Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

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

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation--CLEAN Energy--Act. At a time of record profits for the oil and gas industry, H.R. 6 repeals many incentives that I have not supported over the years and it takes a vital first step in bringing the energy policies of the United States into the 21st century. By recouping Federal revenues through the repeal of nearly $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil and gas companies, H.R. 6 appropriately dedicates this revenue to create a research and development fund for renewable energy sources including solar and wind energy, alternative fuels like ethanol and biodiesel, efficiency efforts, and conservation incentives. H.R. 6 rightly creates an incentive for offshore fuel producers to renegotiate leases issued in the late 1990s; an error that has not yet been corrected, which allowed companies to skirt royalty payments because no price threshold was included in lease agreements. It also repeals provisions that authorize additional royalty relief, as well as two tax breaks benefiting oil companies. This is not a tax increase as some may lead you to believe, it is sensible governing. I opposed legislation authorizing the subsidies in the first place and this is why I strongly support directing this money towards conservation and investment in the development in alternative sources of energy. Continued and increased investment in renewable and alternative fuels, efficiency, and conservation domestically is critical to severing the United States' dependence on fossil fuels, which has been linked to national security concerns as well as significant environmental harm, including global warming pollution. With the negative impacts of climate change on the security, economy, environment and health in our Nation and around the world abundantly clear, we can no longer delay in implementing policies to address the damaging effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We also need to set reasonable CAFE standards, which I believe are both achievable and valuable to a good energy policy. I remain committed to broadening the energy debate to sound and balanced proposals to meeting America's energy needs--while still acting as a steward of the environment. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 6.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for yielding. Unfortunately, one concern that continues to arise, and has done so since I came to Congress, is the continuously rising cost of a college education. Tuition increases are outpacing the rate of inflation, increases in family income, and even increases in State and financial aid which have grown tremendously in recent years. These cost increases are pricing students and families out of the college market. In a time when we have reports suggesting that today's high school students recognize more than ever the importance of obtaining a college education, these students should not shy away because of skyrocketing costs. While today's bill does seek to help graduates, it barely skims the surface of the true problem of how we can help increase access and affordability. I will support this effort but hope that this Congress will make substantive steps towards helping current and future students. We have all heard the statistics, and frankly we all deserve to hear them again. According to the College Board, the cost of attending a private college has soared by 52 percent, adjusted for inflation, since the 1991-92 academic year. Public colleges have increased costs by a whopping 86 percent in the same time span. In conjunction with these statistics, we don't often taught the fact that since 2001 under a Republican Congress, direct student aid has increased from $9.6 billion to $48 billion. During the same period, the number of students receiving such aid soared by nearly one-third, from 7.6 million to 10.1 million. Yet we are still in a predicament of students needing help. We must begin to look seriously and holistically at this issue. There is neither a simple solution nor one entity responsible. First, it is my belief that one of the best things we can do is raise awareness, and to force transparency in the process. Legislation offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), which I support, seeks to provide parents and students the information that they deserve as consumers. They deserve the opportunity to understand why tuition is increasing at their universities. As educated consumers, it is my hope that they will in turn have the power to demand more, to demand answers, and ultimately drive down cost. Understanding that there are many moving parts to a solution, transparency is a good first step in the right direction. Second, we all must be part of the solution. The U.S. Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, and the Commission on the Future of Higher Education have helped to bring the issue of access and affordability to the forefront. They too have identified areas in which they may implement solutions, such as simplifying the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Everyone is clearly beginning to recognize how they can alleviate this dilemma. Third, the institutions must accept some of the responsibility. There are some fabulous colleges and universities out there making it happen for a fraction of what they could charge. For all of those, however, there are also plenty who are not being as efficient as they should be. I believe that these institutions need to take a long, hard look at every aspect of their budgets to identify savings from within. As highlighted above, despite record increases in student aid, tuition continued to increase. Some have studied and argued that there is in fact a correlation. Further, it was maintained in today's Wall Street Journal that the increase in aid will permit colleges to raise their tuitions in order to reap the benefit. Without the aid, colleges and universities would be forced to be more careful. In December, the New York Times reported that based on the fact that some equate price with equality, some institutions raise their tuition for the sole purpose of matching their rivals. In some instances they also raise their discounts and assistance, but the fact remains that they are artificially raising the price which unfortunately may scare many students away from even applying. The reality is, Federal assistance does not give license to increase tuition. We cannot continue to offer the solutions. Don't be misled. I do support Federal assistance but do ask that colleges not take it for granted. Today's action must be coupled with responsible governing and accounting by our institutions of higher learning. Fourth, I believe that Congress has a responsibility to spend efficiently and effectively. While this proposal is well-intentioned and does reach our low- and middle-income classes, it unfortunately may not be the best use of $6 billion. Ideally, this money should be more evenly spent. Aid experts and those in the academic community often identify Pell Grants, the primary source of aid for the neediest students, as the best avenue for increasing affordability. Leading up to this bill, these groups argued that the money would be best spent in this manner. In the future, I hope that this Congress spends more time deciphering the best way to appropriate taxpayers' money. Finally, I believe that we have to begin gaining a better understanding of private student loans. With the escalation in college costs, students are exhausting their Federal loans and are forced to turn to private loans, something that has not been a part of the conversation. Consider this: 40 percent of private loan borrowers are from the bottom two income quartiles of students going to college. Five years ago, private loans made up only $4 billion of the $850 billion of the asset-backed securities market. Today, it comprises $13 billion. This is a completely different market and is not shaped with the policy goal of increasing access and affordability for students. There are many questions surrounding private student loans and I intend on beginning to ask these questions. If we are to tackle this issue, we must do so completely. The issue of college affordability and access is complicated but one that I trust we can come together to help resolve, not just those of us in Congress but also those in academia, the lenders, students, parents and institutions.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado. This motion is a poison pill in the greatest way, and it goes a little beyond the normal poison pill. It has basically been designed by those who would oppose the legislation in a way of trying to knock it out because they know very well we have the votes for it on the floor here today. But it goes beyond that; it actually eliminates part of the research which may be essential in the implanting of the embryonic stem cells eventually in a human being called Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, which really doesn't relate ultimately to the human reproductive cloning. I have discussed introducing legislation, I have co-sponsored legislation in the past on banning reproductive cloning. I happen to believe in that, with the gentlewoman from Colorado, we both believe in that very strongly; but the bottom line is that we need to be able to develop the research on embryonic stem cells in every way we possibly can. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer is currently legal. It is just not funded by the Federal Government. This bill does not fund SCNT in any way whatsoever. The motion to recommit is shortsighted. It is very damaging to any possible future research. It should be opposed by anybody who plans to vote for this legislation. And I would hope that 100 percent of the individuals who are going to vote for our bill are going to oppose the motion to recommit which is being presented here today. I think in the names of those who are supportive of it, be it Senator Hatch or Nancy Reagan or Michael J. Fox or a lot of other people, but particularly all those people out there who are ill, who have some hope, and that is what it is, it is hope, will make absolutely sure that we do not vote for the motion to recommit, that we defeat it and then, right after that, we go on to pass the legislation which is so important and vital for the future of health of people in America.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that adult stem cells were discovered in 1960, and embryonic stem cells were only isolated in 1998. And since 1998, there have been great advances in animal models in the areas of diabetes, spinal cord injury and macular degeneration. Finally, you will hear about the research concerning amniotic fluid stem cells conducted by Dr. Atala at Wake Forest University. While exciting, this is nothing new, nor do these stem cells have the same capacity to divide into all cell types in the body, as embryonic stem cells do. Yet you will hear opponents say they do. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter the letter in the Record on that as well. Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, January 8, 2007. Hon. Diana DeGette, Hon. Michael Castle, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representatives DeGette and Castle: I am writing in regard to my research that was published in Nature Biotechnology that found that stem celts obtained from amniotic fluid have been able to differendate into several cell types. This research has the potential to open up an important field of inquiry that could be critically important to the development of treatments within the field of regenerative medicine. I understand that some may be interpreting my research as a substitute for the need to pursue other forms of regenerative medicine therapies, such asthose involving embryonic stem cells. I disagree with that assertion. It is very possible that research involving embryonic stem cells will have critical implications for advancing research into amniotic fluid stem cells. It is essential that National Institute of Health-funded researchers are able to fully pursue embryonic stem cell research as a complement to research into other forms of stem cells. Your legislation, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, H.R. 3, would update the current federal embryonic stem cell policy and allow federally funded researchers to conduct research on an expanded set of embryonic stem cells within an ethical framework. I believe this legislation would speed science in the regenerative medicine field, and I support its passage. Sincerely, Anthony Atala, MD.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). (Mr. KIRK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time, 2 minutes, to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, legislation I have authored with the distinguished lady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, to ethically expand the current Federal embryonic stem cell research policy. We have a real opportunity to make history, to pass legislation that will jump start research and may lead to treatments and cures for countless diseases, including diabetes, HIV/AIDS, Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's, ALS, multiple sclerosis and cancer. There is overwhelming support for this research, with 70 percent of the American people backing it. There are also 500 universities, medical societies and advocacy groups backing this research, ranging from the American Medical Association and the Academy of Physicians to universities like the University of California and Harvard University and advocacy groups like the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the Michael J. Fox Foundation. This research may also provide a better understanding of the biological origins of certain diseases, as well as an opportunity for pharmaceutical testing. However, this Nation and, more importantly, our scientists are being held back by a policy that is out of date, short-sighted, arbitrary and, most of all, based on politics and not science. When the decision was made by President Bush in 2001 to allow Federal funding for stem cell research on lines that had already been created, it seemed that a compromise may have been struck. However, the number of lines has shrunk from 78 to 22, and all of the lines have been compromised. Since that time, over 150 new and improved stem cell lines have been created in the United States and throughout the world. Despite the fact that these lines are much easier for scientists to use and, in some cases, are disease specific, they are off limits to Federal researchers. Throughout this debate, you will hear many mistruths, and I think it is important to set the stage early about what this bill does and doesn't do. First, you will hear that this bill expands Federal funding. To the contrary, this bill has nothing to do with funding. It has to do with the source of the embryos and the quality of stem cell lines. Second, you will hear this bill discourages destruction of human life, or that it uses taxpayer dollars to destroy human life. To the contrary, this bill has nothing to do with destroying lives and everything to do with saving lives. It is important to understand we are only talking about embryos that are going to be thrown away otherwise as medical waste. We support all options for couples, including embryo adoption, but if the couple decides to discard their embryos as medical waste, we would like them to be available to research. You will hear this legislation will encourage the creation of embryos for the sake of research. Again, not true. Our bill specifically states that the embryos must have been created for the purpose of fertility treatment, and no money may have exchanged hands. Even worse, you will hear mistruths spread by a physician hired by the pro-life movement. Specifically, he says cures and treatments have been found using adult stem cells for 65 to 72 diseases. However, if you look at the science and not the hype, you will see a scientific research study published by three leading researchers in the Science Magazine this past summer who found that, in truth, the number is 9, far less than 65. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter this study into the Record. Adult Stem Cell Treatments for Diseases? (By Shane Smith, William Neaves, Steven Teitelbaum) Opponents of research with embryonic stem (ES) cells often claim that adult stem cells provide treatments for 65 human illnesses. The apparent origin of those claims is a list created by David A. Prentice, an employee of the Family Research Council who advises U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R- KS) and other opponents of ES cell research (1). Prentice has said, ``Adult stem cells have now helped patients with at least 65 different human diseases. It's real help for real patients'' (2). On 4 May, Senator Brownback stated, ``I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the listing of 69 different human illnesses being treated by adult and cord blood stem cells'' (3). In fact, adult stem cell treatments fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are available to treat only nine of the conditions on the Prentice list, not 65 [or 72 (4)]. In particular, allogeneic stem cell therapy has proven useful in treating hematological malignancies and in ameliorating the side effects of chemotherapy and radiation. Contrary to what Prentice implies, however, most of his cited treatments remain unproven and await clinical validation. Other claims, such as those for Parkinson's or spinal cord injury, are simply untenable. The references Prentice cites as the basis for his list include various case reports, a meeting abstract, a newspaper article, and anecdotal testimony before a Congressional committee. A review of those references reveals that Prentice not only misrepresents existing adult stem cell treatments but also frequently distorts the nature and content of the references he cites (5). For example, to support the inclusion of Parkinson's disease on his list, Prentice cites Congressional testimony by a patient (6) and a physician (7), a meeting abstract by the same physician (8), and two publications that have nothing to do with stem cell therapy for Parkinson's (9, 10). In fact, there is currently no FDA-approved adult stem cell treatment-and no cure of any kind-for Parkinson's disease. For spinal cord injury, Prentice cites personal opinions expressed in Congressional testimony by one physician and two patients (11). There is currently no FDA-approved adult stem cell treatment or cure for spinal cord injury. The reference Prentice cites for testicular cancer on his list does not report patient response to adult stem cell therapy (12); it simply evaluates different methods of adult stem cell isolation. The reference Prentice cites on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma does not assess the treatment value of adult stem cell transplantation (13); rather, it describes culture conditions for the laboratory growth of stem cells from lymphoma patients. Prentice's listing of Sandhoff disease, a rare disease that affects the central nervous system, is based on a layperson's statement in a newspaper article (14). There is currently no cure of any kind for Sandhoff disease. By promoting the falsehood that adult stem cell treatments are already in general use for 65 diseases and injuries, Prentice and those who repeat his claims mislead laypeople and cruelly deceive patients. References 1. Posted at the Web site of DoNoHarm, The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics (accessed 8 May 2006 at http:// www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm). 2. D. Prentice, Christianity Today 49 (no. 10), 71 (17 Oct. 2005) (accessed 8 May 2006 at www.christianitytoday.com/ct/ 2005/010/24.71.html). 3. S. Brownback, ``Stem cells,'' Congressional Record, 4 May 2006 (Senate) (Page S4005-S4006) (accessed 8 May 2006 at http://frwebgate6.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=122359256098+2+2+0 &WAI Saction=retrieve). 4. According the latest version of the list, accessed 12 July 2006. 5. See chart compiling and analyzing Prentice's list of 65 diseases allegedly treated by adult stem cells at the supplemental data repository available as Supporting Online Material on Science Online at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ full/1129987/DC1. 6. D. Turner, Testimony before Senator Sam Brownback's Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee on 14 July 2004 (accessed 8 May 2006 at http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/ testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3676). 7. M. Levesque, Testimony before Senator Sam Brownback's Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee on 14 July 2004 (accessed 8 May 2006 at http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/ testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3670). 8. M. Levesque, T. Neuman, Abstract #702, Annual Meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, 8 April 2002. 9. S. Gill et al., Nat. Med. 9, 589 (2003). 10. S. Love et al., Nat. Med. 11, 703 (2005). 11. M. Levesque, Testimony before Senator Sam Brownback's Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee on 14 July 2004 (accessed 8 May 2006 at http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/ testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3670); L. Dominguez, Testimony before Senator Sam Brownback's Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee on 14 July 2004 (accessed 8 May 2006 at http:// commerce.senate.gov/hearings/ testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3673); S. Fajt, Testimony before Senator Sam Brownback's Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee on 14 July 2004 (accessed 8 May 2006 at http:// commerce.senate.gov/hearings/ testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3674). 12. K. Hanazawa et al., Int. J. Urol. 7, 77 (2000). 13. M Yao et al., Bone Marrow Transpl. 26, 497 (2000). 14. K Auge, ``Stem cells infuse kin with hope,'' Denver Post, 24 Aug. 2004. 11 May 2006; accepted 13 July 2006. Published online 13 July 2006; 10.1126/science. 1129987. Include this information when citing this paper.