Floor Statements

I rise in strong support of two resolutions under consideration in the House today: H. Con. Res. 280, which honors the 100th Anniversary of the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, and H. Res. 394, which recognizes the 100th Anniversary of the American Concrete Institute.

These resolutions come before us at a particularly appropriate time, as we continue working to reauthorize our nation's primary transportation law. We all know that transportation investment yields tremendous economic dividends. For each $1 billion invested in our infrastructure, we create 47,500 jobs and generate $6.2 billion in economic activity. Of course, we could not accomplish any of this growth without the materials needed to pave new roads, build new mass transit systems, repair sidewalks and rehabilitate aging bridges.

Since coming to Congress and joining the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I have had the privilege of learning more about the valuable contribution that these industries make in our communities and in the course of daily lives. If it weren't for the producers we are honoring today none of us could have flown to our nation's capital, driven to this building or walked in this great building.

For 100 years, the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association has represented producers of construction aggregates in this country and around the world. Their products have been the crucial building blocks in countless projects, from constructing the interstate highway system to building local hospitals for veterans. As this resolution notes, the Association has worked tirelessly to improve its products to save taxpayers money, and to further the professional development of industry employees to improve employee safety and health at workplaces.

The Concrete industry has also contributed immensely to the development of our nation. Production of concrete exceeded 3,500,000,000 cubic yards worldwide in 2002, with 500,000,000 cubic yards produced in our nation alone. H. Res. 394 honors the American Concrete Industry's 100 years of service to the people of the United States as the technical society for the concrete industry and as an engine behind the extraordinary economic progress and prosperity that we have enjoyed as a nation.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support both of these resolutions, which honor great service to the American people and to the transportation community in particular. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the FAA Conference Report now under consideration.

This bill contains billions of dollars in vital funding for America's airports and air traffic control system, which the Administration is insisting on holding hostage to a seriously flawed plan to privatize this nation's air traffic controllers.

Decisions made behind closed doors by a handful of conferees have thwarted the will of both Houses of Congress and placed the flying public in grave danger, by allowing for privatization of our air traffic control system and eliminating requirements that flight attendants receive vital anti-terrorism training.

As a representative from Long Island, New York, I have had the opportunity to meet many of the controllers who live in my district and who work at the nearby New York TRACON and New York Air Route Traffic Control Center. These dedicated public servants monitor nearly 2 million flights each year, with only two concerns in mind: the safety of passengers and the efficiency of air travel in the region.

We already know from the list of intended privatization sites misleadingly pulled from this bill that the Administration hopes to privatize one major airport on Long Island. We simply cannot begin down a road that would put profit above safety and cost-cutting above hiring the most qualified employees.

We also must not abandon flight attendants, many of whom lost their lives on September 11, bravely fighting the terrorists who took over their planes. We must do everything we can to act on the lessons learned that terrible day, and provide all flight attendants with the crucial training they need to deal with any future terrorist threats aboard their planes. It defies logic that conferees stripped language from this bill that would have prepared flight attendants to serve as a line of defense in the event of a future attack.

Mr. Speaker, the House and Senate passed fair, bipartisan FAA reauthorization bills by a combined vote of 512-8. I am deeply disappointed that Majority party conferees took the unprecedented step of ignoring the will of both chambers and all Democratic conferees.

I am left with no choice but to oppose this flawed bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of the 22nd birthday of SGT David Hubert of Shirley, NY, which fell this past Sunday, October 26. Sergeant Hubert is a proud soldier in the Army's 101st Airborne Division, now serving in Iraq.

Hubert is a lifelong resident of my congressional district. He graduated from William Floyd High School in June 2000, and reported to basic training the following month. After 2 years of service assigned to the Army's 1st Armored Division in Germany, Sergeant Hubert earned a spot in the prestigious 101st Airborne Division in December of 2002. While assigned to Fort Campbell, Sergeant Hubert expanded his training to expertise in field emergency medical treatment.

On February 26, 2003, Sergeant Hubert and his unit were deployed to Kuwait. On March 21, 2003, Sergeant Hubert's division was one of the first to enter Iraq. Sergeant Hubert and his division braved the windstorms and heat of the Iraqi desert, along with frequent enemy assaults, while advancing steadily toward Baghdad. The 101st Airborne took control of the Baghdad Airport and helped in the swift conquest of Baghdad. Since then, Sergeant Hubert and his division have guarded and protected the Syrian border and surrounding towns, to ensure against infiltration by terrorist groups.

