Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding. I do rise in opposition to what I consider to be a closed rule. I do support the underlying bill, but I object to the leadership's decision to prevent any substantive debate. I offered an amendment yesterday that would have credited soldiers with one additional day of leave for every month that they are deployed in a combat zone. All members of the Armed Forces, including those serving the Guard and Reserve, receive 2\1/2\ days of leave time per month, regardless whether they are deployed in Iraq or back in the U.S. at their home base. I developed this legislation, an extra day per month, not from anything out of my mind but in correspondence with a soldier who had been in the combat zone. We feel very strongly that spending time with family and loved ones after returning from deployment is essential to a soldier's mental health, and that is why I prepared the amendment and introduced it. We think that it is small step to help the troops, but this amendment was denied in the rule. For that reason, I oppose the rule as we have it. But I am also very disappointed that this House continues to prevent consideration of the Iraq Study Group Recommendations Implementation Act. They are now getting close to 60 Members, almost evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, who support the concepts in this. My decision is that the time has come to have the discussion of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations on the floor of the House of Representatives, and I hope that can happen sooner rather than later.

Mr. CASTLE. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. CASTLE. In closing, I think both of these amendments are extremely important. I sometimes understand the writing on the wall when it comes to votes on rules, but I would hope that we in this House would consider the amendment that I put forward on the extra day leave in the Iraq Study Group recommendations sooner rather than later. I think it is an important way to move towards actually ending the war. So I oppose the rule and urge Members to vote against the rule. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule. While Members of this body will have differing views regarding the U.S. policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can all agree that the American soldiers who have been deployed into these combat zones have bravely risked their lives in the service of their Nation. These men and women have done everything we have asked of them, and as we all know, many returning soldiers experience some form of post-traumatic stress. Under the current Pentagon policies, all members of the Armed Forces, including those serving in the Guard and Reserve, receive 2.5 days of leave time per month--regardless of whether they are deployed in Iraq or back in the U.S. at their home base. My amendment would have simply credited soldiers 1 additional day of leave time for every month that they are deployed in a combat zone. For example, if a soldier serves 12 months in Baghdad, that soldier would be credited 12 additional days of leave to be used when he or she returns stateside. Although I am obviously the sponsor of this amendment, I cannot take credit for the idea. My staff developed this legislation after talking with a soldier who as we speak is deployed in a combat zone. Corresponding via e-mail, this soldier shared his experiences in combat and offered his opinion that many of the troops returning home after a deployment would benefit from being credited with additional leave time based on the number of months they served in a combat zone. This soldier noted that the opportunity to spend some time away from military life once returning stateside would be important in terms of both mental and physical recovery. In fact, the Director of the U.S. Army Medical Command's Office for Behavioral Health has stated that 15 to 30 percent of troops returning home from combat experience post-traumatic stress or other mental health symptoms. While the Army Medical Command notes that this is not unusual after combat, it underscores that in addition to receiving treatment, it is critical for soldiers returning home from a combat zone to ``spend time with family,'' ``avoid a busy schedule,'' and ``resume family routines'' as soon as possible. It is clear that my amendment would not solve every problem that troops face when they return stateside. Receiving appropriate diagnosis and treatment is also vital in dealing with post-traumatic stress. And this amendment is not meant to diminish the efforts of our military leaders to provide care for soldiers once they return to the U.S. The Army's Medical Command and its corresponding services have in many cases gone above and beyond the call of duty to diagnose, treat, and prevent post-traumatic stress disorder. Still, in many cases spending time away from military life and reconnecting with friends and family is the best way for individuals to prepare to resume their service in the military. Mr. Chairman, my amendment recognizes the difficulties faced by soldiers who serve time in a combat zone and would assist them in their homecoming by providing additional leave time to help improve their transition. The men and women who have sacrificed so much to serve our Nation in combat have earned this additional time to spend with their loved ones. Unfortunately the rule before us prevented any substantive debate, including debate on my important amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise also in support of House Resolution 515 