Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from New York for allowing me this time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to share everyone's frustration with the mistakes that have been made in Iraq, and the fact that progress has not been made as fast as we would all have liked. I would say, though, before you cast your vote on this resolution, I think it is only fair to remind Members of this Chamber that the main thrust of this resolution focuses only on one of at least 10 of the recommendations the administration is carrying out based upon the work of the Iraq Study Group. Others include shifting our primary mission to training and equipping Iraqi security units and embedding more U.S. soldiers in the Iraqi military.

The administration has also pledged to hold the Iraqi Government accountable to its commitments to take primary responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November, establishing a fair constitutional amendment process, reforming de-Baathification laws, creating a fair oil revenue sharing arrangement and holding local elections.

Let me also remind the Democratic majority that when the Iraq Study Group announced its recommendations, the Democratic leaders publicly stated they hoped the President would embrace the report. But when the administration proposed carrying out policy recommendations by the study group, which included a surge in troops, the Democrats backed away and took the cynical approach, oppose and criticize, rather than to offer to work for real solutions.

Some Members of this body will use this week's nonbinding resolution to run away from the vote that they cast in 2003. I will suggest to you that history will judge this Congress in a manner many of you have not considered. In my judgment, every Member who votes in favor of this resolution is endorsing the Democratic Party's decision to manage the war from Capitol Hill.

After all, as the debate on this resolution got under way this week, the Democrat leadership in this House made it perfectly clear that the resolution is just the first effort by the majority to begin a Democratic-led legislative micromanagement of this war.

It is said that Colin Powell advised the President on Iraq, if you break it, you own it. So I want to tell the Democratic majority that with this resolution, your plan to micromanage this war through your legislative initiatives, you are taking possession of this war.

With this resolution, you are taking over the day-to-day management of this conflict, and at the same time taking the onus off of the President. Let me say that again. You are now responsible for the outcome of this war.

The Democratic majority has determined that solutions to our most complicated conflicts can be solved through nonbinding resolutions, and I predict forcing the President's hand by cutting off the funding for our men and women in uniform, just like they did in Vietnam. Our soldiers fought gallantly in Vietnam as they do today in Iraq, but the legislative micromanagement by the U.S. Congress during the Vietnam era, and in decisions to cut funding for our military mission in Southeast Asia, only tied the hands of our warriors, but it not only tied the hands of our warriors, it demoralized our men and women in uniform for decades.

Ladies and gentlemen, the new majority has not learned from the mistakes of the past, but has arrogantly concluded that House Democrats can take command and control of our strategy and our troops in Iraq from the floor of this Chamber. Keep in mind, now that the Democratic leadership has assumed the role of Commanders in Chief, the consequences of failures are now also theirs. Just as the North Vietnamese changed their strategy and were emboldened by the misguided actions of the Congress, so too will the enemies of freedom in Iraq be emboldened by this and subsequent resolutions by this Congress.

Furthermore, if the majority party's political rhetoric corresponds with their legislative agenda on Iraq, you can rest assured that the humanitarian disaster will be yours. The jihadist victory will be yours. The rogue state coalition of Iran and Syria will be yours.

A genocidal Sunni-Shiite-Arab civil war will be yours. You will have handed al Qaeda victory and empowered its homicidal leaders. Again with this resolution, the Democratic majority has seized control of this conflict. And again, remember what Colin Powell said: If you break it you own it.

History will not focus on your voting for the resolution authorizing the force, but they will long remember you unleashing the hell that is going to come in Iraq by voting for this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in tepid support of H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act. As a result of this measure, approximately 55,000 subsidized Stafford loan borrowers in Iowa, many of whom attend Iowa State University and other colleges in my district, will have their interest rates reduced upon entering repayment after graduation.

The savings college graduates will realize through this interest rate cut, approximately $2,300 for students starting school this upcoming academic year, is commendable and deserves our support.

