Marty Meehan

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I thank the dean of our delegation and all of my colleagues from Massachusetts and all of my colleagues in this House. I have a plane to catch, so I will be brief. I want to thank my wife, Ellen, and my wonderful family for all that they have had to tolerate over the years. I want to thank the people of the Fifth Congressional District of Massachusetts for the confidence that they have demonstrated in me in giving me this great honor to serve in this great institution. I want to thank former staff members of mine, some of whom are here, for their dedication, their energy, their hard work day in and day out. I want to thank my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, that I have worked with. I have tried to work in a bipartisan way most of the time. I leave this House; it was the most difficult decision professionally that I have ever had to make because I love this House, I love the institution, I love the friendships and colleagues that I have been so honored to work with over the years. But I also believe in the University of Massachusetts at Lowell. That is where I graduated. I walked in the door, one of seven children in a large family in Lowell, Massachusetts, and wouldn't have had the opportunity to go to college or to achieve things I wanted to achieve in my life without that institution. So as difficult as it is, I have a passion for the institution. I am going to leave. So thank you very much for wonderful friendships. I will be back from time to time. Be careful you don't eliminate too many earmarks while you are at it here. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to congratulate our colleague, Mr. Neil Abercrombie, today on his 69th birthday. Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. The minority has said that this bill is just a watered down version of the lobbying bill that they brought last year. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Republican Lobbying and Ethics Reform bill was, in fact, a sham reform bill. The Democratic Majority made this clear on day one. The Republican bill said that members could still take trips from lobbyists with pre-certification. The Democrats banned lobbyist- sponsored travel. The Republican bill tried to ``curb'' gifts from lobbyists. The Democrats banned lobbyist gifts and meals. During the last election, Democrats made a promise to the American people: we vowed to institute new ethical standards for members and to break the link between lobbying and legislating. We made good on that promise on day one, and today, we make good on the second part of that promise by passing a strong lobbying reform bill. This bill will require lobbyists to file more frequently--quarterly instead of semiannually. For the first time ever, these reports will be easily available, through a free, searchable and sortable database. These filings will not just be more frequent, but also more detailed: lobbyists will now be required to disclose the various ways they make money available to assist members of Congress, including contributions to members, but also their contributions to Political Action Committees, 527 groups, and contributions to foundations named for members of Congress. Lobbyists will also have to certify that they have complied with the House ban on gifts and travel. Unlike the Republican bill, this bill puts teeth into that requirement, with increased penalties for lying on their filings. This bill will also require stealth coalitions to disclose their activities--something the Republicans ignored in their bill last Congress. In short, this is a strong lobbying reform bill, and one that the House should pass on a bipartisan vote. With the acceptance of Congressman Van Hollen's bundling bill, the House will pass a bill that gives unprecedented transparency into the practice of lobbying. That is something that I think everyone agrees is a good thing. When combined with the reforms made in the first 100 Hours of this Congress, Democrats will have passed the most important lobbying and ethics reforms in a generation.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation, and I am glad to see that this House is following in the footsteps of the Senate in crafting some of the most important lobbying reforms in a generation. Madam Speaker, there is an often cited quote from Supreme Court Justice Louie Brandeis. He said: ``Sunlight is the best disinfectant.'' In the spirit of that principle, the law already requires that lobbyists disclose their direct contributions to Members of Congress. But that is hardly the full picture of the relationship between lobbyists, Members and campaign contributions. In a practice known as bundling, lobbyists call up their clients and fellow colleagues and pool checks to hand over to Members. Sometimes this will happen at fundraisers, where a lobbyist comes in with an envelope full of bundled checks. Sometimes lobbyists will pledge to raise a certain amount for a campaign, and their progress is tracked through a coding system--for example, getting donors to write a name or number on the memo line of a check. In either scenario, lobbyists are likely bundling contributions that far exceed their individual contribution. I believe that it is more important to know how much a lobbyist is bundling for a Member of Congress than how much he is contributing directly. Lobbyists, like every other citizen, are limited in their individual giving, but are unlimited in how much they can collect and forward to a campaign. Without passing this bill, and requiring lobbyists to report their bundled contributions, this Congress and the American public will remain in the dark. The Van Hollen bill shines sunlight on the practice of bundling. In their lobbying bill, the Senate addressed bundling, setting a high bar for the House. This proposal meets that high bar.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, today I pay tribute to C. Dixon Osburn, co-founder and executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network for 13 years. Dixon recently left the helm of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and today I recognize and commend him for the contributions he has made to our nation's Armed Forces and to our nation's enduring goal of freedom and equality under the law for all Americans. Servicemembers Legal Defense Network is a non-profit legal aid and advocacy organization founded in 1993 to assist service members living under the discriminatory ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' statute that became the law in my first months of serving in the United States Congress. Under Dixon's leadership, the organization has responded to more than 8,000 requests for assistance, and continues today to be a leader of the national movement to repeal ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' I am proud to have worked with Dixon Osburn toward the goal of repealing ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' This law has resulted in the discharge of more than 11,000 service members from our Armed Forces, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. It is an affront to the patriotism and talent of the over one million lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans estimated to have served in our nation's Armed Forces to date. I am proud to serve as the sponsor of legislation to repeal ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' and I commend Dixon Osburn for all he has done to help lay the ground work for the passage of this important legislation.