congratulating Oregon State University's baseball team for winning the 2007 National Collegiate Association Division I College World Series championship for the second consecutive year. On June 24, 2007, the Beavers of Oregon State defeated the University of North Carolina Tar Heels by a score of 9-3, sweeping the best of three series, two games to none, to win the 2007 NCAA Division I College World Series championship. They became the first team in 10 years to win back-to-back College World Series championships. Oregon State University dominated the finals of the College World Series, trailing for only one of the 45 innings they played. The Beavers of Oregon State outscored their opponents 42-16 during their remarkable run in the College World Series, becoming the first three- seed to ever win the tournament. Much of this team's success is due to Head Coach Pat Casey. After starting the year with only 23 wins and only 3 losses, the team hit a bit of a slump in May, which nearly cost them a spot in the tournament. But Coach Casey kept the team motivated and focused to help lead the Beavers to a 49-18 record. The 2007 World Series MVP, Jorge Reyes, a freshman, who went 2-0 with a 2.92 ERA during the College World Series, became only the fifth freshman to ever win the award in the 58-year history of the College World Series. And while we commend the college athletics department today, we should also recognize Oregon State University as an excellent academic institution. Known for its geosciences programs, which rank sixth in the Nation, the university offers over 200 undergraduate programs and more than 80 graduate programs. The campus has a renowned library and exceptional research facilities as well as great internship and study abroad programs to offer its students. I extend my congratulations to Head Coach Pat Casey, Athletics Director Bob De Carolis, President Dr. Edward Ray, and all of the hardworking players, the fans, and Oregon State University. I am happy to represent my good friend and colleague Representative Hooley in recognizing this exceptional team in all of its accomplishments and wish all involved continued success. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to the bill's sponsor, Mr. Campbell of California.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to congratulate the University of California-Irvine for its tremendous victory and dominance in the Division I Men's Volleyball National Championship. And I congratulate the gentleman from California for his sponsorship honoring this team, which did such an extraordinary job Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2707. I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Kucinich, for introducing this bill to ensure that those organizations that work so hard to share the history of the Underground Railroad are able to continue their good works. The Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program was created in the 1998 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act to provide grants to nonprofit organizations that provide education about and research into the Underground Railroad. In addition, grants could be used for organizations to collect, display or interpret artifacts relating to the history of the Underground Railroad. For example, the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center, located in Cincinnati, Ohio, houses eight permanent exhibits and hosts any number of temporary exhibits, including displays, musical programs, and group discussion. Other grantees under this program host tours that try and recreate the journey taken by anyone brave enough to utilize the Underground Railroad and exhibits the detail of the development of the Underground Railroad. I supported the reauthorization of this program when Republicans brought a complete reauthorization of the Higher Education Act to the House floor last Congress. I had hoped to support this program again in the context of a complete reauthorization of the Higher Education Act again this year. Even though this program is receiving the attention of the Congress now, I hope we can complete the HEA reauthorization bill when we return from the August recess. I believe strongly in promoting programs and partnerships to commemorate this time in history and educating the public about the historical significance of the Underground Railroad. The Underground Railroad was very active in the State of Delaware, I might also add. We have many of our own tributes to that in my small State. I urge my colleagues to support this bill

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

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1, legislation to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In July of 2004, the 9/11 Commission concluded that the United States Government was unprepared for the devastating terrorist attacks of 2001. In the weeks and months following the release of the 9/11 Commission's report, the U.S. Congress enacted important legislation to overhaul the intelligence community and improve our Government's ability to detect and respond to attacks. The legislation before us today will further expand our nation's preparedness by providing our first responders and emergency personnel with additional tools to enhance security, such as interoperable communication and cargo screening technology. In fact, I am particularly pleased that H.R. 1 includes my amendment requiring the Department of Homeland Security to assess key foreign rail security practices that are not currently used in the US. While the concept of ``rail security'' is