Mr. Speaker, many soldiers might long to return home from a grueling tour overseas in time to celebrate their birthday. Sergeant Hubert recently learned that he would be deployed until after the New Year. His response? He would rather spend his birthday where his fellow soldiers--and his country--need him most.

Sergeant Hubert's sacrifice and selfless dedication to his country represent the best America has to offer. I wish him a happy birthday and a safe return home, when his duty in Iraq comes to an end.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Michael Brady, a dedicated and noteworthy humanitarian, who was a committed public servant to his community of Smithtown, Long Island. On August 28, 2003, Mike lost his battle with cancer, and left behind a legacy of caring for the youth of his community.

Mike Brady bravely served our country in the Vietnam War from 1962 to 1967 as a Navy Machinist mate 3rd Class on the USS Long Beach. Upon his return to New York, he became an active member of the Vietnam Veterans of America.

Mike Brady displayed an overwhelming concern for children that showed through his many actions. He was a co-founder of the Smithtown Veterans Youth Program. This valuable program provides the youth of Smithtown and the surrounding communities a safe place to go every weeknight of their summer vacation to enjoy friendship and fun. This program has been used as a nationwide model by veteran's organizations in an effort to fight drugs and keep America's youth drug-free.

Mike also worked with children as a little league coach. His patience and commitment to children made a difference in the lives of so many. The ancient saying that ``it takes a village to raise a child'' was one that Mike understood and embraced.

Mike Brady is described by his family and friends as a simple, caring person, who constantly gave back to the community with his service and dedication to every person he met. These admirable characteristics led Mike Brady to be honored as a recipient of the Chapel of Four Chaplains Humanitarian Award. He joins recipients such as Bob Hope and Ronald Reagan who received the award with the purpose of recognizing the service that a veteran provides to their comniunity above and beyond the call of duty.

Some people come into our lives and leave without a trace. Some stay for awhile and remain close to our hearts. And we are never, ever the same. Mike Brady has left his mark on the Smithtown Community and he will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Roderick MacKinnon on his receipt of the 2003 Nobel Prize in chemistry for his research on the biophysics of cells, which revealed the intricate process of electrical signaling in human beings and other living organisms. Dr. MacKinnon conducted much of this research at the National Synchrotron Light Source at Brookhaven National Laboratory, a federal scientific research institution that is located within the First Congressional District of New York. His work has the potential to enhance the lives of millions, as it has contributed to a deeper understanding of such diseases as cystic fibrosis and heart arrhythmias, which will likely lead to more effective ways of treating these devastating illnesses.

Dr. MacKinnon's research focused on the study of ion channels, the pores through which vital materials--potassium, chloride, calcium and sodium ions--enter or leave the cells of the body. In 1998, Dr. MacKinnon was the first to determine the structure of an ion channel and, through a process called crystallography, produced exceptionally detailed portraits of the potassium ion structure. These high resolution ``snapshots'' not only revealed the basic structure of an ion channel, but also the process by which ions are expelled or admitted by cells. This process, electrical signaling, involves the rapid fire opening and closing of the channels to release ions and move electrical impulses from the brain in a wave to their destination in the body. Dr. MacKinnon's research determined the specific conditions that control whether ion channels are opened or closed, a process that puzzled researchers for over 50 years.

The discoveries made through Dr. MacKinnon's work offers researchers a renewed potential for understanding and curing illnesses derived from defective ion channels. Such diseases, many of which affect the kidneys, heart, muscles, and nervous system, cause ion channels to interfere with proper electrical signaling and can be fatal. Dr. MacKinnon's findings have refined the medical community's understanding of how ion channels slam shut or remain open and other critical bodily functions. This discovery offers important insight into the future development of drugs to control channels more precisely, and can potentially save human lives.