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this supplemental funding bill which will for the first time assert the will of Congress and the American people to change the President's failed plan of ``Stay the Course.'' For far too long, the President has ignored the will of the American public. In passing this bill, we will send a message to the President that this is no longer acceptable. This legislation includes meaningful benchmarks and deadlines that provide the Iraqis with incentives to take responsibility for their own security and makes way for the return of our troops. The bill also requires the Iraqi government to take meaningful steps towards national reconciliation by distributing oil revenues fairly, providing opportunities to the Sunni minority, and amending the constitution to discourage further fragmentation. We can no longer afford to give the President a blank check for the war in Iraq. There are thousands of brave men and women deployed overseas in harm's way right now who are depending on us. We need to put Iraqis up front, so that we can remove Americans from the front lines. This legislation will encourage the Iraqis to stand up and be accountable for the security of their country. I urge my colleagues to support this emergency supplemental funding bill.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a true hero, Private First Class John Francis Landry, Jr., who gave his life in service to our country. Private First Class Landry was a resident of Lowell, a community in my Massachusetts district, and was deployed with the brave men and women serving in our armed forces on October 31, 2006. John had served nearly 5 months in Iraq, when his unit was ambushed in Baghdad on March 17, 2007. John had been spending time on leave with his family in Florida just 8 days before his tragic death in that ambush. John served as a rifleman with Company C, 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, based at Fort Bliss, Texas. He was 20 years old, having been born on Christmas Day in 1986. John's parents, John and Pamela, were proud of their son, not just for the supreme sacrifice he paid on behalf of his country, but for the honor he brought to them as a soldier. Military service runs deep in the Landry family. John's grandfather was a member of the 82nd Airborne Division and his father served in the U.S. Marine Corps. All of his life, John dreamt of becoming a part of that legacy of service, and he died fulfilling that dream. Before joining the United States Army, John attended Lowell Catholic High School where he was remembered for his kindness, his aptitude in the classroom and his hard-nosed leadership a co-captain and as an offensive and defensive lineman on the football team. Lowell Catholic was nearly finished with a care package to send to John in Iraq when they learned of his death. As John's aunt, Missy Surette, said: ``All that were fortunate enough to have had John as a part of their lives, feel the sadness and loss beyond words. Along with that sadness is a sense of honor and of being very proud of John. We will forever keep him in our hearts.'' John died fighting for the country he loved, alongside comrades he respected and with the family he adored, forever in his heart. Our Nation is humbled and grateful for his sacrifice. Madam Speaker, I ask that we all take a moment to recognize PFC John Francis Landry, Jr., United States Army, who paid the ultimate sacrifice fighting for our country. Our Nation will be forever grateful.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate, William Ketter, upon his induction into the New England Press Association's Hall of Fame. For over 40 years, Mr. Ketter has worked in the newspaper business as a reporter, editor, and vice president, making innumerable contributions to journalism in Massachusetts and New England. Mr. Ketter spent the first 16 years of his career with United Press International working as a political reporter, editor, and vice president. He would spend the next 20 years as editor and vice president of the Patriot Ledger in Quincy, Massachusetts, leaving only to become a vice president at the Boston Globe and chairman of Boston University's Journalism school. In 2002, Mr. Ketter joined the Eagle Tribune, a daily newspaper in my district, as editor in chief and vice president of news. In 2005, when Community Newspaper Holdings Inc. of Birmingham, Alabama purchased the Eagle Tribune Publishing Company, Mr. Ketter became vice president of news. He now supervises editorial operations at several newspapers throughout Massachusetts, including the Eagle Tribune in Lawrence, MA, The Salem News, the Gloucester Daily Times and the Daily News of Newburyport, as well the rest of CNHI's 95 daily and 50 nondaily newspapers and publications throughout the country. Mr. Ketter has also served on the Pulitzer Prize Board, is a former president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, and in 1994, served as chairman of the first World Editors Forum. Mr. Ketter currently serves as the New England Academy of Journalists, and is a recipient of the Academy's ``Yankee Quill Award'' for outstanding contributions to journalism in New England. In addition to this work, Mr. Ketter has focused his energy on bridging the gap between print media to the Internet, overseeing programs using both means to connect with readers. Mr. Ketter has also become a leading voice on issues facing the people of Massachusetts, the United States and the world. I recently offered into the Congressional Record, a series of articles from the Eagle Tribune on the problem of gambling addiction, and its effect on society, and individual families. I commend Mr. Ketter for his hard work and attention to this serious issue. Mr. Ketter has also been a strong advocate defending the right to free press and has traveled the world to advocate for the free press in developing nations. I commend William Ketter for his work as a journalist in Massachusetts and as an advocate for the issues near and dear to his heart, and I congratulate him for induction into the New England Press Association's Hall of Fame.