relatively new here at home, security officials in Europe and Asia have decades of experience with terrorist attacks and I have long believed in the importance of leveraging this experience to improve our own system. My amendment, which was approved overwhelmingly by the House and the Senate, will require our government to develop a plan for utilizing techniques such as covert testing of security systems and random screening of rail passengers and baggage. It will also require our government to model U.S. train stations and subway systems after methods used in London to prevent terrorist attacks. Additionally, while I support the overall purpose of this bill, I am very concerned that Congress failed to use this opportunity to implement several of the 9/11 Commission's other most important recommendations. Specifically, I believe it is inexcusable that H.R. 1 does not include the 9/11 Commission's critical recommendation to reform congressional oversight of the intelligence community. Currently, intelligence funding is concealed in the classified section of the Pentagon's budget, and thus is subject to very little accountability. As a former Member of the House Intelligence Committee, I believe strongly in this 9/11 Commission recommendation and I have introduced H.R. 334 to create an empowered and independent intelligence appropriations subcommittee to oversee intelligence community funding. Unfortunately, the House's Democratic leadership denied my attempt to amend H.R. 1 to include this important provision. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that we have missed a key opportunity to enact all of the 9/11 Report's recommendations. However, the bill before us makes progress to expand security and I commend the conference committee for taking much needed steps to improve rail security in the US. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and I call on the leadership in Congress to act immediately to address these remaining national security issues.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague Representative Adam Schiff in supporting H.R. 2630, the Campaign Expenditure Transparency Act. By ending the practice of making campaign payments to a candidate or Federal officeholder's spouse and by requiring the disclosure of any payments made to other family members, we can eliminate the perception that campaign payments are a means for converting campaign funds to the family's personal use. While I support going one step further to prohibit the same payments to immediate family members, and have introduced legislation to do so, I am pleased to lend my support to H.R. 2630, which takes us in the right direction. Specifically, H.R. 2630 would prohibit the campaign from compensating the spouse of the candidate. The prohibition would create an exception for reimbursements on travel, and an exception for nominal reimbursements up to $500 in a calendar year. The bill also requires disclosure to the Federal Election Commission, FEC, of all reimbursements. H.R. 2630 would also require disclosure to the FEC of payments to immediate family members of the candidate or Federal officeholder. The prohibition and disclosure requirements would also apply to businesses where the spouse or family member is an officer or director of the business. Penalty for violation of these provisions would be imposed on the candidate or officeholder. Numerous Members of Congress employ their spouses and family members for campaign activity without abusing the system. However, the practice of paying spouses and family members creates the potential for campaign finance and ethics abuses. If a payment to a spouse becomes part of the Member's family income, the Member, for all practical purposes, is receiving a direct personal financial benefit of campaign funds. I believe it is our responsibility to close the gaps in our laws and in our rules that have been exposed and to restore the confidence of the American people in their elected officials. H.R. 2630 moves us in the direction of increased transparency and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting the legislation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1239, the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2007. Established in 1998, the Network to Freedom encompasses over 250 programs, sites, and partners in over 27 states and the District of Columbia, and is the only national program dedicated to the preservation, interpretation, and dissemination of Underground Railroad history. Recent National Park Service financial projections, however, show the Network to Freedom budget reducing by 72 percent by the year 2011. Without continued and adequate funding, efforts to disseminate this critical history and build on the program's successes will be greatly diminished. H.R. 1239 will reauthorize the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act by increasing funding to cover needed operations costs for the National Parks Service to carry out the provisions of the program, and by increasing the availability of grant funding to support Underground Railroad preservation and interpretative projects throughout the United States. With nine Network to Freedom sites throughout Delaware and reports that more passengers came through Wilmington on the Underground Railroad than any other place, this program has a real local significance. Underground Railroad stations were operated by a few very effective people throughout Delaware in Blackbird, Camden, Middletown, New Castle, Hockessin and Wilmington. Thomas Garrett, for example, is known as Delaware's greatest station master. Spending the greater part of his lifetime working in the Underground Railroad, Thomas Garrett is credited with helping 2,700 slaves reach freedom. By playing a critical role in helping local communities to effectively share the stories of the men and women who resisted slavery through escape and flight in the Underground Railroad, this program highlights the rich history of Delaware and many other states and is an asset to our National Parks System. I believe strongly in promoting programs and partnerships to commemorate this time in history and educating the public about the historical significance of the Underground Railroad. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting passage of H.R. 1239.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from California for his work on this bill. I think that Congressman Schiff has done a wonderful job in putting together and listening to what needs to be done on H.R. 2630, the Campaign Expenditure Transparency Act, to end the practice of making campaign payments to a candidate's spouse; and I am in agreement to the legislation. While I support going one step further to prohibit the same payments to immediate family members and introduced legislation to do so, I am pleased to lend my support to H.R. 2630, which I believe takes us in the right direction. Some Members of Congress employ their spouses and family members for campaign activity without abusing the system; however, the practice of paying spouses and family members creates the potential for campaign finance and ethics abuses. I listened carefully to the gentleman from Texas, who I think is very persuasive, anyhow, and understand his point of view, and as a matter of fact raises a couple of valid points. One is that the bill did not go through normal committee systems, which I think is a valid point. Another is the issue of lobbying by spouses and family members, which I think is perhaps even more abusive than what we are talking about here today and is something to be taken into consideration. But I do feel that if payment to a spouse becomes part of the Member's family income, the Member for all practical purposes is receiving a direct personal financial benefit of campaign funds, and I do believe that should be stopped. Obviously, if the spouse wishes to work in some other capacity, that certainly would be allowed, but not directly involved with the campaign. I believe there is a transparency issue here, and I believe that 2630 does move us in the direction of increased transparency, which I think is important; and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this legislation. This may not end all abuses in campaign circumstances and in many instances there would not be an abuse, but it does end the possibility of it and certainly the transparency end of it, which I think is very important, as well. And I appreciate the gentleman yielding time.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Let me thank Mr. Barton, who has been a tremendous leader in medical research in this country. I couldn't agree with him more. I think this amendment is of extraordinary importance. I would ask every single Member of Congress to think about who comes into your office, and I guarantee no less than 30 percent, maybe 50 percent, are there for health reasons. They are concerned about cancer, they are concerned about heart, they are concerned about lung, MS, AIDS, whatever it may be. That is who comes into our office. We need to appropriate whatever funds are necessary in order to try to eliminate these diseases or to make these people's lives better who contract these diseases. I understand exactly what the gentleman from Wisconsin is saying. He is absolutely right. You do need evaluation, and you do need to be able to understand how to get this information out to the various people who are going to apply this information. I don't believe that is happening particularly well. I do not feel that $700 million is needed for that, and if it is, it shouldn't have to go through NIH and be taken away from NIH, which is what is happening now. It should go directly to HHS or wherever else it needs to go in order to carry out that responsibility. There is a mixup, in my judgment, for these last 16 years in terms of how this funding is handled. This amendment is absolutely in order, and I would hope that every single Member of Congress who believes in medical research, and I think we all do, and who believes in helping our constituents will support this.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, I would just like to make two brief points, perhaps to Chairman Obey, about this bill that concern me, although I think the bill is well done. I am basically supportive of it. The first is something which the President has vetoed, the stem cell research legislation. Back in August of 2001, he signed an order which allowed 21 different stem cell lines to be developed. There was a lot of discussion that in this particular bill that we could have actually updated that date from 2001 until 2007. There have been 400 private lines developed since that time; that is, without any Federal dollars whatsoever. They could have been used for research by anybody if indeed we could have had it approved in this legislation. As a result of that, I drafted an amendment to do just that. But I have been informed that it will not be in order if I were to present it, so I will not present it. I think this is a missed opportunity. I say to the chairman, because he was supportive of the stem cell research, that my