Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to address the House on the matter of the three proposed trade agreements that we are about to consider, namely, Colombia, Peru and the Sultanate of Oman trade agreements.

Every Member of this body knows or should know the history of job loss in this country, and you would think, as my colleague from Texas said, that when you find yourself in a hole, you would stop digging, but not us. Here we go again.

Just like the other so-called free trade agreements, the Colombia, Peru and Oman trade agreements contain no meaningful language or effective labor or environmental standards for workers in those countries. These so-called free trade agreements seek to reinforce the status quo in the host countries.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is identical language to the problematic and inadequate language that was contained in CAFTA and NAFTA before that.

Instead of enforceable labor provisions with teeth, these free trade agreements suggest only that those Nations adopt and enforce their own labor laws. They offer no assurance that existing labor problems will be resolved, and they allow labor laws to be weakened or eliminated in the future, with no possibility of recourse.

Now, some may wonder why the President and the administration chose these three countries for the next round of free trade agreements. It seems to me, after looking at the agreements, the Bush administration went out to the nations with the very worst examples of labor laws, protections and enforcement in the world, and some of the well- documented and more troubling aspects of these agreements consist. First of all, in Colombia, in 2004, over 200 trade unionists were killed, making it the most dangerous country in the world for workers seeking to exercise their freedom to form unions. More than 3,000 union members have been killed in Colombia since 1985, and only five people have been indicted in those cases.

In Peru, the U.S. State Department has indicated that child labor remains a serious problem. This is our own U.S. State Department. They estimate that 2.3 million children between the ages of 6 and 17 are engaged in work in that country. Now, when we talk about free trade, that is not free trade. That is asking the American worker to compete with children who are being paid very low wages and being exploited in these other countries.

In Oman, their 2003 labor laws remain in serious violation of the International Labor Organization's most important and fundamental rights: freedom of association and the right to organize and bargain collectively. There are no independent unions in that country.

Mr. Speaker, while trade sanctions and serious remedies are granted to the commercial trade and investment provisions of these free trade agreements, the labor and environmental standards are totally ineffectual.

It is interesting to me that the negotiators can get good protections for intellectual property rights and other commercial rights, but when it comes to labor and environmental standards, it is just not happening.

I want to address the House especially within the context of the immigration problem that we are running up against in recent days. We have folks that are tunneling into our country from Mexico. They are swimming across rivers. They are hiding in containers from foreign countries and dying in the process of trying to get here, number one, to get out of the countries that they are in because they are in a troubled state and they know they have got no rights; secondly, to give their families hope in coming here.

It seems to me, if we wanted to stop some of the immigration problems, we could include in our trade agreements provisions that protect those workers in their own countries. Then maybe they would not be lining up to come to this country with hopes of getting out of that situation.

Secondly, we also talk a lot that we have got a major effort in Iraq, and the President of the United States has described it in many cases as an effort to export democracy. Well, I have got news for you; you do not export democracy through the Defense Department.

This is where you export democracy, in our trade agreement, through our Commerce Department. Democracy is all about opportunity, and we should in our trade agreements give these foreign workers an opportunity to stay in their own country, to buy goods from us that would create a good dynamic by creating jobs in this country. Democracy is about opportunity, and if we are really serious about exporting democracy, it starts right here. It starts with our free trade agreements.

This is just a terrible series of trade agreements. It offers no opportunities to these foreign workers. We are going to exacerbate the immigration problem because, as long as these people do not have a right to earn a decent living and have decent working conditions in their own country, they are still going to be coming here.

So we can help on two fronts by adopting fair labor standards in our trade agreements, and I urge my colleagues to reject the Peru, Colombian and Oman trade agreements.

Mr. Speaker, today around the country we see rising prices for American consumers at the pump and for heating costs at home. As the price of gas has doubled, profits for Big Oil and gas companies have tripled, and while at the same time American families' incomes have remained stagnant.

Instead of additional handouts to big oil companies, we need to take steps to keep gas prices down. Simply put, we need to crack down on price gouging.