Dr. MacKinnon received a B.A. degree in biochemistry from Brandeis University in 1978 and an M.D. from Tufts University in 1982. He has served as a full faculty member at Harvard Medical School, professor and head of Laboratory Molecular Neurobiology and Biophyics at The Rockefeller University, and was appointed an investigator of the Howard Hughs Medical Institute. In recognition of his work on ion channel structure and function, Dr. MacKinnon received the 1999 Lasker Award, the 2000 Rosenstiel Award, and the 2001 Gairdner Award.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me in commending Dr. Roderick MacKinnon on his important accomplishments in the field of biophysics, and his receipt of the 2003 Nobel prize in Chemistry. Dr. MacKinnon's work represents a significant contribution to medical research, and offers great potential to finding cures to many of the world's most devastating diseases. I am very proud that Dr. MacKinnon is associated with Brookhaven National Laboratory, an institution that has produced five Nobel Prize recipients since its founding, and I applaud him for his many contributions to science and the medical profession.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Paul C. Lauterbur, who was recently awarded the 2003 Nobel prize in medicine for his groundbreaking research in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Dr. Lauterbur conducted his work on MRI technique during his tenure at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, which is located in the First Congressional District of New York. His research was a revolutionary contribution to the field of medicine, and has since enhanced the lives of millions of patients suffering from devastating illnesses in the United States and around the world.

The development of MRI represents a breakthrough in medical diagnostics and research, which has led to improved treatment and better health for millions of patients. MRI is a medical diagnostic technique that can create thin-section images of any part of the body, including the heart, arteries, and veins, from any angle in a relatively short period of time. Given the level of detail MRI can provide a physician on a patient's anatomy and condition, its use has dramatically improved accuracy in medical diagnostics and has become an indispensable tool in medical research. The technique has proven especially useful for detailed study of the brain and spinal cord. Perhaps the most important contribution of MRI to medicine is that it has, in many cases, replaced the need for patients to undergo invasive surgery for diagnosing illnesses.

It was Dr. Lauterbur's research in the area of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) that aided the development of modern MRI. Dr. Lauterbur was the first researcher to use NMR, a process in which molecules are entrained in a strong magnetic field and zapped with radio waves, to produce an image and apply it to the field of medicine. In doing so, he introduced gradients to the magnetic field, which, he discovered, made it possible to create two-dimensional images of structures that could not be visualized by other techniques. Among the first images that Dr. Lauterbur made through NMR was of a clam and two test tubes of heavy water in a beaker of ordinary water. In 1971, the doctor realized that his idea could be used for producing medical images and, in 1973, his findings on the technique were published. Dr. Lauterbur's work led to the development of the MRI scanner, and has been called the most significant medical diagnostic study of the 20th century.

Dr. Lauterbur spent 22 years at Stony Brook before joining the University of Illinois faculty in 1985. He earned a bachelor's degree in chemistry in 1951 from the Case Institute of Technology in Cleveland, Ohio, and a doctorate in chemistry in 1962 from the University of Pittsburgh. Dr. Lauterbur's other achievements include the National Academy of Sciences Award for Chemistry in Service to Society (2001); the Kyoto Prize from the Inamon Foundation of Japan for lifelong research accomplishments in advanced chemistry (1994); and the National Medal of Science (1987).

Mr. Speaker, the development of MRI has spared millions of patients the physical discomfort and risk associated with the surgical diagnosis of disease. Last year, 22,000 MRI cameras were in use worldwide, and more than 60 million scans were performed. Clearly, without Dr. Lauterbur's groundbreaking work, modern MRI might not be in existence today. Every patient who has been spared surgery and accurately diagnosed through the use of MRI has Dr. Lauterbur to thank. I am proud that Dr. Lauterbur conducted this important work at Stony Brook and I commend him for his invaluable contribution to medicine and humanity.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my grave concerns with the Administration's additional $87 billion supplemental request for Iraq. Earlier this year, Congress gave a good faith approval of $78.5 billion in Iraq and other related costs as part of the Administration's FY2003 supplemental request. At that time, those of us concerned with the long-term budgetary impact of the operation were repeatedly assured that any additional funding needed would be negligible, and that Iraq's own resources would go a long way towards financing the reconstruction. In spite of repeated pleas for an honest accounting of future plans, we were frustrated by the Administration's refusal to be straightforward with the American people about the long-term costs necessary to secure on the ground the stability that fosters peace.

