can work, says Ms. Guild, who started her group in

2004 after her daughter died of melanoma. ``Everybody really

wants to get to the same place at the end of it all--a

treatment for the disease.''

Ms. Kim, the consultant, who is helping the melanoma groups

create a coalition, says there are a number of models that

can help small or financially strapped organizations

contribute to a coalition. Among them: sliding-scale dues

based on the size of a group's budget, or a program for

helping coalition members raise additional funds. Ms. Kim--

who herself co-founded an advocacy group called the

Pancreatic Cancer Action Network in 1999 after her father

died of pancreatic cancer--argues that ``for rare diseases,

coalitions are vital. It's a lot harder to make noise when

there are not a lot of people to advocate for you. It's

harder to get people on the bandwagon.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize The Reverend Robert Moore for twenty-five years as Executive Director of the Coalition for Peace Action.

The Coalition for Peace Action began in 1980 when a group of religious congregations in the Princeton area joined together to sponsor a Teaching Conference and Interfaith Service on the theme ``Can We Reverse the Nuclear Arms Race?'' At a follow-up meeting several weeks later, a decision was made to form an ongoing organization dedicated to nuclear disarmament--the Coalition to Reverse

the Nuclear Arms Race. Rev. Moore served as Steering Committee Chair of the NJ Nuclear Weapons Freeze Referendum in 1982 and was instrumental in its successful passage by two-thirds of New Jersey voters.

As the Cold War drew to an end in the late 1980's, the Coalition's goals expanded to include the related goals of reaping a major peace dividend--a peace economy--and halting weapons trafficking, both internationally and domestically. In 1993, to reflect this broader agenda, the members voted to change the name of the organization to the Coalition for Peace Action. As other peace-seeking organizations have come into existence and faded away over the years, the Coalition for Peace Action has remained vibrant because Rev. Moore has created an organization that is relevant, well informed, committed and practical.

Rev. Moore has been instrumental in the Coalition's efforts to motivate and mobilize peace and non-violence activists. As an example, in the late 1980's, the Coalition's ``Target Congress'' project recruited and trained over 500 citizen letter-writers to regularly write to US Representatives. Those contacted showed significant movement toward pro-peace voting records.

Rev. Moore co-chaired the NJ Coalition Against War in the Middle East in 1990-1991, opposing the first Persian Gulf War, and later the N.J. Coalition Against War in Iraq from 2002 to the present. Under his direction, the Coalition successfully lobbied Congress, as part of a national effort, to stop funding for U.S. nuclear weapons testing. Despite an initiative engineered by the National Rifle Association to rescind the New Jersey ban on assault weapons, the law was preserved by an intensive lobbying effort led by the Coalition. In 1995 the first Peace Voter campaign in the country distributed tens of thousands of voter guides comparing candidates on peace and gun violence issues. In 2000, the Coalition provided the first-in-the-nation ``NonPartisan Candidate Briefings'' to five of six major party candidates in New Jersey's U.S. Senate primary, and to 3 of 4 major party candidates in two House races.

Rev. Moore is hailed nationally for his ability to educate and mobilize citizens in the name of peace and disarmament. He is an outstanding example of a committed citizen taking action for what he believes. Rev. Moore is a teacher, advisor, and motivator.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating The Reverend Robert Moore on his twenty-fifth anniversary with the Coalition for Peace Action.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reflect on the Nuremberg trials.

After the unspeakable horrors that occurred during the Holocaust, the United States joined the international community in upholding the rule of law and created the International Military Tribunal. Unique in the history of the world, the Nuremberg Tribunal honored our commitment to law and an honest, open trial process.

I was reminded of all of this when I heard a recent NPR story that told the personal experience of Sergeant Clancy Segal, an American Jew, during the trials at Nuremberg. As Mr. Segal recounts, the members of the Nazi party sentenced at Nuremberg underwent a fair and objective trial process. Despite the atrocities they committed, they were afforded due process.

