Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act.

This legislation is an important step in gathering the most current research to implement the vision of fuel independence and energy efficiency set forth by this Congress.

I commend the hard work of my colleague from Tennessee, the chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, Mr. Gordon, who has brought forth this legislation, and the ranking member and I look forward to its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to this legislation today because I feel that as we move forward with energy reform, it is important to recognize the tremendous contributions to scientific research and academia made by land grant institutions, historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions and other minority-serving institutions.

This amendment specifically recommends that the assistant administrator of the Office of Research and Development of the Environmental Protection Agency utilize the wealth of knowledge currently available at the research-oriented universities throughout our great Nation.

As a graduate of Fisk University and Florida A&M University, I have seen firsthand the outstanding research generated by faculty and students alike. An example of these contributions at Florida A&M is the Environmental Sciences Institute. The institute has consistently partnered with Federal agencies to furnish informative environmental policy research. The research has included 40 publications during the 2005-2006 academic year and the services of Dr. Larry Robinson on the National Research Council.

Fisk University also embodies this important mission in its designations as a core research center for NASA and international recognition as a scientific research institution.

And since we are dealing with energy, I would urge that the president of Fisk University is the former Secretary of the Department of Energy.

The recent development of the Center for Physics and Chemistry of Materials has established an outstanding resource for chemistry studies with the support of the National Science Foundation and the Department of Defense. This center generates over 34 publications a year and holds several patents for application by the United States Air Force.

Mr. Chairman, I am confident that this amendment will emphasize the importance and value of the research conducted by the phenomenal network of Land Grant Institutions and other universities represented by many of us in this great Congress. It is vital that we acknowledge the role of research institutions as community partners in the implementation of congressional mandates.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to foster these partnerships for a prosperous future of responsible energy use.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The only thing that I am pointing out is the significance of land grant institutions. I think the gentleman makes a valid point, but this doesn't obviate the point that you are making.

I am amused by your bemusement. At the very same time, I certainly understand the dynamic you have put forward. If you choose to make such an amendment and if 434 other Members and the Delegates choose to do so, I would assume that is their responsibility. I am discharging mine.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the hard work and commitment of the Keiser family. Evelyn Keiser was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and graduated from Temple University. She was one of the first women in the United States to receive a Bachelors Degree in Medical Technology.

Evelyn Keiser moved to south Florida in 1961 and co-founded Keiser College in 1977. Art & Belinda Keiser, along with Evelyn, have continued to serve our community by providing superior education through Keiser College, now known as Keiser University.

The Keiser Family continues to contribute to Broward County and the State of Florida, not only through their educational institutions, but also through philanthropy. Keiser University will celebrate their 30th Anniversary in 2007.

Madam Speaker, I proclaim January 31, 2007, as Keiser University Day in the 23rd Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the resolution of the distinguished gentleman.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 86, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 78) amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to permit Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to the Congress to cast votes in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be bringing this bill to the House floor today. This minor change in House rules represents a major step forward for the nearly 5 million Americans whose voice is not currently represented on the floor of this House. That is right, Madam Speaker, 5 million Americans go unrepresented on the floor of the people's House.

This is one of the few things we can do for the American body politic that is not only the right thing to do, it is easy to do as well.

One of the most simple, yet eloquent and powerful statements in support of what we will do today was made by one of our former colleagues several years ago. Ben Blaz served in this House for 8 years as the delegate from Guam in the mid-1980s and early 1990s.

Delegate Blaz is a man of unquestioned patriotism and uncommon valor. He retired from the Marine Corps with the rank of brigadier general, and during his time in the corps he was awarded the Legion of Merit, a Bronze Star with Combat V and the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry.

I give you a little background on the former Delegate so that our colleagues can have some context when I tell you what General Blaz had to say at one time on this House floor. What the general said about his status in the House and the faith of his fellow Guamanians was this: ``We are equal in war, but not in peace.''

So it is today, Madam Speaker. Over the past several months, and as recently as this week, in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan, young Americans from Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C. have fought and died in defense of their country and in service to the Nation they love. In the helicopter that crashed last week, two from the Virgin Islands were on that helicopter and lost their lives.

And yet our colleagues, Mr. Fortuno from Puerto Rico, Dr. Christensen from the Virgin Islands, Mr. Faleomavaega from American Samoa, Ms. Bordallo from Guam and Ms. Norton, from Washington, D.C., have no right to cast a vote and be a voice for their constituents and our fellow Americans out on the battlefield.