However, any statements implying that this measure makes college more affordable or more accessible, those statements are simply incorrect. Several Members have made such statements and the official Website of the Democrat Caucus also claims the bill ``makes college more accessible and affordable.'' The fact is this legislation does neither.

How can a reduction in student loan interest rates make education more accessible when students do not feel the effect of the rate cuts while they attend school? Only after the students are through school and enter repayment will they be able to take advantage of the provisions of this bill. So H.R. 5 does not expand college access for a single Iowa student in any way.

Further, any claim that this measure makes college more affordable is pure conjecture. Institutions of higher education have been increasing tuition at an alarming rate, 35 percent in the past 5 years. According to the Department of Education, financial barriers will prevent 4.4 million students from attending a 4-year public college and prevent another 2 million from attending any college at all over the next decade.

Unfortunately, the Democrat majority did not make any amendments that might actually make college education more affordable, including Ranking Member McKeon's College Affordability and Transparency Act, which would hold schools accountable for the huge cost hikes that they implement year after year, in order under the rule.

If recent pricing trends continue, any savings college graduates might enjoy from interest rate cuts will be negated within 3 years before the 3.4 percent interest rate takes effect.

Madam Speaker, I am proud that the Republican-led Congress tripled student aid over the last 10 years, and I fully support measures that make college education more accessible and

more affordable for America's working families. But this legislation falls woefully short of those important goals and is nothing but a cheap, or I should say a very expensive PR measure that allows Congress to get into the business of setting student loan interest rates based on campaign promises, not on sound fiscal or education policy.

I had hoped that the Democrat majority would actually fulfill the promise to make college education more accessible and affordable. I guess I hoped for too much.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4, a misguided policy that threatens to destroy the positive benefits provided to seniors through Medicare Part D. Arguments in support of this bill completely ignore the fact that under Medicare Part D, drug plans currently negotiate with drug companies to offer lower prices and better benefits for seniors. Due to strong competition among drug plans, the average Part D premium is now 42 percent less than originally projected. CMS actuaries recently announced that in 2008, Part D will cost taxpayers 10 percent less than it did this year. That will be 30 percent less than originally anticipated. In addition, most beneficiaries are satisfied with Part D. National surveys place beneficiary satisfaction at approximately 80 percent or higher.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, there are no projected cost savings associated with H.R. 4. This is because the only way to squeeze any more savings out of the current system is to limit formularies and steer patients to certain preferred drugs on a nationwide basis, as the VA does. With H.R. 4 in place, this would be a fairly easy step to take in the future. However, the VA model is not one we should follow. While 38 percent of the drugs approved by the FDA during the 1990s are on the VA formulary, it includes only 19 percent of drugs approved since 2000. One million of the 3.8 million Medicare age veterans in the VA health system have signed up for the Medicare Part D benefit because VA coverage is not adequate.

In the U.S., 43 million Medicare recipients account for 40 percent of all drug spending. With this kind of market share, Federal Government ``negotiation'' is in reality price setting. In the past, Democrats as well as Republicans have rejected federal price setting for Medicare drugs.

Noninterference clauses were included in past Democrat sponsored drug benefit legislation, including President Clinton's 1999 Medicare reform proposal, and two prescription drug bills offered by House Democrats in 2000.

It is important to point out the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, routinely cited as a model for its quality and efficiency, relies on private health plans to negotiate drug prices on behalf of federal employees and Members of Congress. If federal price setting is not good for us, then it is not good for Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line here is that having competing drug plans negotiate drug prices--rather than the federal bureaucracy--is the best way to administer the Medicare drug benefit. The current system has been extremely successful in keeping costs low. Diverse formularies and cost sharing arrangements allow seniors to choose the plan that meets their needs at the lowest possible cost.