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to continue the discussion that the gentlewoman from Colorado had on the IVF process in the clinics. There is a methodology that many people, even perhaps here, have taken advantage of in terms of being able to procreate, and that is going to an in vitro fertilization clinic, and that is done commonly in this country. Right now, by survey, there are about 400,000 embryos frozen in those clinics around the country. About 2 percent a year are disposed of. That is about 8,000. Why are they disposed of? For a variety of reasons. People may divorce. Perhaps they have children. Who knows what the reasons may be, but they are disposed of. How are they disposed of? How are those 8,000 disposed of? A decision is made by the original creators of that particular embryo and by the physician running the in vitro fertilization clinic that they will be disposed of, and then they are put in as hospital waste; so they are not going to be life. It is only those embryos that would be used in this situation to develop the stem cell lines that we are talking about. It is very important to understand that they are going to be disposed of anyhow as hospital waste or are they going to be used for research.

Mr. CASTLE. At this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for a unanimous-consent request. (Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 35, a resolution to create a Select Intelligence Oversight Panel to advise the House Appropriations Committee. As a former member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I strongly believe that we must enact all of the 9/11 Commission's intelligence recommendations, even those that apply to our own congressional committees. In its final report, outlining steps Congress should take to combat the problems which plagued our Nation in the lead up to September 11, the 9/11 Commission stated that ``Congress should pass a separate appropriations act for intelligence, defending the broad allocation of how these tens of billions of dollars have been assigned among the varieties of intelligence work.'' In the wake of the terrorist attacks of 2001, Congress acted quickly to enact a large majority of the commission's recommendations. Today the House will likely pass some of the remaining recommendations, impacting various agencies and levels of government. However, as it turns out, it has been those recommendations that apply directly to the tangled rules of procedures here in the United States Congress, which have been left unfinished. Specifically, I am disappointed that the resolution before us today fails to implement the 9/11 Commission's very specific recommendation that Congress enact a separate appropriations bill for our 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 currently drafted, I have serious concerns that the proposed Intelligence Oversight Panel will have very little control over the actual funding decisions and will only succeed in confusing the process and adding to its complex bureaucracy. As a former member of the House Intelligence Committee, I believe strongly in the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. For that reason, I will introduce legislation immediately to create an empowered and independent intelligence appropriations subcommittee to oversee the intelligence community funding and to keep our Nation safe from those seeking to destroy our way of life.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize the 90th birthday of The Honorable William T. McLaughlin, former mayor of Wilmington. Bill McLaughlin has led an extraordinary life, filled with exceptional acts of public service, as well as a strong dedication to my home State of Delaware. He certainly has packed a great deal of accomplishment into his 90 years. During World War II, Bill flew 50 combat missions in the South Pacific as a tail gunner and radioman. After the war, Bill went to night school under the G.I. Bill and spent his career with the DuPont Company. He spent 58 years married to the late Mary McLaughlin, with whom he raised two fine sons. Bill did not begin his political career until 1964, when he was elected to the city council in an upset victory. After serving as a strong advocate for progressive causes on the council, he was elected as mayor in 1976, and served the city from 1977-1984. I had the privilege of serving as Lieutenant Governor of Delaware during his second term as mayor and enjoyed working with him on many different issues. The McLaughlin years were prosperous ones for both the city of Wilmington and the State of Delaware. Together with Governor Pete duPont, Bill helped to enact the Financial Center Development Act which brought Delaware to the forefront of the banking industry. Mayor McLaughlin worked tirelessly to protect jobs, attract new employers, and grow the local economy. Not only was the economy successful during Bill McLaughlin's time, but crime rates declined, city and water systems were improved, and low-income families had increased access to housing. While a tireless worker for the city of Wilmington, the mayor should also be remembered for his sense of humor. One St. Patrick's Day, Mayor McLaughlin made his way down King Street in a green leprechaun costume. Bill continues to serve as a dignified leader in countless service organizations. I commend him for a life of service and thank him for his tireless dedication to Delaware. I am proud to call him a friend.