Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to insert in the Congressional Record the following statement by Joseph Verner Reed, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations Remarks on United Nations Day's 61st Anniversary Celebration (Tuesday October 24, 2006) Today October 24, 2006 the United Nations celebrates its 61st birthday. born of war The United Nations was created in large part by the efforts of the United States. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's vision and dedication laid the framework. The President even coined its name. Former United States Secretary of State Cordell Hull won the Nobel Peace Prize, mainly for his efforts in building the institution. President Harry S Truman supported President Roosevelt's vision with equal devotion, and in 1945, the vision became a reality. The United Nations has succeeded most obviously in preventing the horror of a third world war, encouraging multinational dialogues and the development of international law, and providing a forum for governmental and non- governmental entities. It is active in peacekeeping, disarmament, economic development, environmental preservation, education and disease prevention. United Nations groups like UNICEF, the World Bank, the World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency have produced a long list of achievements, along with the inevitable stumble now and then. It is less commonly known that the United Nations also handles international labor standards, international aviation safety provisions, international mail flow issues and international copyright laws, all of which significantly benefit Americans. In the words of former United States Ambassador to the United Nations and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, ``If you have ever traveled on an international airline or shipping line, or placed a phone call overseas, or received mail from outside the country, or been thankful for an accurate weather report--then you have been served directly or indirectly by one part or another of the United Nations system.'' more helpful to united states Many within America view the United Nations with great suspicion, primarily because they see a significant threat to U.S. sovereignty. They would do well to heed the words of former United States Senator Arthur Vandenberg, a Republican who supported the formation of the world body: ``Though we cooperate wholeheartedly with the United Nations for peace and security, we remain the captains of our own souls.'' The veto power of the United States in the Security Council alone ensures that the United Nations does not act arbitrarily to harm U.S. interests. And when looked at historically, the United Nations has served interests of the United States far more than it has harmed them. Among other examples, the United Nations supported the dispatch of forces to Korea in 1950 and the incursion into Kuwait to expel Iraqi forces in 1991. After September 11, 2001, it also moved swiftly to join the battle against terrorism, supporting the attack on Afghanistan and passing Resolution 1373, which ``required nations to interdict arms flows and financial transfers to suspected terrorist groups, report on terrorists' movements and update national legislation to fight them.'' When the United Nations speaks in a clear voice, it represents the greatest source of international legitimacy possible. When the Security Council passes a Resolution it is not only legally binding, but it is widely respected. To solve global challenges requires a close partnership between the United States and the United Nations. As President Dwight D. Eisenhower said, ``With all the defects . . . the United Nations still represents man's best organized hope to substitute the conference table for the battlefield.'' Indeed, to attack the United Nations is to criticize the conference table. The United Nations is only as effective as the countries around that table. If we hope to strengthen the World Organization's effectiveness, the United States must play a leading role in reform efforts. It is an honor and privilege to present the message of Secretary-General Kofi A. Annan to the People of Connecticut.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act. I support encouraging--not requiring--parental notification for minors seeking contraceptive services. This legislation proposes a variety of new mandates on women, families, and doctors. For example, the bill forces doctors to learn and enforce 49 other states' laws, under the threat of fines and prison sentences. In many cases, it forces young women to comply with two states' parental- involvement mandates. It also requires a doctor to notify a young woman's parents in person, in another state, before abortion services can be provided. Finally, in some cases, even if a parent travels with his or her daughter to obtain abortion care, the doctor must still give ``notice'' to the parent and wait 24 hours before providing the care. In such cases, this requirement acts as a built-in mandatory delay--which makes it more difficult logistically, more expensive, and more burdensome all around for the family. It may even endanger the young woman's health. Not only does S. 403 include these negative provisions, it also could be found unconstitutional for three reasons. First, it contains no health exception. Second, in some cases, it offers young women no judicial bypass. Judicial bypass is required by the Supreme Court and allows another responsible adult to consent instead of a parent. Finally, it forces states to enforce other states' laws by forcing individuals to carry their home state laws with them when they travel. Every parent hopes that a child confronting a crisis will seek the advice and counsel of those who care for her most and know her best. In fact, even in the absence of laws mandating parental involvement, many young women do turn to their parents when they are considering an abortion. One study found that 61 percent of parents in states without mandatory parental consent or notice laws knew of their daughter's pregnancy. In a perfect world, all children would have open, clear communication with their parents. Unfortunately, this is not the case in every family. I believe this legislation would dissuade young women from turning to other trusted adults, such as an aunt or older sibling, in a time of need. While this bill might be well intentioned, it is a deeply flawed attempt to curb young women's access to private, confidential health services under the guise of protecting parental rights. I would like to see abortion remain safe and legal, yet rare. Whatever one's views on abortion, I believe we all can recognize the importance of preventing unintended pregnancies. When women are unable to control the number and timing of births, they will increasingly rely on abortion. Making criminals of advisors, however, is simply not the way to accomplish this goal. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of th1s legislation, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5160, the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act. I recognize the vital role the Long Island Sound plays in the Fourth Congressional District as well as all of Connecticut. The Long Island Sound contributes more than $5 billion annually to the regional economy and is one of the most populated and visited areas of our country. In fact, approximately 10 percent of the American population lives within the Long Island Sound watershed. It is a source of livelihood, nourishment, and recreation for many in Connecticut and elsewhere, and it is critical that we treat it well. This legislation would authorize $40 million to protect and preserve areas along the Sound's shorelines with significant ecological, recreational, or educational value. The Long Island Sound Stewardship Act gives those most familiar with the Sound's precious and diverse resources the tools necessary to continue their conservation efforts, and applies the most effective methods available to identify, protect, and enhance sites with ecological, educational, and recreation value in Connecticut and New York. Protecting and preserving the environment is one of the most important jobs I have as a Member of Congress. We simply will not have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways. The Long Island Sound is our Yellowstone. I urge passage of this legislation so that we may continue its conservation and protection.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, although I have some reservations, I support this legislation and appreciate it being brought up for consideration. On June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the Bush administration lacked the authority to take the ``extraordinary measure'' of scheduling special military trials for inmates, in which defendants have fewer legal protections than in civilian U.S. courts. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens recommended Congress authorize a trial system closely based on our military's court-martial process. I am pleased that is what we are doing today. It is a testament to our system of government that the highest court has given us guidance in properly administering justice to these terrorism suspects. We should bring detainees to trial with protections similar to military courts. This will guarantee the trials are honest, fair and impartiaI and that justice is done. I recognize there are certain areas in which the tribunal system we are authorizing must deviate from a traditional court-martial and in my judgment this bill handles those differences in a fair and just manner. On September 19, 2006, along with several of my Republican colleagues, I wrote to Majority Leader Boehner urging him to bring a bill to the floor that ensures the United States remains fully committed to the Geneva Convention. In our judgment, the bill considered by the Senate Armed Services Committee was a good bill, and I am grateful the bill before the House was modified to closely reflect the provisions in the Senate. The legislation could have be more explicit in stating the so-called enhanced or harsh techniques that have been implemented in the past by the CIA may not be used under any U.S. law or order. The bill provides the President with some latitude to define what techniques may be used in accordance with the prohibition against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. When I read the language in this bill--and specifically the definitions of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment--I believe any reasonable person would conclude that all of those techniques would still be criminal offenses under the War Crimes Act because they clearly cause ``serious mental and physical suffering.'' I am also concerned about the bill's definition of rape, and of sexual assault or abuse under a section delineating what crimes may be prosecuted before military tribunals if committed by an enemy combatant or if committed by an American against a detainee. The narrow definition in this bill leaves out other acts, as well as the notion that sex without consent is also rape, as defined by numerous state laws and federal law. For these reasons, I am voting for the Democrat Motion to Recommit the bill to require a reauthorization of this legislation and also to request expedited judicial review.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill that, as amended, reauthorizes the HOPE VI program through 2007. Reauthorizing the HOPE VI for an additional year will have an important impact on the lives of low- income people and will also pay tremendous dividends in towns and cities across America. I am grateful to have worked on this legislation with my colleagues Jim Leach, Maxine Waters, Artur Davis who has worked very hard on this, Mel Watt as well, Charlie Dent, and appreciate the assistance and guidance they have provided. I also appreciate the support of Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank in moving this bill forward. I have tremendous admiration for my chairman and ranking member and the work that they have done throughout a number of years. With their assistance, this legislation passed the Financial Services Committee by voice vote. HOPE VI epitomizes public-private partnerships for funding redevelopment projects. Mixed-finance agreements have allowed the government to raise millions of dollars from the private sector for redevelopment properties using Federal funds as leverage. For every government dollar granted, these partnerships can yield an additional $3 or $4. Let me give an example of an incredible HOPE VI project that has been completed in Stamford, Connecticut. A $26 million HOPE VI grant leveraged an additional $80 million in State, local, and private funds. The HOPE VI transformed Southfield Village, a dim, crime-ridden, and dilapidated housing project into Southwood Square, a beautiful place to live and raise your children. It is also a mixed-income community, where low-income families and those paying market rent live side-by-side. I am talking about people who make more than $100,000. Their children play together, and they have the opportunity to grow and learn from one another. As a result of this Federal assistance, Southwood Square is now a safe place for children to play. Its residents receive job training on site. Others are going to work, and working parents have access to child care facilities. Instead of the BMW belonging to drug dealers, they belong to employees who work for the many businesses in the community. Just as importantly, residents are involved in their community. I wish Members could see the transformation that has taken place there. Another HOPE VI project at Fairfield Court in Stamford is now beginning and promises to be just as successful as Southwood Square. The lesson here is, when the Federal Government demonstrates its interest in improving the housing needs of low-income families, the community responds in a big way. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation and again thank Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank for their cooperation in bringing this legislation before us, as well as the lead cosponsors on both sides of the aisle for their support. This was a team effort, and that is why passage tonight is so satisfying.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Hedge Fund Study Act and appreciate the work of our colleague, Mike Castle, to craft this legislation and bring it to the floor. Mr. Speaker, the hedge fund industry plays a critical and special role in our capital markets and is enormously important to helping institutional investors diversify their investment portfolios and meet their future funding needs. While the numbers fluctuate some, there are believed to be close to 8,000 hedge funds that manage approximately $1 trillion in assets. Connecticut's Fourth Congressional District, which I'm grateful to represent, is home to several hundred of the most successful hedge funds. Over the past few years, the industry has received increasing attention from the media, Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). I happen to believe that strong oversight of our financial markets is critical to our Nation's economic well-being. While hedge funds, which have knowledgeable and sophisticated investors, do not require the same level of scrutiny as is paid to the mutual fund industry, it seems to me more transparency and better government and regulator understanding of the industry will ultimately benefit investors and managers alike. In my judgment, this act is a sensible approach to the issues raised by the growth and importance of hedge funds to the capital markets. We should require the Presidential Working Group on Financial Markets to study and make recommendations in a final report regarding efforts of both the industry and its regulators to improve practices. Again, I appreciate this legislation coming to the House floor and urge its passage.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 477, I would have voted ``no,'' like I did in the 106th Congress, but I was unavoidably detained.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on September 16, the Fairfield County Ancient Order of Hibernians celebrated the official recognition of Commodore John Barry as the First Flag Officer of the United States Navy. In 2005, the House passed, and the President signed into law, H.J. Res. 38, which made this recognition official, and I was proud to support this legislation. I am happy to submit the text of Master Chief Richard Iannucci's informative address at this ceremony to be entered into the Record. Selectmen, honored guests, veterans, citizens of Fairfield, stalwarts of Gaelic descent, and shipmates This is a replica of the First Navy Jack. This flag, more properly this ``jack,'' was flown by Commodore John Barry and at the bow of ships of the Continental Navy. This same jack was ordered flown on the jackstaff of every US Navy warship on 9/12/2001. This jack had not be flown by an American warship at war in over two hundred years. At sea a flag or jack always signifies something. This jack, the jack of Commodore Barry and the Continental Navy, signifies that the US Navy is today functioning at its grimmest, most deadly earnest level of national survival. Barry and the men who fought alongside him, were heroes in the traditional sense of the word. They were not victims as the word ``hero'' seems to be evolving today, but men of courage who voluntarily thrust themselves ``in harm's way'' to use a phrase made famous by another Continental Navy captain, John Paul Jones. This flag symbolizes John Barry and the Continental Navy's proud and courageous legacy. Barry: The First Crucible John Barry, the father of the United States Navy, was fired in three crucibles. His legacy is a function of those three crucibles and the trials they represented. The first crucible was the unsettled nature of the country of his origin, Ireland. John Barry was born in 1745, in a cottage in County Wexford, Ireland, the southeasternmost part of Ireland. Wexford had a strong maritime tradition, but Barry's father was a poor tenant farmer who was eventually evicted from his farm by his British landlord. The family was forced to relocate to the village of Rosslare. It would have been at an early age that Barry learned of the bloody fall of Wexford to an invading British force led by Oliver Cromwell in 1649. Barry had to be aware of his countrymen's general fear of British oppression and governmental administration. Today there are people who parrot that thought that ``there is nothing worse than war.'' John Barry knew there was at least one thing worse than war . . . losing a war and he only needed to look around himself in Ireland to draw that conclusion. Today you hear the cant, ``War never accomplishes anything.'' John Barry would have known that to be a wrongheaded conclusion. Personally, as a descendant of highlanders and seafarers forced to leave the Isle of Raasey of the Inner Hebrides, on the western coast of Scotland, during the Highland Clearances, I am aware of the strong formative influence of having to leave your home under the cloud of a sense of injustice. The plight of his native land had to have left its mark on John Barry. Barry: The Second Crucible The second crucible was the demanding, unforgiving nature of the sea. John Barry's uncle was the captain of a fishing skiff, and at an early age he chose to follow his uncle as a seafarer. The sea meant freedom and independence. It was easier to jump ship, if life became unfair or oppressive, than move from one farming tenancy to another. Barry started as a cabin boy, and worked his way up. Going to sea was no easy career choice, but it gave a young man independence, and opportunities tied to merit, for the sea holds little regard for nationality or economic status. Only performance counts. A sea captain sailed one of the technological marvels of the day. A captain had to know sophisticated mathematics, astronomy, meteorology, navigation, carpentry, metal working, oceanography, chemistry, physics, civil engineering, business law, and psychology, among other disciplines. A merchant ship was the second most complex convergence of technology of the 18th Century. He had to learn all this, control and lead dozens of men at a time, fight the elements, and turn a profit. He was an established ship's captain by the age of 30, plying the trade route between Philadelphia and the West Indies. What was the most complex convergence