But, you know, Madam Speaker, I may be overstating the importance of this modest rules change. It is, after all, more symbolism than substance. Yes, our colleagues who I just mentioned will finally be able to cast a vote on the House floor, but, and this should be the clincher for my Republican friends who generally prefer to see democracy squelched in the people's House, if a vote cast by a Delegate or the Resident Commissioner or by them collectively amounts to the deciding votes on a question before the

House, then the vote is retaken without permitting them to participate.

So who could possibly be opposed to giving our colleagues, arguably some of the most gifted and thoughtful legislators in this Chamber, the right to cast a nondecisive vote on the House floor? I mean, that really should be done.

Let me close for now by doing something I don't often do here, and that is to quote the current President of the United States. Last night, Madam Speaker, standing where you are, not 25 feet from where I stand today, the distinguished President of the United States, President Bush, said, ``This is a decent and honorable country.''

What we are trying to do on the House floor today, colleagues, is the decent and honorable thing to do.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished Chair of the Judiciary Committee.

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I would merely urge the gentleman to recognize that Puerto Rico has 4 million citizens, and I don't know what planet he is living on, but everybody in the District of Columbia pays taxes. And I don't understand this continuing argument. I am curious to know what would happen if Dallas, Texas, didn't have the right to vote in the House.

I would also remind the gentleman that the United States District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has already ruled that this matter is not unconstitutional.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), my good friend and classmate who is the Chair of the Small Business Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2

minutes to the distinguished chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus and my good friend from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to a continuing champion of this subject for 3\3/4\ minutes, the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, most deserving of statehood, Ms. Norton.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished woman from the Virgin Islands, my good friend, Dr. Christensen.

Madam Speaker, before yielding, I would just like for my distinguished colleague to reference two cases, Michaels v. Anderson, and the action of the United States District Court.

And since you are so worried about the constitutionality, I would just urge that you read those two cases; it may add clarity.

I wish I had the time.

Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact, with your permission, how much time do we have?

Perhaps you can get some time from your side.

With that in mind, I had the good fortune, Madam Speaker, of traveling on two different occasions to American Samoa. I never met people that were more inclined to be patriots than the people of American Samoa. I had the good fortune of traveling there on each of those occasions with the gentleman now that I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to, my very good friend from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavega).

(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I heard someone say the vote counts, and it doesn't count. But every time I see the scroll indicating that another American soldier has died, that is a count that adds up, and that count is firm. The people of, the residents of Puerto Rico and the Delegates lose the lives of their soldiers in that count along with those of us from the respective States.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds merely to respond to the distinguished minority leader that we offered in the Rules Committee a motion that they denied, and that was to have an opportunity to have a substitute. An amendment was made in order if the gentleman had chosen to make that amendment, and he chose not to.

But I say to those who argue that there is symbolism involved here that indeed there is. But death is more than symbolism. Death is real, and the persons who die that come from the 5 million persons that these Delegates and the Resident Commissioner represent are real people. They and their families need this symbolism.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield the balance of our time to the distinguished gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, do we have any time remaining at all?

In that 15 seconds, I would ask my friends, the

Delegates, if they would just stand and have America know something, that I am getting ready to cast a vote for them. They cannot cast a vote for themselves. How long does it take for 5 million people to be represented in this body?

I thank my colleagues.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. We must be mindful in the creation of long-term energy alternatives for the future of our nation, as the acronym CLEAN denotes. I am honored to be among my many esteemed colleagues as an original cosponsor of this legislation.

At this juncture, we must move beyond the obvious motivations for responsible energy policies. As my colleagues have acknowledged, scarcity of resources, national security, greenhouse gas emissions, and the impact of oil exploration top the list of concerns addressed by this legislation. However, we must also acknowledge the true impact of these challenges on our nation's most vulnerable populations. In this sense, progressive energy policy is inextricably linked with the pursuit of true environmental justice.

Madam Speaker, my support for this legislation is founded in a profound desire to confront the diminishing life changes and debilitating health conditions attributed to polluting energy sources. Asthma has significantly increased over the past few decades, especially among African American populations. In 2004, 17 percent of African Americans under the age of 18 lived with asthma compared to only 11 percent of their white counterparts. On behalf of our children, we must understand the root cause of this disparity and take action to pursue alternative sources of energy for posterity.