Our frustration continues today, as the Administration now asks us to pass along to the American taxpayers the burden of funding an additional $87 billion for Iraq. And we know now--as many of us suspected then--that the $165.5 billion in spending from the two supplemental requests thus far is only the tip of the iceberg. The American people deserve real answers and accountability with their hard-earned dollars, and I believe they are already doubting the Administration's insistence that our financial house is in order and all is ok: the Administration would like us to think that we can afford to pour billions into Iraq, give greater tax cuts to millionaires, and still meet the needs of working families. We can't.

It doesn't take a mathematician to notice that someone loses out in this unbalanced equation, and I believe the losers will be working- class families. Working families know a lot about getting by on tight budgets, and they know that you cannot balance your checkbooks if you refuse to sacrifice. It is simply wrong to continue to impose an American taxpayers the results of a failed economic policy that promises to burden future generations with the costs of today's failures.

This is why I joined with Congressman Tom Lantos in offering an amendment before the Rules Committee that would offset the cost of the $87 billion supplemental by reducing the size of the tax cut for the wealthiest one percent of Americans. This is a commonsense amendment that allows us to follow through with the responsibilities we've assumed in Iraq without abandoning our responsibilities to the American people. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee blocked our amendment. Throughout history, when our troops have been in harms way abroad, the American people have been asked to sacrifice at home. However, this Administration seems to think it is perfectly fine to pad the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires, while ballooning deficit to the detriment of most American taxpayers, and taxpayers of generations to come.

At a time when so many Americans are out of work and down on their luck, we find ourselves shouldering the significant costs of rebuilding Iraq. We find ourselves in this conundrum because of a conscious decision by the current Administration to abandon diplomacy in order to launch a preemptive war, due to a threat that now appears to have been far less than imminent. In a world threatened by the clear and present danger of Al Oaeda and other terrorist groups, we decide to divert our resources to pursue a threat that was not at all clear and, the evidence seems to indicate, was not at all a present danger.

In the months after 9/11 the entire world was behind us, people from nations far and wide opened their arms to us, as did their governments. It defies reason that our government could have squandered this almost unprecedented international goodwill, pursued a course of unilateralism, and treated our allies in a dismissive if not contemptuous manner. Consequently, we are essentially single-handedly assuming the lion's-share of costs associated with maintaining security and rebuilding Iraq. An even more profound consequence of this unilateralist approach is that it is overwhelmingly our men and women in uniform who are bearing this burden, who are away from their families, suffering casualties, and giving their lives.

Despite all of my objections to the supplemental request under consideration today, I believe that we are basically left with no choice but to complete our mission. I urge Congress to offset the costs of Iraq by reducing the tax cut for millionaires. This is why I offered an amendment before the Rules Committee, and this is why I voted against the previous question in an effort to make the Obey substitute in order. The Administration sent us down this path, and now we cannot afford to create greater regional instability by wiping our hands of our unfinished business in Iraq. However, in order to assure that we are doing everything possible to restore fiscal order to these immense funding requests, I believe we must at minimum make wise choices about the long-term costs of our mission, hold the Administration accountable for the funding in this Supplemental, and insist upon the imposition of real benchmarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the longtime dedication of Junior Past County Commander Paul DeVaul to the American Legion and veterans across the country. As Suffolk County Commander for the past two years, Mr. DeVaul has exemplified true commitment to Legionnaires and has proven to be a hero to veterans everywhere. I commend the American Legion for bestowing a well-deserved Testimonial on Mr. DeVaul.

As a member of Bay Shore Post No. 365 since 1990, Paul's steadfast devotion to our veterans community serves as a benchmark for what can be accomplished through an allegiance to history and experience as a community activist. Mr. DeVaul has formed a lasting bond between the American Legion and the Long Island community by establishing recognition programs for groups who support veterans and their organizations. As the current recording Secretary for the Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Committee, Paul has successfully aided his Post to take full control of the post home.

Mr. DeVaul is not only dedicated to improving the lives of our veterans but our youth as well. In creating a scholarship for outstanding music students in high school marching bands and developing an awe-inspiring Flag Day celebration for Commack elementary school, Paul has demonstrated the positive roles that our veterans organizations have in our communities.

