Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for accepting the amendment. I rise in strong support of this amendment, which would increase funding for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, created by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458), to $1.5 million. The bill currently reserves $750,000 of the $53 million budget of the Executive Office of the President for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The amendment would reserve $3 million of this $53 million budget. This level of funding is closer to what was initially given to the 9/11 Commission. The purpose of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is to ensure the protection of civil liberties by the Federal Government. The appropriate amount of funding is crucial in ensuring that privacy and civil liberties concern are appropriately considered. This will prove significant in the implementation of laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts to protect our Nation against terrorism. In addition, the additional funding will allow the board to develop the infrastructure they need to do their job and will demonstrate Congress' intentions to fully support this significant board. We certainly understand the need to aggressively fight the war on terror, but the 9/11 Commission Report reminds us that, ``The choice between security and liberty is a false choice, as nothing is more likely to endanger America's liberties than the success of a terrorist attack at home. Our history has shown that this insecurity threatens liberty at home. Yet if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend.'' The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an important body. We must do everything we can to ensure its efficiency and operation.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment to increase HOPWA funding to its Fiscal Year 2004 level of $293 million. This amendment is tremendously important for thousands of people afflicted with AIDS. I appreciate the good work the Chairman has done on this bill, as well as the fiscal constraints of this budget cycle. The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is when it comes to the HOPWA program I think we should provide more. The Centers for Disease Control, CDC, estimates there are between 1 and 1.2 million Americans living with HIV and AIDS. A majority of these individuals will face a housing crisis at some point during their illness as a result of increased medical expenses and lost wages. HOPWA is the only federal program specifically designed to meet their needs. The HOPWA program is one of the most cost-effective ways to provide people living with HIV/AIDS with adequate and affordable housing. Acute care facilities, under Medicaid cost more than $1,000 a day as compared to HOPWA community housing, which averages $55 to $110 per day. The program keeps those living with HIV/AIDS off the streets and out of expensive acute care facilities. My predecessor, Stewart B. McKinney, died of AIDS-related pneumonia. His wife, Lucie, carries on his work as chairman of the Stewart B. McKinney Foundation. This foundation is dedicated to providing housing to persons and families living with HIV/AIDS. The McKinney House and other HOPWA programs approach the HIV crisis in a truly caring, community-based and cost-effective manner. Because 90 percent of HOPWA funds are distributed to States by formula, States and localities control how money is spent--not the Federal Government. Communities, are empowered to use HOPWA funds to meet their unique housing needs--from providing short-term supportive housing for low-income persons with HIV/AIDS, to building new community residences. The flexibility has, in large measure, contributed to the widespread success of the HOPWA program. The bottom line is that money for HOPWA is money well spent. I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 511. This section violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI. It proposes to change existing law and, therefore, constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules. I do this on behalf of the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, however well intended this amendment may be, it goes to the heart of what is very important in this country, and that is getting our young people to want to participate and be part of our society, and it employs a lot of young people from our urban areas. But, more important than that, is they work at minimum wage, but then they get a stipend to help pay for their education. Why do we give away college grants, when young people are willing to work to get them? For me, this is so central to what we believe as Republicans: Do not give them a grant, have them earn it. They earn these grants, they do incredible service throughout the country, and it replaces having young people do a job just to do a job. They do meaningful, meaningful work.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state my concern with the manner in which Title I funds for No Child Left Behind are distributed. Title I, the funds meant to provide aid to states and school districts to help educationally disadvantaged children achieve the same high standards as all other students, are increased in this bill by $100 million over last year, bringing the total funding to $12.7 billion. However, Title I funds for Bridgeport, Connecticut, will be cut this year for the fourth year in a row under NCLB. According to the Department of Education, Bridgeport will receive $678,000 less in Title I funds for the next school year, going from $13.7 million to just over $13 million, and down from a high of $14.8 million in 2002. I voted for NCLB. I support this legislation because it is a monumental step forward for American public education. I also believe NCLB grants unprecedented flexibility to local school districts, demands results in public education through strict accountability measures, empowers parents and provides a safety valve for children trapped in failing schools. It is hard for me to fathom, however, that while we have increased funding for Title I by 52 percent since 2001, Bridgeport, one of the most disadvantaged school districts in the country, has received a cut of $1.8 million. I believe the law should make sense. The spirit of the bill is to provide funding to the neediest districts, and, quite frankly, cutting Bridgeport funding does not seem to reflect that intention. While I realize it is not necessarily within the purview of this committee, I believe the formula needs to be fixed.