Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and thank her for her leadership on this issue.

I also want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for his leadership, his passion for history, his leadership on behalf of the legacy of Constantino Brumidi in joining with me in urging the Stamp Advisory Commission to issue a United States postage stamp honoring Constantino Brumidi.

Mr. Speaker, all Americans of all faiths, of all backgrounds, of all experiences who come to this citadel of democracy are inspired by the legacy of Constantino Brumidi. All of us are influenced by him. I was just walking through the corridors of the Capitol, and this is a very busy, very crowded place. And everyone who comes to the Capitol today and during these weeks has no choice but to look at the work of Constantino Brumidi, to be affected and influenced by it.

Constantino Brumidi epitomizes the greatest democratic values that our country offers to the world: a sense of strength, a sense of pride, a sense of hope, the sense that one can come here with nothing and create an enduring and permanent legacy of their values.

Constantino Brumidi captures not just the history that we view in his works in the Capitol, but he also sends us a critical message about our future, our collective future. What he tells us in his work is that this is a special place in the world, that one can come to America and work hard, they can reach the literal zenith of their profession, and in that workforce all the rest of us can look up at what they have done. That is something that should not be taken for granted.

I would suggest that only in America could Constantino Brumidi's works be as cherished as they are. Only in America could his work force all the rest of us to look up at what he has done, and only in America could people from all faiths and backgrounds be so influenced and inspired by what he has done. That is the true lesson of Constantino Brumidi. He does not capture the past. He tells us that the best is yet to come.

So I support this resolution. I thank the gentlewoman and gentleman from Florida, and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans began this week when one Member accused the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), me, and Democrats in general of being anti-Christian. The gentleman retracted his comments.

They are ending this week with Karl Rove characterizing Democrats as weak in responding to 9/11 and endangering our troops. He needs to retract his remarks.

My district is 40 miles from Ground Zero. Democrats and Republicans died in that rubble. Democrats and Republicans are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Rove dishonors them by politicizing 9/11. He dishonors our troops by dividing them at a time of war.

Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago or 3 weeks ago we had the Armed Services markup on the defense authorization. Democrats offered amendment after amendment to strengthen our troops, better force protection, deeper investments, better quality of life for their families. Republicans opposed those amendments because we could not afford it. They said that the tax cuts that Mr. Rove engineered were more important.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rove must repudiate his comments. The President must ask Mr. Rove to repudiate his comments. This is the first administration that I know of that is every day seeking to divide the American people during a time of war.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I have the privilege of serving with the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) on the Committee on Armed Services, and it is a privilege to work with them.

I offered a very similar amendment during the authorization process. The chairman asked if I would withdraw that amendment so we could work together, and I did that in the spirit of bipartisanship and good faith.

But now we are being told, let us not work together, let us wait. We cannot wait any longer.

The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) said we are trying to scrub religion from public places. On the contrary. We are not doing that. The language of the Obey amendment explicitly says the expression of personal religious faith is welcome in the United States military. That is the line we are drawing.

Mr. Chairman, the Constitution of the United States, which we have sworn to protect and defend, guarantees religious freedom and talks about the need. We were founded as a diverse country based on tolerance. We take the oath to the Constitution. We ask the Members of the military to take the same oath and fight to protect and defend the Constitution.

For over 1 year there have been persistent reports that religious freedom and constitutional protections have not been respected at the Air Force Academy, cadets forced to mark on heathen flight lines, cadets being given and denied privileges based on a religious view, cadets encouraged to tell other cadets they will burn in hell if they do not embrace a certain view. When the Air Force attempted a review and corrective action, it was diluted. When a Lutheran chaplain complained it was diluted, she was dismissed.

Mr. Chairman, even the superintendent of the Air Force, someone I have a very high regard and respect for, has said these reports keep him up at night and they may take 6 years to fix. As I said before, we have a constitutional civilian oversight responsibility for the military, and we are being told today do not take a position, let the Air Force investigate itself; and at that point Congress should weigh in.

Here is the problem with that: this has been going on for over a year. Congress has done nothing.

The appropriations bill will pass tonight. After tonight, it will be too late for Congress to take a position on this issue. The principal vehicle of funding for the military will have passed and the opportunity to defend tolerance, respect, and religious pluralism and freedom will have passed us by.

Delaying is not a matter of fairness. Delaying is a matter of delay. It is a matter of complicity. If the House Armed Services Committee cannot exercise its full constitutional oversight responsibility on this issue, why are we in existence?

My chairman knows that I have been a stalwart supporter of the military on every amendment, every bill, supporting more resources for the military, more investments, increasing end strength, because I want the military to be able to protect and defend the Constitution at home and abroad and I want it to respect the Constitution and embrace the personal expression of religious view at its own home. That is why I rise to support the Obey amendment, and that is why I oppose the Hunter amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, the words that we heard, as unfortunate and as hurtful as they were, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) says, testimony for the passage of our amendment.