Paul is an effective advocate for our veterans population and has a wealth of knowledge about American history. He is well-known in the community and can be counted on to deliver consistently heartfelt and moving

addresses which comforted the grief stricken Long Islanders in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.

After having spent time with Mr. DeVaul I consider him a true patriot and am proud to rely on his valuable insight as a member of my Veteran's Advisory Committee. I look forward to continuing my work with Paul on initiatives that advance the goals of the American Legion and all veterans. His commitment is exemplary and I have no doubt that Paul DeVaul will continue his great works for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

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

I rise today to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003. In form, this motion instructs conferees to eliminate from the legislation the tax- free savings accounts for medical expenses. These accounts are estimated to cost the Federal Government $174 billion over the next 10 years; and in my opinion, this funding would better serve seniors if it were used to close the enormous gap in coverage that exists in H.R. 1, as it currently is formulated, that leaves seniors without a dependable prescription drug plan.

Health savings security accounts are one of the many provisions in H.R. 1 that I find troubling. The health savings security accounts bill, like so many bills that this House has considered over the past few months, was brought to the floor in the middle of the night, in a last minute fashion, and was rammed through without debate. The bill passed largely along party lines and in the wee hours of the next morning was incorporated into the prescription drug bill through a rule. This Congress never had the opportunity to study such an enormous proposal.

Supporters of the tax-free savings accounts will tell my colleagues that these accounts are valuable tools to cover the uninsured; and clearly, we must prioritize providing health coverage to the greater number of the uninsured, especially since we learned recently that 2.4 million Americans joined the ranks of the now 43.6 million Americans who are uninsured in just the last year alone. However, these savings accounts will do very little to help the uninsured and are the wrong solution for several reasons.

The medical savings accounts are a bad idea because they will cost the States already struggling with deep financial difficulties $20 to $30 billion in revenues over the next 10 years and, as I indicated earlier, will cost the Federal Government $174 billion over the next 10 years. The significant costs associated with these accounts will go towards providing benefits that I believe are merely illusory. These accounts are presented as a device that will help the uninsured. Yet 36 percent of the uninsured have incomes below the poverty

level so they pay little or no income tax. If their incomes are so low that they pay little in the way of income tax, then we cannot reasonably expect them to invest in medical savings accounts.

If the majority of the House feels that this $174 billion is available to us and that we can afford to spend it, then in my opinion there is a much better way for us to invest it.

The prescription drug bill that passed the House has an alarming gap in coverage. Just when seniors reach the point when their drug costs become unbearable and they need help the most, the prescription drug bill leaves them to their own devices. Under the bill that passed, seniors will be forced to pay 100 percent of their drug costs from between $2,000 and $4,900 a year. This gap is so huge that 48 percent of Medicare beneficiaries, almost one-half of seniors, will fall into the gap. And as if this were not enough, seniors with drug costs over $2,000 will continue to be required to pay their monthly premiums, even though they are receiving nothing in return.

I am increasingly discouraged that every time this Congress is faced with a choice of helping out those who need help the most or those who do not, we opt for those who need assistance the least. By eliminating the medical savings account provision from H.R. 1 and applying their $174 billion in savings to close the gap in coverage, we will be doing the right thing by helping those that need it the most. This amount of money will significantly close the coverage gap and will give seniors whose prescription drugs costs are past $2,000 a year great peace of mind. It is patently unfair to leave seniors to fend for themselves as their burden increases.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion and to do the right thing by our seniors by making this drug benefit more reliable. Let us send a strong message in support of seniors by giving them a prescription drug benefit with no gap in coverage.

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

I have about eight additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

(Mr. POMEROY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

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

I think the point of our contention that the monies saved by eliminating the Health Savings Security Act is that money that does not come into the Treasury is the same as money that comes in and is then spent. If the Treasury can afford to not take in an additional $174 billion, our point is that the $174 billion would be better spent in assisting people who really do need the assistance as opposed to providing comfort and benefit to those who really do not need the assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

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

In closing, let me just say a few things. Chairman Thomas just made reference to the fact, he talked about the difficulty associated with developing plans and writing legislation when there are limited dollar amounts available. Certainly he is right about that. But I think it is important that we recognize that one of the reasons that we have limited dollar amounts available for this and so many other benefits is that we have been on a tax-cutting frenzy in this Congress in the last several months.