Furthermore, I support the thrust of this legislation because it discourages extraction from offshore oil and natural gas reserves. I stand with many of my constituents in acknowledging that the pursuit of these resources has the potential to cause life-threatening accidents and irreversible environmental damage to our Outer Continental Shelf. Rescinding incentives for this form of oil and natural gas production set forth in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act will undoubtedly protect our fragile marine ecosystems and stimulate the quest for alternative energy sources.

Madam Speaker, complemented by other pieces of legislation, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 will bring accountability to the industries responsible for many environmental injustices and shift our nation away from a defunct paradigm of reliance on irresponsible energy sources. A new age for energy use is upon us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan bill, H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Negotiation Act of 2007. This quality, sound bill enjoys support not only from Members from both side of the aisle, but also from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Consumer's Union, the AFL-CIO and Families USA. Most important, the majority of Americans are in favor of the principles set forth in this bill.

For generations, among Democrats' top priorities has been to make healthcare more affordable for all Americans. I stand here today, as an exceedingly proud cosponsor of this bill that will take steps toward accomplishing just this. H.R. 4 fights for what is fair and right for our Nation's seniors, and fixes the Medicare prescription drug program as we know it today.

The current prescription drug plan has kept costs high and created needless confusion for the 22.5 million seniors who chose to enroll in Medicare Part D. This number doesn't even begin to contemplate the millions who did not enroll, perhaps because of the complexity of the benefit.

The present Medicare Part D forbids the government from negotiating affordable drug prices at the expense and well being of our seniors. So, while big companies like WalMart receive deals on prescription drugs, the American people can not. According to findings from Families USA, the law's current ban on bargaining for lower drug prices had caused seniors on Medicare to pay significantly more for their drugs.

The history behind the current defective drug plan, introduced by Republicans in 2003, was one of the most corruptive abuses of the legislative process in all of our lifetimes. In the middle of the night, while most Americans were sleeping, Republicans snuck this bill in, loaded with giveaways for the drug and insurance companies. And using their signature scare tactics, the Republican leadership bullied the rest of their party to pass this bill after holding a 15 minute vote open for 3 hours!

Mr. Speaker, such an abuse of legislative power is immoral and wrong. I am pleased to say that such abuse ended when Democrats took up the gavel.

With Democrats in the driver's seat, seniors across America will be a part of new drug plan. A drug plan that will be tailored to America's seniors--and not the big drug companies who are now reporting record profits.

The current Medicare Prescription drug program is not the best we can do for our seniors. Improvement clearly needed to be made to Medicare Part D, to make it more affordable and fair for its beneficiaries.

The comprehensive and affordable plan being passed today is an important step forward toward alleviating seniors' prescription drug price concerns. The bill repeals the provision that bans the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HRS) from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices, and instead requires the Secretary to develop a workable negotiation process to secure affordable drug prices. Now, for instance, where private plans have failed to rein in outrageous drug prices, the Secretary will be allowed to use his bargaining power with the drug companies.

Contrary to Republicans' claim that this bill would destroy the free market system, today's New York Times editorial page notes that, the bill ``is sufficiently flexible to allow older Americans to benefit from the best efforts of both the government and the private drug plans.''

Moreover, by requiring Medicare to negotiate rates with drug companies, the leftover

funds can be used to fill in beneficiaries' coverage gap. Reducing the gap, known as the doughnut hole, would lower those beneficiaries' out of pocket costs.

But this bill, while imperative and necessary, is only the first step towards improving the Medicare system.

Our seniors deserve a real comprehensive prescription drug plan; one that will be simpler, cheaper, more reliable, and with less ``holes'' than the former devastating plan.

My fellow Democrats don't merely have a 100-hour plan to fix the rising costs of prescription drugs. We have a long-term agenda on how to fix our Nation's heath care system. And we are ready to work with the President and Republicans in Congress to provide true relief and real choices for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Haitian Protection Act of 2007.

This important piece of legislation would designate Haitian nationals as eligible for Temporary Protected Status (TPS),

The creation of TPS was intended to serve as the statutory embodiment of safe haven for those who are fleeing--or reluctant to return to--a potentially dangerous situation in their country of origin.

According to section 244A of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990, TPS may be granted when: there is ongoing armed conflict posing a serious threat to personal safety; it is requested by a foreign state that temporarily cannot handle the return of nationals due to environmental disaster; or extraordinary and temporary conditions in a foreign state exist which prevent aliens from returning.

