Tom Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to congratulate two of my constituents, Josiah and Kathleen Pierce of Baldwin, Maine, for being selected as the 2007 National Outstanding Tree Farmers of the Year. Jo and Kathy were selected by the American Tree Farm System for their sustainable management of approximately 2,000 acres of woodland in Southern Maine. Part of the property has been in Jo Pierce's family for six generations. Jo describes his management philosophy as 100-year thinking about preserving the land's ability to pay for itself by periodic logging and yet maintaining the diversity of plant and animal life that can only be found in and around old forests. Jo and Kathy's grandchildren represent one measure of long-term management. Jo wants them to marvel at rare and unusual plants and animals that are otherwise frequently lost to short-sighted harvesting. Jo and Kathy keep their property open to the public for hiking, hunting, and other traditional uses. They want other people to experience their own attachment to the land. The award recognizes Jo and Kathy's civic contributions. In particular, Jo's service as president of the Small Woodland Owners Association of Maine, an influential State advocacy group, demonstrated his interest in sharing his knowledge of sustainable forest management with other owners. The award is also a tribute to Rene Noel, the forester who advises Jo and Kathy about best practices with respect to management of their land. Maine is a small State. I am particularly pleased to recognize Jo and Kathy's achievement because Jo and I have known each other for many years. Our fathers were friends. We share a similar perspective about our forest property, and we share the same forester. In Maine and across the country, much of our forest land is in private hands and often in relatively small lots owned by individuals. The future quality of our forests, and the diversity of life they sustain, depends in large part on the knowledge and commitment of their owners, especially to their ``100-year thinking'' about sustainable management. Jo and Kathy Pierce, National Outstanding Tree Farmers of 2007, are models for how other forest landowners can use, protect, and preserve for future generations the woodland habitat they own today.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, on April 14, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from the House due to a family illness. If I had been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 183, a motion by Mr. Ellsworth of Indiana to suspend the rules and agree to the passage of H. Res. 886, a resolution expressing sympathy to the victims and families of the tragic acts of violence in Colorado Springs, Colorado and Arvada, Colorado. I would have also voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 184, a motion by Mr. Davis of Illinois to suspend the rules and agree to the passage of H. Res. 994, a resolution expressing support for designation of a National Glanzmann's Thrombasthenia Awareness Day. I would have also voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 185, a motion by Mr. Braley of Iowa to suspend the rules and agree to the passage of H.R. 3548, the Plain Language in Government Communications Act of 2007. I ask unanimous consent that this statement be inserted in the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, on April 3, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from the House due to a family illness. If had been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 159, a motion by Mrs. McMorris Rodgers of Washington to recommit H.R. 4847 to the Committee on Science and Technology with instructions. I would have also voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 160, final passage of H.R. 4847, a bill to reauthorize the United States Fire Administration.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my support for H.R. 2342, the National Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation Act. I commend Chairman Rahall and Chairwoman Bordallo of the Natural Resources Committee for their leadership and foresight in supporting this legislation to give us the tools we need to manage and protect our marine resources and coastal communities. I also want to thank Mr. Brown and Mr. Young for their work on this bill. My legislation establishes a nationwide integrated ocean and coastal observing system, based on the internationally acclaimed Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System, GoMOOS. That is the acronym, GoMOOS. GoMOOS was developed by Maine oceanographers, and has improved safety for fishermen and boaters, increased understanding of ocean weather and helped forecast the effects of global climate change. My legislation builds on the success of regional programs like GoMOOS and will greatly enhance our knowledge about our oceans and their resources and vastly improve our ability to manage them properly. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Pew Oceans Commission, and the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative have all established creation of a comprehensive ocean observing system as a top priority. In fact, Admiral James Watkins, Chair of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and Cochair of the Joint Oceans Commission Initiative, has testified that an oceans observing system, and I quote, ``is probably the most important single program. I think if it were to be implemented properly and funded to the extent we have recommended in our report, it will be one of the most important things we can do for future decision making.'' Implementation of the Integrated Ocean Observing System will have a myriad of positive impacts. Implementation will, one, improve predictions of climate change and weather and their effects on coastal communities, including impacts on water and energy management; two, improve the safety and efficiency of marine operations; three, improve national and homeland security, particularly within ports and the Nation's heavily populated coastal regions; and, fourth, enable the sustained use of ocean and coastal resources and better manage fisheries. In addition to monitoring and forecasting climate change, the Ocean Observing System would protect coastal communities and economic interests of oceangoing industries like shipping and commercial fishing by improving warnings of tsunamis, hurricanes, coastal storms and other natural hazards. The Integrated Ocean Observing System is not just another combination of data satellites and buoys. It has real-time and real life practical applications. In the past, regional ocean systems have provided early warnings of harmful algal blooms that can severely impact the shellfish industry. Scientists use the regional system to target testing areas, and managers use it to issue timely and necessary warnings to protect public health. The Coast Guard is another