We are now talking about the instant issue, the $174 billion for health savings accounts; $350 billion tax cut over 10 years that we approved in March. We all know that that number is probably an illusion. It is probably going to be closer to $1 trillion over 10 years because we all know that the sunsets really are not going to happen. The estate tax, the permanent elimination of the estate tax of $161 billion, and the, let us say, the overreaction to fixing the child tax credit problem. We have put in place an $82 billion solution to a $9 billion problem.

These tax cuts have two things in common, in my view. One is that they disproportionately favor the well-to-do and second is that they will not do what they purport to do. The health savings accounts purport to help the uninsured become insured and be able to handle their health expenses. It is not going to happen because so many of the uninsured are those who cannot afford insurance and cannot afford these accounts under any circumstance. And the other tax cuts have been designed, we are told, to stimulate the economy and create jobs, yet we continue to lose jobs at an alarming rate in this country.

It seems to me that what we are doing is we are throwing solutions at problems without really knowing whether the solution will work or not.

In the case of the prescription drug package, we do in fact know that if we make the benefit more substantial we will be truly helping people in need and we will be providing a real solution to a real problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1, the prescription drug bill.

The form of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Bishop of New York moves that the managers on the part

of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of

the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1 be

instructed to reject division B of the House bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Gold Star Mothers of America, a Congressionally chartered organization, and the celebration of Gold Star Mother's Day. This event was held on Sunday to commemorate the significant sacrifices and contributions of the Gold Star Mothers.

In 1936, by proclamation of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Congress concurring, the last Sunday of every September is dedicated to ``the greatest source of the Country's strength and inspiration'', the American mother. I am proud to honor these women who have shown the utmost courage in supporting the goals of this Nation. Each member of the American Gold Star Mothers has dealt valiantly with the overwhelming suffering that accompanies the loss of a son or daughter, yet they continue to believe in the good of America, our veterans and the armed forces.

As our country continues to engage in struggle overseas, we are increasingly dependent on the good works of organizations like the Gold Star Mothers. Wherever they exist, the Gold Star Mothers perpetuate the ideals for which, their sons and daughters fought and died. They strive to assist veterans and veterans' organizations across the country while offering support to each other and a newly grieving nation.

This past Sunday, government buildings and individuals across the world showed their true appreciation for the Gold Star Mothers by flying the U.S. flag and holding public gatherings. At America's preeminent resting-place for American soldiers, Arlington National Cemetery, a solemn gathering and wreath laying ceremony was held at the Tomb of the Unknowns.

The dedication and triumphs of the Gold Star Mothers stem from a shared bond. As they describe it, ``The success of our organization continues because of the bond of mutual love, sympathy, and support of the many loyal, capable, and patriotic mothers who while sharing their grief and their pride, have channeled their time, efforts and gifts to lessening the pain of others. We stand tall and proud by honoring our children, assisting our veterans, supporting our nation, and healing with each other.''

It is important that we take time to recognize such a laudable organization as the American Gold Star Mothers. I am consistently impressed with their dedication to our Country, Armed Services, veterans and of course, to their own children.

Through only the greatest hardship can membership in the American Gold Star Mothers be accorded. Our country is forever indebted to them for their ability to transform their grief into positive action and undying dedication to the past, present and future heroes of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the sad passing of Charles B. Forbes, who leaves a lasting impact on the district I represent. Charlie is survived by his wife Barbara Cameron Forbes, known to all as Cam. While the passing of this fine man saddens me, I am grateful for the 80 years he lived, many of them publishing local newspapers and serving community organizations. This morning, the Times-Review papers on Long Island published an obituary on Charlie's life. I'd like to submit this piece for the Record.

Charles Bowman Forbes

Charles B. Forbes, former publisher of Long Island's first

Sunday newspaper, The Sunday Review, and the state's largest

newspaper, The News-Review of Riverhead, died Sept. 22 at his

home in Hampton, N.H., at age 80.

The youngest of five sons, he was born in New Rochelle,

N.Y., on May 24, 1923, to T. Harold and Carrie Forbes.