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state my opposition to the extension of the refusal clause provision. The refusal clause exempts health care companies from any federal, state or local government law that ensures women have access to reproductive health services, including information about abortion. If extended, this provision will continue to have many negative effects by overriding federal Title X guidelines that ensure women receive full medical information. A fundamental principle of Title X, the national family planning program, ensures pregnant women who request information about all their medical options, including abortion, be given that information, including a referral upon patient request. I am also concerned this bill does not include an increase in funding for Title X. Each year approximately 4.5 million low-income women and men receive basic health care through 4,600 clinics nation wide that receive Title X funds. This program reduces unintended pregnancies and makes abortion less necessary. Had funding for Title X kept pace with inflation since 1980, with no additional increases, it would be funded today at double its current budget. While Title X is receiving flat funding from last year, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act of 2006 gives abstinence-only sex education programs an increase of $11 million, to an all time funding high of $168 million. Unlike Title X, abstinence-only programs do not provide clinical health services. Additionally, research shows comprehensive sex-education programs, which teach both abstinence and contraception, are the most effective. There is no federal program that earmarks dollars for comprehensive sex education. I support a woman's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy subject to Roe v. Wade, but we can all recognize the importance of preventing unintended pregnancies. Abortion is a very personal decision. While a woman's doctor, clergy, friends, family and public officials may have an opinion, the ultimate decision rests solely with her. It is vital for every woman to have access to as much information as she needs in order to make this decision. I oppose these provisions and encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey-Lowey-Leach amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey/Lowey/Leach amendment to H.R. 3010, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act of 2006. This amendment would restore the $100 million that this bill cuts from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, CPB. I support CPB, NPR and PBS because they provide Americans of all ages with a broad range of valuable programmIng. CPB helps fund local stations all across America, and if we implement these cuts, the impact on local services, community support and vital programming will be significantly damaging. Local public broadcasting stations are leaders in education, news and information, and are attracting growing numbers of listeners as they air unique programs. Restoring the $100 million cut will allow CPB to continue funding the important community service contributions of local public television and radio stations. I support this amendment and encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 10, which would amend the Constitution to allow Congress to pass laws banning the desecration of a flag. I find it abhorrent anyone would burn our flag, and if I saw someone desecrating the flag, I would do what I could to stop them, at risk of injury or incarceration. For me, that would be a badge of honor. But I think this constitutional amendment is an overreaction to a nonexisting problem. Keep in mind the Constitution has only been amended 17 times since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1791. This is the same Constitution that eventually outlawed slavery, gave blacks and women the right to vote, and guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Amending the Constitution is a very serious matter. I do not think we should allow a few obnoxious attention-seekers to push us into a corner, especially since no one is burning the flag now without an amendment. I agree with Secretary Powell, who when he served as Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs, wrote, ``It was a mistake to amend the Constitution, that great shield of democracy to hamper a few miscreants.'' When I think of the flag, I think about the courageous men and women who have died defending it and the families they left behind. What they were defending was the Constitution of the United States and the rights it guarantees as embodied by the flag. I love the flag for all it represents, but I love the Constitution even more. The Constitution is not just a symbol, it is the very principles on which our Nation was founded. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I thank her for her very hard work and the work again of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). I rise, obviously, in support of this amendment that we are offering, as amended, which would require the director of National Intelligence to provide Congress written explanation why the National Counter Terrorism Center, NCTC, is not fully operational since the June 17 deadline set forth in Public Law 108-458. The Joint Inquiry and the 9/11 Commission both found that the lack of information-sharing and coordination within the intelligence community led to numerous missed opportunities to detect and prevent September 11 terrorist attacks. The establishment of the NCTC was a key 9/11 Commission recommendation and an integral part of the effort to increase information-sharing and coordination among intelligence agencies. The director will serve a critical function in our Nation's intelligence capability, as he will report to the President and to the director of National Intelligence. The NCTC, once fully operational, will be the Nation's primary agency for now analyzing terrorist threats and planning counterterrorism operations at home and abroad. The deadline by which the NCTC was required by law to be fully operational has passed, and while I am pleased the President nominated Vice Admiral John Redd as the Center's permanent director on June 10, I wish Congress had received this nomination sooner than a week before the deadline so that the Center could have been operational on time. The bottom line is it has been done. We are making progress. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for accepting this amendment and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) as well. It is an amendment that I think deserves passage and I thank them for accepting it.

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I want to just first compliment the chairman and ranking member for their excellent work on this legislation, their excellent work in general, and frankly the work that they have done in helping to create such a strong structure for intelligence. The Cold War is over. The world is a more dangerous place. We need to be able to not contain and react to an event; we need to be able to detect and prevent it. It means that we need very good intelligence, both intelligence directed with technology and intelligence that occurs from very good human capital. I think the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and our incredible ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), have done an excellent job in drafting this legislation. My compliments to both of them. They give credit to the full Congress and the work that they have done.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 160, which recognizes the historic significance of Juneteenth Independence Day and encourages its continued celebration so all Americans can learn more about our country's past. The resolution also rightly expresses the sense of Congress that knowing our history helps us solve challenges we face in the future, and that the celebration of the end of slavery is an important part of the history and heritage of the United States. Mr. Speaker, Juneteenth has long been recognized as the day to celebrate the end of slavery in the United States. Juneteenth is the traditional celebration of the day on which the last slaves in America learned they had been freed. Although slavery was abolished officially in 1863, it took over 2 years for news of freedom to spread to slaves. On June 19th, 1865, U.S. General Gordon Granger rode into Galveston, Texas and announced that the State's 200,000 slaves were free. Vowing never to forget the date, the former slaves coined the nickname Juneteenth, a blend of the words June and 19th. This holiday originated in the Southwest, but today it is celebrated throughout the Nation. H. Con. Res. 160 underscores that the observance of Juneteenth Independence Day is an opportunity for all Americans to learn more about our common past and to better understand the experiences that have shaped our great Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, which I chair, has held 17 hearings on Gulf War veterans' illnesses. Over the last decade, we've followed the hard path traveled by sick Gulf War veterans as they bore the burdens of their physical illnesses and the mental anguish caused by official skepticism and intransigence. It was their determination that overcame entrenched indifference and bureaucratic inertia. Their persistence, and a home video of chemical weapons munitions being blown up at Khamisiyah eventually persuaded the Departments of Defense and VA that post-war illnesses are linked to wartime exposures. But characterizing the subtle linkage between low-level toxic assaults and varied chronic health consequences remains a complex research challenge. The objective markers of physiological damage are only now coming into view using techiques and technologies not available ten years ago, when some were so willing to conclude Gulf War veterans' illnesses were nothing more than stress. But promising research hypotheses and treatment concepts still face institutional obstacles to federal support as both funding and momentum behind Gulf War illnesses research have been waning. This amendment allows us to capture the emerging breakthroughs purchased with $315 million in DOD and VA research investments over the past decade. This would build on last year's appropriation of $3.7 million for extramural, peer-reiewed research to address the chronic illnesses affecting veterans of the 1991 Gulf War. The research focuses on the chronic effects of neurotoxic exposures, underlying mechanisms, identified neurological abnormalities, and the identification of treatments. The battlefield is a dangerous and toxic workplace. The veterans of the 1991 war, those on the field of battle today and those we deploy in the future will benefit from this research into the diagnosis and treatment of the health consequnces of toxic exposures. Point of Order

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I love Henry Hyde. I have awesome respect for Tom Lantos. I thank the gentleman from California for supporting the President in the war against Iraq and to go into Afghanistan. I thank him for being such a clear thinker along with the gentleman from Illinois on so many issues. We are not part of the Kyoto agreement. We are not part of the land mine agreement. We are not part of other treaties. We are not part of the ICC, the International Criminal Court. I understand those things. We are in a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq, and we are telling the President of the United States and the Secretary of State, Forget it. We don't care what you think. We're going ahead. Mandatory, nuclear option. It is going to happen even if the U.N. does most of what we ask. Even if they do 80 percent of what we ask, it is still going to happen. Mandatory. I cannot believe when our men and women are fighting in Iraq that we would move forward with legislation like this when we need to draw countries together. The problem is not all the reforms can physically happen, and some of them will not happen, and some in the U.N. might not even want them to happen. They are eager to have us withhold funds. They are eager to have more people hate the United States. The United States, the President, the Secretary of State, they are working so hard, and they are making progress. We have a new manager, Chris Burnham, who is the Under Secretary running the whole management of the U.N. We are making progress. Go with the Hyde bill, but with the flexibility to let our President and our Secretary of State have the ability to work with these countries to move them along and see progress.