I urge my colleagues to reject the ill-advised and misguided policy proposed by House Democrats and vote ``no'' on H.R. 4.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3 because revising the current Federal policy on stem cell research is completely unnecessary. Sadly, the ethical debate over human embryonic stem cell research has completely overshadowed the fact that the Federal Government is devoting $600 million each year for all types of stem cell research. The current policy does not ban stem cell research in the United States, nor does it ban Federal funding for embryonic-type stem cell research. It only limits federally funded embryonic stem cell research to stem cell lines existing before August 9, 2001. The National Institutes of Health, through its peer-review selection process, currently directs only about $39 million of the total to human embryonic stem cell research. While some conclude that the stem cell lines approved under the administration's policy are not adequate, 85 percent of all the published research on embryonic stem cells, whether U.S. or foreign, was conducted using these stem cell lines. The fact is, despite these investments, embryonic stem cell research has yielded few and modest results in animals, and no clinical treatments in humans.

In stark contrast, non-embryonic stem cells are showing far more potential to develop treatments. Just this week, it was reported around the country that researchers from Wake Forest University found that stem cells extracted from amniotic fluid have the same growth and differentiation capabilities as embryonic stem cells. These cells are shed by the developing fetus and are easily obtained during prenatal testing without destroying human embryos. Other research using stem cells from non-embryonic sources, such as existing adult cells, umbilical chord blood and human placentas, has resulted in 72 experimental treatments for a number of diseases.

According to a study by the RAND corporation, there are approximately 400,000 frozen embryos at fertility clinics in the U.S., most of which have been set aside for future use. Only approximately 11,000 have been donated for research so far. If there is a breakthrough that provides a treatment using embryonic stem cells, the fact is that fertility clinics could never provide the number of stem cells needed for treatment: 50 to 100 eggs are needed to produce just one petri dish of cells. Donors would have to be solicited, which would put women all over the world at risk for coercion as well as the health complications associated with egg donation.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the United States is not alone in the world in addressing this issue; Italy, Austria, Ireland, Norway, and Poland have an outright prohibition on human embryo research. In other countries, such as France and Germany, human embryonic stem cell research is only permitted for stem cell lines created before a certain date, which is similar to the current U.S. policy. Federal resources should continue to be directed toward the most promising medical research. I urge my colleagues to uphold the current policy on stem cell research and vote ``no'' on H.R. 3.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah and I also thank the gentleman from Michigan for supporting this legislation.

H.R. 6427 has no budgetary impact at all. This bill would raise from 5 percent to 15 percent the percentage of patent royalties that can be retained by the government-owned, contractor-operated labs and universities and nonprofits with annual budgets of $40 million or less in any given fiscal year under the patent laws.

The bill would provide relief to smaller contracts, and incentivize these labs and universities to reinvest in their research and educational operations. The bill would only raise the ceiling for very small budgets. The majority of these contracts have much larger budgets of $100 million or more, and for those current larger budgets the 5 percent threshold would remain.

This bill has no opposition, and ensures that these contracts have the necessary funding to continue their successful pursuit of revolutionary inventions by keeping a larger percentage of the patent royalty. The thrust of this bill is to give incentives for smaller institutions and labs to continue investing in research and development. These smaller contracts of $40 million or less should not be penalized for their success just because they reach the current statutory 5 percent ceiling more quickly than the larger contracts in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Raising the ceiling to 15 percent for these smaller contracts is fair. The bill makes the royalty regime more equitable for all.

Mr. Speaker, again I appreciate the support of both sides of the aisle.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for recognizing me and Mr. Frank for his kind words about the great State of Iowa and I thank Mr. Boswell very much for the kind words, a great friend.

I really would like to, first of all, thank the Speaker and the majority leader for allowing this bill to come to the floor today. It is extraordinarily important that we do recognize this great humanitarian.

I would also like to thank my staff who has worked for weeks and weeks on this to get the support that is needed to bring a provision like this to the floor. It is very much appreciated.

Dr. Norman Borlaug truly is an American superhero and really not that many people have heard of him because he has worked very quietly behind the scenes. He has done great things but he is someone who does not seek recognition.

His campaign to save the lives of the world's neediest people through agricultural science deserves this very, very special recognition. How many lives has he saved? Dr. Borlaug's innovative leadership in plant breeding and agricultural production is credited with saving the lives of nearly one billion people. That is right, one billion people.