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the Gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) for bringing this important bill to the floor. This bill passed the House unanimously last December, and the other body was unable to take it up before the 109th Congress ended. I am hopeful that, given more time, this bill will work its way through the Senate and be signed into law by the President. Mister speaker, my bill is simple but its impact cannot be overstated. This bill will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire five small tracts of land totaling less than an acre and add them to the boundaries of the Lowell National Historical Park. Adding these small tracts of land will allow the park to add more and safer access points, and allow the visiting public full access to the entire canal system. The park was created in 1978, a product of the late Paul Tsongas and his vision for Lowell, Massachusetts. Paul knew that Lowell, as the cradle of America's Industrial Revolution, was worthy of preservation. The park attracts three-quarters of a million visitors each year, and the ripple effect is significant. Since the park has come into existence, Lowell has been named a Distinctive Destination City by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and an All American City by the National Civic League. This bill will keep the progress at the Park rolling, by allowing the last two miles of Lowell's historic canal way to be accessed by the public. I would like to thank Park Superintendent Michael Creasey, Assistant Superintendent Peter Aucella, and all the others that have worked on this project. Their tireless efforts, and the effort of their staff, keep Lowell National Historical Park as one of the crown jewels of the national park system, and make the Mill City proud.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, if I may, we have supported the troops. In fact, if it were not for this Congress working in a bipartisan way with Republicans and Democrats, we never would have gotten up-armored Humvees into the field. We never would have gotten Kevlar vests.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. With all due respect to my friend from New Mexico, I want to make the point that this resolution does not do anything to stop funding for the troops. As a matter of fact, it was this administration that sent 140,000 troops into harm's way without up-armoring Humvees. There is nothing in this to cut funding for the troops. But this administration sent 140,000 troops into harm's way without up-armored Humvees, without Kevlar vests. And what did Secretary Rumsfeld say? He said you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you wish you had. We are the United States of America. We should never go into harm's way, never go into harm's way, without up-armored Humvees and Kevlar vests. The Washington Post did a front page piece just the other day. It says that we still don't have the most effective up-armored Humvees that are available in the United States. It is not acceptable. It is inexcusable and indefensible. I will be going to Iraq in a few days. I expect to see a country, unfortunately, that has gotten worse and worse in terms of the level of violence than the one I visited in 2003 and in January of 2005. When I came back in January of 2005 I presented a strategy, a white paper, entitled ``Iraq: The Light at the End of the Tunnel.'' Many of those recommendations were included in a bipartisan Iraq Study Group with distinguished experts on foreign policy and military affairs. They didn't call for more troops in Iraq. What they called for was for America to go into the background. The simple facts bear out a true grim reality. We are told that we are going to rebuild the country's infrastructure. But here are the facts. Iraq has less electricity than it did before the war. Residents of Baghdad get 4\1/2\ hours of electricity now, one-quarter of what they expected before the war. We were told that oil revenues would pay the entire cost of the way. But here are the facts. Iraq produces less oil today than it did before the war. Instead of funding the war, oil is turned out at about half the rate it was when Saddam was in power. The bad news continues. Skyrocketing unemployment, decreasing levels of drinkable water and a security situation that has deteriorated into a full-blown civil war. Now the President wants, in face of the recommendations of experts, to send 21,500 more troops into this situation. Does the President really think that the surge will stabilize the security system long enough to undo all the failures of the last 4 years? I cannot honestly believe that this is the best strategy and the collective wisdom of the Department of Defense, of the State Department and of the intelligence community. You know what I see? I see a President who seems to be desperate to divert attention away from the missteps, away from holding people accountable, and to just hold on to Iraq as long as he can and let the next administration deal with it. When I watched his speech, when I listened to Secretary Gates describe it, I saw nothing that gave me the impression that the escalation would do any good in the long term. When we need to encourage them, Shias, Sunnis and Kurds, instead we are alienating. When we need to be standing up Iraqi security forces so our men and women can stand down, instead we are undercutting. When we need to be engaging Iraq's neighbors, instead we are on a war path with Iran. We need to fundamentally change our approach in Iraq, and this plan is more of the same. I admit that the escalation we are debating will accomplish a number of things. It will endanger more American lives. It will continue to erode our national security. It will continue around the world to keep America up front in the war in Iraq, creating more terrorists and more insurgents, not less. It will deplete our military's resources, which are already stretched to the limit. And this plan will again ask our soldiers and marines to leave their families and return to the war zone that they have just left. I stand here today with a simple message: Mr. President, the American people want a policy that changes direction. We urge you to rethink this policy of escalating the war in Iraq.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, it is time to get off the fast track of lost jobs and on the right track for our American workforce. In these very Chambers I hear that we just need to fix labor provisions and trade agreements and do a side deal on fast track and then the problem is solved. This is simply not good enough. I ask my fellow Democrats that this is a time to sound the alarm on fast track. Fast track hamstrings Congress' ability to fix our broken trade policies. The midterm elections show that most Americans understand that our current trade policies have failed. Over 3 million American manufacturing jobs, one out of every six manufacturing jobs, have been lost during the fast track era. The U.S. trade deficit has exploded as imports have surged. U.S. wages stagnate as trade deficits soar, displacing good U.S. jobs. Fast track trashes the checks and balances that are essential for our democracy. It is time to get Congress on the right track in the new majority. It is time for a new direction as we deal with trade agreements.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, these guys passed $14 billion in tax breaks to Big Oil. Now is not the time to redo it.