frequent user. They look to the system for critical information to aid in search and rescue operations. Fishermen have used Maine's Ocean Observing System for years for real time information on sea conditions and weather. More observations provide more data and allow fishermen to make informed and safe decisions. I would just say in that context that I have had fishermen in Maine tell me that whereas they used to be gambling on what the weather might be 7 to 10 miles offshore, now they can look at their computer, they can get real-time data from a buoy 7 miles offshore and know whether or not it is safe to go out that distance. Many elements of a national ocean observing system are already in place, but currently they operate independently. Legislation is needed to formally define the fiduciary, legal and oversight structure to enable the integration of the disparate components of the ocean, coastal and Great Lakes observing activities. Legislation authorizing an integrated system will ensure the coordination and integration among all the elements of a national system, both Federal and regional, and would provide legal authority for sharing funds across Federal agencies for implementing IOOS. A national Integrated Ocean Observing system would enable managers at all levels, local, regional and National, to make informed and timely decisions to manage our ocean resources and protect our coastal communities. To summarize, what we are talking about is being able to get information about our oceans in the same way and on the same scale that today we get information about the atmosphere, and because of the interconnection of what is happening in the atmosphere and what is happening in the oceans, this will dramatically increase and expand our understanding of both the atmosphere and the oceans. It is an important piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, on March 11, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from the House due to a family illness. If I had been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 111, a motion by Mr. Gohmert of Texas that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, on February 25 and 26, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from the House due to a family illness. If I had been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote #69, a motion by Mr. Courtney of Connecticut to suspend the rules and agree to the passage of H. Res. 978, expressing support for the designation of the week of March 3-7, 2008, as ``School Social Work Week'' to promote awareness of the vital role of school social workers in schools, and in the community as a whole, in helping students prepare for their future as productive citizens. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote #70, a motion by Mr. Courtney of Connecticut to suspend the rules and agree to the passage of H. Res. 930, supporting the goals and ideals of ``Career and Technical Education Month.'' I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote #71, a motion by Mr. Courtney of Connecticut to suspend the rules and agree to the passage of H. Res. 944, honoring the service and accomplishments of Lieutenant General Russel L. Honore, United States Army, for his 37 years of service on behalf of the United States. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote #72, on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal of the last day's proceedings. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote #73, a motion by Mr. Hastings of Florida to order the previous question on adoption of H. Res. 974, a resolution providing for the consideration of H.R. 3521 to improve the Operating Fund for public housing of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote #74, on agreeing to H. Res. 974, a resolution providing for the consideration of H.R. 3521 to improve the Operating Fund for public housing of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote #75, an amendment offered by Mr. Sires of New Jersey to H.R. 3521. The amendment clarified the intent of an amendment offered by Rep. Velazquez and adopted by the Financial Services Committee by ensuring that public housing authorities that apply to HUD for ``stop-loss'' do not have their applications rejected on the basis that the management and related fees they establish pursuant to this bill are not reasonable as defined by HUD. Additionally, the amendment was a restatement of current law with respect to the ineligibility of illegal immigrants for assistance. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote #76, an amendment offered by Mr. Meek of Florida to H.R. 3521. The amendment holds HUD responsible, in the case of receivership, for performing the same responsibilities that the local housing agencies have in respect to working with tenant associations before building public housing. Additionally, in the case of receivership, before building new public housing HUD must honor any formal agreements entered into before the commencement of such receivership between the local housing authority and the tenant association. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote #77, a motion by Mr. Sires of New Jersey to table the motion of Mr. Smith of Texas to appeal the ruling of the chair that the provisions of the amendment contained in the instructions accompanying the motion to recommit offered by Mr. Smith were not germane. I ask unanimous consent that this statement be inserted in the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to talk about Craig Pendleton, a fisherman from Maine who has dedicated his life to protecting and supporting small-boat fishermen and the communities that depend on them. Craig is part of a long and proud tradition of fishing families in Maine. Like many fishermen in New England, he experienced the decline of major fishing stocks in the late 1980s and early 1990s and was frustrated by Federal management strategies that seemed to penalize fishermen without really helping to rebuild the stocks. Many fishermen experienced that frustration, but Craig stands out because he responded by rolling up his sleeves and working hard to find solutions. In 1997, my first year in the Congress, Craig founded the Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance, or NAMA. The purpose of NAMA was to work with fishermen up and down the coast of New England to articulate a vision for the future of fishing and fisheries management. Most of these fishermen were small owner- operators who had never participated in politics or management, but through NAMA Craig was able to get them involved. NAMA was a new voice in the debate over how to manage New England's fisheries. Environmental organizations and Federal managers had long recognized that fish stocks were in trouble, but the small family fishermen were typically shut out of high-level discussions about how to solve the problem. These were the people without