Remembrances such as these emphasize the need for restraint and upholding the rule of law when dealing with war criminals. Regardless of the circumstances, we must exercise the same due process when investigating and prosecuting suspected terrorists and war criminals today.

I ask unanimous consent that the full transcript of this story from National Public Radio be inserted into the Congressional Record.

National Public Radio: Morning Edition, October 2, 2006:

Sixty years ago, the International Military Tribunal at

Nuremberg handed down its first verdict against Nazi war

criminals. The Nuremberg trials were structured as a

blueprint for something new in international law . . .

``crimes against humanity'' and ``crimes against peace''.

The evidence presented was the first account to the world

of the Nazis' atrocities and mass murders. Commentator Clancy

Segal was a sergeant in the American army of occupation in

Germany.

I was the only Jew in my unit. I told no one when I put my

.45 automatic in my holster and sneaked away to the

International War Crimes trial at Nuremberg.

I wanted to look Herman Goering in the eye and shoot him

dead.

Next to Adolf Hitler, Goering was the most powerful man in

the Nazi Third Reich. He created the first concentration

camps and he was the driving force behind the decrees which

stripped Jews of their civil rights.

In the foyer of the court building, Furtherstrasse 22,

military police made me check my weapon. At first I was

angry. I'd stored up a lot of hatred for the top Nazis like

Goering who'd operated the ``Final Solution'' to kill Jews.

But inside the courtroom I felt something like relief.

Suddenly, it was unthinkable to add one more act of violence

to the solemn, businesslike presentation of evidence.

Evidence which included the shrunken heads of tortured

prisoners and lamp shades made of human skin. It moved me

beyond tears to a sort of numbness.

The U.S. War Department was determined that Goering and the

other Nazis leaders would receive a fair trial. At Nuremberg,

there would be no secret evidence or closed proceedings. The

Allies believed that would betray their ideal of restoring

democracy in Germany.

For three days, I couldn't take my eyes off Goering, who

lounged in the dock like a bored Roman emperor. Minus his

sashes and medals, he looked slightly naked in a white

uniform jacket, even emaciated down from his former huge

bulk.

As concentration camp survivors testified, I sometimes

caught Goering's cold, unblinking stare, which was full of

contempt for the Tribunal and the witnesses.

When the prosecution showed films of piled-up corpses at

Auschwitz, Goering kept turning his head away, sometimes in

my direction. I'm ashamed to say he stared me down, because

I'd never before felt myself in the presence of such

unmitigated evil.

I returned to my unit and didn't see Goering testify on

cross-examination. Newspaper and radio correspondents like

Walter Cronkite told us of his brazen lack of repentance in

the witness box.

On Oct. 1, 1946, the Allied judges handed down their

sentences. Most of the accused

were found guilty and sentenced to death. Goering swallowed a

cyanide pill just hours before he was to mount the gallows.

Today, in the midst of a national debate on how to treat

captured terror suspects, my mind flashes back to Room 600 at

Furtherstrasse 22. We gave Goering and the other war

criminals a chance not only to defend themselves but in some

cases, preach hate and violence.

In a ruined Germany, where so many corpses still lay buried

in the rubble, and life seemed so very fragile, we found it

in ourselves to give the worst of men due process.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I join my colleagues in extending best wishes to Mr. Hyde on the new phase of his life.

If we really believe that nuclear proliferation and loose nukes are the greatest threat to world peace and security, as I do, as many of us do, then we should be holding on to every tool that we can find to prevent that threat. We should be working with India to strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime, not collaborating to destroy it.

There will be a time when the history of the spread of nuclear weapons of mass destruction is written, and we will look back and see when the last thread of the nuclear nonproliferation regime was shredded with this agreement.