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember one of my heroes, Paul Tsongas. Paul Tsongas was a great champion of my hometown of Lowell, Massachusetts and an extraordinary American, whose courage and convictions should inspire us all. It has been ten years since he lost his battle with cancer and ten years since the American people lost one of their greatest public servants. Paul was one of my early role models and mentors, and I'm honored to follow in his footsteps as the Congressman for the 5th District of Massachusetts. Born of Greek immigrants, Paul grew up in our joint hometown of Lowell, Massachusetts. After graduating from Dartmouth College, he became one of the first to answer President John F. Kennedy's call to public service by joining the newly formed Peace Corps. Paul's experience in the Peace Corps would lead him to great heights as a standard-bearer of the Democratic Party. After his service in the Peace Corps and as a City Councilor in our hometown of Lowell, Paul was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1974. In 1978 he ran and won a seat in the United States Senate where he would serve until 1984 when he retired after being diagnosed with cancer. Paul loved people and public service. His direct speaking style and heartfelt manner captured the hearts of the nation during his service in the United States Congress and especially during his campaign for President. As a politician, Paul lived his beliefs. Perhaps Paul's greatest strength was that as a politician he took risks, challenging the tired assumptions about how change should take place. Paul's vision of what a Democrat can and should be was an inspiration to me and continues to inspire Democrats across the country. Leading by example, Paul expanded the reach of our party and helped shape our promising future. His leadership forced the debate on dealing with our national debt. At the same time, he reminded us that a Democrat can and should be pro- worker, and pro-family, and also pro-business-pro-employment. Paul's career as a politician may have been cut short because of his battle with cancer, but his illness never prevented him from fighting for the issues, people, and the city he loved. In my hometown of Lowell, Paul's fingerprints are all over the remarkable redevelopment and revitalization that has occurred over the past two decades. In the streets of Lowell today, I am constantly reminded of the lessons Paul taught me--that in every community you must preserve that which has meaning and beauty for its users and its visitors. Paul was a visionary: he envisioned the connection of people to the places where they lived and worked. But more importantly, Paul was a doer: he identified significant community assets and challenged everyone around him to preserve and make visible these deeply felt dreams. Paul motivated Lowell residents to make these dreams a reality. He didn't stop there. Throughout Massachusetts, he was able to rally similar support. In Concord, the Walden Woods Project preserved the lands and water sanctified by Henry David Thoreau. On Cape Cod, he helped to establish the Cape Cod Commission that is dedicated to protecting critical open space. As a private citizen, he made significant contributions to education and the environment. Walden Woods, Cape Cod, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Board of Higher Education all benefited from his leadership and ideas. And he demonstrated compassion and caring to those who sought comfort and advice on how to deal with life-threatening illness. I could go on and on about Paul Tsongas, and about how he was an extraordinary individual, but I won't. I'll close with this--When announcing his presidential candidacy, Paul Tsongas said to his supporters, Just as we reach back to our ancestors for our fundamental values, so we, as guardians of that legacy, must reach ahead to our children and their children. And we do so with a sense of sacredness in that reaching. I'll simply say that I'm humbled and honored beyond words to follow in Paul Tsongas, footsteps, He truly devoted himself to making a difference not just for our generation, but for our children and future generations. My thoughts and prayers go out to Paul's daughters, Ashley, Katina, and Molly; his sisters, Thaleia and Vicki, and especially to his wife, Niki, who continues to champion the issues that Paul spent his life fighting for.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, in the United States this year alone we will see more than 500,000 people die from cancer, 200,000 people die from diabetes, 75,000 people go blind and 50,000 people will be added to the scores who already suffer from Parkinson's or Alzheimer's. These are 825,000 reasons why my colleagues must vote today in support of Stem Cell research. As one researcher at Harvard Medical School wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine: ``the science of human embryonic stem cells is in its infancy.'' Restricting stem cell research now, he said: ``threaten[s] to starve the field at a critical stage.'' But that's exactly what President Bush has done. In August 2001, the President ruled that federal funding couldn't be used to research new stem cell lines. In effect, he gave our scientists--the best in the world--only 19 stem cell lines, many of which were contaminated and unusable. Today we can right this terrible wrong. With more stem cells available, our scientific community will have a better chance of making incredible discoveries--like curing cancer and diabetes, and saving kidneys and livers. Some opponents of this bill argue that there is no need for embryonic stem cell research. This is a false choice. We don't have to stop embryonic stem cell research and only focus on amniotic stem cells, or adult stem cells, or cord blood stem cells. We can, we should, and we must research all areas of stem cells-- because anyone area could produce the miracle cure. This bill is as ethical as it is common sense. There are millions of reasons to say yes, and no good reason to say no.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, this week presents Congress the chance to deal with some long overdue business. It's been more than nine years since the Minimum Wage was increased. It's been nearly six years since the President cut off federal funding for stem cell research. And, it's been nearly two and a half years since the 9/11 Commission released its recommendations. Its recommendations were a clear road map to what the Government needed to do to reduce the chances of another terrorist attack and prepare if we were to be attacked again. But many of the recommendations went unheeded. In December 2005, the Commission gave the government a shameful report card--17 D's and F's. An F because our first responders still can't communicate with each other. An F for failing to screen airline passengers. And an F for basing Homeland Security funding on politics instead of risk. Today, Mr. Speaker, we will turn these F's to A's--from failure to action. The bill before us is a strong first step for this Congress towards securing our country and preventing another 9/11. I am proud to say that this bill includes a provision to create a director of non- proliferation within the White House to coordinate efforts at the Departments of Defense, Energy and State. This provision was introduced in the 108th Congress, and again in the 109th Congress, by myself, Mrs. Tauscher and Mr. Spratt, and believe that it is crucial to our efforts to create a comprehensive strategy to deal with the threats of Weapons of Mass Destruction. I was proud to work with both Mrs. Tauscher and Mr. Spratt on this provision and I thank them for their leadership on this issue. After today, America will be a safer place. 