It was back in 1944 when he was given the task, like Mrs. Biggert mentioned, of researching high-yield, disease-resistant cereal grains to help feed the neediest people, and through all of his efforts he was successful in developing varieties of wheat that completely altered agriculture as we know it in places like Pakistan, India, Mexico, Central America.

The wheat variety he developed has allowed those farmers to produce far more grain than they ever thought possible in those regions. This bounty gave the poorest people of the world an opportunity to be fed and, most importantly, to ensure that their children were not suffering from malnutrition and starvation.

He was the person that is credited with developing the Green Revolution, which changed agriculture, changed food production worldwide. He truly is a legendary figure with the agricultural community, and his name is well-known all across the world.

I am very proud of the fact that Dr. Borlaug was born and raised in my district in Cresco, Iowa, and is known locally as a very modest man who once talked about his accomplishments, and again, as a quote, ``a temporary success in man's war against hunger and deprivation.''

It is almost 40 years since the Nobel Peace Prize was given to Dr. Borlaug. Today, at age 92, he continues to work for improvement in mankind, and for this reason, I introduced H.R. 4924, a companion bill to the underlying measure, Senate 2250, which is a bill to award this great humanitarian, Dr. Norman Borlaug, the Congressional Gold Medal for his lifetime of service to the world.

I know there are many in Congress who do not think about the progress we have made in production agriculture and are probably unaware of the countless contributions made by agricultural scientists like Dr. Norman Borlaug. Dr. Borlaug's leadership has inspired so many young people to enter agricultural sciences today, and his legacy will go on forever, with his forethought and his innovation.

It really is his work and the work of future innovators that will live on in the lives who have been spared so much misery from starvation, and I respectfully urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill so that we can officially recognize this great humanitarian, Dr. Norman Borlaug.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I rise in support of this conference agreement and urge my colleagues to also support it. I also want to commend Chairman Rogers, Mr. Sabo, and the subcommittee staffs on both sides for their great work on this bill.

I also want to take note that this is the last time that Congressman Marty Sabo will be on the floor with the Homeland Security appropriations bill. He has been a key member of the subcommittee and a valued member of the full committee, and on behalf of Kathy and myself, we wish you and Sylvia the very, very best for the future. You are great people, and it has been an honor to get to know you. I appreciate your great career here.

The process of putting together this appropriations bill to address the operational needs of the Homeland Security Department has once again been a very difficult one. As I participated in the process on this bill, I have come to the conclusion that our approach to funding homeland security has been well thought out in the face of having to make difficult choices. This year, as in the past, we have worked hard to balance the priorities. While I am not fully satisfied with some of the choices, overall I am pleased with many of the components of this bill.

For example, I am very happy that we put extra funding into enhancement of border security. We added funds for new border patrol personnel and capital infrastructure. This is one more significant step toward the best combination of assets to protect our borders. This is a must, in my view.

I am also pleased that we have included a structural overhaul of FEMA, an issue that had to be addressed. The components of the overall bill set FEMA on a path to better carrying out its mission.

At the end of the day, there are no perfect answers to our homeland security problems, and there is no perfect dollar resource level for any of these homeland functions. We are not going to reach a 100 percent security umbrella no matter what level of funding we allocate to the homeland function. Since we cannot reach security perfection and because our resources are limited, we simply have to allocate resources wisely, and we have done that again this year.

I would ask all Members to support this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, each year approximately 1 million pregnancies in the United States end in miscarriage, stillbirth or the death of a newborn baby.

Most Americans are not aware of this startling statistic, because many of those affected grieve in silence, sometimes never coming to terms with their loss.

We can help by giving all parents, grandparents, siblings, relatives and friends a special day of remembrance. In addition, bringing attention to this issue will foster greater understanding in our communities of how to meet the needs of bereaved family members and focus attention on efforts to prevent pregnancy loss and newborn deaths.

