Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 46 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, April 25, 2007, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I missed three votes on amendments during debate of H.R. 1257 last Friday, April 20, 2007.

Had I been present, I would have voted in opposition to the following three amendments to H.R. 1257: the Sessions amendment (rollcall vote No. 236), the Garrett amendment (rollcall vote No. 237), and the McHenry amendment (rollcall vote No. 239).

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Wheelchair Basketball team, who--in a stunning display of athleticism and courage, captured the 2007 National Intercollegiate Wheelchair Basketball Championship.

Led by Coach Tracy Chynoweth, the Warhawks capped an extraordinary season by defeating the Fighting Scots of Edinboro University to win their fourth national championship in 5 years. UW-Whitewater coiled a 28-2 season record, with a conference record of 18-0.

The Warhawks were led by freshman standout Joe Chambers, who averaged 15 points and 10 rebounds this season and registered 23 points and 12 rebounds in the championship game. His play was complemented by National Play-of-the-Year Matt Scott, who averaged 14.5 points per game, including 14 points and 9 rebounds against Edinboro. ``It's an honor to be a part of this team,'' said Chambers. ``We clicked on all cylinders and played like a band of brothers.'' The Warhawks are favored to return to the National Title game next year as they lose only one player from this year's championship team.

Winning the title in front of 1,750 fans, the Warhawks brought tremendous victory home to the great state of Wisconsin and established their dominance as the premiere wheelchair basketball program in the country. I sincerely congratulate the University of Wisconsin- Whitewater Wheelchair Basketball team for their remarkable achievements and wish them the best of luck in their quest to repeat as National Champions.

Mr. Speaker, it is high time we reauthorize the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. This important program provides breast and cervical cancer screening to low-income, uninsured women who otherwise would have little or no access to such care. Early detection is a woman's most powerful weapon against breast or cervical cancer because early detection, followed by early treatment intervention, greatly increases a woman's odds of beating cancer; and we know that our vigilance is having results as this is the second straight year of declining cancer deaths.

The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program is a Federal-State partnership that builds on the existing public health infrastructure and involves all sectors of the community in outreach and delivery of services.

Established in 1991, the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program provides low-income women who have limited or no health insurance with breast and cervical cancer screening, education, outreach, and case management services. Administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program provides access to mammograms, pap tests, surgical consultations, and diagnostic testing. The program is operational in all 50 states, four U.S. territories, the District of Columbia, and 13 American Indian or Alaskan Native organizations. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program also works with nonprofit organizations that provide supplemental funding for screening, education, outreach, case management and treatment services.

To date, the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program has provided nearly 6.5 million screenings to 2.7 million women, detecting almost 30,000 breast cancers, almost 90,000 precancerous cervical lesions and 1,700 cervical cancers.

This reauthorization will strengthen this important program by increasing the program's authorization level. At its current $205 million funding level, it is estimated that the program only provides services to 20 percent of all eligible women in the United States. This additional authorization would enable the program to provide 147,000 more screenings per year.

In addition, it will assist rural communities and special populations by permitting a five-State demonstration program for States to receive a time-limited waiver of current regulatory requirements in order to provide greater emphasis on education and outreach, while ensuring that women continue to have access to life-saving screening services.

I have been honored to work on this reauthorization, and I want to thank the American Cancer Society and the Susan G. Komen Foundation for their continued support of this critical program.

In addition, I have been honored to work with my colleague, Congresswoman Sue Myrick, in advancing this important legislation. In the war against breast and cervical cancer, we know that screening and early detection saves lives. I am very proud and pleased that on this issue Republicans and Democrats are working together to support a life- saving program. I urge all of my colleagues to support this reauthorization.

Mr. Speaker, the matter before us today, the Iraq Supplemental, is before us for the first time. However, this is not the last time that we will vote on this bill. This bill will go to the Senate and from the Senate to a Conference Committee and from there back to the floor of this house. If the President exercises his veto power, we may ultimately vote on this matter as many as three or four times.

Today, I make no commitments about what I will do or how I will vote when this matter comes back to this house. How could I? I don't know what this bill will look like when it comes back . . . I don't know what it will say. Rather, I rise to explain how I will vote today, as this bill comes before this house for the first time.

It is clear to me that today, we have only two options. We can send to the Senate the bill before us, with binding language to end the war or, should this bill fail, we will send a bill that gives the President unchecked power to continue his misguided, mismanaged war without end.