9/11 must never happen again. I strongly encourage members to vote in favor of it.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, today is a day that is long overdue. Despite the fact that 4 out of 5 Americans support a minimum wage increase, the last Congress did not bring up a clean minimum wage bill. For more than 9 years, the minimum wage has been frozen. Its value today is at its lowest level since 1955--when Eisenhower was President. This Congressional neglect--again, 9 years since the last increase-- is the longest since the minimum wage was created. The results have been devastating. A full-time minimum wage worker earns only $10,712 per year--almost $6,000 under the poverty line for a family of three. Furthermore, this low wage is often the only wage of the house-- nearly half of all minimum wage workers are the sole breadwinner in their households. Today, we will change that and millions of workers will benefit. This extra money--nearly $4,000 for a full-time minimum wage earner--means that they won't have to choose between buying drugs for their children, and putting food on the family dinner table. It is unacceptable for a person working a full-time job in the richest country in the world to live in poverty. Mr. Speaker, it is high time that we pay American workers what they deserve: a fair day's wage for a day's work. Raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, this is a historic day in this House: the first woman ever elected Speaker; the first woman, Louise Slaughter, to be chairman of the powerful Rules Committee. In addition to that, Ms. Slaughter and Speaker Pelosi have put together a package that is indeed a historic, comprehensive ethics package that deserves the support of each and every Member of this body. In the last Congress, we saw egregious abuses of power by Members of Congress and lobbyists. These abuses tarnished the image of this great institution and caused Americans to lose faith with their government. In the face of these scandals, America had its midterm election and the American people decided decisively to put a new party in charge here in the House of Representatives. They sent a message loud and clear that it was time to clean up the Congress, and in fact exit polls showed that nearly 92 percent of the voters were concerned with the ethical cloud hanging over Washington. What did they ask for? They asked for honest leadership and open government, and this package presented today by Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Pelosi and the leadership is the most significant, comprehensive ethics reform that has ever been presented on the first day of an opening of this Congress. This is a rules package that cuts the ties to the old culture of corruption and in its place creates a new culture of disclosure, of accountability, and of oversight. Starting today, there will be no more lobbyist-funded junkets or vacations; starting today, no more corporate jets, where Members of Congress can be flown to their indictment arraignment; starting today, no more lobbyist-paid gifts; beginning today, no more K Street Projects. All of this is over with the passage of this package. I have heard the other side say they had no idea what this party was going to come up with for a rules package. We have been talking for quite some time about the efforts to reform this institution, to get transparency in earmarks, to have an institution where lobbyists can't fund vacations. Now if a Member wants to take a trip, it has to be approved in advance by the Ethics Committee. As a matter of fact, nearly every public interest group in America that has been fighting for reform over the last decade has stepped up to the plate to say this package is the most significant reform of ethics rules that we have had in a generation. So the time has come for Democrats and Republicans to join together to pass this comprehensive ethics reform package, because the American people demanded it in the last election, and Speaker Pelosi and the new leadership in this House are delivering on that request.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, it has been indicated what this bill would do relative to small tracts of land. I want to say that the Lowell National Historical Park was created in 1978, and it really created the vision for my hometown of Lowell, Massachusetts. Lowell was the cradle of America's industrial revolution, and it was determined by this Congress that it was worthy of preservation. For 30 years, starting in the 1800s, Lowell led the Nation in cotton textile production. Harnessing the power of the mighty Merrimack River, it gave Lowell the fuel for this Nation's largest manufacturing engine. Today, because of the work of so many people in the city of Lowell and the National Park Service, the Lowell National Historic Park continues to tell the story of America's industrial revolution right in Lowell. The mark stands as a bridge to the past and a looking glass to the future. The same land that hosted textile mills are now home to high- tech companies and a university where nanotechnology research is flourishing. The park, the first urban park of the Nation, is also a study in contrast. The old brick mills, emblematic of industry and development, are surrounded by pristine, open, green space. As the park has developed and improved, so too has the community around it. The park attracts three-quarters of a million visitors each year, and the ripple effect of that is significant. Since the park has come into existence, Lowell has been named a distinctive designation city by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and an all-American city by the National Civic League. This bill will keep the progress of this park rolling, allowing the last two miles of Lowell's historic canalway to be accessed by the public. I want to thank the park superintendent Michael Creasey, Peter Aucella, and the others who are involved in this project. This is a community project that continues this resolve. This legislation is important for continued development of the park, and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support of this legislation.