I have never heard it suggested that by somehow saying that with a personal expression of religious observance and freedom, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wrote in his amendment, as I included in my amendment, could somehow be characterized in the way it just was.

And, Mr. Chairman, I will just state for the record, with respect to the Air Force Academy, by one estimate, of the 117 Academy cadets, staff members and faculty members who complained about religious intimidation and proselytizing, eight happened to be Jewish, one happens to be atheist, 10 happen to be Catholic, and all of the rest happen to be Protestants.

So this is not being for or against any one faith, I would say to the gentleman. This is about respect for all faiths. And that is why we offer this amendment, and that is why we believe now more than ever that it is critical that it be passed, and that the American people know that we embrace religious viewpoints in our military, but we also want respect for the spiritual values of all people.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I respect the passion and force the gentleman from New Jersey brings to the fight against coercive abortions in China, but this is not about coercive abortions in China. This is about saving lives in Sri Lanka and Indonesia and areas that have been devastated by the tsunami.

I was in Sri Lanka only a few months after the tsunami. I was in a maternity hospital that was ravaged by the first wave. That region has lost its capacity for maternal health care. It has lost its nurses, its doctors, its midwives, its entire maternity health care infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, 150,000 women scheduled to give birth after the tsunami, they need help. The UNFPA is one of the only agencies of its kind that can provide that help. It does not make sense for us to abandon the lives of newborn babies and their mothers in tsunami- affected areas because of what we do not like happening in China. The two issues are not at all related.

We have an opportunity. This is something we can agree on, and that is maternal health care and reproductive health care, and saving lives in areas that desperately need it.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor three organizations: the American Airpower Museum, the Discovery Network's Military Channel, and Cablevision. Each of these organizations has taken tremendous time and effort to pay tribute to and acknowledge Long Island women who have served in the military. They have shown their deep appreciation for servicewomen by supporting a recent event that honored Long Island women who have served in the military.

Women have played a crucial, role in our country's military history. They have served both on the home front and in combat throughout World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Operation Desert Storm and now, in our ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over the last century, the contributions made to our nation's military forces by women are immeasurable. From the medics and support personnel of World War II, to the women currently serving in combat abroad, our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have been increasingly reliant on the heroism and leadership of our women in uniform. These esteemed women deserve to be recognized for their bravery and dedication and for the sacrifices they have made for our country.

For this reason, I commend both Long Island women who have served in the military and those who have made the effort to acknowledge their commitment, particularly, the American Airpower Museum, the Discovery Network's Military Channel, and Cablevision. It is crucial to take the time to recognize those who have made great sacrifices for our country.

Once again, I commend and hold in the highest esteem the women who have served in the military along with these three organizations that have taken the time and effort to acknowledge these women who have played such a crucial role in our country's history.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Virginia in a colloquy regarding the American Corners Program.

Mr. Chairman, the American Corners Program are partnerships between the Public Affairs sections of U.S. Embassies and host institutions. They provide access to current and reliable information about the U.S. via book collections, the Internet, and through local programming to the general public.

Sponsored jointly by a U.S. Embassy and a host country organization, an American Corner serves as an information outpost, similar to a public library reference service. The multi-media book and periodical collections are open and accessible. Associated reading or meeting rooms are made available to host program events and activities, like author readings, films, speaker programs, workshops, meetings, and exhibits.

Recently, a Pakistani official, Hussain Hakanni, told me about his experience at an American library in Pakistan as a young boy. One day he met the U.S. Ambassador and he beat the Ambassador in a game of Trivial Pursuit. When the Ambassador asked him how long he had been in the United States, he responded, I have never been to your country. I have visited your libraries. Today, he is a strong ally for the United States in a region where we need strong allies.

This program was his first contact with America, and it succeeded in doing what we are today struggling to do with youth in that corner of the world, winning hearts and minds. That is why I support the American Corners program, and I hope to work with Chairman Wolf as this bill progresses to ensure strong support for this important international program.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Wolf for his bipartisanship.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the students from Half Hollow Hills High School in Dix Hills, New York for their hard work in the ``We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution'' national finals.

The students, Jason Albert, Matt Bernstein, Bryan Cowan, Jennifer Crupi, Arielle Davidsohn, Danielle Gold, Chelsea Gordon, Brittnay Hershkowitz, Joelle Lichtman, Priya Murthy, Lindsay Nussbaum, Liz Oren, Josh Parker, Sylvia Qu, Beth Reisfeld, Dan Roberts, Jill Rubino, Alida Salins, Aaron Schwartz, Ben Seleznow, Jen Signet, Soyoon Sung, Jessica Wasserman, Matt Young, and Jen Zhao, led by their teacher Scott Edwards, demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the fundamental ideals and values of American constitutional government.

It is truly an honor to call these outstanding young Americans my constituents. Their success in the competition is also a testament to the excellent teachers at Half Hollow Hills East High School and elsewhere on Long Island.