We can talk at length about the details of this cooperative agreement, we can talk about what a good friend India is and how responsible they have been. We can talk about whether nuclear power is environmentally benign. But history will say, mark my words, with this agreement the world lost the last bit of an international tool to control the spread of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. The regime will have been killed. All we will have left is our ability to jaw-bone with our allies and to threaten our enemies. Countries will work out whatever deals they can, two by two. That is the future of the control of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Countries will work out whatever deals they can, two by two. This is a very dangerous moment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jon Butler, a constituent from Pennington, and recognize his great achievements. Mr. Butler has recently received the 2006 Hershey's STRIVE award, National Administrator of the Year from the National Council of Youth Sports.

Mr. Butler has been chosen for this award because he has been a guiding force in his community. He has worked closely with Pop Warner Little Scholars, the largest youth football, cheerleading, and dance program in the United States. Mr. Butler has worked to facilitate children's participation in group sports and activities. These activities engage children in a safe environment and help to teach essential skills and knowledge. Jon now has begun educating Capitol Hill about the value of Pop Warner Little Scholars.

Mr. Butler sets high standards for children and always encourages them to perform at their highest level. Mr. Butler has developed a Coaches Education Training Program to educate adults on the basic fundamentals of youth sports, including sportsmanship, coaching techniques, and respect for youth.

STRIVE, which stands for Sports Teach Respect, Initiative, Values, and Excellence, honors adult leaders who have a passion for helping children, and I am proud to recognize Mr. Jon Butler for receiving this award.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the decisive actions taken this week by the U.S. Congress to address the ongoing genocide and worsening humanitarian crisis in Darfur.

I am pleased that the House of Representatives has again passed H.R. 3127, The Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006. The House originally considered this bill on April 5, 2006, but it took the Senate more than five months to pass it, finally doing so on September 21st. This important bill would block the assets and deny visas and entry to any individual (or family member) responsible for acts of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity in Sudan. H.R. 3127 authorizes support for the African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur. It prohibits U.S. assistance to a country in violation of U.N. Security Council embargo on military assistance to Sudan. It also urges a Security Council resolution supporting expanding the African Union peacekeeping mission. I look forward to the President signing this important measure into law.

The House has also considered and agreed to H. Res. 723 and H. Res. 992, both of which I am proud to cosponsor. These resolutions call on President Bush to take decisive action to respond to the ongoing crisis in the Sudan. In June, I joined with many of my colleagues to call on President Bush to appoint a Presidential Special Envoy for Sudan. Appointing a Special Envoy would demonstrate to the international community that the United States remains engaged and committed at the highest level to bring peace to Darfur. In his address to the United Nations last week, President Bush announced his appointment of former United States Agency for International Development Administrator Andrew Natsios as Special Envoy. I welcome and applaud this move and remain hopeful that this high-level official will be able to bring the resources and focus of the U.S. Government to bear on this crisis.

As I have said before, for too long the world community turned its back to the ongoing genocide in the Sudan. But the actions of students, religious leaders, and concerned citizens in the United States and around the globe raised awareness about the horrors occurring in Darfur. I want to thank all who shared with me their concern about Darfur in town hall meetings, letters, phone calls, and e-mails over the last three years.

Today, the Congress is answering their calls for action. Passing these bills is an important step to ending the genocide and beginning to hold those who are guilty accountable--but it cannot be our only step. Our commitment to end this conflict and to the people of the region must not begin and end today. We must

remain focused and dedicated to ending the genocide and healing the wounds of a prolonged civil war. Justice must be served on those who perpetrated these heinous immoral crimes and we must help rebuild and restore the lives of the people who, through the grace of God, survive this hellish civil war.

After the systematic genocide of the Holocaust, we said never again. After the horrors of Rwanda and the Kosovo we committed ourselves to preventing genocide before it surfaced elsewhere. Sadly, we are to adding Darfur to this list. It is long past time for the United Nations to become involved in Sudan. The U.N. needs to deploy a robust and sizable international mission to end the genocide and then work to bring peace to the Sudan. President Bush was right last week to suggest that it may be time to override the objections of the Sudanese government in order to send international peacekeepers into Darfur. After his speech to the U.N., Bush said, ``[T]here's genocide taking place in Sudan. . . . Now is the time for the U.N. to act.''

