Chris Bell

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, as the Democratic leader pointed out earlier, this year marked the 50th anniversary of the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision, and thinking about that decision in the context of today's debate, I think we have to ask ourselves what if some of our segregationist forefathers who felt every bit as strongly about the issue of race as many people here today feel about the issue of gay marriage, what if they had succeeded in passing some radical legislation to prevent any Federal court challenge to the law of separate but equal? Well, obviously, the progress that we have witnessed in the area of civil rights would have been at the very least stymied and most likely prevented altogether. And the real question is they might have no problem with the law that they seek to protect today, but they might have very big problems with the law that they seek to protect tomorrow; and ladies and gentlemen, we cannot cherry-pick. We cannot control what might come forth in the future, because once this genie is out of the bottle, it is out for good. And the bottom line is, this is not. This is not how our country works. Just how far are we going to let extremists go in tearing down what makes this country great? And, yes, open courts, open courts where free people can go in and fight for what they believe is right are a part of what makes this country great; and just because it is an election year, just because it is an election year and some wish to fan the flames of an incredibly controversial issue, let us not make the unforgivable mistake of closing off our courts. It is un-American; it is wrong. Vote ``no.''

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, are there no boundaries?- Earlier today several Republicans came to the floor of this House of Representatives to attack the military record of Senator John Kerry, to attack the military record of an individual whose medals alone would take almost all of my allotted time to name, to attack the military record of a man who risked his very young life for his country in Vietnam and was wounded on three different occasions, a man who risked his life to save others; and then when we he came home to the United States, decided he was not finished saving lives. Instead, he decided to stand with thousands of other Americans and question a war that had clearly lost direction. John Kerry's appearance before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations back then was a turning point in the debate on Vietnam, and he showed the same level of patriotism by taking that stand here at home as he did with his act of bravery in Vietnam. To attack him in this manner is simply shameful. But I guess in this day and age of politics, there are no boundaries, and regretfully we should not be surprised.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, due to critical official business in the 25th Congressional District of Texas I was unable to record my votes Thursday, February 26, 2004. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Rollcall Vote No. 30, the Lofgren substitute amendment to H.R. 1997, and I would have voted ``nay'' on Rollcall Vote No. 31, the final passage of H.R. 1997.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support of efforts by the Taiwanese President and people to facilitate a peaceful, stable, and democratic environment in East Asia. Despite continued aggression by the People's Republic of China, Taiwan has maintained grace and sensibility. For this, I ask my colleagues to join me in support of President Chen Shui-bian and the Taiwanese people. On March 20, 2004, the Taiwanese people will vote on a referendum for peace, which will consist of two questions. One is: Would you agree that our Government should engage in negotiations with Mainland China on the establishment of a ``peace and stability'' framework for cross-strait interactions in order to build consensus and for the welfare of the people on both sides? This would be the first official communication between Taiwan and China since 1949, a historic attempt at conciliation between two sparring nations. I would remind my colleagues of the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, in which we put forth the expectation that ``the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means'' and state that ``any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means . . . is of grave concern to the United States.'' As Taiwan makes a sincere effort to improve relations with Mainland China and support a peaceful continuation of the status quo, we must applaud and support them. The other referendum question is: The people of Taiwan demand that the Taiwan Strait issue be resolved through peaceful means. Should Mainland China refuse to withdraw the missiles it has targeted at Taiwan and to openly renounce the use of force against us, would you agree that the Government should acquire more advanced anti-missile weapons to strengthen Taiwan's self-defense capabilities? This referendum is neither provocative nor a move toward Taiwanese independence. It constitutes an effort to prevent Mainland China from using force and unilaterally changing the status quo. China has never renounced the use of force in the Taiwan Straits and has 496 missiles targeting Taiwan. I urge China to withdraw those missiles, which upset the military balance in the Taiwan Straits and whose continued presence demonstrates China's hostile approach to cross-straits relations. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: ``Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.'' Taiwan has the right to voice its concerns and to protect itself from harm. A nonviolent resolution of the Taiwan Straits issue is Taiwan's ultimate goal. This peace referendum is the first step in that process and the right of the Taiwanese people. In the Taiwan Relations Act, we reaffirmed our nation's commitment to ``the preservation of human rights of the Taiwanese people.'' Now is the time to stand behind that statement. For President Chen Shui-bian's work to create a stable, peaceful, and democratic environment in the region, he deserves our recognition and support.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Rose Mary Enable Broussard and Earnest J. Broussard on the occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary. In the spring of 1953, Rose Mary Enable of Parks, LA, and her cousins attended the spring festival at Our Mother of Mercy Catholic Church in the Fifth Ward of Houston, TX. Earnest J. Broussard of Delcambre, LA, and his brother attended the same spring festival. It began to rain so Rose and her cousins and Earnest and his brother went to Club Matinee. Upon setting eyes on him across the room and then meeting and talking to him, Rose Mary remarked that she was going to marry him. They became engaged in October of 1953 and were married January 30, 1954 at Our Mother of Mercy Catholic Church. Rose Mary and Earnest Broussard began their life together in the Independence Heights area where Rose was a housewife and Earnest a plumber with Balloon Plumbing Company where he worked until 1991. The Broussards have two daughters, Gilda and Robin, and one son, Earnest, Jr. They are now blessed with three granddaughters, Stephanie (12), Stacie (11), and Jaydin (2). While their children were growing up, the Broussards were very active in the community and with their children and participated in PTA, Scouts, band, sports, and church activities. The Broussards are still very active in the church they have attended since they were first married. Earnest is active in the Knights of St. Peter Clavier and became a Fourth Degree Knight of St. Peter Clavier in 1972. Rose Mary and Earnest Broussard have both been honored for their outstanding dedication and commitment to their church. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Rose Mary and Earnest Broussard on 50 wonderful years of marriage. I wish them continued happiness and a life filled with strong love, abiding faith and loving family and friends.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I am deeply concerned with the state of our Union. I share the concern of many that we are heading in the wrong direction in this country. We need to focus on creating jobs, but tonight we will hear about extending tax cuts for the rich in a mythical economic recovery that has created no new jobs. We need to focus on protecting Social Security and Medicare for a new generation, but tonight we will only hear about a thinly disguised plan to dismantle those vital programs and place our sacred covenant with America into the hands of corporations and pharmaceutical companies seeking profit at the expense of working men and women. Tonight, we will hear more empty promises on education and literacy when we should focus on the President's own No Child Left Behind program which he and the Republican Congress continue to refuse to fully fund. As a result, we are leaving millions of children behind every day. It is all about priorities, Mr. Speaker. Creating more jobs, access to affordable health care and better education for our children, those are the priorities of America, and they should be our priorities here in Congress.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of L. Joel Martinez, a nationally known AIDS activist who died Wednesday, November 12, 2003. Mr. Martinez was the founding director of the Center for AIDS, a Houston-based clearinghouse for treatment and research information. The center was founded in 1995 to address the lack of treatment and research information available to the public. Joel Martinez had a profound effect on the way pharmaceutical companies developed their drugs and the way they looked at issues relating to people with HIV and AIDS. He met with companies to help change the guidelines for clinical trials and encouraged them to do research and testing in Houston. He urged companies to test drugs not just on gay, white males, but also on minorities, women and children. He was an excellent and articulate spokesperson for people with HIV and AIDS and a true leader in treatment advocacy issues. Mr. Martinez was a community representative for amFAR and the AIDS Clinical Trials Group. He also was a voting member of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory committee that influenced the way the agency reviews drugs during the approval process. Most recently, he was involved in the AIDS Treatment Activists Coalition, a national coalition of activists working to end HIV and AIDS by advancing research. Mr. Martinez was born in Harlingen, Texas in 1953 to