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the 10th anniversary of the Essex National Heritage Area and to congratulate the Essex National Heritage Commission on their outstanding work. I can still remember when Tom Leonard came down to Congress in September of 1995 to testify in support of legislation that Senator Kennedy and I had filed to create the Essex National Heritage Area. One of the most poignant moments in Tom's testimony was when he laid out his vision for a true public private partnership to preserve the rich history of Essex County. During his testimony Tom said, ``Let me stress this point about cooperation. The legislation that is before you today anticipates a true partnership between the private and public sectors. We are not seeking federal handouts and controls.'' During the last 10 years that vision has ensured that the historical treasures in Essex County will survive for future generations. As you all know, over two-thirds of the money used for the Essex National Heritage Commission's work is from private sources. The Congress also plays a significant role in the important work of the ENHC, providing over $8.6 million in funding to date. Over the last 7 years, ENHC has provided over $1.3 million for 195 projects in 33 communities in Essex County. In my district, the ENHC has made a number of grants to Lawrence, Haverhill, Andover, and Methuen to preserve and educate residents about our rich history. ENHC also organizes and funds a number of other programs including their groundbreaking History in the Making program and Essex Heritage Explorers. Today, as we celebrate the accomplishments of the ENHC, we must also plan for the future. In Congress, we have filed legislation to extend the authorization and increase the cap on the amount of federal money the Essex National Heritage Area can receive. This legislation is crucial for ENHC to be able to continue the important preservation and educational work they do. I would like to congratulate the staff and volunteers of the Essex National Heritage Commission on 10 years of outstanding work and thank them for preserving our national heritage.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, this week, due to a death in the family, I have requested and received a leave of absence. Since Monday, September 25, I have missed the following rollcall votes. I have noted how I would have voted had I been present: Roll No. 471, September 25, H.R. 5059, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, ``nay''; 472, September 25, H.R. 5062, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, ``nay''; 473, September 25, H.R. 6102, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, ``yea''; 474 September 26, H. Res. 1038, on agreeing to the resolution, ``nay''; 475, September 26, H. Res. 1039, on agreeing to the resolution, ``nay''; 476, September 26, H.R. 5092, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, ``nay''; 477, September 26, H.R. 4772, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, ``nay''; 478, September 26, motion, motion to resolve into secret session, ``yea''; 479, September 26, S. 403, on passage, ``nay''; 480, September 26, H.R. 2679, on passage, ``nay''; 481, September 26, H. Res. 723, on motion to suspend the rules and agree, as amended, ``yea''; 482, September 26, H. Res. 992, on motion to suspend the rules and agree, as amended, ``yea''; 483, September 26, H. Res. 989, on motion to suspend the rules and agree, as amended, ``yea''; 484, September 26, H. Res. 1017, on motion to suspend the rules and agree, ``yea''; 485, September 26, H.R. 6164, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, ``yea''; 486, September 26, H.R. 5631, on agreeing to the conference report, ``yea''; 487, September 27, H. Con. Res. 483, on agreeing to the resolution, ``nay''; 488, September 27, H. Res. 1042, on ordering the previous question, ``nay''; 489, September 27, H. Res. 1042, on agreeing to the resolution, ``nay''; 490, September 27, H.R. 6166, on motion to recommit with instructions, ``yea''; 491, September 27, H.R. 6166, on passage, ``nay''; 492, September 27, H.R. 5637, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, ``yea''; 493, September 27, H.R. 6115, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, ``yea''; 494, September 27, S. 2856, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, ``yea''; 495, September 28, H. Res. 1045, on ordering the previous question, ``nay''; 496, September 28, H. Res. 1046, on ordering the previous question, ``nay''; 497, September 28, H. Res. 1046, on agreeing to the resolution, ``nay''; 498, September 28, H. Res. 1052, on ordering the previous question, ``nay''; 499, September 28, H. Res. 1052, on agreeing to the resolution, ``nay''; 500, September 28, H.R. 4954, on motion to instruct conferees, ``yea''; 501, September 28, H.R. 5825, on motion to recommit with instructions, ``yea''; 502, September 28, H.R. 5825, on passage, ``nay''; 503, September 28, H.R. 6143, on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, ``yea''; 504, September 29, H. Res. 1054, on ordering the previous question, ``nay''; 505, September 29, H. Res. 1054, on agreeing to the resolution, ``nay''; 506, September 29, H. Res. 1053, on ordering the previous question, ``nay''; 507, September 29, H. Res. 1053, on agreeing to the resolution, ``nay''; 508, September 29, S. 8930, on passage, ``nay.''

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge this Congress to redouble its efforts in the fight against cancer. Over 33,000 people in my home state of Massachusetts will be diagnosed with some form of cancer this year. I recently met with a number of constituents about the importance of increased funding for cancer research. One of my constituents, Judith Hurley, shared her cancer story with me. After extreme weight loss and extensive testing, Judith was diagnosed with stage 4 metastatic breast cancer, which had spread to her bones. Judith endured a variety of treatments, and made one thing clear to her doctors: she was not through raising her children. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that in July, Judith became a 5- year cancer survivor. Another one of my constituents, Sue Tereshko is a two-time breast cancer survivor. Mr. Speaker, constituents like Judith and Sue are the beneficiaries of advances in cancer treatment. Congress must do more to fund cancer research and treatment programs. First, we should pass the National Institutes of Health Reform Act of 2006, which authorizes a 5% increase in funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Congress must also appropriate a 5% increase for the NIH in the FY 2007 Labor-HHS Appropriations bill. A 5% increase over last year's levels would give an additional $240 million to the National Cancer Institute alone. This funding would allow the Institute to further fund the basic research necessary to determine the root causes of cancer and improve care. However, a 5% increase in NIH funding will only maintain pace with rising costs and inflation. It is essentially flat-funding for the NIH. Therefore, I challenge this House to support a 5% increase in NIH funding in addition to any increase to cover the cost of inflation, which Democrats have previously proposed. Second, Congress should pass the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act and the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act. Next week will begin National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. While important advances have been made, we still do not know what causes this disease, or how to prevent it. Breast cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer death among women. The American Cancer Society estimates that a woman in the United States has a 1 in 7 chance of developing invasive breast cancer during her lifetime--this risk was 1 in 11 in 1975. Congress has failed to act on the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act, a bill with the overwhelming bipartisan support of 255 members. The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act will further our understanding of the impact that environmental factors have on breast cancer. For the 3 million women living with breast cancer and their families, we should pass this important legislation. Congress should also pass the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act. My constituent Donna Carbone was lucky to have her surgeon override a hospital's decision to send her home less than 24 hours after her mastectomy in 1998. We must ensure that Donna's experience is no longer the exception to the rule, but instead becomes the standard quality of care. The Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act, which has the bipartisan support of 180 members, would prohibit an insurer from limiting impatient care following a mastectomy to less than 48 hours. On the eve of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, let's recommit ourselves to finding the root causes of breast cancer and improving patient care. Let's not offer just false hope, let us fight a real war on cancer by investing in the tools necessary to eradicate this disease.