of technology of the 18th Century? A naval warship was the first most complex convergence of technology, because it carried the added element of naval guns and other weaponry. Barry: The Third Crucible In 1775, John Barry was dropped into his last and third crucible, when he offered his services to the Continental Congress. His ship Black Prince was purchased by the Continental Congress and renamed Alfred. His lieutenant was a fiery Scotsman, named Jones, John Paul Jones. John Barry was then given command of Lexington, 14 guns, in December of 1775. Lexington sailed in March of 1776. That April, off the Capes of Virginia, John Barry engaged Edward, tender to the British man-of-war Liverpool. After a heated battle he captured Edward, the first American naval prize of the war and brought her into Philadelphia. He captured several private armed British ships not long after. His next command was Effingham, which was only partially completed and used her to patrol the Delaware Bay and Capes. A British agent offered Barry 20,000 pounds sterling to change sides and bring Effingham with him. In the 18th Century, 20,000 pounds was a fortune. Barry would not turn his coat. In October of 1776. the Continental Congress assigned the rankings of officers of the Continental Navy, ranking John Barry No. 7 among Continental Navy captains. Barry was a thorough warrior. Barry's contribution to the war was not limited to sea duty. He could have stuck with Effingham and his naval specialization, but in December of 1776. Barry recruited a company of volunteers for landing party duty. He and his company took part in the Trenton campaign. He organized the boatmen and assisted George Washington in his famous crossing of the Delaware. Barry subsequently assisted in the defense of Philadelphia and operations in the upper Delaware. When the British took possession of Philadelphia in September 1777, Captain Barry was ordered to take his uncompleted frigate Effingham up the Delaware River to a place of safety. In October, the ship was ordered sunk or burned. Barry scuttled her in November, near Bordentown, New Jersey, to deny her use to the British. In March of 1778, Captain Barry captured the British schooner Alert of 20 guns, and two ships loaded with supplies for the British Army using a fleet of small boats. Taking command of Raleigh, 32 guns, he sailed from Boston in September 1778, and two days later was chased and attacked by three of Royal Navy vessels. After a nine hour running battle, he ran Raleigh ashore on an island near the mouth of Penobscot Bay in what is now known as Maine, but was foiled by a turncoat crewman and unable to completely destroy Raleigh. He escaped to the mainland with most of his crew. He then assumed command of the privateer Delaware, 10 guns. In November of 1780, Barry was ordered to command Alliance, 32 guns, and took John Laurens, Special Commissioner, to France. Alliance would be his most famous command. To and from France, he captured the British Privateers Alert, 12 guns; Mars, 26 guns; and Minerva, 10 guns. In May of 1781, Barry engaged the British sloops-of-war, Atlanta, 20 guns, and Trepassy, 14 guns. This was to be Barry's most famous engagement. Barry conducted a relentless defense from the quarterdeck until a projectile of langridge (broken nails and metal fragments) or canister (small spherical projectiles) struck him in the left shoulder. He remained on deck bleeding from many wounds until losing consciousness. He was carried below to the cockpit for medical care by the ship's surgeon. As the battle increased in intensity, Alliance's colors were shot away. Barry's second in command, appeared before him as his wounds were being dressed. I asked you to bear with me. 18th Century dialogue sound wooden and strangely formal to the 21st Century. Barry's second in command stated, ``I have to report the ship in frightful condition, Sir. The rigging is much cut, damage everywhere great, many men killed and wounded, and we labor under great disadvantage for want of wind. Have I permission to strike our colors?'' Barry replied angrily. ``No Sir, the thunder! If this ship cannot be fought without me, I will be brought on deck; to your duty, Sir.'' A new flag was raised using the mizzenbrail for a halyard, and the fight continued. Just as they reached the deck, a gust of wind filled Alliance's sails. Replying to her helm, the battered Alliance swung about and the officers and crew pressed their new advantage to victory. He continued in command of Alliance, taking numerous prizes in 1782. In 1783, John Barry fought the last Continental Navy engagement of the Revolutionary War against the British man- of-war Sybylle, 28 guns. Though the ship surrendered to him he was obliged to abandon it to escape from the rest of the squadron of which Sybylle was a part. At the time, Barry was convoying Duc de Lauzane, carrying money and supplies from the West Indies to the Colonies. His defense enabled Duc de Lauzane to escape and reach the Colonies. After the close of Revolutionary War, Captain Barry returned to the merchant marine. Upon reorganization of the Navy, in June of 1794, Captain Barry was appointed No. 1 on the list of Captains and his commission was signed by George Washington. As senior captain, this status entitled him to the positional title of ``commodore'' in any group of US Navy ships. The US Navy would have no admirals until the Civil War. The title ``admiral'' was thought to be to aristocratic and undemocratic. The army could have generals, but the navy would have only commodores. Barry was ordered to superintend the building of the frigate United States, 44 guns, and to command her when finished. He fought in the Quasi-War with France, 1798-1801, capturing a number of French vessels in the West Indies. By the direction of the Navy Department he brought United States to Washington, where she was laid up. This ended Barry's active service. He was employed in testing cannon for the Government 1801- 1802, and was selected to command the Mediterranean Squadron, but was too ill to take the duty. He died at his country residence near Philadelphia. Commodore Barry was indeed the Father of the United States Navy, he was there at the beginning and he stayed the course through two wars. He set the example and what an example it was. He was courageous, tenacious, and versatile. Full Circle Let's take one last look at this First Navy Jack. We have come full circle. On July 7, 1779, as you left Southport Harbor and looked over your port beam (or larboard beam as Commodore Barry would have known it), you would seen the smoke from the British punitive raid on Fairfield. On September 11, 2001, as you left Southport Harbor and looked over your starboard beam, you would see the smoke from the burning towers of the World Trade Center. Here we are in the Southport section of Fairfield, a crossroads of history and yet even here in Fairfield we failed to give due deference to history. The Fairfield School system willfully fails to observe Veterans Day, for example, as a holiday. We are at war, but have we learned from history? It is all to easy to put the present war aside and go about our business. Let someone else address the problem. Perhaps another John Barry will turn up, or perhaps it doesn't matter. We need more John Barrys, men of bravery and determination, we can never have enough. Barry knew there were things worse than war and his life was determined by that knowledge. He knew there were things far worse than war. Do we? He acknowledged that there were objectives that war could accomplish, do we?