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, this is not a debate about Chinese policy on population growth, but I want to just say, I cannot imagine what it would be like to be in the United States and have four times as many people living here, four times as many people in Washington, D.C., four times as many people in New York City. So I do understand that China needs to deal with this issue, but not the way they are dealing with it. This amendment does not in any way impact what China is doing. Cutting funds to the UNFPA will prevent vital assistance for poor women and children in developing countries. The UNFPA's program helps families prevent unwanted pregnancies, undergo childbirth safety, avoid STDs including HIV/AIDS, and combat violence against women. I think that is what we want to do. I believe we must support the UNFPA and its family planning initiatives, because world population continues to grow out of control. In 1960, we had 3 billion people on this Earth. Today we have 6 billion people. In 40 years, without worldwide family planning services, it will rise to 9 billion people. The UNFPA responds to this growth by assisting the world's poorest countries in formulating population policies and strategies. Overpopulation threatens not only the world's political stability, but our global environment as well. As a former Peace Corps volunteer, I can attest to the substantial contributions international family planning makes to economic development, higher living standards, and improved health and nutrition. Mr. Chairman, I just hope that we do not get sidetracked on a debate about what China is doing, when there are 150 poor countries around the world that need our help, and millions and millions and millions of women who need our help and assistance.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the Cold War is over, and the world is a more dangerous place. It cannot be contain and react. It has to be replaced by detect and prevent. We want to prevent a crime. There is a serious problem of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or even a serious conventional attack. You all seem to want to wait until the crime is committed and then you can use your criminal law to get at it. We want to detect and prevent it. I have never felt more outraged in my heart as I listen to this debate in 19 years. Do we not get it? The issue with the Unabomber is he committed the crime. I say to the gentlewoman from Florida, so we should wait till after he commits the crime, then we can go into a library? I want to get the information before. I want to know what that Unabomber knew, that treatise he knew in that library in Montana which we got an act for. I like this law better than the criminal law because you have got to go to a court and the court has to keep the record. You want to just say, in my judgment, that we will have a grand jury, and as soon as you have a grand jury, the prosecutor almost at will can get this information. He does not have to go to a court. You are trying to give the impression that civil liberties are in jeopardy. I say under this law they are protected, and then I say something else. Public safety under this law is protected. I find it amazing that we want a free zone in a bookstore. I find it amazing we want a free zone in a library. I find it amazing that librarians would allow someone to come in for a crime, but for a clandestine operation that might blow up New York City? Nope, do not go there.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to insert in the Congressional Record the following Memorial Day Prayer as offered by the Reverend Dean C. Ahlberg of The First Church of Christ in Redding, Connecticut. Memorial Day Prayer Loving and Gracious God, we gather together on this Memorial Day weekend, young and old, diverse in political perspective, religious affiliation and ethnic heritage, yet we gather in our too-often divided nation as one community to offer a united tribute, a testimony of gratitude, and a celebration of remembrance. We gather, O God, to honor those veterans who've nobly served this nation we love and who've walked beside us and with us this day; we gather to remember those men and women, patriots who fought and died, who offered up the supreme sacrifice to defend the country we love, to protect the freedoms we enjoy and too often take for granted, and to advance the cause of liberty for humankind. We remember Reddingites who perished in the Revolutionary war, and those whose legacy echoes from places named Antietam, and Bull Run and Gettysburg; we remember the gallantry of doughboys, the bravery enshrined on battlefields from the Marne to Iwo lima, from Bastogne to Korea, from the jungles of Viet Nam to the mountains of Afghanistan to the streets, cities and villages of Iraq. And we humbly offer prayers, not only for their patriotic souls, but also for the families they left behind, and for families who, even now, pray each day for the safe return of a soldier son or daughter, father or mother. Thus we ask your guidance, O Holy One. We ask your guidance that our patriotism be filtered through the prism of your divine justice and love, that our nation's power might ever serve the cause of human dignity, that our most noble impulses be laced with humility and a wisdom that fosters solidarity and understanding among the world's nations. And so we must close our prayers this Memorial Day weekend, O God, with a prayer for ourselves and our own stewardship of our beloved democracy. Give us, we pray, the strength, the grit and the insight to be citizen soldiers in the cause of peace. . . such that our children and our children's children never know the horrors of war. . . that our collective legacy might be a world of greater harmony, a nation of less internal enmity, and a community with an unwavering appreciation for all who've labored and fought, lived and died, to make our nation a beacon of light and our flag a signal of hope for all your peoples. May God bless the United States of America. And may each one of us, in ways great and small, be a blessing to our nation, and to God's world. Amen.