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Ms. Leslie Blair and the hundreds of other individuals from Massachusetts who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. This September 11th, I attended an event at the Massachusetts State House with Ms. Blair and other families who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001 to commemorate and celebrate their lives. The day of remembrance and reflection was filled with heart wrenching testimonials of loss, powerful tributes to inspirational courage, and life affirming stories of love and family. Ms. Blair's testimonial about her sister, Susan Leigh Blair, was truly moving. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include Ms. Blair's remarks in the Congressional Record. Good morning. My name is Leslie Blair. My sister Susan Leigh Blair was one of the beautiful faces you just saw in that extraordinarily moving tribute video. Sue was killed on September 11, 2001, as she went about her normal routine on an exceptionally beautiful Tuesday in the South Tower of the World Trade Center. That video is such a moving tribute to the beautiful souls we lost on horrible and hateful day. Now I have seen a lot of beautiful memorials to the tragedy of September 11, but in static, granite ways, they tend to honor the memory of a day where nearly 3000 vibrant individuals died. This video montage honors the lives, not the deaths, of our loved ones. In those faces, we see the joy of today. And in those eyes, we see the promise for tomorrow, a tomorrow that never came, and a promise that could not be fulfilled. My son, Nicolas is three. He and I watched this video together, and he asked me what it was. Looking at the smiles, the celebrations, the graduations and weddings, the sun and the sea, the embraces, the families, he looked at all of these lives, and he said, ``It's too much.'' And as you and I know too well, the loss of one is too much. This video memorializes the loss, not just of individuals, but their lives, their promises, their hopes and their joy, and it's just too much. I was asked to speak today about the value of one life and what one life means--how powerful and impactful one life can be. And like you, I know what I have lost because Susan isn't here. But magnify that loss by all of the families and friends and factor in thousands of coworkers and clients from a today five years ago, and then somehow add in the tomorrows that will never come, and I mean, our country, our world has truly suffered an amazing blow by not having them here. What have we lost as a society because just one of these beautiful smiling faces is no longer here? That is a big question. Let me tell you how I tried to answer it. I started off by reading recent commentary by some of today' s most intelligent economists, authors, politicians, sociologists. Surely the war on terror, the unease and unrest, the social upheaval can somehow be related to our loss. But that didn't seem to answer my question very well. So I turned to the great philosophers and thinkers from a world before 9/11 to see how they had answered that question. The meaning of life--very academic and metaphysical, but, in fact, not very helpful in answering my question. Then, I looked through my copy of the Portraits of 9/11 book--a consolidation of many of the NY Times obituaries. Certainly we lost smart, successful people in the prime years of their contributions to the world. We lost bankers, investment brokers, insurance executives, servicemen and women, rescue workers, flight crew, corporate management, consultants, technicians, hockey scouts. To lose the brightest, most productive individuals in a society certainly has an economic impact, a social impact. But that didn't seem to answer the question either. Then I looked my copy of We Remember, a compilation of tributes from Mass 9/11 Fund members, from us. There I found the heart wrenching loss of children, spouses, siblings, parents, friends, and more photos of life and love. I tried, but I couldn't read it cover to cover. So I flipped around. I landed on Capt. John Ogonowski's tribute, and in there, John's family included a poem by Bessie Anderson Stanley. In 1904, Bessie entered a magazine contest and won $250--so maybe not a great thinker of her time, but her definition of success started to get at what we lost. He has achieved success who has lived well, laughed often, and loved much; who has enjoyed the trust of pure women, the respect of intelligent men and the love of little children; who has filled his niche and accomplished his task; who has left the world better than he found it, whether an improved poppy, a perfect poem, or a rescued soul; who has always looked for the best in others and given them the best he had; whose life was an inspiration; whose memory a benediction. And I read the rest of John's pages, and I read Ann's pages, and Ace's pages, and Fred's pages, and Betty's pages, and Robin's pages, and it was easier to read more and more pages of these beautiful people whose lives, by Mrs. Stanley's definition were clearly successful. Their lives inspired others and their memories have been a blessing to those who loved them. And I read the little booklet in front where I found pages of scholarships and funds, awards, forums, lectures, and music. These beautiful souls, through the inspiration and blessing of their living, of having been here and made a mark, these people are still contributing to society today. They are no longer corporate executives or technicians or bankers, or hockey scouts but through their memory and in honor of their lives, we are able to perpetuate their success. My sister's scholarship rewards teachers so that her passionate commitment to children and her unfulfilled dream of teaching can live on. Mark Bavis' foundation provides college funding and leadership training. Todd Hill's scholarship awards sportsmanship and perseverance. The list goes on. Surely the promise of Susan and Mark and Todd has not died. So at this point in my research, I abandoned my original question, because inspired by these individuals and how much they were loved and how unique