Mr. Forbes was a graduate of Manhasset (L.I.) High School

and Colgate University, and served with the U.S. Army during

World War II. He started his newspaper career at the New York

Daily News. After he sold The Sunday Review and The News-

Review to Cowles Communications in the 1970s, Mr. Forbes

worked for The Traveler-Watchman in Southold and WRIV Radio

in Riverhead.

Mr. Forbes was a longtime member of the Riverhead Rotary

Club and Riverhead Chamber of Commerce, a former president of

the Quogue Board of Education and a member of Quogue Fire

Department. He and his wife, Barbara (known to all as

``Cam''), were among the early members of the St. Patrick's

Day Parade Committee in Westhampton Beach and are the only

husband and wife to be honored and named, separately, as

grand marshals of the popular parade. He later relocated to

New Hampshire and worked with his son, Tom, founder of Forbes

Marketing Group, an advertising specialties business.

Mr. Forbes is survived by his wife; his son; five

daughters, Susan Lilley, Cameron Howard, Lisa Ryan, Shelley

Natalie and Melissa Forbes; and four grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the second year anniversary of the most brutal acts of terrorism to ever take place on our Nation's soil. On September 11, 2001, let us not forget that families were torn apart and our way of life threatened as over 3,000 innocent lives were tragically lost in devastation at the Pentagon, World Trade Center and in Pennsylvania.

Let us also remember that September 11 was as much a day of loss and sorrow as it was a day of unprecedented heroism that poignantly demonstrated core American values of compassion, patriotism and service to country.

On that faithful morning, heroes were born as hundreds of our Nations first responders, firefighters, police officers, and other emergency personnel, selflessly and bravely lost their own lives to secure the lives and safety of others.

A good friend of mine and a resident of Long Island, Police Officer Vincent Danz, was one such hero of September 11. Vinnie Danz was among the first to respond on September 11 after a hijacked airliner crashed into the World Trade Center. Officer Danz, a member of the New York Elite Emergency Service Unit, spent his final moments helping the remaining occupants of the North Tower escape before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m.

For those who knew Vinnie Danz, it was not at all surprising that he spent his last breath courageously filling his oath to protect and serve innocent civilians. As a 14-year veteran of the New York City Police Department, he had previously earned 17 decorations. Throughout his life, Vinnie not only dutifully answered the call to serve the residents of New York, but also his country. He was enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and at the time of his death was a marine safety technician with the Coast Guard Reserves.

Friends of Vinnie remember him as an avid Mets and Rangers fan, a straight-laced cop who loved to kid around, and most of all a loving father and husband. On September 11, Vinnie left behind his wife Angela and three small girls, Winnifred, named after his sister, and Emily and Abigail, whom he adored.

In remembering Police Officer Vinnie Danz, we honor the memory of a man whose life embodied the best of American ideals. Vinnie selflessly and courageously lived by the principles of service to community and country. In doing so, he demonstrated compassion and steadfast commitment.

Even in performing his final agents of heroism at the World Trade Center, Vinnie did not show concern for himself. Rather, he asked his wife in a final phone message to, ``Say a prayer that we get some of these people out. I am okay, but say a prayer for me.''

Vincent Danz was not the only Long Island hero of September 11. Lieutenant Andrew Desperito, a New York city firefighter from East Patchogue, New York, was on the 23rd floor of One World Trade Center when he found out that Tower Two had already collapsed. Before exiting the building, he ordered the rest of his team ahead and he stopped to help a woman having trouble making her escape. He had just exited the building when it collapsed. He did not survive.

There were also the Vigiano brothers, Joseph of Medford, an emergency service unit detective and his firefighter brother, John Vigiano, both of whom died that day in the line of duty when the Twin Towers fell.

The brave acts of New York's first responders helped to save the lives of 25,000 World Trade Center victims on September 11. Of those who perished, 33 were from the first district of New York. These people were professional rescuers, the finest New York had to offer. Our community's loss is great, and so is that of their families. Their plans for the future ranged from seeing their children through college to soon retiring from the force. In their common mission of saving lives on September 11, their dreams were lost and their families shattered. For their sacrifice, we owe a great debt to the police officers, firefighters and emergency workers who risked their lives on September 11.