That is the choice today. And my vote will be ``yes'' to advance the bill which begins to end the war. Reaching this decision has been difficult. My deliberation has been long and thoughtful. The difficulty of the decision may seem somewhat surprising given the rather stark description I just provided of the choice before us. However, there are several reasons why this decision has been hard.

First, the bill before us, despite its binding language to end the war, is far from perfect. It does not end the war soon enough. It mishandles the issue of Iraqi oil. It fails to address necessary safeguards to prevent this President from taking military action in Iran without Congressional authorization. The bill's shortcomings are reason enough for a no vote.

Second, until today . . . until this vote . . . I have played a different role. My job yesterday, and the day before (like so many war opponents) was to fight to make the language in this bill stronger and to make this legislation better. And having failed to accomplish all I sought to achieve provides me with another reason to vote no.

Third, until this day I have voted against all of the Iraqi war spending bills. I strongly favor using the power of the purse to end the war. That this binding language to end the war is attached to a war funding bill provided me with yet another reason to vote no.

Many on the left have invoked the words of Saul Alinsky in describing today's vote: ``. . . I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be,'' he says in his book Rules for Radicals. ``That we accept the world

as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be--it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be,'' Alinsky continues. So today we start where this congressional world is, with this imperfect bill as the vehicle to begin to end the war.

The choice is clear, today we can begin to end the war, or we can stand in the way of doing so. I will vote to end the war.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 797, the Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act.

This bill fixes an inequity that has resulted in the denial of appropriate disability compensation to blinded veterans.

I wanted to share, first of all, the story of Dr. James Allen after whom

this legislation is named. Dr. Allen is a distinguished, caring professor of ophthalmology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine. He has worked at our veterans hospital for nearly 33 years and treated countless eye patients, including many veterans who are blind.

One such patient is a Mr. Donald May. Don is a World War II veteran who lost his right eye in a hand grenade explosion. A few years ago, Mr. May began losing vision and ultimately became legally blind in his other nonservice-connected eye. He applied to the Department of Veterans Affairs for help, but was denied further benefits. He was told that the current law in regard to paired organs did not apply to him even though he was legally blind in both his service-connected right eye and his nonservice-connected left eye.

After Dr. Allen brought the plight of Don May and many other patients to my attention, I began to research why these veterans were being denied the benefits that I felt they deserved, benefits that I believed Congress intended to grant them. Through my work with the Blinded Veterans Association, we discovered that while the current paired organ statute covers blindness in theory, in practice few if any veterans have been able to qualify for the additional disability compensation under its terms.

Congress has rightly recognized that some human organs and limbs are designed to work in pairs: our legs, our kidneys, our lungs, our ears, and of course our eyes. In the instance of eyes, blindness in one eye profoundly affects depth perception, even if sight is fully retained in the other eye.

The paired organ statute was written to assist those veterans who experience a service-connected loss of a paired organ or limb. This statute recognizes the interdependency of paired organs, and endeavors to treat the combined disability created by a nonservice-connected loss and injury or degeneration of the remaining paired organ or limb as though it, too, were the result of a service-connected disability. In general, the paired organ statute accomplishes this task except its treatment of loss of sight.

With regard to eyesight, the statute does not adequately define the term blindness, nor is any provision made for the impairment of vision in the nonservice-connected eye short of blindness.

Rather than using a visual acuity of 20/200 or a loss of field of vision 20 degrees, as is the definition of legal blindness that has been adopted by all 50 States and the Social Security Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs uses a much more restrictive 5/200 rating for legal blindness. I was asked to describe exactly what that 5/200 means. Really, in layman's terms, it is the equivalent to having light perception only, but the specific definition is somebody with the ability to see at 5 feet what most of the rest of us could see at 200 feet.

As a result, few if any blinded veterans are able to qualify for additional compensation under the paired organ statute.

H.R. 797, the Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act, fixes this problem. It defines blindness as impairment of vision where the impairment is to a visual acuity of 20/200 or less or a peripheral field loss of 20 degrees or less. This change in the law would only affect a small percentage, estimated to be roughly 5 percent, of the 13,000-plus veterans who are service-connected for loss of vision in one eye.

Yet, such a change would send a powerful signal to our Nation's blinded veterans that their hardships are not forgotten. Indeed, our Nation's blinded veterans face significant challenges in the labor market.

The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research found that for individuals with visual impairments, to the extent they are unable to read letters, that the employment rate is only 30.8 percent compared to 82.1 percent for people without disabilities. Given this employment trend, and the unique socioeconomic experiences of our veterans, it is even more urgent that Congress correct this one last inequity in the current paired organ statute and address the life- altering impact of blindness on our veterans.