advocates, without lawyers, without expensive lobbyists. However, they were often the first to suffer the brunt of any new limits on fishing. These are the fishermen that NAMA fights for. Over the years, under Craig Pendleton's lead, NAMA has worked tirelessly to help local fishermen understand the complicated jargon of new Federal fisheries regulations and draft their own proposals for new fisheries management plans. I worked closely with Craig and NAMA when I drafted provisions in the recently reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act to protect the interests of small-boat fishermen. Fishermen feel empowered by NAMA. Recently, NAMA became one of the leading proponents of Area Management, an innovative fishery management strategy that allows local communities to take a leading role in managing fisheries resources. The strategy rests on the commonsense idea that fishermen, if they choose, should be able to take responsibility for environmental stewardship and the fair allocation of fisheries resources in their own communities. Recently, Craig Pendleton announced that he is stepping down from the position he has held for 12 years as coordinating director of NAMA. Here today on the floor of the House, I would like to recognize Craig for all his years as a tireless advocate for fishermen and fish and for all that he has achieved for small-boat owners and operators in Maine and across the country. I admire Craig and the other men and women involved with NAMA because they are willing to endure significant personal sacrifice to ensure that the fishing industry and way of life that they love are preserved for their children and grandchildren. I hope that those future generations will stand at the helms of their fishing vessels and see our time as a turning point, when small fishing communities across the country began to take a leading role in the management of the fisheries resources on which they all depend. Craig Pendleton is a pioneer of that movement, and I would like to thank Craig on behalf of the people of Maine and wish him the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his outstanding work on this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my legislation, H.R. 1534, the Mercury Export Ban Act. I want to thank not just Mr. Wynn but Mr. Dingell, Mr. Shimkus, and Mr. Barton, all of those who have worked so hard on this particular legislation. It is a well-established fact that mercury is a powerful neurotoxin harmful at even low exposure levels. Mercury is harmful whether it is inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through the skin. Once exposed to water, elemental mercury is transformed to methylmercury, which is highly toxic and which has a tendency to bio-accumulate in both fish and the humans who eat the fish. Very young children with developing nervous systems are particularly at risk. In addition, pregnant mothers who are exposed to mercury pollution can transmit mercury to their unborn children, increasing the chances of miscarriage and birth defects. Mercury can also be found in high concentrations in mothers' breast milk. My bill seeks to combat a large source of mercury pollution worldwide: namely, the export of elemental mercury from the United States to developing countries. This mercury is used largely for artesinal mining. Exposure occurs when miners handle the mercury. It enters the water when miners pan for gold, and it enters the air through the smelting process which emits mercury vapor. According to the U.N. Environmental Programme, approximately 15 million people worldwide, including 4.5 million women and 1 million children, engage in artesinal mining with mercury, exposing them to the poisons that mercury produces. Some of this mercury is exported from the United States. That should be unacceptable to us as a Nation. Further, the export of mercury for artesinal mining harms Americans who are exposed through the global air transport of mercury pollution or through the consumption of mercury-contaminated fish. Scientists have estimated that up to one-third of U.S. mercury air pollution has traveled to the U.S. from Asia, where mercury pollution is extensive, including from mercury exported for artesinal mining. Much of the fish that we eat, including tuna, is imported from off the coast of Asian and South American countries where the use of mercury in artesinal mining is widespread. The Departments of Defense and Energy are the two largest holders of mercury in the United States. The EPA has urged DOE and DOD not to sell its mercury stockpiles due to the serious human health and environmental risks associated with mercury. DOD and DOE have agreed. However, that ban is not in law, which is why my bill prohibits the Federal Government from exporting mercury. In addition, private companies may still export this poisonous and hazardous material, which is why my legislation is necessary. Together with my friend Mr. Shimkus at the full committee markup, I offered an amendment to create a long-term mercury storage repository. This amendment was the result of a stakeholder process over the last several months to develop a consensus product. Stakeholders included NRDC, the Environmental Council of the States, the American Chemistry Council, the Chlorine Institute, and the National Mining Association, all of whom have endorsed this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I will place in the Record a letter from these groups in support of this legislation. November 8, 2007. Re: H.R. 1534. Dear Representative: H.R. 1534, the ``Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007'', which bans the export of surplus elemental mercury into global commerce, was reported out of the House Energy & Commerce Committee on October 30, 2007, by an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote of 45-2. The undersigned organizations support this negotiated version of H.R. 1534 and urge its passage under Suspension of the Rules. Collectively, our organizations negotiated in good faith to produce the bill as reported, which addresses our individual concerns, advances our shared objective of reducing global mercury pollution, and reflects good public policy. Specifically, the Committee-reported version of H.R. 1534 establishes a practical and workable domestic framework for sequestering the elemental mercury prohibited from export under the legislation. To develop this framework, our organizations worked diligently and collectively to reach consensus, each of us agreeing not to raise related mercury matters which may have prevented a successful outcome. Therefore, we hope the full House of Representatives will acknowledge the compromises made and approve H.R. 1534 without further changes. In closing, the undersigned organizations urge your ``YES'' vote on H.R. 1534 in the coming days. Sincerely, Frances G. Beinecke, President, Natural Resources Defense Council. Jack