I call on the President to continue to push for action on this issue with world leaders, internationalize the response, and advocate in the United Nations to end the genocide in Darfur. I pray that the suffering will soon end, and that we will not soon forget our brothers and sisters in Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the so-called ``Public Expression of Religion Act of 2006,'' H.R. 2679. This bill would send a chilling message to those who seek to uphold the Constitution and protect the religious liberty granted by the Constitution. Further, by denying aggrieved parties the existing remedies, this bill would embolden those who try to impose their religious beliefs on others to take additional risk and further violate the Constitution.

H.R. 2679 seeks to amend, for the first time, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which is our Nation's oldest civil rights law. This bill would fundamentally alter the way individuals seek redress from violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Worse, this bill is a solution in search of a problem.

What we are discussing goes to the very heart of one of the essential principles enshrined the Constitution and documents of the founding of America principles: the separation between church and state. Two of our Founding Fathers, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, spent almost 10 years debating this central issue in the Virginia State Legislature. Yet, today, the Republican Majority has allowed it to be debated only for a single hour on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Such an important change to the constitutional rights of Americans should receive thorough review by the House.

This legislation would bar parties who successfully assert their constitutional right to bring a case under the Establishment Clause from receiving attorney's fees. Under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, successful plaintiffs are awarded attorneys fees if their civil rights have denied by government officials. This remedy was intended to make the government think twice about acting in manner that would infringe upon constitutionally protected rights.

However, we are considering legislation that would strip a remedy for plaintiffs who assert that the government infringed upon their religious freedoms.

This legislation is opposed by the Interfaith Alliance, American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, National Council of Jewish Women, American Jewish Committee, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Union for Reform Judaism, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Woman's Law Center, Secular Coalition for America, People for the American Way, Friends Committee on National Legislation and Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment protects all Americans from government endorsement of, or favoritism toward, specific religion, or any religion. Its protection extends only as far as it can be enforced, however. We limit the ability of citizens, churches, and other organizations to challenge the government at our own peril. The Establishment Clause was written not only to ensure

that people could practice religion as they saw fit, but also to prevent government from meddling in organized religion. Those who seek to expand religious expression by allowing the government to participating in it do great harm to the religious and non-religious.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Child Custody Protection Act. The text of the bill that we are considering is quite similar to the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which the House considered in April of last year and I opposed. It is yet again another attempt by Congress to try to interfere in the personal health decisions of young women.

The question of whether or not to have an abortion is one of the most difficult decisions any woman can face. Some issues cannot be legislated and I believe that this is one of them. Reproductive health care is a personal matter that should be left to individuals, their doctors, and their families without interference from the government.

This bill will force mature young adults who have sought help from individuals other than their parents--including grandparents, aunts, uncles, older siblings and clergy members--to act alone in a time when loving support is needed. I believe that adolescents should be encouraged to seek their parents' advice and counsel when facing a difficult decision. However, the government cannot mandate healthy family communication where it does not already exist. We need to encourage our youth to seek the counsel of individuals that they do trust and that will advocate for their best interests and not encourage them to go through this difficult process and draining procedure alone.

Not only does this bill discourage our youth from seeking adult counsel, this bill will also put the health of young women in jeopardy. A provision of this bill seeks to delay the abortion process by demanding that doctors go through a detailed and complex scheme to notify a parent. Doctors who do not comply and conduct an abortion before this notification will face fines and federal criminal penalties.

I would guess that my colleagues on both sides of this issue agree that having an abortion should be the last option for an adolescent. But it is a reality that young women are going to continue to have to make life-altering decisions regarding their bodies regardless of restrictions the federal government places on them. Taking away the support of responsible adults in whom teens trust is not the way to stop abortions.