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I would like to just amend the gentleman's comment by saying there are two prime movers, Mr. Lantos and myself, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this legislation. I rise in support of H.R. 3858, the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Act, referred to as the PETS Act, which Congressman Lantos and I both as cochairmen of the Friends of Animal Caucus introduced. This commonsense bill requires State and local preparedness planners to include plans for evacuation of pet owners, pets, and service animals. Having passed this legislation once in the House, we now have an opportunity to include several important provisions that have been included by the Senate strengthening the bill, and then being able to send it directly to the President. These provisions include granting FEMA the authority to assist in developing evacuation plans, and authorizing financial help to States to create emergency shelters for people with their animals. Hurricane Katrina left so many victims in its wake, including up to 600,000 animals that lost their lives or were left without shelter. To qualify for Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, funding, a jurisdiction is required to submit a plan detailing their disaster preparedness plan. The PETS Act would simply require State and local emergency preparedness authorities to plan for how they will accommodate households with pets or service animals when presenting these plans to FEMA. This bipartisan legislation is necessary because it became evident during Hurricane Katrina, when asked to choose between abandoning their pets or their own personal safety, many pet owners chose to risk their lives and remain with their pets, and some of them perished. This is first a public safety issue, but also an animal welfare issue. Roughly two-thirds of American households own pets. We need to ensure owners and their pets are protected. The human horror and devastation in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama was a failure we needed to immediately address, but it was also heartbreaking to hear stories of forced evacuees to choose between being rescued or remaining with their pets. The plight of the animals left behind was truly tragic. In the middle of hurricane season, it is imperative that regulations to include pets in evacuation plans be placed in anticipation of future tragedies. This is an important bill. I urge its passage so that we can send it directly to the President. Again, I want to thank the chairman for bringing this bill out and marshaling this bill both times we have been before the Chamber. And I also want to thank my colleague, my cochairman, Mr. Lantos for all that he has done. He is a pleasure to work with.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. I wanted to rise and thank Chairman Shuster for marshaling this bill through and making sure that Members treated it with seriousness. I thank the ranking member of the full Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar, for his partnership in this effort. I also thank Congressman Lantos. We have been through many battles together, and this has been one of the most enjoyable ones. I also wanted to stand up and acknowledge the fine work of Senator Collins and the ranking member, Mr. Lieberman, in the Senate for their help in getting this bill through. Had they not taken action and treated this bill seriously, we would not be here today. And, frankly, they made it a better bill. I just wanted to thank Senators Collins and my friend Joe Lieberman, who I love very dearly.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of H. Res. 1000, which will require disclosure of earmark sponsors in the text of any legislation considered in the House. This is a common-sense change that should improve the transparency of the earmarking process and eliminate questions about who is really behind the funding of thousands of projects. I believe securing federal funding for local projects can be an important role for a member of Congress, so long as the project meets basic requirements. I use two tests to determine whether to seek funding. First, I ensure that transportation projects have the support of the local chief executive, regional planning agency and the Connecticut Department of Transportation. Secondly, I apply my ``community meeting'' test. If I can't justify the funding to constituents, I know it's not a project I should support. Earmarks have funded a broad array of transportation projects in the Fourth Congressional District, including the Bridgeport Intermodal Center, the Norwalk Pulse Point Improvement project, and the Stamford Urban Transitway, and projects promoting urban development in our urban areas and education. Unfortunately, projects like Alaska's ``Bridge to Nowhere,'' taint views of all congressionally-directed funding. I do not believe adoption of this resolution today lessens the need for comprehensive lobbying and ethics reform, because today's action still does not prevent the type of behavior we have witnessed in recent months. The resolution does provide additional sunlight on the process, however, which I think we can all agree is a good thing,

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank my chairman of the Homeland Security Committee for yielding to me, I thank him for his sincerity, I thank him for his good work, and I thank him for reaching out to the other side of the aisle on every occasion. I am sorry he is having to deal with the criticism that he is now having to deal with. But this is close, I guess, to an election time. As chairman of the 9/11 Caucus and chairman of the National Security Emerging Threats and International Relations Subcommittee, I rise to salute and honor the 2,976 individuals who lost their lives on this fateful day, 81 who were residents of the 17 towns I am privileged to represent. I salute the first responders who did what first responders do, run into danger while those they seek to protect run out. I salute as well all who labored after the buildings imploded to first save lives and then ultimately find the body parts of those who perished. Many of these individuals, particularly those who labored on this site during the first few weeks and months breathing highly toxic air, now find their own lives at risk. May God bless them, may God bless those who perished on September 11, and may God bless this great and enduring county. I thank you very much