I want to mention also that in compliance with our pay-as-you-go rules, section 2 of H.R. 797 fully offsets the cost of additional vision benefits. It directs the Veterans Secretary and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to match and compare VA needs-based pension benefits data, parents' dependency and indemnity compensation data, health care services data and unemployment data with the National Directory of New Hires maintained by HHS for the purpose of determining eligibility for such benefits and services. According to the GAO, the General Accountability Office, such data-matching project would help reduce fraud and waste within the VA system as it determines eligibility and benefits to those veterans thought to be unemployable, but who are indeed working.

I would like to thank Chairman Filner, Subcommittee Chairman John Hall, as well as Congressman Boozman, Congressman Snyder and Congressman Miller for their unwavering support of this bill. I also want to thank the staff of the Veterans' Affairs Committee for helping advance this legislation.

H.R. 797 is a modest but very important step in restoring fair treatment to those blinded due to their service to our country and to further our commitment to them. Their sacrifices and service to this Nation should be matched by our desire to improve the quality of life for them and for their families.

I want to note that the Blinded Veterans Association has identified over 200 soldiers returning from Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom who are blinded in one eye due to service-related injuries and could perhaps in the future benefit from this legislation.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 797.

Madam Speaker, I regret that due to an illness, I missed recorded votes on March 12, 2007 and March 13, 2007.

Had I been present on those days, I would have voted in support of H.R. 85, H. Res. 136, H. Res. 89, H. Res. 64, H. Res. 228, and H. Res. 222.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize one of Wisconsin's own, the Sonic Foundry Company, for its well-deserved attention as leaders of the company rang the opening bell to start the NASDAQ trading day this morning.

Sonic Foundry is an example of a company excelling in innovation. Its Web technology is transforming business, government and educational institutions by allowing people to receive critical information and share knowledge. Their Mediasite technology is trusted by Fortune 500 companies, educational institutions and government agencies. In Wisconsin, use of this technology saved the State's budget $800,000 in its first year of use.

Sonic Foundry's Mediasite technology also allows the exchange of video greetings and interactive content to be passed between separated family members. Military families have been provided this service for free during holiday occasions.

Wisconsin is proud of Sonic Foundry's accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution expressing disapproval of the President's decision to escalate the war in Iraq.

During the past 4 years, I have embraced, stood by, and prayed with Wisconsin families as they said their last goodbyes to their brave sons and daughters and husbands and wives. Those fallen soldiers have served with the utmost loyalty and courage, trusting decision-makers in Washington, the President, his administration, and this Congress to do the right thing. Like almost all of my colleagues, I have visited with wounded troops at Walter Reed and at home and joined with families and communities to send troops off to war and to welcome them back home. All of them, all of them, the dead, the wounded, the deployed, the returned, and their families, deserve political leaders who will make decisions worthy of their enormous sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, we have fallen well short of that goal, and we will only honor their sacrifices when we acknowledge this and end the war.

I want to review just some of the things that we now know. We all know that this is a war of choice, not a war of necessity. We all know that Iraq posed no imminent danger to America that would justify what this administration called a ``preemptive'' war. We all know that Iraq had nothing to do with the tragic September 11 attacks that our Nation suffered. We know that few in the world stood with America as we undertook this nearly unilateral war. And we now know that our war in

Iraq has diverted our attention and our resources from efforts to combat terrorist threats to our Nation.

And beyond that, we know now that worldwide resentment of our military presence in Iraq has become a central recruiting tool for terrorist organizations worldwide. Therefore, we know that this war continues to make America less safe and more vulnerable.

What else do we now know? We now know that the planning and execution of this war was wrought with enormous miscalculations. We know that more than 3,000 American servicemembers have lost their lives in Iraq, and we know that between 56,000 and 61,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the war began. And based on polls released Monday, we know that 68 percent of Americans disapprove of the President's handling of this war.

Mr. Speaker, I was among the first group of House Members to speak out against the prospect of going to war in Iraq, and I voted against authorizing the use of force in Iraq; and as an early and consistent critic of the war, I understand the importance of offering a new course in Iraq. We must bring an end to our military occupation and replace it with a program of humanitarian relief, rebuilding political stabilization, and diplomatic engagement. We must participate in a robust regional diplomatic effort, including direct discussions with Syria and Iran, to promote stability in Iraq. And I think that this effort will be well received by Iraq's neighbors because regardless of whether these countries are close allies of the United States or not, Iraq's neighbors have more to gain if Iraq is stabilized and more to lose if it is not.