I offer my congratulations on their hard-won honorable mention and commend these students on their dedication to the study of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to send the Congress's birthday wishes to Robert Hedger on the occasion of his 70th birthday celebration. Father to Matthew, Sarah, Adam, Douglas and Stephen--a valuable member of my personal staff--and grandfather to Allison, Jonathon, Samuel, Kristina and Sarah, Robert has brought a wonderful family into this world. I offer my best wishes for continued good health and good fortune for he and his family and for many more gatherings such as that which he will hold this Memorial Day weekend when he will be surrounded by his loved ones at his home in Corea, Maine.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross). The gentleman and I were elected in the same class, in 2000. I thank the gentleman for his leadership for so ably representing the conservative values of his district. I do not agree with every one of his positions, but nobody advocates more fearlessly for the interests of his district than the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis). I am honored to be on the floor with both of them this evening.

The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) noted that I am from New York, from Long Island, New York. One of the wisest decisions that I ever made in coming to Congress with the gentleman was to join the Blue Dogs. And,

in fact, most of the Blue Dogs do come from the South. I am probably the only Blue Dog who speaks with a distinct New York accent. Sometimes we need a translator to figure each other out.

But it really does not matter whether you are from the Deep South or the south shore of Long Island. What binds Blue Dogs are principally two issues: Number one, a sense of fiscal responsibility. We believe that we ought to play by the same rules on the floor of the House that every American family has to play by at their kitchen tables. You have got to balance the books. Those folks do not have the ability to simply print money in their basements. They have got to balance their books. They have got to reconcile their checkbooks. We believe the same.

The second thing that we believe is that we have got to have a strong and robust military, something I agree with passionately.

Now, I have the privilege of serving with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) on the Armed Services Committee. There are only two New Yorkers who serve on the Armed Services Committee. I am the only New York Democrat on that committee. And I call myself a Harry Truman Democrat. I believe in a strong and robust defense. I spend most of my time on this floor in this Congress thinking about how to keep our country stronger and safer. And what I want to talk about just for a few minutes this evening is the linkage between this $7 trillion debt and our national security, our national defense, because this figure does not make us stronger in the long run.

Think about what happened on the floor of the House just a few hours ago. We spent the day debating a Defense authorization approaching $500 billion. And at the end of that debate, our Blue Dog colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), stood up and suggested that we make a simple, but important, change in the budget that was about to pass. He said to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, it does not matter whether you are Republican or Democrat; let us do the right thing for our Guard and Reserves. Let us provide them with health care. Let us not tell a single American Guard or Reservist that if you are going to go fight for us in Iraq or Afghanistan, 40 percent of our military in Iraq, Guard and Reserve, if you are going to do that, when you come home we are not going to abandon you, abandon your families with respect to health care. If you need health care, we will take care of it. If you are willing to sacrifice yourself for us, we are willing to take care of your health care, your health insurance, not just while you are fighting, but after.

And what was the response that we heard? It is the same response that we hear time after time after time on the floor of the House. It is not that anybody is against our Guard and Reserve. It is not that anybody is against providing health care for our military. It is just that we cannot afford it because of this number.

Mr. Ross. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Israel. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Ross. The gentleman is telling us that we, tonight, the majority in this Chamber refused to provide health insurance every day of the week, every week of the month, every month of the year for our men and women who have gone to Iraq, who are going to Iraq, or who have been to Iraq, because they said we could not afford it

Mr. Israel. That is exactly what happened.

Mr. Ross. And it was going to be a billion a year.

Mr. Israel. The gentleman is correct, a billion a year.

Mr. Ross. And this is the same crowd that gave us a budget this year that includes $106 billion in new tax cuts.

Mr. Israel. These are the Members of this body who argue that we can afford to make every single penny of tax cuts permanent, but we cannot afford to provide health care for Members of the National Guard and the Reserve who are fighting for survival around the world.

Mr. Ross. If the gentleman would yield, so what you are telling me is that the majority on the floor of the U.S. House this evening decided it was more important to maintain $106 billion in tax cuts and not provide health insurance year round for our Reservists and Guardsmen that have either been to Iraq, are going to Iraq, or just got back from Iraq or are in Iraq today. They were not willing to take $106 billion in tax cuts and make it $105 billion so they could take care of our men and women in uniform?

Mr. Israel. If the gentleman would yield, the gentleman is precisely correct. That is the decision that was made tonight. But it gets worse, because many of us on the Armed Services Committee approached our colleagues and said, you know, if somebody is willing to go to Iraq and they lose their life, we ought to be able to take care of their life insurance. We ought to pay for their life insurance.

The answer was, great idea, we cannot afford it. After all, we have a $7 trillion debt. Nobody ever says, we do not care about our troops; nobody ever says, we do not care about our military.

It all comes down to this: We used to have a $5.6 trillion surplus. Maybe in those days we could support our military and our military families, but now we have got into deep debt. We have got to make tough decisions so we can improve life insurance for our troops, our military families. We can pay a very modest amount in health care for our Guard and Reserve because of this debt, but also because we want to make sure we can make those tax cuts permanent. Now, that is fundamentally unfair. That is just bad priority.

Meanwhile, as we are telling our Guard and Reserves that we cannot afford their health care, which does not make us stronger, for 2 years, as we told military families that we could not take care of their life insurance, increase their life insurance, increase the death gratuity.

Meanwhile, we continue to engage in reckless fiscal policies with the enemies that we are told that we will have in the future, namely, the Chinese. Every time you have a briefing they tell you, you have to start worrying about China, but meanwhile we are allowing them to finance our debts.

So the adversaries that we are told we should worry about in the next few years are keeping the lights on in the House of Representatives, are running our Humvees in Iraq. How can you have a coherent national security policy when you have to rely on the adversaries that you expect to finance your Treasury, when they own 40 percent of your debt? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

The final point I want to make is this: This is bad enough. The decisions that are made on the floor of the House with respect to our military are bad enough, but think about what our children are going to have to deal with when they are here on the floor of the House, when they have to figure out how they are going to pay their taxes, balance their checkbooks.

We have a $2.5 trillion budget right now. In 10 years when my kids are approximately my age or approaching my age, think about what that budget is going to do to them. Their defense budget, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) probably knows this, will likely approach $600 billion. Interest on the debt which they have to pay will likely approach $500 billion. And everything else, whatever is left in the budget will be allocated to all of their needs, Social Security, and Medicare, the FBI, education, environmental protection, crime reduction.

That is an intolerable budget that we are inflicting on them.

One of the things that the Blue Dogs emphasize is our fundamental responsibility to be fiscally conservative, but to give our kids a better, safer, stronger world than we have today. What we are doing with these numbers, with these policies is raising our kids' taxes, straining their military, mortgaging them to our potential adversaries.

And I am reminded of the very profound words of one of our distinguished colleagues, another member of the Tennessee delegation, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), who last spring said to a gathering of Blue Dogs that no nation in the history of humankind has ever been strong, free and bankrupt.

If nothing else, our obligation in Washington, DC., in the administration, in the House of Representatives, is to put politics aside and agree to make sure that we are strong, free and not bankrupt. And all we have done

over the past several years is to strain our military, deny military families the basic, decent conditions they need, the health care they need, the life insurance they need; and end up owing more to the adversaries we are told to worry about more and more every day.

We have an obligation to treat our military families better, to treat our troops better, to treat our kids better. Thank goodness the Blue Dogs take that obligation seriously. I thank the gentleman for giving me this time.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Does the gentleman recall when the House of Representatives voted on the entire $2.5 trillion budget resolution?

And would the gentleman state how long Members of Congress actually had to read that $2.5 trillion budget?

Mr. Speaker, just one concluding point. This Blue Dog 12- point plan is not radical or inventive. It is what every American family has to abide by every single day. All this plan says is, we will play by the same rules that our businesses are supposed to play by and our families are supposed to play by. I do not know of a single American family that can just decide to go beyond their means and tell their bank, I want to borrow more. We should play by the same rules.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) for their stalwart leadership on fiscal responsibility and common sense.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this important bill.

I have met with constituents with afflictions such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, childhood leukemia, heart disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, diabetes, several cancers, spinal cord injuries, and other diseases, disorders and injuries. Embryonic stem cell research offers them hope.

I have also met with an amazing young woman named Brooke Ellison from Long Island. In 1990, when she was eleven years old, Brooke was hit by a car, which left her paralyzed from the neck down. Even with this hardship, she graduated from Harvard University in 2000, Harvard's Kennedy School of Government in 2004, and she is currently a Ph.D. candidate in political science at Stony Brook University. Her inspiring story was made into a movie on A&E and was directed by the late Christopher Reeves.

I have worked with her to raise public awareness of the importance of stem cell research, and under the Unanimous Consent agreement, I am including an essay that Brooke wrote on the issue in the Congressional Record.

As everyone here knows, on August 9, 2001, President Bush announced that embryonic stem cell research would be limited; he limited federal funds by limiting eligible lines for research.

Although scientists were expecting a big number of available lines, less than one third of the allowed 78 lines are available for distribution.

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act would expand research on embryonic stem cells by increasing the number of lines stem cells that would be eligible for federally funded research.

This bill should not be controversial. The bill ensures that strict ethical guidelines would be met: the embryos would have been donated with informed written consent and without any financial payment or other inducement to make the donation. These are embryos that will be discarded. Finally, the bill would not use any federal funds to derive the stem cells.

It is a good bill, but I wish this bill went further. There is still a need for other funding, because state or private funding would be needed to fund deriving the stem cells.

California and New Jersey have already set up funding sources for embryonic stem cell research, and a number of other states have announced intentions to fund this research. We must ensure that all entities can work together. Scientists still need funding for the aspects of research that the Federal government will not cover.

Today, I am introducing a resolution that expresses the sense of Congress that the Federal government should not infringe on states or private organizations that fund embryonic stem cell research. I hope that my colleagues will show support for all embryonic research, by supporting my resolution.

Many of us have family members suffering from devastating illnesses, and the prospect of helping them to be healthy and free of pain is a worthy goal. Make no mistake; this goal is what we are debating today.

Enticingly Close . . . Yet Painfully Far

(By Brooke Ellison)

The ability to view the world through another's eyes is the

essence of altruism. When putting their pens to the paper of

policy, those who legislate ought to take into keen

consideration the world as it is seen through others' eyes,

wrought with the problems they face and conditions they

endure. This is the basic tenet of a representative

democracy, the basic belief upon which the United States was

founded. Yet, despite this underlying and widely accepted

notion of several voices speaking on behalf of many, this

does not always appear to be the case and, in fact, those

making collective decisions can become inextricably linked to

their own, myopic ideology, failing to understand the

situations of others or hear their voices.

In September of 1990, when I was eleven years old, I was

hit by a car while walking home from my first day of 7th

grade. That accident left me paralyzed from my neck down and

dependent on a ventilator for every breath I take. Living as

a person with a physical disability or debilitating disease,

each day is a struggle. Tasks that, to others, might seem

mundane or be taken for granted are strenuous challenges,

sometimes taking long hours instead of mere minutes, causing

frustration both from what cannot be at present and potential

being lost in the future. When we place our hopes and visions

for our world into the hands of those making broad decisions,

we do it with the belief that they will act on behalf of our

best interest and not on an isolated viewpoint. To do

otherwise is bad policy. To undermine the interests of a

majority of citizens is bad policy. To ignore the voices and

dash the hopes of those most in need is bad policy. In the

context of stem cell research legislation, these are bad

policies, yet policies that are being upheld. This forces

millions to wonder things like, ``If I could be freed from

the confines of my physical condition, what a miracle it

would be.'' Or, ``If, for an entire day, I could once again

be completely whole and my body was somehow irrelevant, what

a renewed gift that would be.'' Or, maybe, ``If, for a single

moment, I could wrap my arms around those I love, what a

treasure that would be.'' And even, ``If, by some chance,

those making policy decisions might heed some of my recurrent

thoughts and change their stance on stem cell research, what

a potentially groundbreaking step it would be.'' The reality

is that, based on current federal legislation, these ``ifs''

likely won't change into ``thens''.

On August 9th, 2001, from his ranch in Crawford, Texas,

President Bush announced that he would significantly limit

federal funds to stem cell research, only agreeing to fund

research conducted on to stem cell lines already in existence

at the time. According to this limitation, federally

supported research could be done on no more than 78 existing

genetic cell lines, although even the most optimistic

estimates of viable cells were estimated to be far fewer,

less than two dozen. To the delight of some and the grief of

others, Mr. Bush indicated that the use of embryonic cells

for medical research was a violation of the sanctity of life,

analogous to abortion or euthanasia. In the President's own

words, ``I worry about a culture that devalues life, and

believe as your President I have an important obligation to

foster and encourage respect for life in America and

throughout the world. . . . Embryonic stem cell research

offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided

we must proceed with great care''. Despite millions of

testimonies and pleas to the contrary since that day, over

three years ago, the opinion of the administration has

remained constant and has not eased any restrictions. Despite

strides being made in other countries around the world in the

field of stem cell research, the U.S. government has remained

resolute in its opposition to it.

Research that holds so much promise for so many now remains

unsupported by the federal government. Similar to other

issues facing our nation today, the decision of whether or

not to fund embryonic stem cell research is now left in the

hands of the States, with the Legislatures and Governors

picking up where the U.S. Congress and President have left

off. California, with its Proposition 71, has been the most

recent State to make substantive progress on the issue,

passing a referendum to support research conducted in the

state. California joins New Jersey in leading the charge for

state-funded stem cell research. But the cause should not and

must not stop there, as two States out of our fifty is simply

not enough. With researchers, scientists, and human lives

waiting in the wings for advances, opportunity wasted is

opportunity lost.

Therapeutic stem cell research, also known as somatic cell

nuclear transfer, has the potential to provide cures for a

considerable number of neurological and degenerative

conditions, including Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's

disease, childhood leukemia, heart disease, ALS, several

different types of cancer, and spinal cord injuries. In its

most basic description, stem cells are the undifferentiated,

unspecialized cells that can be extracted from embryos in

their earliest stages of development, three to five days

after fertilization. The embryos, known in this initial

developmental form as blastocysts, contain only about 30

cells. Importantly, the cells taken from the blastocysts can

be placed in different conditions to become other types of

cells, such as heart muscle or nerve tissue, which can be

used to repair similar damaged tissue in children and

adults. The procedure has the potential to affect directly

the lives of nearly 100 million Americans who face

different conditions, equaling over one-third of the U.S.

population and more than the entire populations of New

York, California, Texas, and Florida, combined. As complex

as embryonic stem cell research is in its design, it is

equally so in its moral debate. Therapeutic stem cell

research can sometimes be confused with reproductive stem

cell procedures, such as genetic engineering, which have

sparked controversy in some political camps. The two types

of research differ considerably, though, both in terms of

procedure and intent, and represent two diverse ends on a

very long, complex spectrum--an understanding which often

goes ignored.