judgment is we should do everything in our power to be able to enhance and to further that research in America. This was an opportunity which is unfortunately lost. The other point I would like to make also deals with health, which is a matter of great concern to all of us, obviously, and that is the increase in NIH research. Basically, when you boil it all down, the increase here is 1.9 percent. It has been widely discussed that it's 2.6 percent. But this includes $900 million to the global HIV/AIDS fund that will be transferred immediately to the Department of State. It will not go directly into research. The amount which is left is 1.9 percent, which would be almost the smallest increase for NIH in 38 years. We will lose length and quality of life to disease and disability. New research opportunities will go unfunded. The number of new therapies will continue to decline. Flat funding may discourage, along with the embryonic stem cell research going by the boards, the best and brightest young scientists remaining in the United States. Another year of failure to provide sustained, strong growth and Federal support for medical research is a problem. Madam Chairman, I would hope before it is all said and done that we can address these two issues.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the legislation before us today mandating a hard deadline for the Secretary of Defense to significantly reduce our troop presence in Iraq. Over the last several months, similar attempts on the part of the Democratic leadership to require an arbitrary date for troop withdrawal have gone nowhere, wasting precious time debating legislation that would be vetoed by the President. While I believe strongly that we must change course in Iraq and bring our men and women home, it would be a mistake for Congress to think it could disregard the complexity of this conflict by simply picking a random date for withdrawal. Forcing such an important decision without considering the advice of military and foreign policy leaders, could lead to the loss of many more lives and open the door for sectarian chaos to spread across the entire Middle East. For this reason, I have been a leading supporter of the Iraq Study Group, also known as the Baker-Hamilton Commission, which in December 2006 outlined a comprehensive approach for bringing a responsible conclusion to the conflict in Iraq. In fact, in early 2007, I went to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives and called on the Bush Administration to change course in Iraq and implement the Study Group's recommendations for a new, robust diplomatic offensive in the Middle East. Since then, Secretary of State Rice has taken several encouraging steps to open the lines of communication with key nations like Iran and Syria, and I am hopeful that my efforts, and those of my colleagues, have prompted the White House to improve its diplomatic efforts in the region. This September, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will submit a very important report regarding the conflict in Iraq. While I am hopeful that this report will show progress, I also feel strongly that we must begin developing a responsible postsurge strategy. Therefore, on June 5, 2007, I joined over forty other Members of Congress--Republicans and Democrats--in introducing the Iraq Study Group Recommendations Implementation Act. The Study Group recommendations, which would bolster diplomacy, improve political and economic reconstruction, and handoff the combat mission to the Iraqis, represent the first truly bipartisan proposal for ending this conflict and bringing Americans home. Clearly, there is no easy solution in Iraq. Still, it is extremely discouraging that the Democratic leadership continues to hold votes on ``symbolic'' withdrawal timelines, while refusing to consider the bipartisan Iraq Study Group proposal--legislation that as of today has been cosponsored by 25 Democrats and 33 Republicans in the House. Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission serves as a model for how we must work together in a responsible fashion to stabilize Iraq and get our brave soldiers off the streets. Rather than wasting time debating arbitrary timelines that disregard the complexity of the situation, it is critical that we come together now in support of a responsible exit strategy. I am encouraged that thirteen additional Members of Congress have signed-on to the Iraq Study Group Implementation Act since we introduced it over a month ago and I am hopeful that Members from across the political spectrum will join me in uniting behind this crucial effort.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Florida tremendously for his work on this. And I, too, rise in strong support of the Hastings-Castle amendment expressing congressional intent that the operations and grants budget for the Underground Railroad Network to Freedom program receive adequate funding. I understand Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Tiahrt are willing to accept the amendment; so I will be brief. By helping local communities share the stories of the men and women who resisted slavery through escape and flight in the underground railroad, the Network to Freedom is a tremendous historical resource. Without continued and adequate funding, efforts to operate and provide grants to support a variety of underground railroad preservation and interpretive projects throughout the United States will be greatly diminished. Promoting programs and partnerships to commemorate this time in history and educating the public about the historical significance of the underground railroad are vital. It is for this reason we offer this amendment today. Again, I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida. We in Delaware have a lot of involvement with the underground railroad during that time. I think it is a significant part of our history.