Haiti meets all three of these requirements for designation; and yet, not once have Haitian nationals qualified for TPS.

Madam Speaker, there are currently nine countries that are protected under the TPS provision: Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Burundi, Somalia, Sudan, and Liberia. Within the past year, all nine countries have obtained status renewal for an additional twelve months because it has been determined by the Department of Homeland Security that the country in question is unable to handle the return of its nationals due to varying circumstances.

Last year, during the 109th Congress, I wrote to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regarding the unfair treatment of Haitian nationals by current U.S. Immigration policies.

In response to my letter, DHS stated that before they could make a decision to grant TPS to Haiti, they had to determine whether there was ``(1) an ongoing armed conflict within the foreign state posing a serious threat to the personal safety of the country's nationals if returned there; (2) an environmental disaster, such as an earthquake, flood, drought, or epidemic in the state; or (3) extraordinary and temporary conditions in the foreign state that prevent nationals from returning safely.''

After assessing the aforementioned factors as they apply to Haiti, DHS has taken the following stance: ``Decisions on these requests will be made on a case-by-case basis based on the specific circumstances involved when requested.''

Madam Speaker, Haiti's recent political, civil, and governmental crises, as well as the extraordinary and temporary conditions caused by several natural disasters, easily make Haitian nationals currently in the United States eligible for TPS.

Any major storm that hits Florida almost always crashes through Haiti first, taking lives and leaving cities already impoverished from the previous year's storms, further devastated.

Throughout Haiti, vast deforestation leaves the country extremely vulnerable to mudslides from heavy rains. It is now 2007 and Haiti still remains severely devastated by the aftermath of Tropical Storm Jeanne, Hurricane Ivan, and serious floods throughout the region that occurred in 2004. The loss of life in Haiti is all but too common, and unfortunately overlooked, when natural disasters whip through the region.

The death toll that resulted from the combination of these natural disasters reached over 7,500. In addition, an estimated 250,000 people were left homeless across the country and at least 4,000 homes were destroyed, with thousands more damaged as a result of the storm.

The Haitian government's ability to provide basic governmental services--clean water, education, passable roads and basic healthcare-- is still severely compromised by these natural disasters. Repatriating Haitians at this time imposes an additional burden on government resources that are already stretched too thin.

Concerning stability and overall safety, Haiti is still in dire need of an adequate policing force to maintain order and halt the escalation in kidnappings that are plaguing the nation.

As of January 2007, the Department of State continues to advise Americans that current conditions in Haiti make it unsafe to travel due to the potential for looting, the possibility of random violent crime, and the serious threat of kidnapping for ransom. The warning goes on to state that more than 50 American citizens, including children, have been kidnapped over the past year.

Madam Speaker, if it is unsafe for our citizens to travel to Haiti, then those same conditions should make it much too dangerous and inappropriate to forcibly repatriate Haitians at this time. It is unfortunate and appalling that our current immigration policies hold such harmful double standards.

I want to make it very clear that I acknowledge and heartily congratulate Haiti's shift toward recovery, as seen by the successful democratic elections held throughout 2006.

However, President Preval's nascent democratic government still faces immense challenges in regards to rebuilding Haiti's police and judicial institutions to achieve the fair and prompt tackling of the ongoing political and criminal violence.

Most recently there has been a sharp increase in common crime, especially kidnappings which continue to plague the capital and other cities and regions.

The absence of security and failure of police and the judicial system to function effectively only makes matters worse.

In addition to safety and human rights considerations, halting the deportation of Haitians is also an economic matter.

Under the law, TPS beneficiaries are eligible to obtain work authorization permits. The ability for Haitian Nationals to legally work in the United States put them in a position to contribute to their country's reform and development until such time it is safe for their return to Haiti.

Madam Speaker, the Haitian Diaspora has always played a pivotal role in assisting Haiti. It is widely known that Haitians residing in the United States often work three jobs to send money back to Haiti each month. Many Haitians in the United States often send remittances to support family members, and others travel home to lend their expertise toward rebuilding and humanitarian efforts.

Designating Haiti under TPS status would preserve and increase remittances--over a billion dollars a year--from the Haitian Diaspora to relatives and communities in Haiti that are key for welfare, survival, and recovery.

Haiti is more dependent than any other country on remittances--nearly a billion dollars a year--sent home by Haitians in the United States. Remittances to Haiti far exceed foreign aid.