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 175, a resolution recognizing the importance of establishing a national memorial at the World Trade Center site and supporting the efforts of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation to build a permanent memorial at the site. Five years ago, we lost 2,976 lives in a coordinated attack on our soil, 81 of whom were residents of the 17 towns now in the Fourth District. On the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we remember each one of those men and women who lost their lives, and their family and friends who still mourn their loss today. But this is a tragedy that we will not and cannot forget in another five, 15 or 50 years. We must never forget. For that reason, I support the creation of a national memorial at the World Trade Center site. A national memorial is a way to honor the Americans who lost their lives on September 11. It would be a place of gathering for their loved ones to come and remember those they lost. And it would be a tool to help teach future generations about the tragedy of that day, the history of the attacks and the importance of protecting ourselves against future acts of terrorism. I am grateful for the work of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and support their efforts for a permanent memorial at the site.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and thank him for taking on this battle with others. I rise in strong support of H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. I oppose the cruel and senseless slaughter of American horses for human consumption in the United States or for foreign markets. I just think we should not be allowing this. Last year, more than 90,000 American horses were either slaughtered in one of three foreign-owned slaughterhouses in the U.S. or shipped to Canada or Mexico for slaughter. Horses have never been raised for human consumption in America. This slaughter is done for export. Legislation is necessary because the Department of Agriculture is blatantly circumventing clear congressional intent on horse slaughter in last year's fiscal year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Act. This legislation would prohibit the transportation, possession and sale of horses to be slaughtered for human consumption in the U.S. It does not remove the rights of owners to do what they want with their horses. Under H.R. 503, owners can humanely euthanize sick, dangerous, or old horses. Horses can continue to be kept by their owners, can be sold to a new home, or placed in one of the many horse sanctuaries located across the country. The way a society treats its animals, particularly horses, speaks to the core values and priorities of its citizens. Horses are not just companions and recreational animals. They are a vital part of our Nation's culture and history. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation and oppose all amendments aimed to weaken it. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, the time is past due for a raise in the Federal minimum wage, which as last increased 10 years ago. Today, workers making the least should be heartened that this legislation will raise their wages 41 percent to $7.25 per hour over the next 3 years. Some argue that raising the minimum wage increases unemployment and prices. This is true only if the minimum wage is set too high or phased in too quickly. If done properly, there should be little to no impact on employment or prices. I am also pleased we are lowering the estate tax, but adopting a far more rational approach than full repeal. Under this legislation, small business owners will be able to know their businesses can be left with their families when they pass on because of a significantly reduced tax rate. Wealthy individuals would still pay something, between 15 and 30 percent on their estates, but not the 46 percent in existing law. Because estate and gift taxes has a harmful impact on small businesses--many of which are forced to liquidate assets simply to pay estate taxes which fluctuates in crazy fashion, from 46 percent this year, to 0 percent in 2010 and way back up to 55 percent 2011--we must intervene and provide relief. This bill will protect families and business while still making sure the very wealthy are paying back something to society.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5337, the National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation, which would require that all transactions involving state-owned companies be automatically subject to a full 45-day investigation. The legislation would also name make the Homeland Security secretary the vice chairman of the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which is chaired by the Treasury Department. The recent attempt by Dubai Ports World (DP World), a port operations company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), to purchase operating terminals at six U.S. ports, was a clear indicator we must reform the CFIUS process. Whenever a foreign investment affects homeland security, it deserves greater scrutiny. This legislation strikes the proper balance between strengthening our economy and protecting the American people. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on June 29, 2006, the Friends of Animals Caucus held a groundbreaking event on farm animal welfare. Members of the caucus were joined by a distinguished and diverse panel of speakers: representatives of three major animal protection organizations, a noted legal scholar, a family farmer, and representatives of the religious and environmental communities. The way a society treats its animals speaks to the core values and priorities of its citizens. Peter DeFazio and I recently introduced legislation, H.R. 5557, the Farm Animal Stewardship Act, which we hope will lead to more humane treatment of farm animals raised for consumption. Additionally, I am developing bills to address the issues of labeling and animal cruelty that exists in America. Some species have become our companions, some play important roles in sensitive ecosystems, and some are raised for food. It is our duty to protect and care for all of these animals. Matthew Scully, former special assistant and deputy director of speechwriting to President George W. Bush, was unable to attend, but he submitted his article ``Fear Factories: The Case for Compassionate Conservatism--for Animals,'' which was published in the May 23, 2005, issue of the American