The Democrats have a good idea on this one. Congressman Stupak from Michigan has an anti-price-gouging bill that will not only address the issue of price gouging, but will also give Federal agencies the authority to prosecute oil companies engaged in such practices involving gasoline, home heating oil, and natural gas.

That is why I urge the Republican leadership to do the right thing. Bring this legislation to the floor. The American people cannot afford to wait any longer, and this Congress needs to act.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the lobbying reform proposal drafted by the Republican leadership in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other recent instances of corruption by public officials is woefully lacking in many respects; but chief among them, however, is its failure to address the central weakness and the most corrosive aspect of the current lobbying rules, and that has proven to be this revolving door aspect we have heard so much about today, which involves public sector congressional folks, employees, going over to work for special interest groups. In the most recent instance with the Abramoff scandal, we had staffers for the former Republican leader going over to work for Abramoff.

However, the need to impose greater restrictions on the flow between key legislative and executive branch policymaking posts and business and lobbying firms was never more evident than during the days following the passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug Act. That was an absolute disgrace. We came to find out that the former chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee had taken the top job at the pharmaceutical industry's most powerful trade group only a couple of months after he had played an instrumental role in the bill's development and promotion.

We came to find out only days after passage of the Medicare act that the administration's chief congressional negotiator on the bill had landed a job at a top lobbying firm representing drug companies and health care providers with major stakes in the legislation.

As has been pointed out, that legislation has a provision that says the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not negotiate lower drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies. Then one of the chief drafters of the bill goes to work for the pharmaceutical companies. It weakens our credibility as an institution here. Not only were seniors robbed, but also I think that the insurance companies were allowed to greatly benefit as a result of this revolving door situation, and we must correct it.

Madam Speaker, we have to stop the partisan bickering here. The American people need our help. I am sure we are all aware of the effects and hardships that $3-a-gallon gas prices are having on average American citizens and their families. It amounts to a huge tax increase. And the saddest part of this fiasco is that much of this price increase is the result of mere speculation. It is, therefore, preventable.

We, the Democrats, have an answer which will provide immediate relief to American families. It is H.R. 3936 offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). It would regulate and put an end to the process of price gouging. We have been trying to get this bill passed for some time.

For once we need to forget about the rich oil companies and record profits and tax cuts for the oil companies. That needs to go away. We need to start remembering the American people who need our help. The Republican leadership needs to realize this economy is going in the toilet as a result of this administration's economic policies and millions of American families are suffering. We need to pass the Stupak anti-price-gouging bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and honor that I rise today to pay tribute to Sergeant Richard Francis Litto, United States Marine Corps and a resident of South Boston, MA.

Upon graduation from South Boston High School in 1976, Sergeant Litto joined the Marine Corps Active Reserve Unit. In 1990, Richie was called to active duty in Operation Desert Shield and assigned to the Military Police Criminal Investigations Division. During his tenure in Desert Shield, Richie received several accolades for his exemplary work ethic. One in particular, The Meritorious Mast, was awarded to Richie for his outstanding service.

Richie's next tour came in 2005, as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom where he was again asked to serve his country. Richie was activated in June of that year as a member of the 6th Civil Affairs Group (CAG), 2nd Marine Division of the United States Marine Corps. During this tour Richie was on a 137 ``outside the wire mission,'' where he and his fellow members of the CAG Division worked on the streets of Fallujah, Amiriyah, and Zaidon protecting the citizens of Iraq from enemy insurgents.

Due to his exemplary service Richie was given Gunnery Sergeant responsibilities with E5 status, which any Marine knows is an amazing accomplishment and honor. Throughout his service in the United States Marine Corps, Richie Litto has been decorated with numerous awards. He has been awarded the Iraqi Campaign Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Medal, Good Conduct Ribbon, Combat Action Ribbon and the National Defense Ribbon on several occasions.