N. Gerard, President & CEO, American Chemistry Council. Kraig R. Naasz, President & CEO, National Mining Association. R. Steven Brown, Executive Director, Environmental Council of States. Arthur E. Dungan, President, The Chlorine Institute Inc. The bill requires DOE to designate a facility to accept mercury from private sector sources, particularly the chlor-alkali industry and the mining industry, when the export ban in the underlying bill takes effect on January 1, 2010. The bill does not require that all excess mercury be transferred to DOE; rather, it gives the private sector the option of placing mercury into storage at DOE. If there is a more practical or cost-effective private sector solution, the affected industries are more than welcome to pursue that option. DOE will be allowed to charge a fee to recoup the government's cost of storing this waste. As CBO has shown, enactment of this bill will have no effect on the taxpayers. All applicable and appropriate environmental laws apply with respect to this facility. The legislation will allow the chlor-alkali industry to place into safe storage the roughly 1,500 tons of mercury still to be used at aging plants. It will also allow the mining industry to store the approximately 50 to 100 tons of mercury it generates annually as a byproduct of air filtration systems. The process used to develop this legislation can be a model. On a bipartisan basis, we sat down together, we worked out our differences, and brought interested and affected parties to the table to hammer out a compromise. Again, I want to thank Chairman Wynn, Chairman Dingell, Ranking Member Barton, and Mr. Shimkus for the work they have done on this legislation. I also want to thank Dick Frandsen, Caroline Ahearn, and Ann Strickland from the majority staff, as well as Dave McCarthy and Jerry Couri from the minority staff, Jim Bradley from my staff, and Mo Zilly on Mr. Shimkus' staff for their hard work as well. Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation, and I urge all Members to support its passage.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, on October 1, 2007, I was absent from the House due to a death in the family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall Vote No. 924, a motion by Ms. Castor to suspend the rules and pass H. Con. Res. 185, a resolution commending the 1st Brigade Combat Team/34th Infantry Division of the Minnesota National Guard upon its completion of the longest continuous deployment of any United States military unit during Operation Iraqi Freedom. I would also have voted ``yea'' on rollcall Vote No. 925, a motion by Mr. Clay to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2276, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 203 North Main Street in Vassar, Michigan, as the ``Corporal Christopher E. Esckelson Post Office Building.'' Finally, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall Vote No. 926, a motion by Mr. Clay to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3325, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 235 Mountain Road in Suffield, Connecticut, as the ``Corporal Stephen R. Bixler Post Office.''

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, on September 17, had I been present on rollcall No. 867 to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3246, the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for rollcall No. 868 on suspending the rules and passing H.R. 1657, to establish a Science and Technology Scholarship Program, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for rollcall No. 869 on suspending the rules and passing H.R. 3527, to extend the authorities of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, I would have voted ``yea.'' On September 18, had I been present for rollcall No. 870, to approve the Journal, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for rollcall No. 871 on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 650, providing for consideration of H.R. 1852, Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for rollcall No. 872 on approving H. Res. 650, providing for consideration of H.R. 1852, Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for rollcall No. 873, on passing the Hensarling amendment to H.R. 1852, Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for rollcall No. 874, on passing the Biggert amendment to H.R. 1852, Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for rollcall No. 875, a motion to recommit H.R. 1852, Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for rollcall No. 876, on passing H.R. 1852, Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for rollcall No. 877 on suspending the rules and passing H.R. 3096, to promote freedom and democracy in Vietnam, I would have voted ``yea.'' On September 19, had I been present for rollcall No. 878, to approve the Journal, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for rollcall No. 879 on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 660, providing for consideration of H.R. 2761, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for rollcall No. 880 on passing H. Res. 660, providing for consideration of H.R. 2761, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for rollcall No. 881 on passing the Frank amendment to H.R. 2761, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act, I would have voted'' yea.'' Had I been present for rollcall No. 882 on passing the Pearce amendment to H.R. 2761, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for rollcall No. 883, a motion to recommit H.R. 2761, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for rollcall No. 884, on passing H.R. 2761, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for rollcall No. 885, on suspending the rules and passing H.R. 3580, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, if this Congress is serious about wanting to address the causes and consequences of climate change, then it is critical that we invest in the infrastructure we need to monitor and forecast that change. Earlier this year I introduced H.R. 2342, The National Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observing System Act of 2007. This important legislation would create an integrated ocean observing, monitoring, and forecasting system, modeled after Maine's Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System, that could save lives and billions of dollars annually. I am pleased to announce that my bill has been included in this energy bill, H.R. 3221. I commend Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Rahall of the Natural Resources Committee for their leadership and foresight in including this legislation to give all of our citizens tools that they need to plan for and adapt to global climate change. In addition to monitoring and forecasting climate change, the Ocean Observing System would protect coastal communities and protect the economic interests of ocean-going industries like shipping and commercial fishing by improving warnings of tsunamis, hurricanes, coastal storms, El Nino events, and other natural hazards. I applaud this and other climate change provisions in the bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, on July 31, 2007, I was unavoidably absent from the Capitol. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 778, to sustain the ruling of the Chair of the Committee of the Whole in her ruling against Mr. Shadegg of Arizona during debate on the McHenry Amendment to the Gingrey Amendment to H.R. 3161, the Agriculture Appropriations Bill. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 779, the Motion by the Majority Leader for the Committee of the Whole House to Rise from its consideration of H.R. 3161, the Agriculture Appropriations Bill.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Research funded by this program has provided blast-proof wood hybrid materials to the Coast Guard and the Army to strengthen their facilities. In fact, some wood composites engineered by the University of Maine and developed by research conducted under this grant program are being used by the Army Corps of Engineers in Iraq, Afghanistan and worldwide. This funding will allow the University of Maine to continue its strong support of traditional wood products production and enhance the competitiveness of our domestic industry. I strongly oppose this amendment, and I would add simply that I don't know of any program that spins off more small businesses than this wood composite program at the University of Maine.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, there are 11 million reasons to vote for this bill, and each is a child in a working-class family who will grow up healthier and stronger as a result of its passage. Every dollar we invest in the SCHIP program saves money over time. The children we cover are far less likely to require more expensive health care later on, far more likely to be better achievers in school and much better prepared to become productive adults. SCHIP today provides health care to 6 million children. This bill will cover an additional 5 million children who qualify for SCHIP but today lack coverage. Maine has developed one of the best SCHIP programs in the Nation. This bill offers States the flexibility to tailor outreach efforts to their specific needs and capacities. Failure to pass this legislation would mean the loss of health coverage for millions of children. But every child should have access to quality, affordable health care. I am proud of the comparative effectiveness research provision in this bill. It will reduce health care costs and improve quality for all Americans. It does that by providing doctors and their patients with valid evidence-based information on how different treatments for particular medical conditions compare to one another. This data can help doctors and their patients determine whether or not new or high- priced drugs, devices, and other medical treatments provide better clinical outcomes. This is a critically important piece of legislation. It helps our kids. It preserves Medicare for our seniors. It makes sure our physicians and other providers are adequately reimbursed. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, this year, United Ambulance Service of Lewiston/Auburn, Maine received accreditation from the Commission on Accreditation of Ambulance Services (CAAS), making it the first and only ambulance service in Maine and one of only about 107 ambulance services in the country currently to hold this distinction. United Ambulance is jointly owned by Central Maine Medical Center and St. Mary's Regional Medical Center. Since 1981, it has served the citizens of Androscoggin County, Maine, including the towns and cities of Auburn, Greene, Lewiston, Minot, Mechanic Falls, New Gloucester, and Sabattus. The CAAS accreditation reflects compliance with national standards of excellence and a continuing commitment to maintaining compliance with these standards. The Commission is a non-profit organization established to encourage and promote quality patient care in America's medical transportation system. Its national standards address the delivery of patient care, the service's total operation, and its relationships with other agencies, the public and the medical community. According to CAAS, accreditation signals that the ambulance service ``has met the `gold standard' determined by the ambulance industry to be essential in a modern emergency medical services provider.'' In addition, the standards for accreditation often surpass those set forth by local or State regulation. The communities served by United Ambulance have been the beneficiary of excellent service since the founding of United Ambulance. The CAAS accreditation acknowledges its dedication to the highest standards. In addition, as Paul Gosselin, United's Executive Director, noted, ``We have achieved accreditation but I believe it can only be a stimulus for continued improvement.'' This commitment and United Ambulance's ``gold standard'' will serve the people of the region well. I congratulate the employees of United Ambulance on their achievement, and, on behalf of the people they serve, thank them for their dedication and hard work.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I thank Chairman Peterson for yielding for the purpose of a colloquy. I want to congratulate him in the passage of this farm bill. I want to commend him for significant funding increases, in particular for the Senior Farmers' Market and Nutrition program, a program that provides fresh fruits and vegetables to low-income seniors through farmers markets, roadside stands and community-supported agriculture. When it is working properly, this program provides health benefits to seniors and new business opportunities to farmers. I had submitted an amendment that was not made in order. My amendment would have made it easier for States to incorporate community-supported agricultural distribution programs into their Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition programs. In particular, my amendment would have given States the flexibility to set the maximum benefit level per senior in a way best suited to the needs of farmers and seniors in each State. Our experience in Maine has been that community-supported agriculture works extremely well for farmers and is an excellent way to reach seniors who do not live close enough to a farmers market or who are not mobile enough to get up and go shopping. Indeed, Maine's community- supported agriculture program has drawn national acclaim since it was instituted. Mr. Chairman, I would simply ask Chairman Peterson if he is willing to work with me to incorporate these beneficial reforms into the 2007 farm bill.