Luis and Teresa Martinez. He was salutatorian of the class of 1970 at Brownsville High School. A Rice University graduate, he earned a law degree from the Columbia University School of Law in New York in 1977. He was an associate at Vinson & Elkins for six years before going into private practice in 1983. He re-evaluated his life after he was diagnosed with HIV in 1987. In the early 1990s, the focus of public information on HIV and AIDS was on prevention and not on treatment and research. Mr. Martinez set about to improve public information by making numerous presentations on HIV and AIDS and by writing many articles in English and Spanish on research and treatment of the disease. His significant influence on HIV and AIDS research and treatment helped so many people affected by the disease. I know my colleagues join me in honoring Joel Martinez for his exceptional life and passionate activism. I extend my heartfelt condolences to his family and friends especially to Vann Vaughan, his life partner of twenty-two years, his mother Teresa, his sisters Rebecca and Zoe, and his brother Harry. Joel Martinez was a great American who fought tirelessly for those in need. His important work must continue until a cure for HIV and AIDS is found.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution to honor the Rice University Owls, the 2003 NCAA baseball national champions. It is a study in persistence. Before this victory, the Owls made three trips to the College World Series in 1997, 1999, and 2002, but won just one of seven games during those three trips. The Owls' convincing win over Stanford in the College World Series championship game this year brought home the school's first national championship in any team sport. Rice University is a tremendous source of pride for my 25th Congressional District in Texas. As one of the Nation's most highly regarded universities, Rice has always been well known for its academic excellence. The school now has the added distinction of being a baseball powerhouse. Winning a national title in a major Division I sport is a remarkable accomplishment for a school as small as Rice with only 2,700 undergraduates. Additionally, Rice athletes are held to the same high academic standards as all of the other students, signifying the incredible well- roundedness of these ball players. Since starting at Rice 12 years ago, coaching legend Wayne Graham has catapulted the team into baseball history. Coach Graham's leadership took Rice to the NCAA tournament in 1995 and to the College World Series in 1997, 1999 and 2002. Previously, Coach Graham won five national junior college titles at San Jacinto College. The Owls had an unforgettable season, winning 58 of their 70 games. Early in the season, the team broke a school record by winning 30 games in a row. In the College World Series, Rice beat Southwest Missouri State and last year's champion University of Texas team twice, before meeting Stanford in the championship round. Rice beat Stanford 4-3 in the first game, lost 8-3 in the second, and won the championship, 14-2, the largest margin of victory in the history of the College World Series championship games. Mr. Speaker, with wholehearted enthusiasm, I congratulate Coach Graham and the entire Rice Owl College World Series championship team, including Philip Umber, Jeff Niemann, Wade Townsend, Vincent Sinisi, Enrique Cruz, Craig Stansberry, Paul Janish, Chris Kolkhorst, Austin Davis, Dan Bubela, Justin Ruchti, David Aardsma, Joseph Baker, Jeff Blackinton, Matthew Cavanaugh, Lyndon Duplessis, Matthew Emerson, Jonathan Gillespie, Steven Herce, Sean Hirsch, Jeff Jorgensen, Colin Matheny, Matthew Moake, and Lance Pendleton. These players' success, both in the classroom and on the baseball field, make them stand out as the very best college sports has to offer. They played with honor and sportsmanship and raised the bar for the expectations of college athletes everywhere. Well done, Owls. You have made Houston, Texas very proud.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue that affects every Member in the House as well as every American that we speak for in this body. I am talking about the future health of our Nation and our commitment as a society to cure disease, end suffering, and improve the quality of life for our fellow citizens. Disease does not discriminate in America. It is not partisan. It takes as its victims men and women of every race and ethnicity, every socioeconomic bracket, rich or poor, Republican or Democrat, young or old. Disease can strike anyone: cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, AIDS, diabetes, depression, ALS, multiple sclerosis, sickle-cell anemia, heart disease. The most talented, the most brilliant, the most loving and the most giving people in the world have been and continue to be victims of these baffling diseases. These are diseases that have affected America's best and brightest. Health is the principal building block to our Nation's wealth and welfare. Our ability to produce, create, innovate, contribute, and lead this great country through the next generations and the true measure of greatness of our free society which promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are in large part dependent on the commitment we in the United States Congress make to the future of health and