On a personal note, I have had the pleasure of counting Richie Litto among my dearest friends for most of my life. Recently, as part of a Congressional Delegation that visited Iraq and Afghanistan I had the opportunity to visit with Richie while he was stationed at Camp Mercury in Fallujah and tell him in person how proud we were of his service to our country.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House of Representatives today to join with Richie's wonderful family, friends, and brothers and sisters in the Marines and thank him for a job well done and welcome him home. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating Richie Litto's many accomplishments and all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Mr. Norman C. Spector of Stoughton, MA for his outstanding contributions to the New England Sinai Hospital. A graduate of Harvard Law School, Mr. Spector began his career as a law clerk in the firm of Burns & Levinson. Throughout the years, he has risen in his profession to become co-chairman of the Business Law Section and the Finance Group.

Mr. Spector has acted both as a lawyer and board member during his involvement with the New England Sinai Hospital. Shortly after being hired by Burns & Levinson, he was assigned to work on the bylaws of the hospital. In 1981 he became a board member, and, in 1985, Mr. Spector represented New England Sinai Hospital in the landmark right-to-die case of Paul Brophy.

In 1993, Mr. Spector became Chairman of the Sinai Board of Directors. His intense interest in the welfare of the Hospital, his outstanding leadership abilities, as well as his keen understanding of the changing, challenging and sometimes chaotic issues surrounding healthcare led him to administer the Board successfully until 1999 when he stepped down as chairman.

When he is not practicing law or volunteering for health-care related non-profit organizations, Mr. Spector is a dedicated family man. Mr. Spector lives with his wife, Joyce, in Beverly, MA. He is the proud father of two daughters, Sharon and Joanne, and the equally enthused grandfather of one grandson.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to join with Mr. Spector's family, friends, and colleagues in honoring him for the important work he has done over the years for the New England Sinai Hospital. I urge my colleagues to congratulate him for a lifetime of distinguished achievement and to thank him for the important service he has provided to his community, his family and the New England Sinai Hospital.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from Maryland on their leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I have offered simply requests that the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy ask the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study to examine certain aspects of iatrogenic addiction, which is associated with prescription drugs like OxyContin.

Back in September, our Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs For Government Reform held a field hearing in Boston and it regarded the regulation of prescription drugs such as OxyContin. One of the primary concerns raised at those hearings by the experts was that they testified that the lack of information on the addictiveness of these type of drugs has created a great problem in society.

For this reason, the amendment calls for a study that would first look at the rate and impact of iatrogenic addiction; that is, addiction to properly prescribed prescription drugs, which is associated with the use of prescription drugs like OxyContin.

Iatrogenic addiction is addiction which occurs as a result of prescribed medical care. These are the accidental addicts, who, through no fault of their own, become hopelessly addicted to drugs like OxyContin, and in effect these individuals become customers for life.

Because there are some legitimate medicinal uses for some of these painkillers, it is increasingly difficult to balance the need of those people who are desperately in need of these drugs, to try to balance that against the problems of addiction. For this reason, it is necessary to have the information on addictiveness of drugs associated with iatrogenic addiction, including OxyContin.

I want to relate briefly, Mr. Chairman, a story of a young woman, and this is just one example of thousands, a young woman in my district from a good family who went to the dentist's office with tooth pain.

After the tooth extraction, she was given a prescription of OxyContin, and, after completing that, exhausting that prescription, she went back again for an additional prescription. Sometime thereafter, she went back in, complaining of additional tooth pain and had another tooth extracted, and again was given another prescription of OxyContin. It happened a third time.

To make a long story short, I met this young woman during an effort to create a detox center in my district, and she confesses now in rehab that she had become addicted to the first couple of prescriptions and she went back, falsely claiming tooth pain, just so she could get additional prescriptions for OxyContin. She became hopelessly addicted to OxyContin through no fault of her own.

Another observation in my own district, it is quite common, traveling to pharmacies in the malls or drugstores in my local downtown area, it is not uncommon to see big signs in the front windows of my pharmacies that say, ``We do not carry OxyContin on the premises.'' In other words, please don't rob us.

There have been so many robberies trying to acquire this drug of addicts that now the pharmacies are just saying we don't carry it on the premises, do not rob us. I think it is a sad statement of the addictive quality of this drug and also our inability to police it.