As a Congress we not only have the responsibility to remember their acts of courage, but to carry out our duties with the same love of country, compassion to others and commitment to service.

To properly pay tribute to the lives of these courageous people, we in Congress must ensure that first responders have the support they need to remain safe and effectively carry out their life-saving duties. In addition, we must reaffirm our commitment as a Congress and as a Nation to prevent terrorists from ever again carrying out these heinous and offensive acts against Americans and other innocent people around the world.

In remembrance of these first responders from New York's first district, I will enter the names of those who perished into the Record.

James M. Amato, Frank Bonomo, Peter Brennan, Daniel J.

Brethel, Donald James Burns, Thomas M. Butler, Nicholas Paul

Chiofalo Jr., John A. Crisci, Michael Sean Curtin, Martin N.

DeMeo, Andrew J. Desperito, Jerome Mark Patrick Dominguez,

Michael K. Healey, Timothy B. Higgins, Andrew Jordan, Thomas

Richard Kelly.

Patrick Lyons, Joseph E. Maloney, Peter C. Martin, William

J. McGovern, Martin McWilliams, Thomas Moody, John

Napolitano, Daniel O'Callaghan, Michael Thomas Russo Sr.,

Gerard Patrick Schrang, Stanley S. Smagala Jr., Kevin Joseph

Smith, Lawrence T. Stack, John James Tipping II, Joseph

Vincent Vigiano, Kenneth Thomas Watson, Walter Edward Weaver.

May we always remember their bravery, compassion for others, and ultimate sacrifice. We will always miss them and we will never forget.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge the House to pass the Bishop amendment, which will continue the ban on the human testing of pesticides. Human testing of pesticides is wrong on many levels. It is morally wrong, it is ethically wrong, it is environmentally wrong, and it is even scientifically wrong.

In the wake of World War II and the horrendous crimes committed against humanity, many of them by doctors, American judges wrote what is called the Nuremberg Code when those doctors went on trial. This code prohibits non-therapeutic medical testing. Pesticide testing does not meet that criteria. Pesticide testing is not about public safety; it is about private interests.

Because of the stricter requirements of the unanimously passed Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, the pesticide industry has been under mounting pressure to reduce the risks that pesticides pose to infants and children. The industry has adopted a strategy to evade these requirements by testing pesticides on a small number of adult human subjects and to thereby remove safety factors and other protective requirements.

And unlike human testing of drugs, which has the potential to benefit test subjects or to directly improve human health, the pesticide industry's purpose in conducting human tests of pesticides is to weaken otherwise applicable health protections and to increase their profits. Intentional dosing of humans with pesticides is unethical since it is done to advance industry interests and to weaken otherwise applicable health protections, not to benefit test subjects or the public health.

At the end of the day, these tests are scientifically irrelevant for several reasons. Human tests of pesticides are scientifically invalid because they routinely test tiny numbers of healthy people, often just eight adult males, whereas a test of thousands of people is needed to yield statistically valid results for certain effects.

The results of these tests are non-applicable because they are testing self-selected, healthy adult males; yet the protections we seek are for all Americans, including vulnerable children. It is ridiculous to somehow infer if you do not witness symptoms in a small number of adult males, that the level of pesticide is therefore safe for a child.

When media reports first informed the American people that the pesticide industry was conducting human testing, the resulting outrage resulted in an EPA moratorium of the studies, as well as a panel to study the morality of the issue. In 2000, that panel concluded if the use of human subjects in pesticide testing can be justified, that justification cannot be to facilitate the interests of industry or of agriculture, but only to better safeguard the public health. That standard has never been met by the pesticide industry.

More recently, in December of 2001, in the wake of a public outcry after reports that the Bush administration was considering using such human tests, EPA Administrator Whitman announced the EPA would not use these tests to make decisions. However, the pesticide industry sued, arguing that the EPA failed to follow the procedures required by the Administrative Procedures Act in adopting the policy. On June 3, 2003, a court agreed and set aside the Bush administration's temporary moratorium, ruling that the EPA followed the wrong procedures in adopting it.

We simply cannot allow human testing of pesticides to proceed on a loophole. Let us be ethically right, environmentally right and scientifically right, and pass this amendment to prohibit human testing of pesticides.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.