Conservative. He asked that it be included as a summary of his views on this subject. Before ending my comments, let me highlight some of the views expressed by Matthew Scully because it expresses what I believe. Mr. Scully states: `` . . . the persistent animal welfare questions of our day center on institutional cruelties on the vast and systematic mistreatment of animals that most of us never see.'' `` . . . all of factory farming proceeds by a massive denial of reality, the reality that pigs and other animals are not just production units to be endlessly exploited but living creatures with natures and needs.'' He continues: ``Conservatives are supposed to revere tradition. Factory farming has no tradition, no rules, no codes of honor, no little decencies to spare for a fellow creature. ``The whole thing is an abandonment of rural values and a betrayal of honorable animal husbandry.'' He further continues by saying: `` . . . we cannot just take from these creatures; we must give them something in return. We owe them a merciful death and we owe them a merciful life. And when human beings cannot do something humanely, without degrading both creatures and ourselves, then we should not do it at all.'' The importance of this issue is evident, as over 100 people attended the hearing to examine the issue of the humane treatment of farm animals. The Friends of Animals Caucus will continue to work on a bipartisan basis to help protect animals at the Federal level.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5319, the Deleting Online Predators Act. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, which requires schools and libraries to monitor the internet activities and implement technology to protect children from accessing commercial social networking sites like MySpace.com and chat rooms that provide an avenue for dangerous individuals to make personal contact with unsuspecting underage children. The popularity of social network sites have soared, especially among our children, in recent years. These sites allow users to post photos, chat and interact with other users online. However, the popularity of these sites have also become a haven for child predators. A recent Department of Justice study found that one in five children received an unwanted solicitation online. This legislation takes an important step towards protecting our children from these online predators. The bill will still allow teens to access social networking sites under their parent's supervision, and yet protects them when they are online alone. The rise in online solicitations by child predators must be countered by a strong response, and H.R. 5319 takes such action. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5852, the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act. This legislation would create a new emergency communications office within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop a standardized radio system for first-responders during disasters. Two years ago, the 9/11 Commission recommended placing all first- responders on the same radio frequencies to facilitate communications. Similar provisions to this legislation are included in legislation Carolyn Maloney and I have introduced, H.R. 1794, the 9/11 Can You Hear Me Now Act. This legislation would instruct DHS to provide the New York Fire Department (FDNY) with a communication system that must be capable of operating in all locations and under the circumstances we know firefighters face and will continue to face when responding to an emergency in New York City. Under the bill, a communication system including three components-- radios, dispatch system and a supplemental communication device--would be required to work in all buildings and in all parts of the city, something that the radios unbelievably do not now do. This bill could and should serve as an example for what needs to be done on a Federal level. We also introduced H.R. 5017, the Ensuring Implementation of the 9/11 Commission Report Act. H.R. 5017 brings renewed focus to the core recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and holds the Administration and relevant executive agencies accountable to carry out and document the successful implementation of the 9/11 Commission Report's policy goals. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, today, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act. The phrase ``under God'' belongs in our Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and the words In God We Trust belong on our currency. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made a serious error in Newdow v. U.S. Congress when they declared our Pledge unconstitutional. When the phrase under God was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, I was in elementary school and remember feeling the phrase belonged there. It appropriately reflects the fact that a belief in God motivated the founding and development of our great Nation. The Declaration of Independence states, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights . . .'' Our forefathers understood it was not they, but He, who had bestowed upon all of us those most cherished rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness upon which our model of government is based. At Gettysburg, President Abraham Lincoln acknowledged we were a Nation under God and, during his Second Inaugural Address, he mentioned our Creator 13 times. Those historic speeches, the Pledge of Allegiance, our currency and the Declaration of Independence are not prayers or parts of a religious service. They are a statement of our commitment as citizens to our great Nation and the role God plays in it. Our founders envisioned a government that would allow, not discourage or punish, the free exercise of religion and we are living their dream. I oppose the Pledge Protection Act because I have faith in our Constitution and do not believe we should preclude judges from hearing issues of social relevance, simply because we may disagree with their ultimate decisions. While the courts may, from time to time, produce a ruling we question, the principle of judicial review is essential to maintaining the integrity of our system of checks and balances and I fear the path we appear to be on. We are a Nation under God, and in Him we trust.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding the veto. I urge my colleagues to join in voting to override the Presidential veto of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I am disappointed the President used his first veto on legislation that has the potential to help millions of Americans affected by debilitating illnesses. I do not believe history will judge his decision kindly. When the President first allowed this research to go forward in 2001, he could argue that he was setting up reasonable restrictions. I think today it is clear those restrictions are burdensome, ideologically driven and threaten our status as the preeminent country for medical research. I appreciate that my Leadership has allowed fair debate on this bill and an up-or-down vote, and hope that in the future we will be successful in helping this research to advance.