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3885, the District of Columbia and United States Territories Circulating Quarter Dollar Program Act. I want to thank both Chairman Oxley and Chairman Pryce for the Financial Services Committee's support for this legislation, and Leader Boehner and incoming chairman Barney Frank for their help in getting the bill to the floor as the 109th Congress winds down. The legislation before us would create a 1-year program following the end of the popular 50 State Quarter program that would create circulating quarters that bear images honoring the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Mr. Speaker, the 50 State Quarter program has proved to be a great success--it has reinvigorated interest in coin collecting, has proven an invaluable educational tool, and has contributed close to $6 billion dollars to the U.S. Treasury, so far, through seigniorage and the sale of products for collectors. These savings will reduce interest on the debt, something we should all support. The state quarters have been the most popular coin program in the United State's Mint history, with an estimated 140 million Americans collecting the coins. Next year, in a program modeled after the state quarters, the Mint will begin issuing dollar coins bearing the images of the Presidents, changing the design four times a year. Mr. Speaker, DC and the territories weren't included in the state quarter program, but they deserve their own quarters and Americans deserve to be able to get those quarters and learn about their history. This legislation is a good bipartisan bill supported by other members of the Financial Services Committee and passed in the House in every Congress since we approved the state quarter legislation. I am pleased today that we have brought this much-needed bill to the floor. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this important legislation, and I hope our colleagues in the other body now will approve it as well. The Mint needs adequate time to plan the designs for these coins, and sending this bill to the President 2 years from now is too late.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Financial Services be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3885) to provide for a circulating quarter dollar coin program to honor the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 4046, the ``Iraq Reconstruction Accountability Act.'' As our brave men and women in Iraq risk their lives to stabilize the region and rebuild the nation's infrastructure, it is absolutely crucial that the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction remain in place to ensure proper oversight of this important funding. To date, we have appropriated over $34 billion for reconstruction efforts in Iraq--ranging from projects such as roads and electric power, to training and equipping Iraqi security forces and providing school books and vaccinations for children. While there is no doubt that this funding is crucial to the reconstruction efforts, I have serious concerns about the adequacy of contract management practices at the Department of Defense and I have introduced legislation to begin reforming some of these wasteful programs. The Inspector General for Iraq plays a critical role, performing audits and investigations that provide Congress with the tools to more closely examine charges of misconduct and ensure effective and efficient use of taxpayer funds. Spending missteps and management weaknesses damage this government's ability to provide our soldiers with the resources that keep us safe. This week, as we review the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, I also urge my colleagues to pass this important legislation to ensure accountability in our military spending system.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 5466, the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Designation Act, which traces the 1607 and 1608 water voyages of Captain John Smith to chart the land and waterways of the Chesapeake Bay. The water trail extends approximately 3,000 miles along the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and in the District of Columbia. The year 2007 will mark the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown and Captain John Smith's monumental voyages of exploration in the Chesapeake Bay, making passage of this legislation and the designation of this route as a national historic trail timely. Designating this historic trail is an excellent way for Americans to learn about the voyage of Captain John Smith and the valuable resources of the Chesapeake Bay and will help to spur efforts to protect and restore the region's historic and environmental assets. During his voyage, Captain John Smith traveled 45 miles up the Nanticoke River into Delaware. He reached approximately half a mile above Broad Creek, in present-day Sussex County, where he placed a brass cross to symbolize the furthest extent of his exploration. During that time, Captain John Smith met and traded with hundreds of the Kuskarawaok (Nanticoke) Indians who were vital to keeping the Jamestown settlement alive through their knowledge and trade goods. This project is widely supported in Delaware by Governor Ruth Ann Minner; Delaware Economic Development Office; Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control; Nanticoke Indian Tribe; New Castle County; City of Seaford; Town of Laurel; Bethany-Fenwick Area Chamber of Commerce; Delmarva Low Impact Tourism Experiences; Greater Seaford Chamber of Commerce; Laurel Chamber of Commerce; Southern Delaware Tourism (Sussex County); University of Delaware; the Conservation Fund in Delaware; and the DuPont Corporation. As an original cosponsor of this legislation and earlier legislation that authorized the feasibility study of the proposed trail by the National Park Service, I fully back this project and look forward to visiting the portion of the trail that extends along the Nanticoke River in Delaware.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I also want to rise to extol the virtues of Sherry Boehlert. I worked very hard on trying to write something out here. It took me a while to get this together. I am not quite as glib as the distinguished other gentleman from New York who spoke earlier, and I had to think long and hard about really good things to say about Sherry as well. But I would just like to start by saying a few things. One, he is I think the most affable person in the House of Representatives. There are a lot of us here, but he always did things with goodwill, with a good sense of humor. I am not remotely surprised that he didn't make enemies when he spoke or he took opposite positions, because he didn't do that with a vindictiveness, and he usually did it with facts behind what he was saying. So for that he deserves tremendous credit. He has been an incredible advocate for centrist Republican positions. He and I have worked together on a variety of those issues, going to the highest levels in this House, sometimes to extend funding in certain circumstances, other times to fight legislation which was coming forward, and for that I will be eternally grateful. He also is an environmentalist extraordinaire. He probably excels in that field as much as anybody in the House of Representatives, Republican or Democrat. He is knowledgeable. He had tremendous staff support. He carried out his convictions on the floor. He articulated the issues well. I don't know of a single issue involving the environment in which probably 25 or 30 of us did not go to Sherry and say exactly what do you think about this, and usually we voted the way he was thinking because of his extraordinary knowledge. Now, I am saying nice things about him, but I should point out some downside. He is a Yankee fan. I don't know how that happens. I think people become Yankee fans because they are winners, and that is the reason he is a Yankee fan instead of a Mets fan or something of that nature. But he is there, and we will have to forgive him that. He comes from a region of New York State, up around Utica. He lives in New Hartford, New York, which happens to be an area in which I spent 4 years going to Hamilton College. He and I graduated in the same year from different colleges; he, from Utica College, which we realized soon when we came down here together on the floor of the House of Representatives. But he has been my agent, telling me about Hamilton College all these years, and I appreciate that a great deal. He also dedicated a science building there, as the head of the Science Committee recently, to great acclaim by the people at Hamilton and has a warm spot in his heart for that. Moves significantly. He has a good part of his family, of his children, have now moved to Rehobeth Beach, Delaware, and he and Marianne are hopefully going to spend more time in the southern part of Delaware, which I consider to be very important. It is a beautiful spot. Everybody here should consider that, as a matter of fact, as part of their future. I hope that Sherry will come there often and spend time there and we can enjoy his company at that spot. I can't tell you how fair he has been. If you go to Sherry with something, he will describe it to you, go back and forth, and, if he is with you, he is going to be on your side and he is the single greatest advocate you can possibly have. There are many, many other things he has achieved, particularly as head of the Science Committee, dealing with the American Competitiveness Initiative, which he was slightly ahead of the President in terms of that area. In nanotechnology, he was a force in making sure that we have proper regulation in that area. The same thing is true of cybersecurity. He has been concerned about NASA all these years. He has just done a wonderful job of representing the mid-part of New York State, an exceptional job over all of these years he has been in the Congress of the United States. But I think far beyond that, for those of us who had a chance to know Sherry and to work with him, to know his family, to know Marianne, to know what they stand for and how they are, he has the warmest embrace he could possibly have from all of us. He is an exceptional human being. And I am sure, since he is in good health and that he will be in Washington from time to time, that we will hear from him on a variety of issues. And I look forward to that moment, being able to hear from Sherry as to what he is thinking, as to what is going on, keeping us informed on the outside and keeping us informed on the inside as to what we should be doing in minding our P's and Q's. To a wonderful Member of the Congress of the United States, to a wonderful individual in the United States, I pay all the acclaim possible to my good friend Sherry Boehlert.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 1140, legislation to name the State Route 1 Bridge over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal in Delaware after the late Senator William V. Roth, Jr. S. 1140 passed the Senate unanimously in June 2005, and as the sponsor of the House companion, H.R. 2800, I am pleased to join Senators Carper and Biden in offering my full support for S. 1140 and to encourage its adoption by the House today. A leader and dedicated public servant, Senator Roth served honorably during his years in Congress and set a tremendous example for future generations of Americans. Best known for creating the successful ``Roth IRA,'' Senator Roth also fought hard in Congress to improve the quality of transportation in the State of Delaware. In the early 1990s, Senator Roth played an important role in helping to build the State Route 1 Bridge in New Castle County, Delaware. Senator Roth was first elected to the House in 1966, serving two terms, before being elected to the Senate, where he served for 30 years. He also won the Bronze Star for his service in the U.S. Army during World War II. He died in 2003 at the age of 82. Nothing in my mind would serve as a better tribute to Senator Roth's many years of dedicated public service than to rename this bridge, a true architectural gem in Delaware, in his honor. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 1140.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Mary Ball Morton upon her retirement after 28 years of dedicated service working for the Delaware Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families. The Delaware Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families mission is to provide and manage a range of services for children who have experienced abandonment, abuse, mental illness, neglect, or substance abuse. Its services include prevention, early intervention, assessment, treatment, permanency, and after care. The Department attracts and retains proud and talented individuals who are motivated to ``Think of the Child First'' in all that they do. Mrs. Morton has been an inspiring example of a person who ``thinks of the child first'' all of her professional life. Mrs. Morton's distinguished career has had many different facets, yet they all reflect back to a person who has been steadfastly dedicated to improving the lives of children. Initially, Mrs. Morton worked to develop foster care policy, and ensure that the foster care throughout the State was adequate and working to improve and enrich children's lives. During Mrs. Morton's career, she has overseen the administration of the State of Delaware's adoption program, court liaison services, quality assurance and improvement programs. Mrs. Morton's commitment to children is constant; now that Mrs. Morton is retiring from State employment, she is focusing her energy and support on the 21st Century Fund for Delaware's Children. The 21st Century Fund for Delaware's Children will provide a critical bridge between the limited resources of State and non-profit agencies and underserved children by supporting activities that will help children develop socially and academically. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to wish Mrs. Morton success in all her future endeavors, and I would like to thank her for her years of dedicated advocacy and for her years of personal friendship.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a very special young lady, Miss Allie Dietz. She continues to impress me with her courage and her determination to fight diabetes, which she has suffered from since she was just five years old. She is now twelve. I have come to know Allie over the years at different events throughout my state--Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Galas, Children's Congress, Walk for a Cure, the fight for stem cell research and many others. She has told me her stories of low and high blood sugars, she has shown me how she pricks her fingers and takes her insulin and she has always demonstrated a positive attitude through it all. Most of all, I am proud to call her my friend. Recently, we shared the podium at an event at Alfred I. DuPont Hospital for Children, and it is safe to say that Allie stole the show! Allie is surrounded by loving parents and two wonderful younger sisters who share her joys, her sadness and her hope for a cure. That is why I will continue to fight for a cure for diabetes--through efforts like increased research funding, an expanded federal embryonic stem cell research policy, legislation to address racial disparities in minorities and ensuring patients have access to care. I know Allie will go far in life, and it is our job as Members of Congress to ensure that she has help along the way. I am hopeful that Congress will begin to make diabetes more of a priority, as it has become a national epidemic. We need to lead the fight for a cure for Allie and all of the other diabetes patients suffering throughout the United States.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to Connections Community Support Programs Inc., a Delaware non-profit organization providing housing, treatment, and support services to persons living with and recovering from mental health and substance use conditions, homelessness, and HIV/AIDS. Connections Community Support Programs was selected as the First Place Winner of the 2006 Lilly Reintegration Award for Housing, from Eli Lilly and Company. This is also the 10th anniversary of Eli Lilly and Company presenting this award that recognizes outstanding achievements made by mental health organizations. This national award honors efforts to improve services and decrease the stigma of mental illness. Connections Inc. is particularly proud of its housing programs, specifically the development of supportive housing for people with low-incomes and special needs. The creation of more than 300 units of affordable housing for this target population is highly commendable. Connections mission from it's genesis in 1985, has been to provide a comprehensive array of community-based treatment, support, housing and rehabilitation services for people recovering from and living with mental health and substance use conditions, homelessness and HIV/AIDS. The State of Delaware greatly benefits from the services and programs Connections offers at nearly 30 locations in all three Delaware counties. Congratulations to Connections Community Support Programs, Inc for being recognized for their dedication and hard work. I am confident they will continue to provide this valuable service to our community and make a difference in the lives of there patients.