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, for the people of Taiwan this month marks the close of the first year of President Chen Shui-Bian's second term in office. President Chen's leadership has received praise around the world because he is actively seeking a dialogue with China that will promote peace and stability in cross-strait relations. He has supported Taiwan's opposition leaders' visit to China and indicated that he would welcome feedback on safeguarding the democracy and sovereignty of Taiwan. Taiwan and the United States share the values of freedom, human rights, and democracy and work together politically and economically. Currently the United States is Taiwan's largest trading partner, with more than 270 direct flights between the United States and Taiwan every week. There are more than 28,000 Taiwanese students currently studying in the United States. We hope these trends will continue under the leadership of President Chen. Taiwan is currently seeking to be a World Health Assembly observer this year. Its 23 million people need access to the services provided by the World Health Organization (WHO). Excluding Taiwan from the WHO both jeopardizes the health of the Taiwanese people and keeps the rest of the world from benefiting from the health care resources and expertise Taiwan has to share. I applaud the Administration and Congress in its support of Taiwan's bid to become a World Health Assembly observer and wish President Chen and the people of Taiwan success this year.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on May 23, I was participating in the World Economic Forum in Amman, Jordan and, therefore, missed three recorded votes. I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on recorded vote number 200, ``yes'' on recorded vote number 201, and ``yes'' on recorded vote number 202.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Davis-Harman amendment to H.R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment would lift the ban on privately funded abortion care provided at overseas military bases. It would restore the right of female servicemembers and dependents who are stationed overseas to use their own funds to obtain reproductive health services, including abortion. Current law forbids military hospitals from offering abortion care except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. This amendment does not ask for public funds to be used to finance these additional reproductive health services. Rather, it allows U.S. servicewomen and their military dependents to have access to privately funded abortion services, the same as they would if they were living in the United States. I was disappointed the Committee on Rules did not make in order an amendment I offered with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) that would have allowed publicly funded abortions in the case of rape or incest, just as Medicare allows and as currently allowed if a woman's life is in danger. Despite its not being included, I think passage of the Davis-Harman amendment would be a positive development for women in the military, and I urge its passage. Currently, there are over 100,000 women who serve the United States and are working in the military overseas, and the number grows rapidly each year. This amendment seeks to give back to servicewomen the Constitutionally guaranteed right to reproductive choice. Although I know many of my colleagues would prefer otherwise, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and this ban takes away the legal rights of servicewomen and their families in the military. The ban discriminates against the women and families who have volunteered to serve their country. I support this amendment and encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on May 19, I was participating in the World Economic Forum in Amman, Jordan and, therefore, missed 10 recorded votes. I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 190, ``no'' on recorded vote No. 191, ``no'' on recorded vote No. 192, ``no'' on recorded vote No. 193, ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 194, ``no'' on recorded vote No. 195, ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 196, ``no'' on recorded vote No. 197, ``no'' on recorded vote No. 198, and ``no'' on recorded vote No. 199.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) deserve our thanks for sponsoring the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and working with so many families who have been impacted by diseases that may find cures as a result of this vital research. Their work and dedication on this legislation has been tremendous and praiseworthy. I also thank them for giving me the opportunity to cast one of the most important votes I will ever make in Congress. Almost everyone has lost some family member prematurely. I think of the grandmother, whom I never met, who died when her daughter, my mother, was only 16. I think of my mother-in-law who never had the opportunity to know her grandchild who is now 25. I think of my cousin, who was brilliant and never got to realize his full potential. Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to cure disease and save lives in ways never dreamed of. And it is only 6 years old. These are discarded embryos that were never in the womb. They were not taken from it and they were not put into it. But they can help save lives. That is why it is so important that we not only pass this legislation today, but that the President signs this bill into law. Sometimes ideology can box you in and cause you to make wrong and harmful decisions. I think it is time we recognize the Dark Ages are over. Galileo and Copernicus have been proven right. The world is in fact round. The earth does revolve around the sun. I believe God gave us intellect to differentiate between imprisoning dogma and sound ethical science, which is what we must do here today. I want history to look back at this Congress and say that in the face of the age-old tension between religion and science, the Members here allowed critical scientific research to advance while respecting important ethical questions that surrounded it. We know that by allowing embryonic stem cell research to go forward, treatments and prevention for diseases will not come to us overnight. But we also know embryonic stem cell research has the potential to yield significant scientific advances to heal and prevent so many diseases throughout the world.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I know we all have strong feelings about a lot of things, and sometimes someone could say we may not be right but we are never in doubt. I want to say I am not in doubt on this issue, and I think I am right. I think it is an outrage that we do not inspect the cargo that is in the belly of a passenger aircraft. And I think it is an outrage, frankly, that the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) amendment was not made in order so we could at least debate this. If one disagrees with the issue, that is one thing. But not to even allow for a debate and have the American people begin to understand the evolution that has taken place is unfortunate. First, we started to inspect the carry-on luggage, and Americans thought we must be checking baggage on the belly of an aircraft. I did, until the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) came to me and said we are not, do I want to sponsor an amendment. And we worked on an amendment, and we put and got in the bill a few years ago that there had to be deadlines for eventually inspecting all baggage that went in the belly of an aircraft. We had a deadline and we finally did it. So then I was thinking, well, we have done our job. And the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) informs me, and I did not know it, that 22 percent of what is in the belly of an aircraft is cargo uninspected. Uninspected, and yet we are not willing to have a debate about this. I think it is amazing, and I think it is wrong; and I think if the public knew it, they would be outraged. If the argument is that we do not have the technology, which we do, or we do not have enough of the technology, which is right, we allowed under the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) amendment for a 3-year phase-in: 35 percent the first year, 65 in the second, and then 100 percent in the third year. But if one still did not want to vote for that bill, we asked for another amendment to be made in order. The amendment was quite simple. It simply said to tell the passenger that the cargo on this plane has not been inspected. Even that amendment was not made in order. Vote against it if one does not like it. But to not even allow a debate on the floor of the House about this issue? I had a constituent who was on Pan Am 103. I got the call at 11 in the morning that said she thinks her daughter was on this aircraft but 30 kids were not, 30 people were not; and she hoped and prayed her daughter was one who could not get on it. I was at her home that evening about 11:30 that night when she got the call that said her daughter was on that plane. Admittedly, that was baggage. But if we now inspect the carry-on baggage and we inspect the baggage that is given at the ticket counter, what are terrorists going to do? They are just going to link it up with cargo and blow up a plane, a passenger plane, because the cargo has not been inspected. I really believe we need this amendment. I salute both sides of the aisle for this bill. I salute the Committee on Rules for allowing for 25 amendments. But this is an amendment that should have been allowed.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act. In the post-September 11, 2001, world that we live in, it is clear we need a more effective approach to funding our first responders. Terrorists are targeting high-profile targets in our major metropolitan areas, and we must ensure we have the funds they need. The 9/11 Commission, which I strongly supported, recommended we allocate grant funding based on risk, not politics. This bipartisan legislation does just that. It goes where it is most needed. I cannot tell you if my State of Connecticut gains funds or loses funds under this bill, but that cannot be the issue. The question is: Are funds going where we have the greatest risk? And the answer to that question is: Yes. We are following the 9/11 Commission recommendation. It is going where we have the greatest need. H.R. 1544 will distribute first responder grants based on threat, vulnerability, and consequences of a terrorist attack to persons and critical infrastructure sectors throughout the United States. This will allow streamlining terrorism preparedness grants to our first responders who, again, need it most. As chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, I know this legislation allocating these resources based on risk is essential to my communities, my State, and our Nation. H.R. 1544 is an important step towards enhancing our Nation's response to terrorist attacks. The bottom line is, it is not a question of if, but of when terrorists will strike again. The legislation is essential because it helps ensure that when they do, our first responders, who need the resources the most, will be better able to protect the communities they serve. Congratulations to the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), and to the Members on both sides of the aisle who have worked in a bipartisan manner to make our Nation safer.