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Flake. This amendment would strike funding for the Lobster Institute CORE Initiative for the University of Maine, a program vital to the continuation of the lobster industry. I will say a few words in a moment about the importance of the lobster industry, not just to Maine, but to New England and to the entire Northeast, but I want to go straight to this particular program. The Lobster Institute's CORE Initiative provides for conservation, outreach, research and education in order to sustain the lobster. This is one of the most successfully managed fisheries along the Atlantic coast. When you look at this from the point of view of the private sector, this is not a case of a big corporate fishery. The lobster industry is primarily a small fishery with individual lobstermen who cannot possibly afford to do the research on the scale that this institute does. I would say that the institute is funded primarily by contributions from the industry itself, some people who are contributing to the research, and through private donations by the Friends of the Lobster Institute. But fundamentally, this kind of research done by our land grant universities is absolutely essential. The University of Maine does work on wild blueberries. It does work on potatoes. The industry itself could not possibly sustain industrywide research because those industries, like the lobster industry, are made up primarily of small businessmen and -women. Frankly, it is exactly this kind of public-private partnership that makes our economy stronger than it ever could be without this support. Let me give you some examples. The CORE program aims to establish a unified logical progression of research to address lobster health, stock assessment and environmental monitoring issues. For example, in southern New England, we have some very serious disease issues with some lobsters. We have to be able to track those diseases and make sure that we understand what is going on. The program will also develop infrastructure to support lobster health and habitat research. The information that is gathered by the institute is communicated to the public in many ways. Outreach education conducted by faculty, students and industry members, as well as conferences, seminars and workshops throughout the region spreads information developed by the institute. The institute is also home to a lobster library which holds nearly 2,000 journal articles, research reports and informational pamphlets. Basically, what we're saying is that one of the reasons the lobster industry is one of the most successfully managed fisheries in the Northeast is precisely because of this research. And some Federal contribution, a small contribution, $200,000 is what's at stake here, is the linchpin that holds this organization together. A few final concluding comments. The private sector, which is supported by this research institute, includes jobs for 8,000 fishermen and countless other jobs for additional businesses such as dealers, distributors, boat builders, marine suppliers and a variety of tourism- related businesses. Throughout the Nation, the lobster industry has an economic impact of somewhere between $2.4- and $4 billion a year, with 10,000 commercial lobster licenses issued each year. It's ranked, American lobster, I would say Maine lobster, but, you know, who's quarrelling here, American lobster is ranked third on the U.S. seafood export list, proving that it's essential to our economy. In Maine, we have 5,800 licensed lobstermen, and the catch from Maine lobstermen makes up approximately 70 percent of all U.S. landings. I would just say in conclusion, this may seem like a small amount of money to a small research institute, but it holds together a private industry of great economic importance not just to Maine, but to the Northeast and to all of our oceans-related industries. That's why I strenuously object to this amendment. I urge its defeat. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2929, the Lee-Allen bill to ban permanent bases in Iraq. Regardless of one's position on U.S. military operations, we can all agree on the need for the Iraqi Government to succeed. The perception that the United States plans a permanent presence in Iraq fuels the resentment against our troops and complicates the path towards political reconciliation in Iraq. Too many Iraqis believe that we intend to stay in their country indefinitely. A clear statement by Congress, not part of a larger bill, that we do not intend a long-term or permanent military presence in Iraq is necessary to send a strong signal to the Iraqi people and to the world. It supports our goal of handing over responsibility for security and public safety to Iraqi forces. Passage last year of prohibitions on permanent bases in Iraq based on legislation I wrote with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) marked perhaps the first time Congress legislated to change the direction of our Iraq policy. In total, three ``no permanent base'' provisions have been enacted. H.R. 2929 make these permanent. Twice the House has rejected amendments to weaken these provisions. Recent statements by administration officials, however, are troubling. The White House Press Secretary said recently the President envisions a United States military presence in Iraq ``as we have in South Korea,'' where American troops have been based for more than 50 years. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made similar comments. H.R. 2929 reaffirms that the United States has a clear and consistent policy against a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq. I urge its adoption.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, Americans are aching for our leadership to end the war in Iraq. Instead, they find the President and his enablers in the House and Senate doing everything they can to block legislation that would require him to bring the troops home by a date certain. Each day seems to bring some new proposal that purports to be progress. Upon examination, however, they leave the President free to pursue his discredited policies and serve his diversionary tactics by politicians searching for cover. One proposal calls for the President to submit a plan by mid-October to narrow the use of U.S. troops in Iraq to fighting terrorists and securing borders and U.S. interests. It won't bring home a single American serviceman or woman. Another proposal seeks to ``change the mission'' of American forces, but doesn't guarantee when or even if their redeployment will begin. Supporters of ``changing the mission'' claim it would result in troop reductions, but they offer no evidence of that. Americans will remain the targets of violence, and U.S. policy will continue to sow resentment in the Muslim world. In my opinion, ``changing the mission'' is the war supporters' latest excuse to avoid decisive action to bring the war to a conclusion. This is not the leadership the American people expect and that our national security