science research and discovery. I am talking about the funding level this body determines for the National Institutes of Health, or NIH as it is known. As all of my colleagues know, what began as a one-room laboratory of hygiene in 1887 is now today one of the world's foremost medical research centers. The National Institutes of Health is the steward of medical and behavioral research for our Nation. The NIH provides leadership and direction to programs designed to improve the health of the Nation by conducting and supporting research in the causes, diagnosis, prevention, and cure of human diseases. Because we have invested in the NIH, it is estimated that 62,000 HIV- related deaths were prevented in the year 2000, 241,000 stroke-related deaths were prevented in the year 2000, and 815,000 coronary heart- related disease deaths were prevented in the year 2000. In cancer research alone, in childhood leukemia, the cure rate has reached 80 percent as a result of a host of new drugs. Testicular cancer now has a 91 percent cure rate, and for prostate cancer, the annual death rates have been reduced by 28 percent. Ovarian cancer can now be diagnosed through a simple blood screening. We now have the wonderful new drug Tamoxifen to treat breast cancer. The proposal for fiscal year 2004 would be the smallest percentage increase for NIH in 18 years and a sharp deceleration from the 15 percent annual increases that NIH received in recent years under the bipartisan program to double the medical research budget. The House- passed version of the fiscal year 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act provides an increase of just 2.5 percent, which translates into $682 million, an increase that may not even keep up with the rate of inflation. The bottom line is, if there is a cure, the NIH will most likely find it. We must give them the proper resources to do their job. This is not a partisan issue. This is our issue, yours and mine. I know I am not the only one that feels this way. I know that I am joined by my friends on both sides of the aisle. In fact, I am proud to say that I was joined by 213 of my colleagues in the House, both Democrats and Republicans, in sending a letter to the conferees urging them to provide the highest level of funding possible for the NIH. Therefore, it is my hope that we can continue to move forward on this issue in a bipartisan fashion, which is why I hope the leadership of both parties and my fellow colleagues on both sides of the aisle will all join me in voting for this motion to instruct on a matter I believe a majority of this body already supports. It is just too important to all of us here and to all Americans for us to ignore. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his support for the motion to instruct. And all I would like to say in response is that I hope that he will join me in trying to urge the conferees to look for the highest level of funding possible. In that 2.5 percent, while it may be a little bit more money, the rate of inflation is predicted to be 3.3 percent. So one could make the argument that this will be a net decrease and it will have a dramatic impact on the following diseases: cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease, HIV/AIDS, depression and mental illness, diabetes, dental diseases, measles, ALS, kidney disease, genome research. Everybody knows the incredible need that we face, and I very much appreciate the gentleman from Ohio's recognizing that, and, hopefully, we can get a much higher level of funding from the conferees. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I just want to thank the gentleman from Florida for his comments and evidencing the strong bipartisan support that this motion to instruct does enjoy. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who also serves as the Chair of the Cancer Caucus, as well as the Heart and Stroke Caucus.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished whip of the minority party.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, what this comes down to is a question of priorities. There can be no higher priority in the United States of America than our Nation's health. Everybody listening knows the diseases that are impacted by NIH funding. It is no secret. And the gentleman from Ohio has certainly worked diligently over the course of the last 5 years to increase funding for the NIH, but this is not the time to stop. When progress is being made, we should not, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) pointed out, we should not put on the brakes. If anyone doubts what a priority this is with health organizations across the country, they should know that over 600 major health organizations across the United States are supporting an increase in the NIH budget. The list includes the AARP, the National Academy of Health, Alzheimer's Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatricians, American Association of Blood Banks. I could go on and on, and I would not even be out of the As. The point is, this motion has wide, wide support in the medical research and educational communities, and they are not going to be satisfied if the conferees come back and say, 2.5 percent is as high of an increase as we can give. They are looking for a much higher degree of funding. The Senate has offered 3.5 percent, but that is not enough. There is no greater priority right now in the United States of America than the health of our fellow citizens. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to continue the bipartisan support for this motion to instruct the conferees to vote in favor of it. I would encourage the conferees to do all they can to raise the level of funding high above the 3.5 percent level.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Pursuant to clause 7(c) of House rule XXII, I hereby notify the House of my intention tomorrow to offer the following motion to instruct House conferees on H.R. 2660, the fiscal year 2004 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The form of the motion is as follows: I move that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, H.R. 2660, be instructed to insist on the highest funding levels possible for the National Institutes of Health.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment to the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act. This amendment is vital to the continued security of my hometown, Houston, Texas. The amendment calls on the Coast Guard to include petrochemical plants within 5 miles of the Port of Houston and the Houston Ship Channel in their area maritime security plans. The Maritime Transportation and Security Act requires the Coast Guard to develop both an area maritime security plan and a vessel and facilities plan. There has been some reluctance by the Coast Guard to include things like power plants in their plans because they do not consider power plants to be transportation related. However, Mr. Chairman, Houston, Texas, is the heart of America's energy industry and our coastline in Texas, and particularly in the Houston area, is dotted with refineries and petrochemical plants that are no doubt attractive targets to would- be terrorists. In fact, in my district alone, we have over 100 refineries responsible for close to 40 percent of the entire country's petroleum and petrochemical products, which are adjacent to the navigable waterways of the Port of Houston and the Houston Ship Channel. Some of these facilities are located right on the waterway and some are a bit inland. But because of the chemicals they deal with, a terrorist incident at an inland facility could produce a chain reaction affecting plants located much further away from the port itself. A terrorist incident at one of these plants could also cost thousands of lives and could have a devastating impact on the Houston metropolitan area, the fourth largest city in America. We have a responsibility to look at this situation holistically, Mr. Chairman. My amendment allows the Coast Guard to address the global security concerns that impact this vital transportation corridor and one of the biggest population centers in America. This amendment provides for a creative security solution that will actually make Houston, Texas, America's energy capital, much more secure.

Mr. BELL. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, with that assurance, and I very much appreciate the ranking member's commitment to this very important issue that affects the Houston area, and with the assurance that it can either be addressed in conference or at some point in the near future, at this point. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor The Houston Area Network Online Community (HAN-NET), a forum for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender activists and others committed to the cause of equality and civil rights for all. HAN-NET has been in operation since November 1998 and is ceasing operations on November 1, 2003. Throughout its existence and operation, HAN-NET has informed, challenged and inspired the Houston GLBT community and has been extremely successful in accomplishing its mission to simplify and accelerate communication within the Houston GLBT community. HAN-NET, a Yahoo groups ``listserv,'' has enhanced GLBT community communication through its online announcements, news, and dialogue. HAN-NET has made pertinent information immediately accessible to its members. Information reached members directly and was packaged for quick redistribution. The HAN-NET online community participated in several collaborative efforts including establishing community priorities and activist goals for the Houston GLBT community. I strongly support these goals which include: focusing on local and state political issues impacting the GLBT community; finding a new home and permanent funding for the Houston Lesbian and Gay Community Center; finding permanent funding for the operation and growth of the Gulf Coast Archives and Museum; building a strong corporate network group; supporting HIV education and prevention; and establishing an educational outreach program for the transgender community. It is my sincere hope that the success of HAN-NET will inspire other community leaders to continue and grow the mission of its founders. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating HAN-NET moderator Brandon J. Wolf and the HAN-NET online community for a job well done for Houston's GLBT community. Mr. Wolf's commitment to improved communication and outreach for the past five years has been inspiring and extremely worthwhile. I wish him great success in his continued work for the GLBT community.