they were and how their promises could be fulfilled, I think I found a more important question. If we, as individuals, incorporate the spirit of our loved ones, their vibrancy, their vitality, their potential, their love, can we not change the world? Can we not increase the potential we had before 9/11 by carrying the potential of our loved ones in our hearts and in our lives and in our own successes? We all know, too well, the devastating impact of a few evil individuals. But we, as individuals, can and are counteracting that evil impact. In honor of those vibrant successful lives, we can make a more significant impact on society, in our communities, our schools, our businesses, by our own individual actions. And I think back to that video, the smiles of a today that has passed and the hope for a tomorrow that will never come. And I remember the success described by Mrs. Stanley. Surely our loved ones left a mark on the world in their own right. And we, by loving them and remembering them, make their mark deeper. And we, by doing that, make our own mark. Honoring the characteristics that we loved about them and carrying those characteristics into our today's, do we not carry our loved ones into the future? We have the opportunity today to continue their success. And despite our loss, or maybe because of it, we have the opportunity to live our individual lives successfully, as if tomorrow may never come. Individually, yes, together certainly, we can leave the world better than we found it, as they did. And we can give their promise for tomorrow, through our own promise, to those who love us.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell the Nation this fact: Right now, the world is less safe than it was a year ago, or even before the terrible events of September 11. We should be confronting violent extremism and people who want to destroy our life and our Nation. We should be chasing them around the world and giving them no rest or refuge. Yet, after nearly 5 years of the war on terror, where are we? The Taliban is growing stronger in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is firmly entrenched in Iraq, where it never had been before. Hamas and Hezbollah are acting with impunity. This country needs a new strategy in the struggle with extremists, not one that is hamstrung by the mess in Iraq, sidetracked by political finger-pointing, or beholden to special oil interests. This country needs new leadership that will safeguard our children's future rather than send them to war without equipment that they need. This country needs a new direction, a direction that will make tomorrow safer than today. The American people deserve nothing less.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, the European Union agreed today to continue its funding for embryonic stem cell research, research specifically involving the use of embryos that would otherwise be discarded from fertility clinics. Today's agreement among the European nations paves the way for a 55 billion Euro science program designed to improve and move this important research forward. Unfortunately, Europe's progress is in stark contrast to the embarrassing path chartered by the White House. Mr. Speaker, America has long had a history of leading the world in scientific discovery are. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy made it a national priority to be the first Nation in the world to send a man to the moon. His leadership showed the rest of the world that the United States was the undisputed international leader in scientific progress. By using his very first presidential veto to continue a misguided ban on stem cell research, President Bush has diminished American scientific standing in the world. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago, President Bush said that stem cell research had profound ethical questions. Today, I say that there are no more profound ethical questions than the fate of 100 million American lives, lives that can be saved, lives that will be lost if we don't move this vital research forward. Last week, we sent to the White House a bipartisan bill that ethically advances stem cell research, a practice supported by 70 percent of Americans. Instead of embracing stem cell research, President Bush chose this moment in time to strike a blow against science and against hope and against saving lives. The promise of stem cell research is great. One researcher at Harvard Medical School wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, ``The science of human embryonic stem cells is in its infancy,'' but he cautioned restricting stem cell research would ``threaten to starve this field at a critical stage.'' Last October, the prestigious, peer-reviewed Journal of Immunology featured a study by four researchers from the University of Minnesota who developed human embryonic stem cells that could destroy cancerous cells. Mr. Speaker, when we tout the potential for stem cell research to develop future treatment for diseases like cancer, like Parkinson's, opponents of the research will say we are just dreamers, that the proof just isn't there. Well, Mr. Speaker, four cancer survivors live on my street in Lowell, Massachusetts. Shame on anyone who would take a dream away from them. Nearly 35,000 cases of leukemia were diagnosed last year. In fact, about 30 percent of cancers in children from birth to 14 years of age are leukemia. Today, scientists are using embryonic stem cells to treat leukemia and lymphoma. We are dreamers, Mr. Speaker, but those dreams are supported by hard science and research. Stem cells have the potential to develop into any kind of body tissue, including blood, brain, or nerve tissue. Scientists believe that this unique ability can lead to even more breakthroughs in the number of illnesses that now are untreatable. With his rebuff of stem cells, just like ignoring the warnings about global warming, this President has put his head in the sand at America's peril. America needs a new direction that supports science and promotes innovation. As one of the world's foremost medical science centers, my home State of Massachusetts has played a critical role 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. The life sciences industry employs roughly 30,000 people in Massachusetts alone. The President's rejection of domestic stem cell research does not mean an end to the research elsewhere in the world. This research will go forward. But the President has chosen to leave America behind and hamper our scientific competitiveness. The President's veto also has put Massachusetts, the world's most powerful engine of innovation and progress, on the sidelines. To put it in perspective, consider that Massachusetts alone has over 250 biotechnology firms, and that is more than all of Western Europe combined. I believe the choice is clear: We should support stem cell research in Massachusetts and throughout the country. It is our tradition of innovation and science and, most importantly, it will offer hope to millions of Americans suffering from diseases that one day may be cured. The President has shamefully put a roadblock in the way of scientific progress. The American people deserve better.