Many Haitian Nationals in the United States who previously sustained relatives in Haiti through remittances, are being deported, further depriving Haiti of an important source of financial aid that is well- positioned to assist when based here in the United States.

Madam Speaker, by refusing to give Haiti the TPS designation, our inequitable immigration policies continue to send a clear message:

The safety of Haitian lives is not a priority compared to a Honduran, Liberian or Sudanese life.

We must act to change this perception. Our immigration policies have to change; they must reflect fairness and treat Haitians equally to Nicaraguans, Hondurans, and Salvadorans whose deportations are suspended and who are allowed to work and support their families back home.

Madam Speaker, Haiti is making great strides to recover and rebuild. We cannot reward their efforts by kicking this country, and its people, down when they are doing everything possible to bring their country out of chaos and destruction.

The election of President Preval in February 2006, and the election shortly thereafter of a national legislature which promptly confirmed his cabinet nominees, along with the broad internal and international support which this new democratic government enjoys, makes it imperative that the United States seize every current opportunity to assist that government to succeed.

Many in Haiti, as well as the Haitian Diaspora worldwide, need us to reach beyond what has been done before and demand for more.

The Haitian Protection Act of 2007 is necessary to achieve fundamental fairness in our treatment of Haitian immigrants and remedy the accurate and widespread perception that U.S. policy has discriminated against them.

Madam Speaker, we cannot miss this opportunity to help Haiti stabilize its economy, rebuild its political and economic institutions, and provide a future of hope for Haiti's people.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and urge the House Leadership to bring it swiftly to the House floor for consideration.

Mr. Speaker, my good friend, Dr. Gingrey, speaking just a moment ago, said, stand up and be the men and women that you should be.

Let me tell you, I heard my other colleague, Mr. Sessions, talk about all this wonderful bipartisanship that took place for 12 years. Well, I have been here 14, and all I know is rancor and disagreement and very little in the way of bipartisan spirit that has been engendered here in this body.

But let me talk about this business about closed rules. It was understood that in the ``Six for '06'' that the rules would be closed. I assure you, and everyone else has, that there will be more open rules than you provided. You had 195 total rules in the 109th Congress. Twenty-two open rules. Twenty-two open rules, 20 of which were appropriations bills, only truly open. And you had 50 closed rules, 67 restrictive rules, 26 conference report rules and 30 procedural rules. We will match you in time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 506 of House Resolution 6, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 35) to enhance intelligence oversight authority, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, better known as the 9/11 Commission, made several recommendations on steps that the government could take in order to prevent and prepare for future terrorist attacks.

In particular, the Commission said, and I quote, ``Congressional oversight for intelligence and counter terrorism is dysfunctional. Congress should address this problem. We have considered various alternatives: A joint committee on the old model of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy is one. A single committee, in each House of Congress, combining authorizing and appropriating authorities is another.'' End of quote.

Subsequent to the report, commissioners also suggested creating a new appropriations subcommittee dealing only with intelligence matters. It is my pleasure today to see the House implement this recommendation from the 9/11 Commission.

This House rules change, by creating a Select Intelligence Oversight Panel within the House Appropriations Committee, responds to the commission's recommendation by creating a new panel that is made up of members of both the Appropriations Committee and the Intelligence Committee.

The Select Intelligence Oversight Panel will strengthen the oversight process by providing a mechanism for considering intelligence funding and the way appropriated funds are spent on intelligence activities from the combined perspectives of the Appropriations and Intelligence committees. The Select Intelligence Oversight Panel will be primarily responsible for reviewing and studying, including through the hearings process, the President's budget submission for intelligence and the execution of intelligence activities.

The committee will also be tasked with making recommendations to the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and to other Appropriations subcommittees on intelligence programs, projects, and activities. Moreover, this new panel will, on an annual basis, prepare a report to the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee containing budgetary and oversight observations and recommendations for use by the subcommittee in preparation of the classified annex to the Defense Appropriations Bill.

I see that the Republican members of the Rules Committee, in a letter to the chair lady of that committee, are complaining that we are not allowing the committee process to work its will, and that it is unfair to the Republican side. I would say, to paraphrase Shakespeare, ``They do protest too much, methinks.''

The 9/11 Commission report was published more than 2\1/2\ years ago. Aside from sitting on their collective thumbs, what did the Republicans do on this specific recommendation? Nothing, much like what they did on the rest of the 9/11 report.