The Governors of all 50 States have signed proclamations recognizing October 15 as Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day, and the legislatures of at least eight States have passed resolutions recognizing this day each year on a permanent basis.

Congress can bring even greater national awareness to this important issue by proclaiming its support for Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day. Taking this action will mean something special to millions of Americans that have been affected, especially the mothers.

I commend the resolution's 54 bipartisan cosponsors and the many citizens throughout the country and in my home State of Iowa whose efforts have made consideration of this resolution possible

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the adoption of this resolution which will offer the support to individuals and families who have lost a child through miscarriage, stillbirth or other complications.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in acknowledgment of the extreme generosity of one of my constituents. I wish to recognize the kindness of Jean Hull from Marble Rock, Iowa; a member of the American Legion Auxiliary.

Recently, Mrs. Hull and her veteran husband purchased an expensive electric chair. It is with sadness that I say Mr. Hull died shortly thereafter. Instead of returning the chair valued at $6,000, Mrs. Hull kindly and unselfishly donated the chair to the Iowa Veterans Home in honor of her late husband.

This thoughtful and selfless act deserves honoring, and thus I stand today and recognize the act of Mrs. Jean Hull.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate a distinguished citizen and constituent. More specifically, it is my pleasure to announce the nomination of Ms. Claire Schoenborn, of Osage, Iowa, by American Legion Auxiliary Unit 278 for Member of the Year.

Ms. Schoenborn is a vital member of the community in Osage, Iowa. The widow of a World War II veteran, she has repeatedly demonstrated her dedication to volunteerism and community service. Ms. Schoenborn is able to spread joy and brighten lives in many ways.

As a cancer survivor, Ms. Schoenborn is actively involved in the Mitchell County Relay for Life and the Home Trust Helping Hands Team fundraising efforts. She is also a member of the Association for Retarded Citizens, and until recently, an important volunteer in the Bridges Mentoring Program. Perhaps the most valuable part of Ms. Schoenborn's community service services is her dedication to visiting the elderly, the ill and the shut-ins.

And so today I rise to recognize Ms. Clair Schoenborn for her commitment to the betterment of the community and I congratulate Ms. Schoenborn on her nomination for Member of the Year by American Legion Auxiliary Unit 278. May Ms. Schoenborn continue to serve her community for many years.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As an original cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 449, I rise today in strong support of this resolution and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it. Bob Feller may best be known for his heroics on the pitching mound, but Bob Feller is also a war hero who unselfishly put his baseball career on hold while he fought to save America, a true patriot, a native Iowan who deserves special recognition and great thanks from our Nation.

As a teenager in Van Meter, Iowa, Bob Feller's unique baseball talent was making headlines. At age 16, he was drafted by the Cleveland Indians. He immediately had an astounding impact on America's greatest pastime.

With a dominating fastball and commanding slider, Bob Feller was the first pitcher to strike out his age in a single major league baseball game, 17 strikeouts at 17 years of age.

Subsequently, Bob Feller would continue to etch his name in baseball's record books by being the only pitcher in history to throw an opening day no-hitter and the first to reach 20 wins in a single season, all by the age of 21.

But what is most impressive to me and most important to our country is the sacrifice Bob Feller made to defend America in what would prove to be the deadliest war in the history of mankind, World War II.

On December 8, 1941, just one day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Bob Feller left the pitcher's mound to enlist in the Navy. Choosing America over baseball, this Major League Baseball Player of the Year forfeited an opportunity to be recorded as the greatest pitcher to ever live so he could join his fellow Americans in defense of America's freedom.

As an anti-aircraft gunman aboard the USS Alabama, Bob Feller battled Nazi Germany and its fascist allies. In the process he earned five campaign

ribbons and eight battle stars in a successful effort to save the world from tyranny.

Upon his return, Bob Feller would continue to make his mark on major league baseball, setting a Cleveland Indians franchise record of 266 wins, and was a unanimous choice for the Baseball Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility in 1962.