Well, some have argued, isn't using stem cells just the

destruction of one life for the sake of another? Aren't we

simply judging some lives as more important than others? To

hold such a belief is to view the world in black and white

terms, thereby ignoring the much more complex gray areas.

Yes, it is possible that, if a blastocyst, from where stems

cells are derived, were to be inserted into a womb and

allowed to grow for nine months there is the potential a life

could be born. However, that is not the case for any of the

blastocysts that yield stem cells that are used for research.

These blastocysts are those that will go unused after in

vitro fertilization procedures and will never be used to

bring about life. These blastocysts, which some proclaim

represent the sanctity of life, will only be kept in freezers

at fertility clinics until they have expired and then will be

discarded completely. Under current federal legislation, they

are of no use to anybody.

To rob the stem cells of their other potential of life,

which is to cure diseases or to help regenerate parts of the

body that are not regenerating on their own, is really to

devalue life in another, otherwise avoidable way.

Well, others have argued, isn't the work done on stem cells

just the same as cloning? Aren't these cells essentially

promoting the creation of another person? The once almost

incomprehensible, futuristic ideas of ``cloning'' and ``body-

doubles'' are now considered feasible and fearsome

possibilities, and therapeutic stem cell research has been

the unwitting victim of the prevalent fears. Orwell's 1984

has somehow come to life in 2004, with the speculations made

by some of about unintended, science-fiction consequences.

But, the connection between human reproduction and human

therapy is a foggy one at best. The real fear, though, is not

the potential of mad scientists reproducing people but the

lost potential of sound scientists curing people.

Fourteen years ago, I could have never imagined having to

advocate for something that could potentially restore for me

the very basic aspects of life and humanity. But, that is

something that no one should have to imagine. Science has

given medicine more promise than ever before, with the

potential

to heal and restore people in ways once unfathomable. Stem

cells, which would otherwise serve no other purpose, hold the

promise of life, not just for the newly born but now for the

already living and this opportunity must be seized. The time

is now. If the federal government chooses not to do it, then

the States must tend to it, themselves. The time has come

when we can change the lives of so many, giving to them the

fundamental parts of life and dignity.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend from New York for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise against this rule. I am very disappointed that my bipartisan amendment to restore funding for shoulder-fired missile protections was not permitted by this rule. The President of the United States requested $110 million for shoulder-fired missile research and development. The bill that we are going to vote on later today reduces it to $10 million.

Over the past several years, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), Republican chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, and I have been working on this issue. But it is not just the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and I. It is the State Department which released a report saying that shoulder-fired missiles are the leading cause of loss of life in commercial aviation around the world.

They were used in December of 2003 against an Israeli jetliner in Kenya. They were used a year later against a DHL carrier. We now know that the Internet is teaching terrorists how to buy shoulder-fired missiles, set them up, and fire them. There are hundreds of thousands of these systems available around the world in the hands of 27 separate terrorist groups including al Qaeda. Everyone who has studied this issue, the President, the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, the FBI, the CIA, the Aviation Subcommittee, the Committee on Appropriations, agrees that this threat needs to be addressed. And what does this bill do? Ignores the threat.

If a single shoulder-fired missile is fired at an American aircraft, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to be worried about $115 million in this bill. We

are going to be worried about the end of the aviation industry as we know it and devastating consequences to our economy and the American people will look at what we did on this floor today and ask why we turned our backs on the President's request, the State Department's urgency, the Committee on Appropriations, the Aviation Subcommittee, Republicans and Democrats, and, most importantly, the flying public.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. This was a commonsense bipartisan amendment. I will vote for the bill, but I am hopeful that we can work together on the basis of common sense and proceed to protect the American flying public.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the leadership and service of Rabbi Leonard Troupp, who is retiring after 18 years as the spiritual leader of Temple Beth David in Commack, New York.

All of us in Congress rely on many religious leaders in our communities for guidance and inspiration. But Rabbi Troupp transcends that role. For me, he has been and will continue to be a dear friend. I have turned to him as a Member of Congress, and I have turned to him as a member of his congregation. I have solicited his advice on the profound public policy challenges that confront our government, and I have listened to his words on the personal decisions and choices we make every day in our private lives.

Rabbi Leonard B. Troupp was ordained by the Hebrew Union College- Jewish Institute of Religion in 1973. He is a Past President of the Long Island Association of Reform Rabbis, and has also served on the Board of the New York Association of Reform Rabbis.