We must also heed the advice of many, including the Iraq Study Group, and acknowledge that other conflicts in the Middle East require our attention and leadership if the region is to achieve lasting stability. Therefore, we must also initiate a new push for Arab-Israeli peace. I believe that Congress has not only the right but the responsibility to assert its constitutional role as a co-equal branch of government in overseeing the conduct of this war and bringing it to an end. In doing so, I believe all options, including using the power of the purse, should be on the table.

The United States is the lone superpower in the world today. And along with that awesome power comes responsibility to humankind. America's reason for maintaining its superpower status must be to export the best of our democratic system of governance and the hope of the American Dream to the rest of the world. But these cherished ideals cannot be exported through force. We must teach and lead by example

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution expressing disapproval of the President's decision to escalate the war in Iraq.

During the past 4 years I have embraced, stood by, and prayed with Wisconsin families as they said their last goodbyes to their brave sons and daughters, husbands and wives. Those fallen soldiers have served with the utmost loyalty and courage, trusting decision-makers in Washington--the President; his administration and this Congress--to do the right thing. Like almost all of my colleagues, I have visited with wounded troops at Walter Reed and at home, and joined with families and communities to send troops off to war and to welcome them back home. All of them, all of them--the dead, the wounded, the deployed, the returned, their families--deserve political leaders who make decisions worthy of their enormous sacrifices. Mr. Speaker, we have fallen well short of that goal, and we will only honor their sacrifices when we acknowledge this and end the war.

I want to review just some of the things that we know. We all know that this is a war of choice, not a war of necessity. We all know that Iraq posed no imminent danger to America that would justify what this Administration called a ``pre-emptive'' war. We all know that Iraq had nothing to do with the tragic September 11 attacks that our Nation suffered. We know that few in the world stood with America as we undertook this nearly unilateral war. We now know that our war in and occupation of Iraq has diverted our attention and our resources from our multi-faceted efforts to combat terrorist threats to our Nation and its allies. And beyond that, we now know (based upon last year's declassified intelligence estimates) that worldwide resentment of our military presence in Iraq has become a central recruiting tool for terrorist organizations worldwide to increase their ranks. Therefore, we know that this war continues to make America less safe and more vulnerable as long as it persists.

What else do we now know? We now know that the planning and the execution of the war following our invasion were wrought with enormous miscalculations. We now know that billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been lost or squandered through no-bid contracts, lack of accountability measures and lack of Congressional oversight under the previous Republican majority. We know that more than 3,000 American service members have lost their lives in Iraq. We know that between 56,000 and 61,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the war began. And, based on polls released Monday, we know that 68 percent of Americans disapprove of the President's handling of the war in Iraq and 72 percent of Americans believe that things are going badly in Iraq.

The situation in Iraq today has variously been called an all-out civil war or more simply a state of chaos.

For years many Americans, including many members of this Congress from both parties, gave this war a chance. It is time for this administration to give peace a chance. It is time for the President to pay attention to the vast yet still growing majority of Americans that want us to get out of Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I was among the first group of House Members to speak out against the prospect of going to war in Iraq. I voted against authorizing the use of force in Iraq, and as an early and consistent critic of the war, I understand the importance of offering a new course in Iraq. Many of my colleagues have introduced bills that would redeploy our troops in a responsible manner within a reasonable time frame, while focusing on aggressive diplomatic efforts to stabilize the Middle East. A number of these bills and resolutions establish concrete benchmarks for the Iraqi government. It is long overdue for this Administration to start paying attention to these alternative proposals, that chart a new course in Iraq. I believe that we must redefine our mission in Iraq. We must bring an end to our military occupation and replace it with a program of humanitarian relief, political stabilization,and diplomatic engagement. We must participate in a robust regional diplomatic effort, including direct discussions with Syria and Iran, to promote stability in Iraq. And I think that effort would be well received by all Iraq's neighbors, because regardless of whether these countries are close allies of the United States, or not, Iraq's neighbors have more to gain if Iraq is stabilized and more to lose if it is not.

We must also heed the advice of many, including the Iraq Study Group, and acknowledge that other conflicts in the Middle East require our attention and leadership, if the region is to achieve lasting stability. Therefore, we must also initiate a new push for Arab-Israeli peace.