Bob Feller, Iowa is proud of its native son, and this Nation is thankful for your service. Bob Feller's dedication and leadership deserve to be honored. Again, I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 449.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act. It is a commonsense bipartisan strategy that would reduce record high energy prices and America's dependence on foreign sources of energy.

For too long, special interests here in Washington have contributed to higher energy costs by blocking access to our domestic natural resources. We all know gasoline is expensive. Home heating costs have increased by 20 to 40 percent. The price of natural gas in the U.S. is $10 more expensive than in China and Japan and even a greater differential in places like Iran, Russia and Argentina.

This commodity is a key component to the U.S. agricultural sector, the feedstock for fertilizer. Natural gas is estimated to consume 30 percent of a farmer's production costs. Moreover, natural gas is absolutely critical in manufacturing renewable fuels, accounting for 17 percent of ethanol production costs.

Sixty percent of the energy consumed in the U.S. is imported from other countries. As a result, our economic and national security is at risk. In fact, many natural-gas-dependent production facilities are shutting down and moving their operations overseas in order to escape this rising cost squeeze.

In order to provide relief for our constituents and ensure farmers have the ability to produce the crops and process the food that feeds the world, we must utilize the energy available closest to home.

Removing an outdated prohibition on energy production 100 miles from America's coastline, while preserving the rights of States to determine production areas within that boundary, is a practical approach that will have an immediate impact. Please vote in favor of this bill. It is a strong signal of support to our U.S. consumers, farmers and agri- businesses.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support final passage of the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Hinchey amendment.

Let's be clear: Marijuana is not harmless, as some claim. It is a schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substances Act, meaning it has no accepted medical use in treatment and has a high potential for abuse. In fact, marijuana continues to be the most widely abused drug in the United States.

Those who anecdotally claim that marijuana has a medical benefit do not differentiate between THC and whole marijuana. Whole marijuana contains hundreds of chemicals, many of which are harmful to one's health. An evaluation by several Federal agencies concluded that no sound scientific studies supported marijuana's medical use, and smoking marijuana is not approved as a legitimate medical use by the FDA.

The bottom line is, marijuana is an addictive substance that is linked to cancer and respiratory ailments and problems with the immune and reproductive system.

Let me say as a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America, marijuana is the drug that will tell whether or not someone is going to get on methamphetamines. It is the precursor, the gateway drug, for heroin use. As we continue to fight this battle against illegal drug use, this is the drug that gets people started.

Anyone who is trying to send a message to our young people today should be embarrassed by having an amendment like this, because this is telling people that this is okay, that it is socially acceptable, that you can start here and it won't hurt you. And, in fact, medically, scientifically, that is dead wrong.

The message we are sending to our children today is very strong. Whether we support legal use of marijuana as a precursor to methamphetamines, to heroin, this is the message we will be sending if we approve this. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman for the time, and Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend the chairman on another great job, very difficult year allocation-wise and everything else and all the hearings. I think it has been extremely informative in keeping the Department's feet to the fire. I think it is extraordinarily important.

I also want to commend my neighbor to the north up in Minnesota, Mr. Sabo, and you will be sorely missed next year, that is for sure, and thank you for your great service.

If you notice, I have a purple tie on. I did not get the memo, but Michelle will be missed very much next year, and thank you for the job you have done.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Hobson for the great work that he has done and the ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, just a great friend. You two guys fighting over who is going to give me a minute shows me how bipartisan we are here and all the great fellow committee members. This is really a subcommittee that works and works in a lot of different ways.

We work well together on a very bipartisan basis, but also doing the oversight work, really working through some very difficult issues. We would not be able to do that without the extraordinarily talented professional staff that we have on both sides, and I want to thank them.

This is a very important bill for Iowa, for the country. We have got an energy facility, the Ames Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, and obviously, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the transportation issues we have on the Mississippi. There are a lot of different issues, the riverfront improvements in Fort Dodge, other environmental conservation projects around.

But this is a very, very good bill, accomplished by people working together, and I just want to once again express my appreciation to the chairman and ranking member and the great staff.