demands. The failure of the President's surge strategy means he has lost the ability to shape events in Iraq in a positive direction. Only by redeploying our forces from Iraq can we rebuild our depleted military, restore our global reputation and redirect resources to fight al Qaeda. Just last week, the National Counterterrorism Center reported that al Qaeda has regrouped in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, enabled by the President's diversion of resources to Iraq. I opposed the Iraq war from the start and take no comfort in the fact that many of my most ominous predictions have proven true. In a September 6, 2002, op-ed in the Portland Press Herald, I predicted that the war would be fought ``in city streets filled with civilians, making precision bombs useless and casualties high. It will cost billions to wage the war and billions more to rebuild.'' America has suffered nearly 30,000 casualties, including more than 3,600 combat deaths. The war has cost half a trillion dollars, resulting in huge deficits that will burden our children's future. On October 8, 2002, during the House debate on the war resolution, I said, ``If the U.S. acts unilaterally or with just a few other nations, there is a far higher risk of fueling resentment in Arab and Muslim nations and swelling the ranks of the anti-U.S. terrorists.'' Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened. I voted against the war and have been an outspoken critic of the case made to justify it, the mismanagement of the occupation and the failure to hold the administration accountable for its so many mistakes. More than 18 months ago, I called for a deadline to redeploy our forces. A firm deadline was, and is, the best way to end the U.S. involvement in Iraq and force the Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own security. As former Maine Senator George Mitchell demonstrated in his Northern Ireland diplomacy, a firm deadline can be a very effective way to get parties in conflict to compromise their differences. Nothing but the force of law will move President Bush to alter his stay-the-course strategy. Nonbinding resolutions are not sufficient to compel a real change in policy and get us out of Iraq. This President is stubbornly determined to delay the inevitable at the cost of additional precious American lives. More than 600 of our troops have died since the surge began. The other costs include greater hatred of the U.S. in the Islamic world, more terrorists inspired by that hatred and, with our Armed Forces stretched to the breaking point, great insecurity for our Nation. Unless Members of Congress who supported President Bush's war policy steadfastly for 5 years stop looking for cover and do the right thing, the President will prevail and our troops will remain in Iraq. Our Armed Forces have done all that we asked of them and have performed their mission with great skill and courage. President Bush will keep our troops in the crossfire of the Iraqi civil war until Congress sets binding dates for their redeployment. That action represents the leadership needed to bring our troops safely home.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. If the gentlewoman would yield, there are differences among States and now aggressively they seek to use the money that comes from the Federal Government. So there certainly are differences among States in that respect. But I just wanted to comment. It is absolutely true that most people who buy insurance through a private plan will try to cover their kids as well, except that today one of the trends in this country is that the wheels are coming off this employer-based health care system and increasingly, by about a million people a year over the last 4 or 5 years, the number of uninsured is going up. It's now about 46 million people. And one of the reasons, and this is why I've done a plan for small businesses, one of the reasons is the small business community is simply not able to afford the kind of insurance they had in the past. And what they're doing, they're tending not to cover family members, which includes the children, and to require the employee to pay a higher and higher percentage, which some employees simply can't do. So what we're seeing here, at the same time as the President is saying we don't want to expand this successful children's health care program, we're watching the number of uninsured steadily climb, both adults, and now children for the first time in a long period of time, having the number of uninsured climb because the private market, the employer-based market isn't working as well as it did in the past. We have a national health care crisis on our hands, and this is a part of the solution. It ought to be the easiest part of the solution. But here is the President's spokesman the other day saying this will encourage many to drop private coverage purchased through their employer or with their own resources to go on a government-subsidized program. This is a program that is designed for people who don't have health insurance. We know these children don't have health insurance. We know how many there are. We know where they are. And we ought to be able to do a better job than simply to raise this kind of ideological objection. We ought to cover them first in the most practical, cost- efficient way. I yield back.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for organizing this event tonight and for yielding to me. I was here in 1997 when the SCHIP program was passed, and it was passed with very strong bipartisan support. People on both sides of the aisle, and many of the same groups that you just mentioned, people on both sides of the aisle believed, as virtually all Americans do, that our children should get health care. They ought to be able not just to go to an emergency room when they're seriously ill or have had an accident, but they should be able to get preventive care so they can grow up to be healthy children and healthy productive adults. That's really, I think, a fairly basic proposition. And that's what drove us back in 1997. And now you were asking, what happens if this program doesn't continue? Well, if it's not reauthorized, then 6 million children in this country lose their health insurance. And if they lose their health insurance, maybe some of them, when they're seriously injured, will go to an emergency room, but most of them will lose the preventive care that they get today. The President put in his budget $5 billion over 5 years for an increase in SCHIP, which would fund about one-third of the amount that States are estimated to require over the next 5 years. In other words, the President's position is that this is a program that should be cut back. And that probably is why he made the veto threat, which he basically said, look, people, children and adults, have access to an emergency room; and one thing we want to be careful not to do is expand