I believe Congress not only has the right, but the responsibility, to assert its constitutional role as a co-equal branch of government in overseeing the conduct of this war and bringing it to an end. Our Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress the power to declare war and to raise and support armies. If Congress is given the power to make wars, we must also exercise our power to end wars. In doing so, I believe all options, including using ``the power of the purse,'' should be on the table.

The United States is the lone superpower in the world today. Along with that awesome and unprecedented power comes responsibilities to humankind. America's reason for maintaining her superpower status must be to export the best of our democratic system of governance and the hope of the American Dream to the rest of the world. But these cherished ideals can't be exported through force. We must teach and lead by example.

Mr. Speaker, while I support the resolution, I strongly believe Congress needs to do more to represent the will of the people and pursue all options that would lead to an end to this occupation and this war.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of a remarkable citizen, Mr. Zachary L. Cooper of Madison, Wisconsin. Mr. Cooper was an educator and scholar who devoted his life to the study and teaching of black history. He was widely known as one of the state's most prominent chroniclers of African-American history.

Zachary Cooper was born in Brunswick, GA, in 1935, and eventually settled in Madison, Wisconsin. After spending 2 years in the Army Medical Corps, Mr. Cooper went on to earn a bachelor's degree in European history from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He followed that with a master's degree in American history and earned his Ph.D in curriculum and instruction from the Ohio State University-Columbus.

Mr. Cooper spent much of his career documenting the history of black settlers, authoring ``Black Settlers in Rural Wisconsin'' and creating a documentary called ``Coming Together, Coming Apart'' which used oral histories, photos and diaries to preserve evidence of early black families in Wisconsin. Mr. Cooper was also a lecturer for a variety of institutions including the Wisconsin Historical Society, the University of Wisconsin, Edgewood College, Madison Area Technical College, and the Madison School District.

Mr. Cooper's passion was working with children. As president of the board of directors at the Early Childhood Learning Center, he was able to impact the lives of all the children at the center.

In the spring of 1992, Cooper co-founded JAMAD (Jamaica-Madison Cultural Exchange), a program that creates connections between hardworking students in Wisconsin and Jamaica. Through the program, students establish pen pal relationships which culminate in the students from Wisconsin making a trip to Jamaica to learn more about their peers and the culture.

With the passing of Zachary L. Cooper, the world has lost a great scholar, and Wisconsin has lost a great teacher, citizen, and friend.

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

I rise in strong support of H.R. 1245, the Gynecologic Cancer Education and Awareness Act, also named Johanna's Law. It is an important piece of legislation which would provide for programs to increase the awareness and knowledge of women and health care providers with respect to gynecologic cancers.

Gynecologic cancers include cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, and uterine cancer. Gynecologic cancers affect approximately 80,000 American women each year and take nearly 29,000 lives. While diagnosis and treatment methods are becoming more targeted and accurate for gynecologic cancers, most women do not understand the symptoms or signs of gynecologic cancer and, therefore, are frequently diagnosed late. A late diagnosis often makes treatment more difficult and lengthens the need for medical care.

Unfortunately, many women and their physicians are unaware of the symptoms of gynecologic cancers. A recent poll conducted for the Gynecologic Cancer Foundation found that 47 percent of surveyed women could not name any symptoms of gynecologic cancers.

Johanna's Law would increase awareness by directing the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to carry out a nationwide campaign to increase women's awareness and knowledge of gynecologic cancers. This campaign would include maintaining and distributing a supply of written materials that provide information to the public about gynecologic cancer. It would also aid in the development of public service announcements intended to encourage women to discuss their risk for gynecologic cancers with their physicians.

Furthermore, this legislation would instruct the Secretary of HHS to take a closer look at both its past and present activities regarding gynecologic cancer awareness and education in hopes of learning what works and what does not, and what needs to be done to help with early detection and treatment of gynecologic cancers.

While we have made significant progress in fighting those cancers, progress such as the newly developed and improved cervical cancer vaccine, one of the biggest threats that remains is the continued need for increased awareness of gynecologic cancers. Quite simply, knowledge is power. Providing women and their doctors with up-to-date information about the causes and symptoms of gynecologic cancers will strengthen and support women's health.

I am proud to support this bipartisan bill to improve women's health, and I applaud the bill's sponsors, Mr. Issa, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Burton for their dedication to women's health.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would now yield 4 minutes to one of the lead cosponsors of this legislation, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another primary sponsor of this legislation, Congresswoman DeLauro.

Mr. Speaker, again I am proud to join my colleagues in supporting this legislation that will increase awareness and knowledge of women with respect to gynecologic cancers. This bill, as we have heard, will increase the survivability of these cancer diagnoses and prevent cancer deaths. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 864, the Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act or STOP Underage Drinking Act.