At this point, there are no studies that help us understand why certain people become addicted, while others don't, to drugs like OxyContin. By conducting this study, we will be better able to understand how the brain interacts with this drug.

Secondly, the study will look at the relative addictiveness of prescription drugs such as OxyContin when compared with other pain killers as well as other controlled substances under Schedule I and Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Souder and Mr. Cummings again for their leadership on this effort. I think they too are shining examples of bipartisanship on an issue that is very important to the American people.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the last two points in closing: we have had to in my district open up two brand-new adolescent, one adolescent boys facility to deal with this problem and one adolescent girls facility.

I have extensive waiting lists at both facilities trying to deal with this problem. I think that somewhere down the line we have to address the fundamental question in this country about how addictive, how addictive are we going to let drugs become that are sold over the counter commercially. Because, eventually, we have to realize that there is a commercial advantage to selling an addictive drug.

And those drug companies, they are creating customers for life here who have no other alternative.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the dedication of Detective John F. Gillespie of the Boston Police Department. Upon his recent retirement, I wish to praise John for his thirty-five years of devoted service to the city of Boston.

John joined the Boston Police Department on October 7, 1970 and was first assigned to District Two in Roxbury. After more than two years of exemplary service, he was assigned to the Tactical Patrol Force (TPF), which patrolled the various neighborhoods of Boston.

John's next assignment was to District Eleven in Dorchester, where he received several letters of commendation during his tenure. One in particular was awarded to John for his courageous apprehension of a man wielding a shotgun.

In 1985, he moved to the position of Information Officer, which worked directly with the Boston Police Commissioners Office. After three years of service John was promoted to Detective and assigned to the Intelligence Unit, which is designated to dignitary protection. In this position he coordinated with Federal and State agencies in order to protect various heads of state as well as United States presidents.

John Gillespie is a remarkable gentleman with a long and illustrious career with the Boston Police Department. John's personal integrity, hard work and determination illustrate the best characteristics of those who work to protect and serve us all.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to join with John's family, friends, and fellow officers on the Boston Police Department to thank him for his service. Additionally, I think we all would like to congratulate him on his much deserved retirement. I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating John Gillespie's distinguished career and thank him for a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this so-called victory in Iraq resolution, and I do so for two central reasons.

Firstly and procedurally, it is unusual for a resolution which purports to set forth a congressional directive for our military in wartime to be so vague. Notable is the absence of any definition section in this bill. On its face, the resolution commits the Congress and the American people to ``victory in Iraq,'' but no where does it define or attempt to explain what that term means. No where does it set forth the conditions under which an objective observer could determine what number of Iraqi forces must be in place or what functions they must undertake before we begin the withdrawal of U.S. troops which leads me to my second reason for opposing the resolution.

This resolution is essentially a stay-the-course resolution that blindly supports an open-ended commitment to continue to send and keep our sons and daughters in uniform in Iraq and to write a blank check to continue pumping billions of dollars into that country

without requiring anything of the new Iraqi Government.

Moreover, this resolution does not allow us to fulfill the constitutional oversight responsibilities of this Congress. It says we need to stay in until the Iraqis stand up. That is rhetoric. We owe the American people better than this.

I am concerned that this resolution may have been offered to position people on either side of the aisle. I support our troops, as we all do, both sides of the aisle. We share that. We also share the heavy responsibility to ensure that our people do not stay in Iraq one minute longer than is required, and this bill does not allow an objective observer or any Member of this Congress to determine when that point is reached, when that point occurs.

With the Iraqi elections yesterday, an enormous success did occur. We have entered that phase of this war that we must ask how much more can we do for the Iraqi people as an occupying force. We must ask whether our presence in Iraq is undermining the stability we hope to provide. At some point, we all have to stop the politics on this issue.

I agree with the gentleman from Ohio, it is not good for America. It is not good for the best Americans, those men and women who are in uniform in Iraq and for their families who are carrying the heaviest burden for all of us.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the great city of Worcester, Massachusetts, for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on H.R. 3199, the so-called USA PATRIOT Act, because we have not taken meaningful steps to eliminate or correct the most egregious sections of this act.

In particular, it is disappointing that the conference agreement does not include a meaningful judicial review mechanism for FISA wiretaps, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as applied against U.S. citizens.

Given that the power that today's surveillance technology gives to government and given the broad powers that we have given to intelligence agencies under this act, the absence of post-execution judicial review in today's conference report constitutes one of its most critical shortcomings.

Madam Speaker, in order to ensure that the powers granted by the PATRIOT Act are not susceptible to abuse, our government must always operate with meaningful oversight, checks and balances.

After all, it is the maximum transparency and active judicial review which is our ultimate weapon in combating both governmental abuse and overreaching by governments to restrict the individual freedoms of our citizens.

For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to oppose the this version of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 40th Anniversary of the American Community Health Center Movement which began in Dorchester, Massachusetts in my home district with the founding of the Columbia Point Community Health Center in 1965.

Development of health centers in the mid 1960s was fueled by the lack of primary care doctors practicing in urban and rural areas across the country. In 1961 more than 60 percent of Boston physicians had their offices located in hospitals. As a result, two Boston-based physician- activists, H. Jack Geiger and Count Gibson of Tufts Medical School, were determined to address both the lack and nature of primary care in Boston's neighborhoods. Working with residents in the Columbia Point neighborhood of Dorchester, these pioneering physicians helped to organize a new community-based model of primary care. Today this site is known as the Geiger-Gibson Community Health Center and still provides over 6,000 residents of Harbor Point and Dorchester with access to world-class health care.

Since the 1960s, community health centers have grown into the largest unified primary care network in the United States. Today, we have over 1,000 community health centers nation-wide, with a total of 53 in Massachusetts alone. In my own district, I am honored to represent 12 community health centers that ably serve the families of the Ninth Congressional District of Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, community health centers are pioneers in working to reduce health disparities among racial minorities and in recognizing the primary socio-economic factors that help determine health status: the lack of educational and economic opportunity, and substandard housing. They continue this work today, serving 677,000 patients in Massachusetts and 15 million nationally.

The community health center model was revolutionary in another aspect of its mission: community governance. The belief that community members could play a direct role in improving their life circumstances, including health status, was the basis of what we call the ``American Community Health Center Movement.'' The early health centers sprung from ``kitchen table discussions'' among mothers and fathers and community members about the need for primary care in their neighborhoods. In 2005, health center boards of directors continue to be driven by community members who use their local community health center.

Mr. Speaker, today in this country, we have over 45 million individuals without any sort of health insurance living in both rural and urban areas; accordingly, we need Community Health Centers and the essential services they provide now more than ever. I ask that my Colleagues in the House of Representatives join me in congratulating the entire Community Health Center Movement on 40 years of helping to reduce health disparities among our most vulnerable populations through the provision of high quality, compassionate and cost-effective primary health care.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a friend and constituent from the 9th Congressional District of Massachusetts, Mrs. Shirley McIntyre, who passed away on Friday September 23, 2005. Born Shirley Powers, she was formerly a South Boston resident before moving to the neighboring town of Dorchester. In 1956, Shirley married George McIntyre, her beloved husband of 49 years and they had five beautiful children: Darlene, Daniel, Shirley, Vanessa, and the late William.

Shirley was a devoted mother and grandmother who nurtured and guided her family as well as many of the children in her neighborhood and local community. She was a dedicated wife who spent her time with her children and beloved husband George, a retired Local 7 Iron worker who loved Shirley with all his heart.

Mr. Speaker, Shirley McIntyre will be fondly remembered not only by her family, which includes eight grandchildren, three great grandchildren, and many nieces and nephews; but also by the many friends who were touched by her kindness and unconditional love.

On a personal note, throughout my tenure in public service both as a member of the Massachusetts State House and in the United States Congress, I have had the unique opportunity and pleasure to see first hand Shirley's commitment to her family and community. Shirley's willingness to be involved with her neighborhood and local political process is a testament to her endless devotion to family and friends.

Today, I ask the Membership of the House of Representatives to join with me in offering our deepest condolences to the McIntyre family for their loss. We will all miss Shirley as a shining example to her family and community.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the measure before us today. Specifically, I stand in this House to condemn the language in this bill which would prohibit faith-based organizations, our churches, my church, our temples and synagogues and mosques, from helping the homeless by providing housing for the thousands of families in this country who are either homeless or in shelters or forced to live in substandard housing.

Under the express terms of this manager's amendment, nonprofit groups that engage in voter participation activities will be prohibited from applying for a grant under the affordable housing fund. I am frustrated as well with the whole process here because my friend and colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) was denied the opportunity to offer an amendment to strike these egregious provisions.

In this day and age when we are beset by major crises such hurricanes Katrina and Rita and Wilma, which have destroyed literally hundreds of thousands of homes across the southern part of this country, it is no time to shackle the hands of our nonprofit, faith-based organizations from doing what Americans have always taken pride in, and that is helping their neighbor.

While like most Members I deeply respect the separation of church and State in matters of worship and the freedom to practice religion without government influence, there has always been in this country a recognition, at least until now, that we have faith-based institutions; and when they have sought to provide basic assistance, such as food for the hungry and health care for the sick and elderly and housing for the homeless, free of any effort to persuade or proselytize, they are in the business of solely reducing suffering, and we have recognized the goodness in that.

That would end today if the manager's amendment succeeds. We would have a departure in this country from that long tradition, and for those reasons I oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the plaque dedication for the USS Elokomin, AO, an auxiliary oiler of the United States Navy whose keel was laid on March 9, 1943 and--served our Nation with honor until its decommission in March of 1970. I am here to honor the men who served on the Elokomin and to celebrate the 62nd anniversary of this extraordinary vessel.

The USS Elokomin served with distinction and received numerous Naval commendations for her service. During World War II, the Elokomin was more heavily armed than a destroyer-escort, having one 5-inch 38 caliber dual-purpose gun, four 3-inch 50 caliber dual-purpose guns, four 40-millimeter twin-mount guns and eight 20-millimeter guns.

However, the story of the Elokomin is really the story of the men who served aboard her. The USS Elokomin, AO-50 Crewmembers Association was established in the 1980s and it is my understanding that since its first reunion in 1986, the Association has met regularly to keep the memory of this ship and her crew alive. These men and their families should be proud of their commitment not only to our country but also to each other. Their dedication and loyalty is commendable.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with the veterans, their family and friends who will gather later this month for a celebration and dedication of the USS Elokomin at the Navy Memorial here in Washington, DC. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating this distinguished ship and the men who so ably served aboard her to defend this Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 22. This will be the first major postal reform bill to receive our consideration in 35 years. I would like to, obviously, credit the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the subcommittee chairman, for their great work as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from

California (Mr. Waxman), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for all of the great work they have done.

But I would be remiss if I did not mention the number of other people who have worked so hard on this, namely, the postal employees themselves who have been very active in this whole process, including the leadership of the American Postal Workers Union, the National Letter Carriers Union, and the National Mail Handlers Union who have been active and committed to this whole process.

All of us will remember in the days and weeks following September 11, we had a series of anthrax attacks conducted through the U.S. mail system. Tragically, among the victims of these attacks were included the lives of two of our postal workers, Joseph Curseen, Jr., and Thomas Morris, Jr., at the Brentwood facility in the D.C. area.

At that time, all of our postal workers, every clerk, every mail handler, was faced with a difficult choice, and that choice was to continue to come to work every day in a very difficult environment caused by anthrax exposure, and perhaps even endangering their families; or staying away from work and thereby risking the stability of our own economy and upsetting the flow of commerce and shaking the confidence of the American people.

The American postal workers, every clerk, every carrier, every mail handler chose to come to work under those conditions. They came here because they felt it was their particular patriotic duty to do so. H.R. 22 takes note of their service and regards postal employees as partners and a great asset toward affecting postal reform.

Notably, this bill does not seek to curtail essential worker rights, it does not reduce worker protections with respect to collective bargaining, and it deserves our support. I ask only that we resist any amendments that would weaken this bill.