I have consistently opposed legislation of this type because I want to make sure that we protect young women who are facing unintended pregnancies by providing them with assistance from adults they trust. I certainly prefer an open dialogue between parents and teens, so that a hushed, last-minute decision is not necessary. Unfortunately, parental consent is not always a viable option and teens will still make decisions that are difficult for any woman regardless of age. By passing this legislation, we will force trusted adults to turn their backs on their nieces, sisters and granddaughters and we will also be turning our back to the young women of this Nation.

Instead of debating a measure that will impose federal punishments on family members and doctors who assist young women who are making difficult choices and considering another measure that attempts to fix a symptom, we should be having a constructive dialogue that gets at the root of this issue.

This bill is an injustice to young women across this Nation who need all the support that they can get. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation because it will severely harm young women at one of the most important times in their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to day in support of H. Con. Res. 478, supporting the goals

and ideals of the Lights On Afterschool! program. According to the Afterschool Alliance's survey, 14.3 million children are left alone and unsupervised after school. Lights On provides children with a safe place to go after school and promotes healthy opportunities for growth and learning.

I believe that after school programs provide vital services to our youth and we must make a commitment to continue to fund these programs. Communities and schools can help by promoting after-school programs that engage teenagers in a thoughtful and safe manner. Encouraging high school students to join after-school clubs, sports teams, and band or chorus also gives teenagers purposeful extra-curricular activities that diminish their chances of causing trouble in their community.

Our children deserve the very best chance to succeed in a turbulent global community, a world where economic competitors grow more numerous and powerful everyday. To ensure American leadership in the future, children today must be afforded comprehensive education and enrichment through well-funded schools and after-school activities.

There are many after school programs that are benefiting the children of my district. The Trenton After School Program has been serving our community for over 20 years. It not only provides our children with a safe place to go after school, but also provides culturally enriching programs including arts education.

Lights On provides children with fun, educational, and entertaining activities when the school day ends. I am proud to rise in support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the ``Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Modernization and Reform Act of 2006,'' H.R. 5029. This bill would effectively gut the ability of the ATF to shut down rogue gun dealers who ignore or undermine federal law by selling guns to criminals. It literally protects the worst of the worst.

We should be doing more to ensure that our communities are safe, by getting guns out of the hands of criminals. That is why we should make sure federal authorities have all the tools they need to go after criminal gun dealers.

Yet, this bill would substantially undermine the ATF's ability to revoke federal firearms licenses and shut down corrupt gun dealers who have repeatedly violated the law. By redefining the burden of proof for violations of existing federal gun laws, this bill would make it essentially impossible to sanction, prosecute, or revoke the federal firearms license of corrupt gun dealers.

The vast majority of gun dealers are honest hard-working business owners who play by the rules. Yet, their compliance with federal law is tarnished by the few gun dealers who

are more interested in making a profit than following the law or protecting our children. Statistics show that 60 percent of guns used in crimes can be traced back to just 1% of the Nation's 80,000 gun dealers. This means that a tiny percentage of criminal gun dealers are responsible for the bulk of guns used in the crimes that terrorize our communities. Yet, this legislation makes it harder to shut down these criminal outliers.

In 2003, the ATF issued only 54 notices of license revocation to shut down rogue gun dealers. That represents .06 percent of all gun dealers. Under the proposed legislation, this small group of dealers would be allowed to stay in business, and pay only a minor fine.

This bill would also weaken the recordkeeping requirements that gun dealers must follow currently. This would allow criminal dealers to hide their illegal sales and missing firearms. Rather than being required to properly maintain their gun sale records, this legislation would simply allow them to keep such records in a box or a storage room, and would make it very difficult for the ATF to investigate and uncover dealer violations.

I oppose this flawed legislation. I believe strongly that the ATF needs the authority to prosecute and eventually revoke the licenses of corrupt and criminal gun dealers. I am not alone in this view. This legislation is also opposed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, The American Bar Association, The Major City Chiefs, the International Brotherhood of Police, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, The Violence Policy Center, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Former Director of the ATF Rex Davis, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this dangerous bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise today to oppose the Conference Report for The National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 5122.