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2638, the Fiscal Year 2008 Homeland Security Appropriations Act. The tragic terrorist attacks of 2001, and the destruction resulting from Hurricane Katrina in 2005, made clear that we must improve our nation's ability to prepare for and respond to disasters. In the days and weeks following these events, the United States Congress acted quickly to provide our Nation's first-responders with the resources and equipment they need to ensure our security. The bill before us today provides critical resources for vital national security requirements, including increased border patrol agents, port security improvements, and grants for America's firefighters. Still, although continued funding for such important programs is essential, it is obvious that increased spending alone cannot solve every problem. Since its creation in 2002, the Department of Homeland Security has at times suffered from wasteful spending decisions and business management shortcomings. Unfortunately, this legislation fails to correct many of these deficiencies--and instead would boost funding levels well above what experts at the Department have requested. In 2004, the 9/11 Commission also characterized the federal focus on aviation security following the 2001 terrorist attacks as ``fighting the last war,'' and noted that ``opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater, in maritime or surface transportation.'' In the wake of attacks on subway trains in London and on passenger rail lines in Madrid and Mumbai, it is clear that terrorist organizations are intent on disrupting surface transportation systems and mass transit around the world. Despite the 9/11 Commission's warning, the legislation before us today continues to provide billions for aviation security, while failing to prioritize rail and transit spending. Mr. Chairman, it is our duty to make certain that we have an effective national security system, capable of ensuring the safety of all Americans. I am concerned that H.R. 2638 fails to adequately achieve this goal and I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve this bill as we move forward with the legislative process.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I also thank those who've worked so hard on this, the gentleman from Michigan, the head of the Judiciary Committee, for his great work. Obviously, the extraordinary work of Carolyn McCarthy. We know her personal story and how touching it is; and Mr. Dingell for his work on this legislation. I do rise in strong support of H.R. 2640, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. As I've indicated, many people have worked hard on this legislation, and for that we owe them a great deal of thanks. H.R. 2640 would enforce existing laws to help States automate and share disqualifying records like felony criminal convictions, mental disability and domestic violence incidents with the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System database. By increasing the quantity and quality of data available for the background checks of potential gun buyers, we will strengthen a system that has proven vulnerable. Funding has been provided through the National Criminal History Improvement Program to help States update, automate and improve their records. However, we were reminded of the gaps in the current Federal background check system in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy. A lack of reporting of those who are mentally adjudicated allowed the shooter, who should have been barred under Federal regulations from purchasing a firearm because of his history of mental illness, to purchase two handguns. The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 is critical to strengthen public safety and prevent gun violence. Consideration of this legislation is long overdue. As an advocate of strengthening the NICS database for many years, I am pleased to lend my support to H.R. 2640. A background check is only as good as the records included in the database, and all relevant records relating to persons disqualified from acquiring a firearm under Federal law must be included in the NICS. It is my hope that the funding provided in bill will help States to act quickly and to improve their reporting. This legislation represents a true compromise, a public safety measure that will prevent gun violence and protect the second amendment rights of law abiding citizens. I think it's very important to note that we have two diverse groups coming together, the NRA and the Brady Group, coming together to help work out this legislation, and both had some benefits from it. Hopefully, perhaps a lesson we can all learn here on the floor. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital measure, and I hope that we can support it and prevent future tragedies in our country.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2358, the Native American $1 Coin Act, and urge my colleagues to support the bill. The Native American $1 Coin Act directs the Treasury Department to mint and issue $1 coins to celebrate the important contributions made by Indian tribes and Native Americans to the United States. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a terrific complement to the Presidential $1 Coin Act that I worked to pass last Congress with the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney). Like that program and the very popular 50-state quarter program, this bill will provide an enormous educational opportunity for parents and teachers, while at the same time recognizing the immense and important contributions of Native Americans to the history of the United States. Implementation of this legislation will save taxpayers more than half a billion dollars over the next decade. When Congress passed the Presidential $1 Coin Act in December of 2005, the bill required one- third of all dollar coins minted each year to bear the design of the Sakakawea coin that was first issued in 2000. The requirement was intended to keep the image and memory of Sakakawea in the public's mind at the same time the Mint produced and issued coins bearing the images of the Presidents. Unfortunately, through no fault of the design or its subject, there is not a large demand for a dollar coin with a static design. It is that problem we sought to overcome with the Presidential dollar by creating a constantly changing design that encourages the public to look for new coins. The current law requires the Mint to issue 300 to 350 million of the current design Sakakawea dollars every year, for which there is no evident demand. That would be about $60 million worth of material and labor costs per year, not including the high cost of storing the unused coin yearly. The innovative legislation was introduced by Mr. Kildee, Chairman Frank, Mr. Cole and Mr. Renzi. The bill would keep the Sakakawea design on the front of the coin, but would change the design on the reverse side each year to represent Native American contributions to the United States. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will both honor Native Americans and create demand for the coins similar to the Presidential dollars. Instead of the Mint spending $50 million or more a year to make coins for which there is no demand, the legislation has the potential to save the Treasury $150 million a year or more. It is rare that we can do something so cost effective this easily. I support the goals of this bill and urge its immediate passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished Congresswoman from Michigan, Candice Miller.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I also would like to thank all of the sponsors of this legislation. I would like to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for the managing of it here, Mr. Kildee, for his interest in this, and Mrs. Miller for coming to the floor and speaking to it. I think this is a very worthwhile piece of legislation which will move forward something which otherwise would not move forward, and will save the Federal Government a lot of money and make it far more interesting to those who are collecting these coins out around the country. So for all these reasons, I hope we would all support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize the accomplishments and career of Colonel Ronald A. Rutland. Colonel Rutland is the commander of the 512th Airlift Wing at the Dover Air Force Base. Colonel Rutland is a distinguished member of the Reserves Officers Association with more than 6,500 flying hours in training, airlift and tanker experience. I commend Colonel Rutland for his years of public service defending our Nation. Colonel Rutland received a Bachelor Degree of Political Science at Mississippi State University in 1973, and in 1977 attended the Squadron Officer School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. Colonel Rutland's passion for learning never subsided, and in 1988, he went back to school to receive his Masters of Aeronautical Science at Embry-Riddle University. Colonel Rutland received his undergraduate pilot training at the Columbus Air Force Base in 1973. From 1977 until the present, Colonel Rutland has served in various areas of command, including Air Training, Strategic Air Command, and Air Mobility Command, at six different Air Force Bases within the United States. Most recently, Colonel Rutland served in Iraq as the commander of the 447th Air Expeditionary Group at Sather Air Base. Ronald has served as a distinguished member of the United States Air Force for 34 years and has been honored on several occasions for his service. He has received countless awards such as the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Air Force Longevity Service Award with six oak leaf clusters. I join with the people of Delaware to thank Colonel Rutland for his continued dedication to the Air Force. He has served in a role that can be difficult at times, but is a necessity to the security of our Nation. I commend him for a life of service and thank him for his tireless dedication to Delaware and the United States of America.