health insurance if it's through a government program, which is bizarre, because the SCHIP program is designed for people who cannot afford to buy health insurance in the private market today. That's why they don't have it. What we're trying to do is continue this public/private partnership because most States provide coverage through private plans. It's a Federal/State partnership, with 70 percent of the money coming from the Federal Government and about 30 percent coming from States. So States are choosing to fund this program for the obvious reason that our kids deserve to have health care coverage. Outside of the White House, this, I think, is a broadly accepted proposition. I just want to say a few things about my State of Maine. Maine has been very aggressive in using this particular program. We have one of the lowest rates of uninsured children in the country. Only 7 percent of our children do not have health insurance, and the national rate is about 12 percent. But that, for us, we're a small State, but that's about 19,000 children who do not have health insurance. And for those families, for those parents, they know it makes a difference whether or not their kids have health insurance. And they, I know because I've talked to them, worry about whether they're going to get the kind of coverage, the kind of vaccinations, the kind of preventive health care that everyone hopes for their children, because that's really a fundamental point here. I don't think there is a parent in America that doesn't want their children to have good health coverage, to get the health care they need when they need it. And that is what this program attempts to do. Because there are 6 million children in this country today who qualify for the SCHIP program but are not signed up, for whatever reason. Some States aren't being aggressive enough and the Federal Government contribution is falling short. There are another 3 million who don't qualify for SCHIP and still don't have coverage. And all we're trying to do, as Democrats, is to expand that coverage. Now, we can argue about how fast we expand it, we can argue about how we pay for it, but the bottom line is this: children in America deserve to have health care. And we know if they have health insurance, whether the program is privately run or whether the program is publicly run, or some combination, they are much more likely to grow up into healthy, productive children and healthy, productive adults. That's what we're fighting here today for. I want to thank you, my colleague, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, and all the rest of my friends here tonight for pushing this issue so hard and so long. We will not fail. And I yield back.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, on June 10, 2007, I was unavoidably absent from the Capitol. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote 448, a motion by Ms. Baldwin to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2356, a bill to amend title 4, United States Code, to encourage the display of the flag of the United States on Father's Day. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote 449, a motion by Mr. Faleomavaega to suspend the rules and pass S. 676, a resolution to provide that the Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank or the Alternate Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank may serve on the Board of Directors of the Inter- American Foundation. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote 450, a motion by Mr. Faleomavaega to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 418, a resolution recognizing and welcoming the delegation of Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Foreign Ministers from the Caribbean to Washington, D.C., and commending the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) for holding the Conference on the Caribbean.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today seeks to bring hope from tragedy. CAP Patrick Damon, who lived in Falmouth, ME, with his wife and two children, was a loyal public servant, both in State government and in the Maine National Guard. In early 2006, Captain Damon was deployed with the Maine Guard's 240th Engineer Group to Afghanistan. On June 15 of that year, Patrick collapsed in his bunk after a run. Initial reports were that he died of a heart attack, even though he had no previous or family history of heart problems. Captain Damon's mother, Barbara Damon-Day, has been persistent in seeking to get more information from the Army about the cause of her son's death. The Army lists the death as ``sudden unexpected,'' and the exact cause remains inconclusive. Based on her own investigation, Ms. Damon-Day believes her son's death was brought about by an adverse reaction to multiple vaccinations in a 24-hour period. Her investigation has revealed a lack of clarity in the Defense Department's guidelines and regulations on administering multiple vaccinations in a 24-hour period. My amendment seeks to focus needed attention on this issue. It requires the Defense Department to report to Congress on its policies on administering and evaluating multiple vaccinations within a 24-hour period to members of the Armed Forces, including the Guard and Reserve. It requires information on whether the department's policies conform to the regulations and guidelines of federal health agencies. The amendment also requests data on the number of deaths that have been investigated for vaccines-related causes, and information on how medical records are shared with the Adjutant General of the states. Finally, the amendment requires the Department to perform a study on the safety and effectiveness of administering multiple vaccines with a 24-hour period to service personnel. Since her son's death in June 2006, Mrs. Damon-Day has worked tirelessly to improve the Defense Department's medical screening of Armed Forces prior to their deployment overseas. The Maine Legislature is currently considering legislation to create a commission to improve medical screening of Maine Guard personnel before they go overseas. Barbara Damon-Day has honored her son's memory by making it her mission to improve the health screenings given our military, and to improve the information they receive, before they leave to serve on our behalf in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the globe. We owe her our gratitude for her efforts and our support to help advance her cause. I hope that my amendment can play a part in that mission. I urge support for the Allen amendment.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, in roll call 348, which I just missed a minute ago, the COPS Improvements Act of 2007, I am a strong supporter of that bill. That bill provides, we believe, 165 police positions in my home State of Maine. I certainly intended to vote for that bill and would have had I been in the Chamber at that moment.