Okay. Fine. The President now claims the right to open every citizen's mail without judicial approval. The President says he can listen to every citizen's phone calls without judicial approval. Oh, and read everyone's e-mails too, without judicial approval. But I don't remember those being recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Madam Speaker, we are doing this for the security of our Nation and our people. As I said at the outset, this was in large part a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.

Now, I see my friend from California, and he is my friend, about ready to speak. And I would simply say to the ranking member, maybe you should ask the families of the 9/11 victims if they think Congress should spend another 2 years debating action and then taking none, or whether we should take action and move forward on behalf of the families affected by those terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the rest of the country that is looking for results, not rancor.

No more rancor, Madam Speaker. No rhetoric, Madam Speaker. Results. That is what the American people have asked for, and that is what we will deliver.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would remind my good friend from San Dimas that you had 2\1/2\ years to introduce these measures, and you did nothing.

The Members of the 9/11 Commission support this change. I saw one of them this morning, Lee Hamilton; and all of them are on board with the change that they recommended.

But perhaps since we have had so much rhetoric, and we need some guidance for results, we can ask the author of the legislation if he would give us information on this measure.

Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to tell each side how much time remains.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, my good friend Silvestre Reyes.

Madam Speaker, before yielding to the next speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 35.

Madam Speaker, before yielding again, I would just remind my colleagues my good friend from New Mexico says that we shouldn't merge this committee. My good friend from San Dimas, California, says that we should merge this committee, which kind of demonstrates that the Republicans are capable of falling off the same horse from both sides, all things considered.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, a member of the Committee on Intelligence, my good friend, Rush Holt.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds before yielding to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York.

My colleague, the ranking member, just said he did not say he supported combining these functions, and yet here is his signature on his legislation that does just that. That is what I was talking about when I said that is disingenuous.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), my friend and classmate.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to my classmate and very good friend, a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence that I have served with, my good friend from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), with whom I have served on the Select Committee on Intelligence as well.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Do you support the legislation that you filed?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would first like to respond to my good friend and say to him that I am awfully glad you did not accept the recommendation of your staff member that my words be taken down with reference to the comments that you made. Let me repeat for you what I said. I said and I quote, ``Mr. Dreier just said he did not say that he supported combining these functions. And yet here is his signature on his legislation that does just that.''

No.

Let me read from Mr. Dreier's House Resolution 30. You said there is established a select intelligence oversight panel of the Committee on Appropriations. The select panel shall be composed of not more than 14 Members, delegates or the resident commissioner appointed by the Speaker. The select panel shall include the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Defense, six additional members of the Committee on Appropriations, and four members on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

That is the exact same thing Mr. Obey is doing with the exception of the constitution of the number on the committee.

I would be more than pleased to yield to my friend because I don't like the characterization that you put forward that I am being disingenuous by saying that you are disingenuous and that you were going to take my words down.

I need time to respond to Mr. LaHood as well. He commented on the nomenclature of the intelligence committee, and his comment was that I know better. And he knows that I know that the nomenclature is difficult because he and I were on that steep learning curve, he before me, and I had to learn as well.

But I can tell him that Mr. Murtha and Mr. Young know that nomenclature as well as you and I do, Ray, and you know that.

If I have time at the end, I will yield.

As I said before, this is a specific recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. I am proud that the House Democrats can again do more in 1 week than Republicans were able to do in the last 2\1/2\ years since the 9/11 Commission made their report. The gentleman that I have already referenced knows of what I speak.

With that, I yield to my friend.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, nobody said that, Mr. Dreier.

Reclaiming my time, as I said earlier to my friend, I enjoy our banter and I can suggest to him that being in the minority is going to be a very long 2 years for you.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the minority leader, my friend, or his designee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Title IV of our rules package is one of the ones of which I am most proud. Over the past 12 years, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, while allegedly praying to the gods of fiscal responsibility, have nearly sunk our ship of state in red ink. Today we begin to right this ship and staunch the unmitigated gall of telling the American people that, on the one hand, they need to be more responsible with their money, but, on the other hand, Congress should face no such obstacle.

Today we will say ``no more'' to spending money that the government doesn't have, only to pass down to the young people of America, some of whom we saw here yesterday afternoon, passing it on to them before they even have a say in how their money is being spent.

Yes, today we say to the American people that Congress, like you at home, Jane and Joe Lunchbucket, will not spend money that we don't have. Our credit card is maxed out and we start to reduce it today.