Rabbi Troupp's many passions have forever enriched the lives of his congregants and others. As a result of his motivation, Temple Beth David collects over 15,000 pounds of food for the hungry each year. Through his impossible dream, 1997 saw the reunion of a Holocaust Torah with a survivor, Petr Herrmann, whose father read from that very same Torah scroll. Rabbi Troupp has been an outspoken and passionate advocate for human rights and civil rights; for a strong Israel; for a fair and just America. He mobilized his congregation in a letter writing campaign to decry the rising Anti-Semitism in Europe. Through his hard work, he and his wife, Michelle, eventually hand-delivered thousands of letters to a Presidential Representative in the West Wing.

His sermons, candid and sometimes controversial, have been spoken from his heart and have touched the hearts of those who have heard his words.

Mr. Speaker, Rabbi Troupp dedicated his career to making our community stronger, better and fairer for people of all faiths and backgrounds. He is not simply my Rabbi; he is a teacher to a joyously diverse community in New York's Second Congressional District. His teachings, his strength and his commitment will continue to guide my constituents and me. In that sense, he has made an indelible imprint on the fabric of Long Island, New York, and our nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that will make our Nation's prescription drugs safer by making it harder for counterfeit drugs to enter the distribution system and increasing penalties for those who try.

In 2002, a teenage constituent of mine, named Tim Fagan, learned first hand about the problem of counterfeit drugs in this country. He was recovering from a liver transplant, and was taking the drug Epogen, in order to fight his related anemia. His parents bought the Epogen from the local branch of reputable, nationwide pharmacy. In order to help her son, his mother dutifully injected the Epogen into his arm. After waking up in pain many nights in a row and not knowing why, the family received a telephone call. The Epogen that his mother had been injecting to help her son recover from a liver transplant was counterfeit.

It is imperative that Congress does everything they can to ensure this never happens again. The Epogen that Tim had taken was

the equivalent of a three-dollar bill. The medicine should have gone into the dumpster outside of the drug store, and not on the drug store shelf.

Tim is not the only victim of counterfeit drugs.

Counterfeit prescription drugs are becoming an increasingly severe problem in the United States. In the past three years, Lipitor, Procrit, Epogen, and Serostim have been recalled due to a prevalence of counterfeits. According to the Pharmaceutical Security Institute, the value of counterfeit, seized and diverted drugs in the United States was almost $200 million in 2003, seven times more than 2002. The World Health Organization has stated that worldwide, the counterfeit drug industry was worth about $32 billion in 2003.

Counterfeit drugs may contain inactive substances like water or saline. They may also be re-labeled to show they have a higher dosage than what is actually in the vial, which leads patients to take much less medicine than is required. They may also contain wrong ingredients or contaminants. Since people taking these counterfeited drugs are already sick, it is harder for fakes to be detected. Victims of counterfeiting may believe that they are just not getting better or the worsened symptoms are an effect of their illness and not counterfeited drugs.

There are many opportunities for counterfeiters to enter the American pharmaceutical distribution system. New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer recently subpoenaed the three largest wholesales, AmeriSourceBergen, McKesson, and Cardinal Health. However, there are about 12 large regional wholesalers and an estimated 6,500 smaller drug wholesalers.

More than half of all drugs go through this series of middlemen. The drugs go from the manufacturer to a large wholesaler, then through a number of smaller wholesalers, until finally making it to the local pharmacy. With prescription drugs repeatedly changing hands and the prospect of high profits, counterfeiters have the ability and the motive to interject these fake drugs into America's prescription drug distribution system.

My legislation aims to make it more difficult for counterfeiters to infiltrate the system. My bill calls for an audit trail of everyone's hands the drugs have been in, from manufacturer to pharmacy. It calls for the utilization of the best anti-counterfeiting technologies. It gives the FDA authority to recall drugs that may have been tampered with. It authorizes funds for spotchecking and education. Finally, it increases the criminal penalties for counterfeiters, including up to life in jail.

It is my hope that this Congress will address the issue of counterfeiting, and I am looking forward to working on a bipartisan basis to enact this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to question the omission of an amendment sponsored by Mrs. Maloney, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Crowley and myself, which was agreed to by the Chairman of Appropriations.

The amendment took $3 million from the ``Economic Support Fund'' and put it toward the ``Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction Fund,'' for the express purpose of the providing the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA with these funds.

This past January, I toured the region that was overwhelmed by the tsunami. The extent of the destruction was massive, and I was glad to see the world contributing to relief efforts. However, I was concerned that the special needs of women were not being adequately addressed.

I visited the remains of a three-story maternity hospital. There were 300 women and infants in that hospital when the first wave hit. The tsunami toppled a cement wall, flattened utility polls, and shattered all of the glass windows in the front of the building. Of the 300 women and their babies, all but one, a newborn, were saved from the crashing waves. I met a doctor who finished a C-Section in absolute darkness, after the generators were underwater, as the rest of the building was evacuated. The hospital was practically destroyed. The beds were pushed and piled against each other by the flooding, and shards of glass crunched under our feet. The sheets were strewn about like wet rags, and saturated packages of medicine were thrown in useless piles.