Underage drinking is a serious public health concern in communities throughout our Nation. According to 2004 estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were over 142,000 emergency room visits by youth, age 12 to 20, for unintentional injuries and other health-related concerns caused by alcohol consumption.

This bill builds interagency and community-based coalitions focusing on underage drinking, funds the production, broadcast and evaluation of national media-based public health campaigns about the dangers of underage drinking, and establishes grant programs for preventing and reducing alcohol abuse at institutions of higher education and surrounding communities.

This bill is a great start in moving our Nation towards the goal of decreasing youth access to, and consumption of, alcohol. It has the endorsement of both the alcohol beverage industry and a number of key public health advocates, both committed to the idea that a multifaceted national effort is key to making progress in curbing underage alcohol consumption.

I want to express my appreciation to Congresswoman Roybal-Allard's office, as well as the many other lead cosponsors of this bill that include Representatives Wamp, Osborne and DeLauro. I also want to thank the committee staff; the committee staff have dedicated their time and attention and effort to this bill. And I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the bill's primary author, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal- Allard).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to one of the bill's cosponsors, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep sense of loss that I rise today in tribute to Governor Ann Richards of Texas whose death leaves a void in the national scene and in the lives of all of us who knew and admired her.

Governor Richards was a woman of tremendous achievement and her professional accomplishments are well-documented: teacher, state treasurer, governor, chair of a national political convention. She was also a loving mother, a loyal friend, and a strong woman who bravely faced all adversaries, both political and personal. Whether confronting the demons of illness or the disappointment of political defeat, she emerged from each struggle wiser, wittier, and ever more welcome on the public stage.

For me, and many women in and out of politics, Ann Richards was a role model and a mentor. She showed us by example that a woman could succeed in what appeared to be a man's world. For those of us who share her commitment to education, equal opportunity, social justice and the rule of law, she carved a path for us to follow . . . and left big shoes (and boots) for us to fill.

When I was first running for Congress in 1998, and then during my re- election campaign in 2000, Governor Richards made time in her schedule to come to Madison, Wisconsin on my behalf. Her support was invaluable. In her inimitable Texas twang, she knew how to rally a crowd, work a room, and deliver a message better than any politician, male or female, I've ever seen. To a young woman coming into the national political arena, her wisdom and warmth were a priceless gift for which I will always be grateful.

I shall miss her incredibly and emphatically. Today, I remember Ann Richards in my heart and in these words. But I know she would prefer all of us to remember her in future deeds . . . deeds that push and prod us to be better people and better citizens.

I send heartfelt condolences to Governor Richards' family and sincere thanks for sharing this remarkable woman with us.

Mr. Speaker, on the fifth anniversary of the worst attack on American soil, my Republican colleagues have disgracefully politicized what should have been a solemn and sincere resolution. This week we are mourning the tragic loses of innocent lives as well as commemorating the unsurpassed heroism that was on display that day. We are expressing our gratitude to our Nation's law enforcement officers for their tireless dedication to make our country safer; and we are reaffirming our Nation's resolve to combat terrorism and secure our homeland. But rather than offering a bipartisan resolution that unites us on this solemn occasion, the Republican leadership converted the bill into an endorsement of the PATRIOT Act, punitive immigration bills, and other highly controversial measures, which many of my constituents oppose. This bill was cynically transformed from a memorial resolution to an endorsement of President Bush's failed policies. The Republicans show enormous disrespect to the 9/11 victims and families by playing election year politics with something as solemn as the fifth anniversary of 9/11; I will vote against the bill.

Mr. Speaker, proponents of this bill claim that it will guarantee greater local control. But for my constituents, nothing could be further from the truth.

More than 5 years ago, the community of Beloit, Wisconsin, began working with the Bad River Band and the St. Croix Chippewa Indians to build a casino in their community. My constituents, through a referendum, expressed their very strong support for this project, and local governments have worked hand-in-hand with the tribes on a project that the community deems important to their economic development.

For 5 years they have played by the rules and they are now in the last weeks of the approval process. Now, as the community anticipates a final decision on the tribe's application, this bill abruptly changes the rules, possibly denying the local community what they seek.

The citizens of Beloit, the local governments in the area, and the tribes

who seek to develop this project, are not seeking any special treatment. They simply want, and deserve, a fair decision on the merits of their application. After 5 years of following a fair process, this is no time to change the rules.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill