Marty Meehan

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the so-called ``Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act,'' (TESRA). The sponsors of TESRA claim that they want to ``reform'' the ESA because it's not helping enough threatened and endangered species recover. In reality, it is aimed at weakening, dismantling, and rendering unenforceable the Endangered Species Act, ESA. The original Endangered Species Act was a bipartisan effort to protect our natural heritage. Yet today, as we consider how to update and modernize that legislation, we are presented not with a truly bipartisan bill, but a massive special interest giveaway that guts ESA despite a thirty year track record of success. A vote for the passage of TESRA is a vote to abdicate responsible environmental policy and to create a new form of corporate welfare. Since the enactment of the Endangered Species Act in 1973, tens of millions of acres of land in the United States have been managed for conservation purposes. As a result, of the 1800 species protected under ESA, we have lost only 9 to extinction. That's a 99 percent success rate on extinction prevention. TESRA's most fundamental change abandons the basic priority of the Endangered Species Act: the commitment to species recovery. The overarching goal of ESA is to bring species back from the brink of extinction to the point where they no longer need to be given special protection. TESRA alters that mission by effectively negating the goal of species recovery. TESRA specifically eliminates the requirement that the Federal Government attempt to restore species to healthy population levels. Furthermore, under TESRA any species recovery plan the government might conceive would be non-binding. Had ESA had these guidelines in place since 1973, the recovery of many species, including the peregrine falcon and the American alligator, would have been almost inconceivable. In the case of the alligator, recovery was so successful that we are now even able to implement controlled farming of the restored population. There are two areas of the bill which I found particularly problematic and sought to address through amendments. My first amendment would strike language from TESRA that would turn back the clock on the scientific determination of an endangered species. My second amendment would strike language from TESRA that creates a very dangerous precedent: setting up a system where the government pays people for obeying the law. Rather than offer these separately on the floor, I am pleased to see their substance included in the bipartisan Miller-Boehlert substitute that we will be considering today. The use of science is of special importance in the implementation of the species protection program. Rather than using the best available science for species protection, TESRA explicitly prohibits the government from using advanced, modern scientific tools like statistical modeling that we have at our disposal today and that assist us in the implementation of ESA. By taking away these cutting edge tools, TESRA would make it exceedingly difficult to make determinations on the status of any species whose populations are small, isolated, and scattered. The result will be a weakened and limited scientific process in decisions made under the act, more obstacles and less protection. The substitute bill restores ESA's original approach to science, which is to use the best science available to help save and recover endangered species. My second proposed amendment addresses a trouble area in TESRA introducing a requirement that the Federal Government actually pay developers and polluters to comply with the law. This provision would have serious and widespread implications: it sets a dangerous precedent in environmental protection. This amounts to a new entitlement program that would result in a windfall for land developers and speculators--at the expense of the taxpayers and the species we seek to protect under ESA. This provision of TESRA is part of a broader movement to treat all environmental regulation as a form of ``property taking'' that requires government compensation. It is a novel legal theory that would strike at the heart of virtually every piece of environmental regulation ever passed. The proposal under TESRA is particularly ripe for abuse because it sets no cap or limitations. Under TESRA, someone could purchase cheap land, announce an intention to develop on it, and then demand a check from the government compensating them for the much higher value of the developed property, all without ever even intending to break ground. The same developer could conceivably come back an unlimited number of times for an unlimited number of ``projects''. My amendment, the substance of which is mirrored in the Miller-Boehlert substitute, strikes this payment scheme entirely. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the TESRA roll back of the Endangered Species Act and to support the bipartisan Miller-Boehlert substitute to preserve and strengthen one of the most successful pieces of environmental legislation in 30 years.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 208 and commend the gentlemen from Wisconsin and Michigan for bringing this concurrent resolution to the floor today. Fifty years ago this coming December, Rosa Louise Parks inspired a town, a movement, and a Nation to hold true to the ideals and principles upon which our Nation was founded. By refusing to give up her seat after a long day of work because she felt she was being treated unfairly, Rosa Parks demonstrated the quiet strength that typified her life. Her arrest led to the 381-day Montgomery bus boycott and to the eventual repeal of the segregation laws of the South. Her individual act of defiance is considered by many to be the beginning of the civil rights movement. Ten years later, on August 6, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Voting Rights Act, which in later years was strengthened with amendments to affirm the rights of non-Whites to vote and to be represented fairly in government. This fall, parts of the Voting Rights Act will come before Congress to be reauthorized. We must not only renew our commitment to the voting rights protected under that legislation, but look to strengthen voter rights and to improve our electoral systems. And we must forever link our current state of freedom with the sacrifice of exceptional individuals like Rosa Parks who stood up to oppression and changed history. Let us celebrate the lifetime achievements of a truly remarkable woman. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 208.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Guam for yielding me this time. I also thank the gentleman from Arizona for his comments on this legislation. This legislation begins the process of further protecting an important part of American history. Colonel James Barrett's farm, located in the town of Concord, Massachusetts, is already listed on the National Register for Historic Places for its significance. My legislation calls for a boundary study to evaluate adding Barrett's Farm to the Minute Man National Historic Park, which would forever protect it from development. As the gentlewoman from Guam has indicated, a brief history of Barrett's Farm explains why its addition to the Minute Man National Historic Park would be appropriate. Colonel James Barrett was the commander of the militia in Middlesex during the Revolutionary War. His farm was a central depot where the American revolutionaries stored cannons, gunpowder, and other munitions. On April 19, 1775, General Thomas Gage, the commander of all British forces in North America, ordered 700 of his troops to march to Barrett's Farm to destroy the supplies stored there. We all know the story of what happened next. The colonists learned of the British plot ahead of time and sent a Boston silversmith, Paul Revere, into the night to call his countrymen to arms. Immediately, the citizens of Concord started hiding the town's supplies. Colonel Barrett's sons plowed his fields and hid munitions in the furrows. By the time the British reached the farm, the colonial militia had taken up position, ready to strike at the British Army. Ultimately, the colonists and the British came to blows at the North Bridge in Concord, where ``the shot heard around the world'' was fired, launching our war for independence. The citizens of Concord knew the area, had the manpower and weapons, and sent the Redcoats running, dealing a harsh blow to the British Army. Thirty years ago, Barrett's Farm was listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Even in Massachusetts, where most places can be called historic, Barrett's Farm stands out as an icon of American history. Minute Man National Historic Park encompasses 967 acres, including the North Bridge, Lexington Green, and the Battle Road Trail, where the British traveled and advanced and retreated. Including Barrett's Farm within the boundaries of Minute Man Park would add an integral part of this storied battle. Barrett's Farm was the impetus for the British advance and vigorous work of Colonel Barrett, and his militia was a reason why the British retreated. This battle has become iconic of American history and every piece of that story should be preserved. By adding the farm to the Minute Man National Historic Park and placing it in the able oversight of the National Park Service, we can ensure that this important piece of our history will be enjoyed for generations to come. Passing today's legislation, which authorizes a study to this end, is the first step towards reaching the goal. We would not have the opportunity to pass the bill today if it were not for the hard work of many people who have ensured the story of Colonel James Barrett be told. First and foremost is Anna Winter, the director of Save Our Heritage, a nonprofit group dedicated to preserving the grand history of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Anna and her colleagues are the driving force behind the effort to protect places like Walden Pond and Barrett's Farm. I would also like to recognize the efforts of Nancy Nelson, the superintendent of Minute Man National Park. Nancy's tireless efforts to maximize the impact of the park have created not only a spot of extraordinary beauty, but also have preserved the land in which our freedom was won. Because of Nancy and her colleagues at the National Park Service, our children can learn the history of our Nation while walking the same steps as those patriots did centuries ago. I would also like to thank the staff of the Trust for Public Land, a hardworking group of people that highly values the conservation of all lands for historical sites and community parks to wilderness areas. For over 30 years, the Trust has helped more than 2,700 conservation projects come to fruition, each project representing a community like Concord, trying to beautify and protect its natural history. Finally I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Ranking Member Rahall) for bringing this important bill to the floor, and I deeply appreciate the effort of my colleagues.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, for those of us not on the Gulf Coast, it is impossible to comprehend the experience of those whose lives have been upended by the brute force of Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans and much of the Gulf Coast are a disaster area--bodies float in floodwaters that still rise unchecked, power is out, looters steal without fear, and violence is widespread. Our Nation grieves with the residents and survivors and we will stand with them during the long road to recovery. Hurricane Katrina appears to be headed for the history books as one of the worst national disasters ever to hit the United States. Yet the deeper tragedy is not just how large a toll this storm will eventually take, but how avoidable it all could have been. The devastation wrought on the Gulf tonight is the result of two terrible disasters. The first was the fury of nature. The other is the unnecessary consequence of this government's inexcusable failure to prepare for the inevitable. The primary function of a government is to ensure the safety of its citizens. This Congress and this Administration have failed to do so in the most incompetent and willfully negligent way imaginable. This hurricane was not a surprise. For decades meteorologists, State and local officials, Army engineers, academics, and, yes, FEMA have warned that a Category Four or Five hurricane hitting New Orleans was among the top three most likely major disasters to affect the United States and that we must be prepared. The most recent analysis was conducted just last year, where a computer simulation of the fictional ``Hurricane Pam'' pounded New Orleans much as Katrina did, pushing the waters of Lake Pontchartrain through the levees flooding the city and stranding 300,000 poor and African-American New Orleanians. The day before Katrina reached land, FEMA's own director, Michael Brown, raised the possibility of the levees being breached. On August 28th, Brown told CNN that ``we knew from experience, based back in the '40s and even in the late 1800s, if a Category Four or Five hurricane were to strike New Orleans just right, the flooding would be devastating. It could be catastrophic.'' And yet the President said just yesterday that ``I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.'' Plans to prepare for this catastrophe had been developed at FEMA as early as the 1990s when President Clinton's FEMA Director, James Lee Witt, laid out a plan for coping with a nightmare scenario in New Orleans that included pre-positioning hospital ships and pumps to handle the catastrophe. Why this was not done is just the beginning of the laundry list of problems with the response to this disaster. Command and control has still not been established. There are FEMA personnel on site and they can do nothing as they await instructions from the bureaucracy in Washington. When will someone take control? The Gulf Coast desperately needs a leader to emerge at FEMA who can direct its operation. Why has this taken so long? Lurking just below the surface is another set of troubling questions: What if this had been a terrorist attack? Is our emergency response capability so weak that a levee breach, or power outages, or debris can incapacitate an entire region? President Bush has pledged repeatedly since 9/11, now over 4 years ago, that he would keep our country safe. Is this the best this Administration can do? Do our citizens not deserve all the protection and support this government can provide? The reality is that this country is woefully unprepared to respond to a major domestic disaster in this country because FEMA has been systematically dismantled over the past 5 years by incompetent leaders, anti-government ideology, budget cuts, and bureaucratic red tape. FEMA's current problems essentially began with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which demoted FEMA from cabinet-level status and reduced it to one of 22 organizations under the umbrella of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Next, its mission was reprioritized and its budget cut, taking the emphasis off of responding to natural disasters while the upper ranks of management were filled by patronage hires, five out of eight having had no emergency preparedness experience. At the same time, FEMA's professional staff was becoming increasingly demoralized. By this week, nine out of ten regional director positions were vacant, as were three out of five disaster response director positions. This brain drain left an agency without the proper leadership, resources, or influence in government to cope with a major catastrophe. Responsibility, however, does not rest solely with the Bush Administration. This Congress has been a willing co-conspirator in the degradation of FEMA's capabilities. Since 2001, many Federal disaster mitigation programs have fallen to budgetary pressures. FEMA's Project Impact, a model mitigation program, has been canceled outright. Federal funding of post-disaster mitigation efforts designed to protect people and property from the next disaster has been cut in half, and now communities across the country must compete for pre-disaster mitigation dollars. In 2003, Congress approved a White House proposal to cut FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program in half. Previously, the Federal government was committed to investing 15 percent of the recovery costs of a disaster toward mitigating future problems. Under the Bush formula, only 7.5 percent are given. Experts say that such post- disaster mitigation efforts are the best way to minimize future losses. In 2004 alone, Congress cut FEMA's budget by $170 million. And FEMA is not the only agency to feel the effects of budget cuts. Bush's 2005 budget proposal called for a 13 percent reduction in the Army Corps of Engineers' budget, down to $4 billion from $4.6 billion in fiscal 2004 and the New Orleans Corp of Engineers was to lose $71.2 million out of its budget, the largest cut in its history. This is the very agency responsible for the New Orleans levee system. Assistant Secretary of the Army Michael Parker was even fired for accusing the Bush Administration of failing to adequately fund the Corp of Engineers before Katrina struck. Natural disasters are a fact of life in this country. Hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes are just some of the eventualities that will inevitably occur and need to be dealt with. Over the past decade, FEMA has responded to more than 500 such disasters with varying degrees of effectiveness. But Katrina has provided its first major test since September 11. The repercussions of the failure of that test are staggering. Going forward, I believe we need to create a bipartisan, national commission, similar to the 9/11 Commission, to provide an objective look at what went wrong and to make recommendations to repair what is clearly a broken system. Doing so is essential to restoring the confidence of the American people in our government's ability to respond to a crisis on American soil and to keep them safe. The people of the Gulf Coast have demanded answers to their questions and we owe them that. There is also much more to be said about what this catastrophe has to reveal about the problems of race and class in America. It is in some way illustrative of this Administration's neglect of the less fortunate that those in the worst situations after this storm are the poorest and most disenfranchised populations--precisely the people this Administration's policies have, at best, callously ignored. But social justice is a conversation for a later time. For now, we must focus on the immediate task at hand. Our duty is to do everything we can for the victims of this disaster and to rebuild the Gulf Coast. We begin tonight with this modest appropriation of $10.5 billion. Hundreds of billions more are certain to follow. The money will pay for the finest clean up possible, but, in the end, it will not change the reality that things did not have to happen this way.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I have long believed that as a matter of principle we should try to take down barriers that divide economies and people. Under the right conditions, trade between countries can create American jobs and raise standards of living both at home and abroad. But globalization is a developing issue and our policies need to reflect developments in our economy and the economies of our trading partners. When seeking new markets for our products and services, we need to ensure that we are competing on a level playing field. We must work to ensure that our trade agreements are not only free, but also fair. Tonight I will cast my vote against the Central American Free Trade Agreement because it is not free and fair trade. When this Administration cuts the job retraining and education assistance necessary for our workers to compete in the global economy, we should reject trade agreements like CAFTA that fail to protect workers on both sides of the agreement. The United States has a half-trillion dollar trade deficit. American businesses are choosing not to invest at home and our economy is no longer attracting private foreign capital. The minimum wage is at its lowest level in 50 years, and nearly 7.5 million Americans are unemployed. The Republican Congress has enacted legislation that actually creates incentives for companies to move jobs overseas. The CAFTA agreement President Bush has submitted to Congress would open U.S. markets to products from Latin American countries with poverty-level wage scales and poor environmental conditions. In return, we get access to six countries whose combined economic output is smaller than that of the city of Boston. Under this agreement, hard- working Americans will be forced to compete with nations that don't enforce international human rights standards in wage and hour rules and child labor laws. Rather than foster sustained economic growth, CAFTA would freeze Central America's substandard labor laws in place. CAFTA is as bad a deal for Central American workers as it is for workers in the United States. Time and time again, the Bush Administration has failed to take the necessary steps to help American workers succeed in the changing global economy. When the Senate Finance Committee made a bipartisan recommendation to include aid for displaced American workers in CAFTA, the Bush Administration simply ignored the request. This indifference to the needs and concerns of the people most likely to be hurt by this agreement is typical of the Bush Administration's handling of economic policy. Instead of strengthening job training programs, the Administration has cut funding for these programs by over $750 million over the last five years. Instead of strengthening education, the Administration has cut these programs by over $500 million. Instead of addressing the health care crisis in this country, the Administration has brought us legislation to protect the profits of HMOs and insurance companies. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to send the Central American Free Trade Agreement back to the White House with a clear message that we will not approve this agreement unless it reflects our priorities and values.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, September 11 made it clear that the world had changed, that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies needed to change accordingly. Democrats and Republicans agreed on the need to update the tools necessary for law enforcement to address the threat of terrorism on American soil. What started as an effort to protect our country from terror has become a virtually uncontrolled vehicle for government to invade the privacy of every American. It was with that possibility in mind that the Congress included in the PATRIOT Act a provision requiring a review after a few years to determine which parts should be retained, which parts should be modified, and which should be repealed. It is evident to me and to many Americans that the PATRIOT Act is inadequate in its protection of civil liberties. Section 206's blanket, roving wiretaps, section 213's sneak-and-peek searches, and section 215's expansive power allowing the government to obtain any piece of information on any American are just three examples of how the PATRIOT Act is out of control. Last week, the Committee on the Judiciary met to address these and other issues in an attempt to bring back some balance to the law enforcement power and civil liberties. Democrats on the committee offered dozens of amendments in an attempt to control this bill and bring balance to it. Virtually every single one of these amendments was rejected on a party-line vote. Most troubling was the extension of sunsetted provisions that should have been allowed to expire or at least require reauthorization in the next 4 years. Periodically revisiting the PATRIOT Act is a good thing. To preserve our commitment to making the best and most up-to-date assessment of our law enforcement and intelligence policies, we should include more, not fewer, sunsets and make them shorter, not longer. The PATRIOT Act was an effort to answer the most difficult question our democracy faces: How much freedom are we willing to give up to feel safe? Too much freedom, giving up too much power given to the Justice Department. Today we are asking not to hinder the pursuit of terrorists, but to return some sanity and balance to the law.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and rise today in opposition to the Ros-Lehtinen amendment because it essentially supports prolonging the deployment of the United States military personnel in Iraq. Our troops deserve clear, concrete measures and milestones for defeating the insurgency, for building up Iraqi security forces. General Petraeus is doing a great job. Why can we not have a timetable for how long it is going to take to get the 130,000 Iraqi security forces trained and hand it over to the Iraqi people? I have called repeatedly for the Department of Defense to do just that. As a matter of fact, this Congress passed a supplemental appropriations bill that required the Department of Defense to report by July 11 the status of training the Iraqi forces. The Pentagon has refused, or has not yet provided that information. When is this Congress going to exercise its responsibility? Our troops have done everything that we have asked of them in Iraq. They have acted heroically. They have done their job. Now is the time for Washington to do its job and develop a strategy for successful completion of this mission. I do not know where it came, that coming up with an exit strategy somehow is something that is not in the United States' interest. I know when George Bush was Governor and we were in Kosovo, George Bush said, ``Victory means exit strategy, and it is important for the President to explain to us what that exit strategy is.'' Having an exit strategy and a strategy for success is just as important if not more important today in Iraq than it was in Kosovo. We have made mistakes in Iraq. The Pentagon did not listen to General Shinseki. We know that in Iraq the occupation is fueling the insurgency. We have a timetable in effect that was just articulated from the gentleman from Texas. We are going to have elections, and in January we are going to have a new government. How long should the United States stay? This Congress ought to exercise its responsibility, its constitutional responsibility of oversight, and demand the administration present their strategy.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, this weekend many of us learned that the Bush Administration may have a plan for a phased drawdown of coalition forces in Iraq in the next 12 to 18 months. Unfortunately, we did not learn about these plans from the Administration's legally mandated yet unfulfilled reporting requirements to Congress. We learned about it from news reports of a leaked memo circulating in the British government. The memo outlines the Administration's plan to cut the size of our force in Iraq from 140,000 down to 66,000 by the middle of next year, and describes a ``strong U.S. military desire'' to hand over control to the Iraqi security forces in most of Iraq. In January I released a white paper in which I proposed a timetable for a phased drawdown of the majority of American troops by the end of 2006. If the information in the British memo is true, then the Administration may be planning similar plans, despite its public claims to the contrary. Ironically, the British memo, reportedly written at least a month ago, broke in the American press at exactly the same moment that the Administration missed a very important deadline to share precisely this sort of information with this Congress. There is something wrong when we are learning about the Administration's plans for our troops, not from the President, not from the Pentagon, but from leaked foreign memos. Yesterday the Pentagon should have released to Congress an essential report on the benchmarks and guidelines for measuring progress in Iraq. The report for ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq'' was a provision of the Supplemental Defense Appropriations Bill passed by this Congress and signed into law by President Bush on May 11, 2005. This law required the Administration to outline a comprehensive approach to Iraq by July 11, yesterday, with follow-up reports every 90 days thereafter. This report presents an invaluable opportunity for the administration to explain to Congress and to the American people their plans and intentions in Iraq. Providing Congress with a more comprehensive set of performance indicators will undoubtedly lead to a more informed debate over U.S. policy in Iraq. The congressionally mandated report calls on the Administration to outline key measures of stability and security in Iraq. This includes measurements of political stability, the training of Iraqi forces. Specifically, the report mandates that the Administration provide information on the operational readiness status of the Iraqi military forces, including the type, number, size and organizational structure of Iraqi battalions, as well as their ability to conduct counterinsurgency operations. The report requirement also calls for estimates of the strength of the Iraqi insurgency and details on the training of the Iraqi police force. I urge the Administration to take this responsibility seriously and to take this legal obligation seriously by providing this information to Congress as quickly and as comprehensively as possible. The information contained in this report is a critical step towards bringing our troops home. To that end, I am a cosponsor of House Resolution 55, the Homeward Bound Act. This bipartisan legislation requires the President to announce a plan by December 31 of this year for the eventual return of all elements of the Armed Forces. This plan would be a natural extension of the report due to this body yesterday. The bill also requires the President to begin a drawdown of our troops on or before October 1, 2006. Beyond that date, it provides the President with the flexibility for an orderly drawdown. Finally, the legislation requires the President to accelerate the training of Iraqi forces and to ensure that they are adequate to take the leading role in fighting the insurgency. Our troops have done everything we have asked of them in Iraq. They have acted heroically. They have done their job. Now is the time for Washington to do its job.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lance Corporal Ryan S. McCabe of the United States Marine Corps for his extraordinary courage and heroism while serving our nation in Afghanistan. On March, 10, 2005, Lance Corporal McCabe was presented with the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal. Lance Corporal McCabe put himself at grave personal risk to protect the lives of the Marines in his unit. He used a bayonet to navigate his unit through a minefield in Afghanistan. Due to his bravery, Lance Corporal McCabe's patrol leader--who had been wounded by a detonated landmine--received the urgent medical care he needed to survive and recover. Lance Corporal McCabe has brought great pride to his parents, Stephen and Kathleen, and his hometown of Lowell, Massachusetts. I would like to congratulate Lance Corporal McCabe, and enter into the record a news article titled `` `V' for valor'' by reporter Robert Mills which ran in the May 30, 2005 edition of The Lowell Sun. His patrol leader had already been wounded by a landmine explosion when Lance Cpl. Ryan McCabe, of Lowell, was handed a bayonet and told by his sergeant to start digging his way through the minefield. McCabe, 22, took his orders without hesitation. Just minutes before, McCabe and the rest of the six-man patrol he was part of on that mid-August day had started up a hill where they saw a bunker. The patrol leader took the lead, walking up a trail even though the troops saw landmines on the hillside. Nevertheless, the patrol leader soon detonated an anti-personnel mine, which blew off part of his leg. The rest of the patrol retreated from the immediate area to avoid setting off any other mines, and began to organize a rescue mission. That's when McCabe received his orders. McCabe, who comes from a long line of veterans and Lowell firefighters, got on his hands and knees, and began probing through the minefield, plunging the bayonet into the dirt, searching for mines. ``You feel through the dirt with the bayonet at an angle so if you find a mine you hit it on the side, which won't set it off,'' he said. The anti-personnel mines are triggered when they are stepped on, so only direct pressure on top of the mines will cause an explosion. McCabe was too excited at the time to remember about how far he had to crawl through the minefield, but he eventually got to the lieutenant and secured the area around him which allowed the rest of the patrol, and the medic that was traveling with it, to rescue and treat the group's leader. In recognition of his efforts, McCabe was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, with a combat V--for valor--earlier this month. Despite his heroism in Afghanistan, which he returned from in December, McCabe and his unit, Lima Company of the Third Battalion Sixth Marines, will now ship out for duty in Iraq starting in August or September. He will leave for urban and desert warfare training in California next week, before spending an estimated six to nine months in Iraq. He said having another deployment so soon is ``stressful,'' but nothing he can't handle. ``It's stressful, but once you get over there it's not too bad'' he said. ``The first few months are depressing, but you get used to it real quick. `` McCabe, who lived in Lowell all his life before joining the Marine Corps, ran cross-country and track while he was a student at Lowell High School. When his duty with the Marine Corps is finished in about two years, he hopes to return to Lowell to become a firefighter, just as his father, two uncles and grandfather were before him. McCabe's father, Steve McCabe, of Lowell, is a lieutenant with the Lowell Fire Department's Ladder 4. McCabe's uncle, Patrick McCabe, is one of the department's eight deputy chiefs. His uncle, Bob McCabe, is also a Lowell firefighter, as was his grandfather, Patrick McCabe, who was a deputy chief when he retired from the department in 1984. He followed in his father's footsteps when he joined the Marines in 2001. His father had served from 1974 to 1976, just missing being sent to Vietnam. Speaking from his Lowell home last week, Steve McCabe said he is proud of his son, though he naturally worries about him being in such dangerous situations. ``Like any parent that has a son or daughter serving I'm extremely proud, but at the same time I have mixed emotions because like any parent I worry,'' Steve McCabe said. ``I'm nervous about him going to Iraq. `` Steve McCabe said that just as he did when his son was in Afghanistan, he will be following closely any reports he can find while his son is in Iraq. Though his rescue mission in Afghanistan was perilous, McCabe said he didn't realize what he had done until after the lieutenant was saved. ``At the time, the adrenaline was going so much I just wasn't thinking of what was going on,'' he said from Fort Lejeune, in North Carolina, last week. ``It happened so quickly I didn't have time to get nervous.'' ``Afterward, I realized `wow, what did I just do?' '' McCabe said. Mr. Speaker, we're blessed to have brave men and women like Lance Corporal Class Ryan S. McCabe serving our nation. We should never forget the risks they take to preserve our liberty.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. Our strategy to win the peace in Iraq is failing. We have been killing or eliminating 1,000 to 3,000 Iraqi insurgents a month for 17 months, and in that same period of time, the insurgency has quadrupled. If we talk to people in the theater in Iraq today, they would tell us that that insurgency is anywhere from 150- to 200,000 people. So what do we want to do? The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) wants to have an amendment asking the President to come up with a success strategy. We do that to support our men and women in uniform and to support the administration's coming up with an exit strategy, because it has been 25 months and 1,700 American fatalities since the President declared ``mission accomplished'' in Iraq. For over 2 years we have stayed the course, and it has brought us only casualties and less stability. After returning to the United States from Iraq, I suggested 5 months ago that we needed to think of an exit strategy. Five months later the case for an exit strategy has only grown stronger. And having an exit strategy does not mean cut and run. It means having a blueprint for achieving our goal of leaving the Iraqi people sovereign and truly independent. And it is not a novel idea. All we are asking is for this President to have the same principle he had when he was Governor of Texas, when he said, ``Victory means exit strategy.'' It is important for the President to explain to us what that exit strategy is, and that is what Governor George W. Bush said relative to our campaign in Kosovo, and it is more relevant today in Iraq than it was even then. Any successful strategy in Iraq has to address the fundamental factors that are continuing to fuel the insurgency. One of those factors, Mr. Speaker, is the suspicion that the United States is going to occupy Iraq indefinitely. And until we lay out a framework with the Iraqi Government to bring our troops home, the Iraqi people will never feel that they have control of their own destiny. A fundamental problem with our failed strategy has been the failure to counter the suspicion among the Iraqis that the United States intends permanent occupation. We are pouring concrete all over that country, and in order to build credibility for the new government and make clear that our forces in Iraq are only temporary peacekeepers, we need to renounce any intention of a long-term presence in Iraq. There are difficult and fundamental questions about Iraq's future, the structure of government, the degree of influence and religious and political minorities. All of these things have to be worked out. But this process must be fully inclusive. It is our obligation to press the process and pulling Iraqis out of the insurgency, pulling them into the political process. A clear exit strategy would help splinter insurgent groups and help them set aside their own differences. The only reason they have united is to unite against us in our occupation. We should support this strategy.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Rabbi Robert S. Goldstein. Rabbi Goldstein is a community leader, spiritual advisor, and dear friend. For 15 years, Rabbi Goldstein has led the congregation at Temple Emanuel in Andover, Massachusetts. Rabbi Robert Goldstein was born in Springfield, Massachusetts in 1953. He was raised in a large ad compassionate family. His mother taught in an inner-city elementary school, and volunteers her free time at Jewish charities and other groups serving the community. His late father was deeply involved in the Jewish Nursing Home of Western Massachusetts. Since coming to Temple Emanuel in 1990, Rabbi Goldstein has grown his congregation, and endeavored to make Judaism more accessible to all who come to it with an open ear and an open mind. He has led his flock to explore the meaning of the Jewish faith to find purpose and spiritual enrichment. Under Rabbi Goldstein's leadership, Temple Emanuel has expanded its membership to over 600 families with more than 400 children in its religious school. In addition to his work at Temple Emanuel, Rabbi Goldstein serves on the Board of the Lawrence General Hospital, and he is a trustee of the Edgewood Retirement Community. Rabbi Goldstein continues to foster dialogue between Catholics and Jews at the Center for the Study of Jewish/Christian Relations at Merrimack College. On June 17, 2005 Rabbi Goldstein's congregation, friends, neighbors and loved ones will recognize him for the wisdom and compassion he has shown to all, and for dedicating his life to sharing the virtues of the Jewish faith and heritage. The people of the Merrimack Valley, of all faiths, are truly blessed to have Rabbi Goldstein as a friend, neighbor, counselor and spiritual leader.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his remarks and look forward to working with him as he moves this bill forward and into conference. I would hope that the conference statement of managers would include a suggestion to the Department of Veterans Affairs that they consider doing research in this area.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from New York is aware, over 75 million Americans suffer serious pain, and over 50 million of these endure serious pain with a duration of 6 months or more. Many of these Americans are being treated in facilities within the Department of Veterans Affairs. Currently, available treatment mechanisms do not cure the pain and usually involve medications that are hardly more effective than a placebo, while introducing the risk of serious side effects. Recent clinical findings are causing widespread concern that pain killers available through prescription and over the counter are placing users at additional risk. As the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that must find funding to pay for these medications, the gentleman from New York has an important role in directing the Department of Veterans Affairs to use their medical dollars wisely.

Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh).

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act. The bill contains many provisions to protect our troops and give them the services that they need. Although it is largely a product of the committee's bipartisan work, I am highly concerned by several aspects of the bill. I am extremely troubled by the new restriction against women serving in the military. While the committee-passed bill included far worse language, preventing women from serving in forward-deployed units, the current provision is also not worthy of the brave women who make up 15 percent of the active duty Army, 23 percent of the Army Reserve, and 13 percent of the Guard. And it dishonors the service of women soldiers who are fighting the global war on terror and hurts readiness at a time when our military is facing a recruitment and retention crisis. I am also deeply concerned that the Committee on Rules did not allow a vote on my amendment stating that it is United States policy not to have a permanent presence in Iraq. My amendment simply codified what the administration has been saying all along, that U.S. troops will stay in Iraq as long as necessary, but not 1 day more. It would have made clear and unambiguous statements that the United States does not intend to maintain a permanent presence. While this bill takes many small steps towards improving benefits for our Nation's servicemembers, it does not recognize the urgency in responding to the needs of a whole new generation of combat veterans. I introduced two amendments in committee to improve transition assistance services and preseparation counseling to separating servicemembers. These programs are critical to providing servicemembers with the tools they need to succeed in civilian life. As we prepare to take on thousands of new veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom have been critically injured and will need long-term support, we must expand these programs. The committee did a disservice to our troops when it failed to adopt these amendments. Finally, I am also troubled by the chairman's decision to ignore the views of his fellow committee members and strike bipartisan language. The committee recognized the need to extend TRICARE to nonactive-duty Reservists by adopting the Taylor amendment. Our chairman later struck the provision, and the Rules Committee has denied Mr. Taylor the opportunity to bring an amendment to the floor. I also want to extend a special word of thanks to Lauren Briggerman, my Military Legislative Aide, who is leaving my office in June to attend law school. In the nearly 2 years Lauren has been with my office, she has proven to be tremendously talented and dedicated. Lauren has contributed immeasurably to my work on the Armed Services Committee, particularly on Iraq exit strategies, repeal of the military's unjust ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy, transition assistance for returning veterans, weapons non-proliferation, and defense issues affecting Massachusetts. I wish her the best. I thank the ranking member for providing me time to speak on this bill.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Woolsey amendment. This amendment does not say, Cut and run. This amendment does not call it quits. It asks the President for an exit strategy. And since the President declared victory in Iraq, more than 1,500 Americans have been killed. The Bush administration still has not laid out a strategy to win the peace in Iraq and bring our American forces home. Now, when he was Governor of Texas, this is the advice that George W. Bush gave President Clinton about the war in Kosovo. Victory, he said, means exit strategy, and it is important for the President of the United States to explain to us what the exit strategy is. Now, that is what Governor Bush said about President Clinton and the war in Kosovo, and the need for an exit strategy is even more apparent in Iraq. In the absence of an exit strategy, the administration continues to pursue the same strategy that has only led to more casualties and less stability. We have killed or captured 1,000 to 3,000 insurgents every month for more than a year. But with thousands of new recruits, the insurgency strengths have quadrupled. Without an exit strategy to win the peace and bring our troops home, our policy is going in circles. Our troops have won tactical victories, but they have not translated into strategic advances. Any successful strategy in Iraq has to address the fundamental factors that are continuing to fuel the insurgency. One of those factors is the suspicion that U.S. troops are going to occupy Iraq indefinitely. Those suspicions are being reinforced by the fact that we have three or four times as many troops in Iraq today as the administration predicted we would. Until we lay out a framework for bringing our troops home and replacing them with Iraqis, the Iraqi people will never feel that they are in control of their own destiny. A clear exit strategy would help splinter insurgent groups who have set aside their own differences in order to unite against the United States. It would send a message to the Iraqi Government that it needs to take responsibility for its own security. And, finally, an exit strategy is that light at the end of the tunnel that our troops need and the taxpayers need.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, to put science and compassion ahead of ideology and fear. The promise of embryonic stem cells is that they alone have the potential to develop into any kind of body tissue, including blood, brain, muscle, organ, or nerve tissue. Scientists believe that this unique ability might lead to breakthroughs in a number of illnesses that are now untreatable. Over 100 million Americans suffer from diseases and conditions that may one day be treated using stem cell therapies, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease, severe bums, and spinal cord injuries. For the very reason that we do not yet know what kind of treatments stem cell research will yield, it would be unwise not to explore the possibilities. As one researcher at Harvard Medical School and Boston's Children's Hospital recently wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, ``the science of human embryonic stem cells is in its infancy.'' Restricting stem cell research now ``threaten[s] to starve the field at a critical stage.'' It's critical to understand the science of stem cell research to weigh the moral and ethical issues involved. This bill allows funding of research on stem cells that are harnessed from fertility clinics. In vitro fertilization is a technology that has allowed millions of couples to share in the joy of childbirth. It results in the creation of embryos that are never implanted into the womb, never grow to be more than a handful of cells, and would otherwise be discarded. Harnessing stem cells for medical research from fertility clinics is a compassionate, pro-family, and pro-life position. As one of the world's foremost centers of medical research, Massachusetts has much at stake in the stem cell debate. Not only are our hospitals, research facilities, and institutions of higher learning on the cutting edge of conquering disease, they are also major economic drivers keeping us competitive in the global economy and employing tens of thousands of people. Massachusetts has over 250 biotech firms. That is more than all of Western Europe combined. If we continue the current ban on stem cell research, it does not mean that research will stop elsewhere. But it would put America--the world's most powerful engine of innovation and progress--on the sidelines. Mr. Speaker, America should be leading the world in using our compassion and our scientific knowledge to develop lifesaving therapies. I urge support for H.R. 810.

Mr. MEEHAN

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

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to applaud my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan, for his commitment to protecting public health and the environment. Over the last century, the nation's wastewater infrastructure has resulted in enormous strides in improving public health. I represent the Merrimack Valley region of Massachusetts. The Merrimack River was once among the most polluted waterways in the nation. Moreover, the northeast is ridden with outmoded sewer infrastructure that is designed to overflow into public waterways. During heavy weather, these combined sewer systems steer raw, untreated sewage into rivers like the Merrimack, and bays such as Casco bay in Maine. The challenge to control cso's has been both of technical and financial feasibility. Some treatment plants use a blending bypass during periods of heavy weather so that cso's receive some treatment rather than none at all. In economically-distressed communities such as Lawrence, Haverhill, and Lowell that have combined sewer systems, it is not currently possible to provide full treatment for all sewage during wet weather. I seek assurance from the gentleman from Michigan that his amendment would not prohibit cso communities from blending if it is authorized by their permits in accordance with the Clean Water Act.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the hard work and dedication of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a national non-profit organization dedicated to ending the military's failed ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy. SLDN was co-founded by Dixon Osburn and Michelle Beneke in 1994 as a legal service agency with the mission of providing counsel to service members discharged under ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' Since that time, SLDN has assisted more than 6,500 gay and lesbian troops and obtained thirty-five improvements to military regulations related to the policy. Today, SLDN is the Nation's leading advocacy organization dedicated to repealing ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' and ensuring open service in our armed forces. Through tenacity and strong leadership, the organization has made significant steps forward in breaking down the barrier that bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. The gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community looks to SLDN as a model for accomplishing policy change. 2004 was a groundbreaking year for the organization. SLDN filed a monumental lawsuit on behalf of twelve veterans of the War on Terror, challenging the constitutionality of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' in federal court. SLDN's legal expertise also paved the way for two victorious cases before the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, overturning military sodomy convictions. And the staff mobilized veterans and supporters from twenty-two states to meet with 90 Congressional offices on their annual ``Lobby Day.'' I have had the pleasure of working with SLDN since my freshman term in Congress. Most recently, we came together to draft the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, historic legislation to repeal ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' and replace it with a nondiscrimination policy. Because of SLDN's staunch efforts to win support in Congress, I introduced the bill with more than fifty cosponsors on March 2, 2005. We now have more than eighty cosponsors of this bipartisan bill today. As SLDN celebrates its national dinner on May 7th, I commend the staff, board, and supporters for their commitment and perseverance. Just as the advocacy of civil rights groups paved the way for desegregation in the military, I am confident that SLDN's hard work will soon lead to the demise of the discriminatory and counterproductive ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. With this bill, the Republican Congress once again reaches inappropriately into the private lives of American citizens. H.R. 748 would make criminals out of doctors, nurses, and family members who help young people who are seeking legal abortion services. It will not prevent abortions--but it will force young women to make that decision alone, without the help of adults they can trust. It may even force them into seeking unsafe abortions that put their health or their lives at risk. Most minors seeking abortions involve their parents in the decision. But all too many young women live in emotionally or physically abusive households. Some have become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. For them, it is unrealistic and cruel to make it a crime for them to seek the help of other adults they can trust, such as a clergy member, older sibling, or grandparent. H.R. 748 is blatantly unconstitutional. It restricts interstate travel and prevents young women from exercising their legal rights. It imposes undue burdens without making exception for emergencies where the young woman's health is threatened. It requires minors seeking judicial bypasses to go to court in not one but two States, even though this option is not even available in some States. Finally, this bill is another assault on federalism, usurping the laws of 27 states that have no parental notification laws or more reasonable laws. Once again, the Republican Congress is attempting to legislate family relationships and restrict the constitutional rights of American citizens. I urge the defeat of H.R. 748.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 1.5 million Armenian men, women and children who lost their lives during the Armenian Genocide. April 24th marks the anniversary of one of the darkest tragedies in human history--one that must be properly commemorated as the first genocide of the 20th century. On this day ninety years ago, the Ottoman Turk regime began rounding up hundreds of Armenian intellectuals and political leaders to be deported or executed. Thousands more Armenians were killed in their homes or on the streets. For five years, the brutal regime carried out the systematic destruction of the Armenian people through forced labor, concentration camps, and death marches, until millions were dead or exiled. As we look back on the bloodshed and atrocities committed against the Armenian people, we must publicly acknowledge the weight of this human tragedy. I am disappointed that President Bush failed to characterize the brutal massacre of the Armenian people as a genocide in his annual commemoration address. To deny this truth is to dishonor the memories of the millions of Armenians who lost their lives to ethnic cleansing. The April 24th remembrance of the Armenian Genocide is also a reminder of the responsibility of all nations to stop these human tragedies from reoccurring. Today, a genocide is taking place in the Darfur region of Sudan. It has resulted in the murders of at least 70,000 innocent civilians, the internal displacement of 1.9 million, and the forced exile of 200,000. The international community must act now before Darfur reaches the scale of the Armenian Genocide. Massachusetts' Armenian community, much of which I have the honor of representing, is committed to raising awareness of the tragedy that befell Armenians of the Ottoman Empire. Every year, survivors and their descendants participate in commemoration services across the Merrimack Valley to shed light on this dark tragedy. In my hometown of Lowell, the Armenian-American Veterans Honor Guard leads a procession to City Hall for a flag raising ceremony. Through these observances, we will never forget the truth.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the American Legacy Foundation for being selected as a final winner in the Environmental Protection Agency's Children's Environmental Health Awards. The widespread use of tobacco and devastating effects of secondhand smoke contribute to a serious environmental health risk for America's children. Since its inception 5 years ago, the American Legacy Foundation, a non-profit health organization dedicated to building a world where young people reject tobacco and anyone can quit, has implemented several innovative outreach initiatives and programs to discourage adult and youth tobacco use and reduce the effects of secondhand smoke. Passive exposure through secondhand smoke puts children at risk for a range of health consequences including asthma, ear infections, bronchitis, pneumonia, reduced lung function, respiratory infection, and other chronic respiratory symptoms. According to current population survey data, 13.8 million kids ages 0 to 17 are exposed to secondhand smoke and 22 percent of middle school students and 24 percent of high school students are exposed to secondhand smoke in the home. The American Legacy Foundation has launched key initiatives to address the negative health effects of tobacco. The Foundation has designed public awareness campaigns and initiatives to educate and empower youth to take action against the environmental health threat from smoking and secondhand smoke. Some of the Foundation's most successful programs include truth', the Youth Speakers Bureau, the Youth Advisory Panel and the Statewide Youth Movement Against Tobacco Use (Youth Empowerment) Grants. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I encourage my colleagues to join with me to congratulate the American Legacy Foundation for their progress in successfully reducing youth smoking and for receiving the Environmental Protection Agency's Children's Environmental Health Award.