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, Hamas and Hezbollah attacks against one of our closest friends and best allies, Israel, are acts of war, and they have Iran and Syria's fingerprints all over them. As chairman of the National Security Subcommittee with direct focus on the Middle East and the Islamist terrorists that breed there, I am grateful we are promptly considering this bipartisan resolution to say to Israel, to the international community, and, most importantly, to the terrorists and the nations who support them that this Congress unequivocally stands by Israel. We condemn the terror attacks against it, and we pray for the peaceful resolution of this crisis and to the end to the loss of innocent lives on both sides. The prisoner exchange called for by some must be put off the table. Doing so legitimizes Hamas and Hezbollah's actions and will only embolden them and the Syrian and Iranian Governments that back them to launch similar attacks in the future. The resolution of this crisis must include the nonnegotiable safe return of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers, and the guarantee of the security of Israel's borders, including the full implementation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a Constitutional amendment drafted not to protect my marriage or my family--I see no reasonable way to argue it would--but rather to explicitly deny a portion of our society the right to marry and the benefits that accompany that kind of partnership. I do not advocate the legalization of gay marriage, but our Constitution is simply not the proper place to set this kind of social policy. I believed back in 1996, when I voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, and I still believe today, the decision about whether to recognize gay marriage should be left to the states. I can't help but wonder . . . Why are we doing this? What are we so afraid of? Gay men and women pass through our lives every day. There are wonderful teachers and leaders and role models who happen to be gay and sometimes we don't even know they're gay. I wouldn't be a Member of Congress today if it weren't for an extraordinary teacher I had in High School 40 years ago. I learned years later he was gay and that he had commuted from Connecticut to Washington, DC, every weekend in part to protect his privacy and his job. When I went to college, my understanding of gay people was impacted again by my wife's best friend. One day, she told us she too had found the love of her life. We were eager to meet the boyfriend she was so madly in love with, but we soon learned her love was not a he, but a she. Once we got over our surprise and our ways of thinking about relationships, we were able to sincerely rejoice in the joy they brought each other because we knew what a dear and good person our friend is. My perception of gay people evolved further during my first campaign for Congress, when I worked with a magnificent young man named Carl Brown. He became my friend and he gave me another gay face to know. Carl has since passed away, but I remember him as a person of exceptional dignity and grace. My teacher, my wife's best friend and Carl helped me understand their lives and I think made me a better person in the process. The Constitution of the United Staets--which established our government, grants us free speech and gives all citizens the right to vote--should not be dishonored by this effort to write indiscrimination. I am sensitive to some of my colleague's concerns about potential biblical and social implications of legalizing same-size marriage, but I oppose this proposed amendment because I believe the Constitution is not the proper instrument to set--or reject--such policy. That debate should happened in our state legislatures.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, today we debated a constitutional amendment drafted not to protect my marriage or my family, I see no reasonable way to argue it would, but rather to explicitly deny a portion of our society the right to marry and the benefits that accompany that kind of partnership. I do not advocate the legalization of gay marriage, but our Constitution is simply not the proper place to set this kind of social policy. I believed back in 1996 when I voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and I still believe today the decision about whether to recognize gay marriage should be left to the States. I can't help but wonder why we are doing this. What are we so afraid of? Gay men and women pass through our lives every day. They are wonderful teachers and leaders and role models who happen to be gay, and sometimes we don't even know they are gay. There are brave men and women buried in Arlington National Cemetery who happen to be gay. I wouldn't be a Member of Congress today if it weren't for an extraordinary teacher I had in high school 40 years ago. I learned years later he was gay and that he had to commute from Connecticut to Washington, D.C. to be with his partner every weekend, in part to protect his privacy and his job. When I went to college, my understanding of gay people was impacted again by my wife's best friend. One day she told us that she, too, like my wife and I, had found the love of her life. We were eager to meet the boyfriend she was so madly in love with. But we soon learned her love was not a he, but a she. Once we got over our surprise and our ways of thinking about relationships, we were able to sincerely rejoice in the joy they brought each other because we knew what a dear and good person our friend is. My perception of gay people evolved further during my first campaign for Congress when I worked with a magnificent young man named Carl Brown. He became my friend, and he gave me another gay face to know. Carl has since passed away from AIDS, but I remember him as a person of exceptional dignity and grace. My teacher, my wife's best friend, and Carl helped me understand their lives and I think made me a better person in the process. The Constitution of the United States, which established our government, grants us free speech and gives all citizens the right to vote, should not be dishonored by this effort to write in discrimination. I am clearly sensitive to some of my colleagues' concerns about potential biblical and social implications of legalized same-sex marriage, but I oppose this proposed amendment because I believe the Constitution is not the proper instrument to set or reject such policy. That debate should happen in our State legislatures.