The National Defense Authorization Act is Congress' only opportunity each year to seriously debate the defense polices of our Nation. Yet, when the House debated this legislation in earlier this year, the Republican Majority prevented any debate about the most important national defense issue we face: the war in Iraq. More than 2,700 American service members have lost their lives fighting in Iraq. American taxpayers have paid more than $400 billion to fund the effort. Yet, despite authorizing an additional $70 billion for the war, we have had no debate on this floor about our policy or needed strategy changes. This is an unconscionable failure of the House.

The House previously made a mockery of Congress' responsibilities to guide policy by shamefully politicizing Representative John Murtha's thoughtful proposal for a phased redeployment of American troops in Iraq. Regardless of one's opinion on the best course of action in the war, the failure of Congress to entertain debate or exercise real oversight is a dereliction of our duty.

Just this week, news reports revealed that a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) written in April comes to the conclusion that the war in Iraq is making America less safe. I have been telling my constituents for months that this war is endangering the lives of our service members, fueling the terrorist insurgency, and failing to make us safer. The NIE confirms this.

On another important subject, Congress is also long overdue for a serious examination of our nuclear weapons policy. Fifteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we behave as if the Cold War never ended, maintaining a stockpile of thousands of nuclear weapons, many on hair-trigger missiles--far more than we need to assure our continued military dominance. It is time we honor the commitment we made when we signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and begin to phase out our nuclear stockpile. This bill fails to make any changes to our nuclear posture and it is my hope that the committee will work with me to get the United States to honor our NPT pledge.

I am also disappointed that this bill authorizes $9.4 billion for the missile defense programs within the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). Since its inception during the Reagan administration, MDA has spent nearly $100 billion for missile defense programs that have repeatedly failed flight tests. This money would have been more wisely spent on other national security priorities, such as jamming devices for improvised explosive devices (IEDs), up-armoring Humvees, and radiological detection at our ports and borders. One of the craziest ideas I have ever heard is that we should deploy this missile defense system as a way to test it. Simple strategic analysis tells us that a provocative yet permeable defense is destabilizing and weakens the security of all Americans.

This authorization bill fails to address and make needed changes to U.S. policy in any one of these three areas, which is why I oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the reauthorization of the Older American Act. I would like to thank Congressmen Buck McKeon, Pat Tiberi, George Miller and Ruben Hinojosa for their hard work reauthorizing this act.

Since originally enacted in 1965, the Older Americans Act has been an important vehicle by which senior citizens in need have received nutritional support, community service employment, pension counseling services, protections against neglect and abuse, and many other services.

Nutrition services through Title III of the Older Americans Act, such as the ``Meals on Wheels'' program, are essential in helping senior citizens who cannot prepare their own food to still have access to convenient and nutritious meals. The program serves those most in need, such as the aged, the less affluent, those who live alone, and members of minority groups.

I was pleased that I was able to amend the Seniors Independence Act during mark-up to stop the Department of Labor from using an unfair calculation of income to determine eligibility for Title V seniors community service employment programs, SCSEP. In January 2005,

the Department of Labor issued a ``Training and Employment Guidance Letter'' that unilaterally changed the eligibility criteria for Title V. Instead of discounting certain forms of income like veterans' compensation, Social Security Disability Insurance, unemployment compensation, and a portion of traditional Social Security benefits, the new regulation mandated inclusion of that income, thus making fewer seniors eligible for vital services.

It would be inconsistent to state that the program targets persons with greatest economic need and persons who are disabled, and then use their Social Security income or disability benefits to exclude them from participation. It would also be a mistake to hold someone's service in the Armed Forces against them in determining their eligibility for employment assistance. The amendment that I offered in the Education and the Workforce Committee restores the eligibility criteria to the pre-2005 levels, and it was unanimously agreed to. I thank Chairman McKeon and the rest of the committee for their help and cooperation on this issue.