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to commemorate an important anniversary of service to the Town of Newport and the entire State of Delaware. On May 21, 1907, concerned citizens met in the historic town of Newport to discuss the formation of a fire company. At the time, there had been numerous fires which destroyed properties before the already established fire companies in Wilmington, New Castle and Newark could arrive and fight the blazes. After much discussion and debate, Lt. Governor John M. Mendinhall suggested to the 68 founders that the company should be named the Minquas Fire Company No. 1 commemorating a tribe of Native American Indians who traded with early settlers along the Christiania River. From its genesis, the Minquas Fire Company has taken great pride in providing volunteer fire rescue and emergency medical services to the citizens of greater Newport. They began by purchasing property in the unit block of North James Street. Several extensions and expansions have taken place over the years the most recent being the erection of an ultra modern facility in 2005. Minquas' first President Howard P. Weldin and Chief Thomas Bullen oversaw the original building project and the construction of the first fire house. In 1908, a horse drawn chemical engine was purchased from Radnor Fire Company of Pennsylvania for $1,000 and put in service at the brand new station. Today President Curtis Clifton and Chief Michael Saggione command the Fire Company. Through their leadership, Minquas has continued to acquire the latest fire, rescue, ambulance apparatus and equipment to respond to the emergency service needs of their community. The Company's Motto ``We go where duty calls'' exemplifies the volunteer spirit of the men and women of the Minquas Fire Company No. 1. I am proud of the contributions the volunteers of Minquas have made to Delaware over all these years and I congratulate them on this important milestone of 100 years of service.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding and for all his work on the this issue. I also obviously thank my coauthor and good friend on this, Diana DeGette, for her tremendous work on it. Mr. Speaker, I rise, obviously, in strong support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which ethically expands the current Federal embryonic stem cell research policy. I think we should make a note, this is a Senate bill we are dealing with now. It's changed from our House bill. While we considered similar legislation before, and we have referred to it, this bill has since been expanded to develop methods of deriving stem cells without destroying a human embryo. That's an addition to what we have considered before. With this bill we have a real opportunity to make history, to jump- start research, which may lead to treatments and cures for countless diseases, including diabetes, HIV/AIDS, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, ALS, multiple sclerosis and cancer. There are a number of things being stated here that I consider to be myths, and I would like to try to correct some of these in the brief time that I have. First, this bill does not expand Federal funding and, in fact, does not contain any funds whatsoever. The expansion in the bill refers to the source of the embryos and the quality of stem cell lines. These stem cells would be developed from embryos that come from IVF clinics, which receive no Federal funding. There would be no Federal funding involved in that whatsoever. Second, it is important to understand that we are only talking about research on embryos that would otherwise be thrown away as medical waste. That is a decision which is made by those who created the embryo and whoever was running the IVF clinic before the subject of using them for research was ever brought up. So you are dealing solely with embryos on which the decision has been made to have them eliminated as medical waste, because, simply, they don't want to continue to pay for the storage of the embryo or whatever it may be. So anyone who refers to it as killing needs to understand that's going to happen anyhow. That's a decision that's been made. No stem cell would ever be taken from an embryo that was not destined to be destroyed in any event. Third, the bill specifically states the embryos must be created for purposes of fertility treatment, and no money may have exchanged hands. We think there should be a greater ethical process in all of this, and all of that is spelled out very carefully in this particular legislation. Fourth, as to the recent announcement of returning mature cells, perhaps, in the skin to an embryonic state which we have been reading about in the last day or two with respect to mice, we need to point out a couple of things: One, that's mice, not human beings; and there is a vast difference. Another interesting point is that these would not be eligible for Federal research dollars because they were derived after August 9, 2001. Fifth is this whole issue of pluripotency and what could be done here. There is the constant argument here that adult stem cells have actually been able to resolve some problems. I am all for that. I am 100 percent for all the medical research which goes on. That's what this is all about. I believe the embryonic stem cells can extend beyond that. I believe the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells, which is supported by so many scientists in this country, is what can make a difference. You don't see that in the others. I would encourage everybody to follow the medical and scientific institutions who are in support of this. Just finishing the point with respect to the pluripotency, nothing has been stated with respect to the embryonic and umbilical stem cells, that they do have the same pluripotency, as do to embryonic stem cells, which can develop into any cell as far as your body is concerned. There are approximately 500 medical and scientific universities throughout the country, and various other individuals and groups, Michael J. Fox and others, who support the stem cell research and ask us to vote in favor of lifting restrictions on potentially lifesaving medical research. I would encourage a ``no'' vote on any motion to recommit to restructure the legislation and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying legislation.