It is conditions like these that the UNFPA addresses. The organization has experience working with women in disaster areas; they have participated in emergency projects in more than 50 countries and territories. They already have offices in tsunami-affected countries, and they understand the distinctive ways that disasters affect women and children.

When I visited in January, there were an estimated 150,000 pregnant women in the tsunami-affected areas. The UNFPA has worked to supply safe-birthing kits and emergency obstetric equipment.

Women who are in refugee camps need personal hygiene kits, soap, sterile cotton cloth, antibiotics, and drugs for treating sexually transmitted infections. Although relief efforts often overlook these supplies, and the UNFPA has done its best to fulfill these needs.

UNFPA's priorities are reproductive health, including safe childbirth, prevention of violence against women and girls, and counseling for those affected by the 26 December tsunami. For many of these women, they must now become the head of the household. They have become widows overnight, and must deal with the emotional and economic issues involved with being the sole breadwinner in an area with no jobs.

In early January, UNFPA asked for $28 million to support its tsunami- related work. Our amendment would have given them $3 million, which is about 11 percent of what they requested.

By late February, over 70 percent of the requested funding had been received or pledged. Germany gave $8 million. Japan gave $5.5 million. The Netherlands gave $1.5 million. Norway gave $1 million. New Zealand gave $700,000.

The United States has not given anything to this organization that is the most experienced and successful in addressing the distinctive needs of women during times of natural disaster.

But this is not unusual. We have not given the UNFPA the money they need for some time.

The Omnibus for 2005 earmarked $34 million for UNFPA, however, the UNFPA has not and will not receive it. The UNFPA also received no funds from the United States in 2002, 2003, and 2004. Unfortunately, the President will not release these funds to this organization, because of issues related to abortion.

The money would not have been used for abortion. The money would have helped women deliver their babies. It would have helped women who have been sexually assaulted. It would have given women some of the tools they need to take care of themselves and their children.

It is unconscionable that this Congress would not allocate this $3 million to UNFPA.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of a man that embodies many core principles of our country: hard work, opportunity, selfless service, integrity and dedication. Nicholas Scott, now a middle school math teacher in the Brentwood School District, serves as a role model for the students in his classroom and the community as a whole.

Nicholas Scott was born to immigrant parents, his father having fled Cuba prior to the beginning of the Fidel Castro regime. At the age of eight his parents divorced and Nick moved with his mother to Deer Park, New York. Although the family had limited resources, Nick's mother instilled in him the values of hard work and perseverance, and she insisted that he attend college to seek the opportunities available in America.

Nick graduated high school in 1987 and lacking the resources to attend private college, he enrolled at Suffolk County Community College. For two years, Nick pursued his studies while still working four days a week. His persistence paid off, as he earned his Associate Degree in the Applied Sciences and was rewarded with an academic scholarship to Hofstra University, where he earned a Bachelors Degree in Political Science. Nick's thirst for knowledge and devotion to self- improvement led him to Villanova University Law School, where he earned a Juris Doctorate degree. Nick was then admitted to the New York State Bar Association, becoming not only his family's first college graduate, but also its first lawyer.

Throughout his education, Nick sought out opportunities to give back to the community. While studying for the bar exam, Nick enlisted in the U.S. Army. Although he was eligible to enter as an officer, Nick chose to start at the bottom and work his way up, an experience with which he was familiar. Nick quickly earned his Sergeant's stripes and soon after won a commission as an officer.

Nick left the active army to return to New York where he began legal practice. Once more, Nick chose others over himself. Rather then enter private practice, Nick went to serve the most vulnerable members of society as a lawyer for the Suffolk County Legal Aid Society.

After several years in practice, Nick decided that he wanted to further serve his community by teaching. He earned his teaching certificate and returned to Brentwood to teach middle school math.

Nick's service to our country has not ended in the classroom. Having joined the U.S. Army Reserve as a member of the Judge Advocate General Corps, Nick volunteered for duty in Iraq. In December of 2002, he was deployed along with the 101st Airborne Division to Kuwait and subsequently into Iraq, where he adjudicated local disputes, providing compensation to Iraqis that suffered property and other losses due to the war. Nick's dedication to improving the lives of newly freed Iraqi civilians earned him a Bronze Star and the title of Captain.

The day before his deployment to Iraq, Nick married fellow Brentwood teacher Nadine P. Kroner, and they are now the proud parents of a six- month old son, Ethan Hunter.

Nick Scott is an inspiration to me, to each student in the Brentwood school system and to our entire community. He is a living testament to the greatness of America, a land where opportunity matched with hard work can trump any hardship. But Nick Scott is a true role model because he has channeled his opportunity and hard work into a lifetime of service to others. I commend Nick for his dedication to service, for his remarkable accomplishments, for his strong work ethic, and his contributions to his family, community and country.