Further I have advocated for Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities, NORCs, to be included in the legislation. NORCs supported by the older Americans act would provide technical assistance to target supportive services to assist the millions of older adults living in naturally occurring retirement communities throughout the country to maintain their independence and quality of life.

NORC supportive service programs are intended to increase efficiencies in the delivery of services to large populations of older adults living on their own and to reduce redundancies in the delivery of those services. They are also intended to empower older adults, and the communities within which they live, to determine the types of programs and services that they wish to receive--thus building supportive and responsive communities.

For millions of older adults, NORCs are becoming the retirement homes of choice and necessity. According to AARP, upwards of one-third of the older adult population is living in a NORC setting. With the retirement of the baby boomers only a few years away, and, according to AARP, the intention of Americans 45 and older to age in place in similar fashion, we can expect NORC and NORC-like communities to grow in abundance.

I am pleased the bill authorizes the Assistant Secretary to support efforts underway to develop innovative models providing for the efficient delivery of services to communities where older individuals are aging in place such as NORCs.

Mr. Speaker, the Seniors Independence Act of 2006 reauthorizes vital services for some of the most vulnerable Americans, and those in greatest need. I rise in support of this legislation and I urge its passage by this body.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a debate about whether we should be wiretapping al Qaeda. This is a debate about whether intelligence agencies should be guided so that their efforts are most effective in protecting Americans from terrorism.

The President has been sending intelligence agencies on fishing expeditions. Now, of course, when al Qaeda calls, we should be listening. And under FISA we can and we do. But the President wants to turn a vacuum cleaner on the communications of innocent Americans, with no checks and balances, trampling the rights of many in the search for a few. We need to bring some discipline to our electronic surveillance with checks and balances, checks so that we don't make dreadful mistakes.

Our history is replete with mistakes, when we were sure, absolutely certain, that we knew who the enemies were: Martin Luther King, Jr.; Paul Robeson; Brandon Mayfield, an innocent lawyer in Portland; and on and on. The White House-Wilson bill, in the name of modernization, is extending the President's vacuum cleaner.

The President under FISA has the power he needs within the legislative framework that will focus his power on terrorists, not on innocent Americans. Our government is strongest when all three branches of government work together, and we are weak when the President tries to act alone and in secret. This President has been acting alone and in secret, and that is why the fight against terrorists has been going so badly.

This President, any President, needs the supervision of Congress and the courts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure which will not preserve principles of justice upon which this Nation was founded. How true we are to our ideals affects the clarity and decisiveness with which our soldiers can act, the safety of our troops, the motivation of our potential enemies, and the behavior of our actual enemies.

This bill provides protections that are vague, slippery and imprecise. It is subject to interpretation by the President, by the Secretary of Defense, by our commanders in the theaters of operation, by our troops in the field, by our friends and enemies around the world.

We need a bill that does at least two things. It should provide a clear set of guidelines consistent with American principles such as in our revised Army Field Manual; guidelines that apply to all U.S. Government personnel, on how to treat prisoners; guidelines that preserve our principles.

Second, it should include verification mechanisms to monitor how prisoners and detainees are treated. One of those mechanisms is already in use by police departments and prosecutors across the country: the videotaping of interrogations.

Videotaping has proven to be extremely effective at preventing not just abuse of detainees but also false allegations of abuse by detainees against their interrogators. The practice aids in interrogation, and it protects the enforcers, the prosecutors, the defendants and, hence, protects all of us. By not including such a provision in the bill, the drafters missed a real opportunity to ensure that we prevent serious problems in the future.

Last night in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment that would have replaced a few critical provisions of H.R. 6166 with text that Senators Warner, McCain, and Graham put forward two weeks ago emphatically supporting the principle that everyone, even detainees in Guantanamo, should be allowed to examine and respond to all evidence presented against them at trial. Of course, The Rules Committee denied Members the opportunity to vote on this and other amendments on the floor today.