My fellow Democratic colleagues will provide more details about this new set of House rules presently, but there is one more point I want to make perfectly clear. I am not going to, and I hope my colleagues aren't going to listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle lecture us about not doing enough here today.

I have read some of their ``talking points'' from the Budget Committee. And while I may not be a whiz kid, I know a little something about being lectured to.

And having this particular group of Republicans lecture us on fiscal responsibility is a little like having the horses on the farm complain to the ranch hand that he is not using a big enough shovel to clean up.

This analogy is not only appropriate, Mr. Speaker, it is perfect.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, for purpose of debate only, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, one of the true rising stars in Democratic politics today, Heath Shuler.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the distinguished budget chairperson, I want to respond to Mr. Ryan by saying, we don't have a spending revenue problem. I would remind him, when he said that, that he and his colleagues, with this President, have run up a debt larger than the previous 42 Presidents combined.

No problem, Mr. Ryan? Please.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished budget chairman, who knows more about this process than all the rest of the Members in this body combined, Mr. Spratt.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to a gentleman that was a sheriff that had to pay as he went with reference to equipment for his department, Brad Ellsworth from Indiana.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to one of 13 members of the physicians in the House of Representatives, the distinguished colleague, my friend, Mr. Kagen.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to one of the co-chairs of the Blue Dogs, my friend from California (Mr. Cardoza).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend from Utah (Mr. Matheson). Jim came here fighting for fiscal responsibility and continues that effort.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Bush administration has turned a projected 10-year $5.6 billion surplus into a nearly $3 trillion deficit, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would come here and complain that we are cleaning up their mess.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from California, the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Schiff.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to a gentleman from Indiana whose committee was called, ``Bring back Baron'' and I am very glad we brought back Baron.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I say to my friend from Georgia that what I do know is he is not proud of the $3 trillion deficit that his party ran up in this country that we have the responsibility of cleaning up. I hope he is not proud of that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, a new Member, whose district abuts mine, Mr. Mahoney.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

(Ms. BEAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wilson).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I would say to Mr. Ryan that the Democrats are 2 days in the majority. The Republicans were 12 years in the majority with the purse strings, and this deficit ran up on your watch.

On the second day that we are here talking about what we are going to do as a first step to clean up your mess, you would complain? Cut me some slack.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) such time as he may consume.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Pay-as-you-go was the law of the land from 1990 until 2002, paving the way for a balanced budget in the late 1990s, 4 years of budget surpluses, and bringing down the national debt by $453 billion. The Bush administration has turned a projected 10-year $5.6 billion surplus into a nearly $3 trillion deficit. America's debt has already climbed 50 percent to more than $28,000 per person, and President Bush has borrowed more from foreign nations than the previous 42 United States Presidents combined.

Something has to change and that change is coming now. The pay-as- you-go budgeting with no new deficit spending is just a first step, a key first step, in reversing record budget deficits.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, House rules allowing for cosponsors have yet to be adopted. Therefore, I would submit this list of cosponsors for House Resolution 6 for the Record.

Pursuant to clause 7 of Rule XII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following sponsors are hereby added

to H. Res. 6.

Louise Slaughter, David Obey, John Spratt, Zach Space,

Chris Carney, Baron Hill, Heath Shuler, Steny Hoyer, James

Clyburn, Rahm Emanuel, John Larson, Xavier Becerra, Chris Van

Hollen, Rosa DeLauro, George Miller, Jim McGovern, Alcee

Hastings, Doris Matsui, Kathy Castor, Betty Sutton, Peter

Welch.

Gary Ackerman, Tom Allen, Jason Altmire, Rob Andrews,

Michael Arcuri, Joe Baca, Brian Baird, Tammy Baldwin, Melissa

Bean, Shelley Berkley, Howard Berman, Marion Berry, Tim

Bishop, Earl Blumenauer, Madeleine Bordallo, Leonard Boswell,

Nancy Boyda, Robert Brady, Bruce Braley.

G.K. Butterfield, Lois Capps, Mike Capuano, Dennis Cardoza,

Russ Carnahan, Ben Chandler, Donna Christensen, Yvette

Clarke, Emanuel Cleaver, Steve Cohen, John Conyers, Jim

Cooper, Joe Courtney, Joe Crowley, Henry Cuellar, Elijah

Cummings, Susan Davis, Danny Davis, Artur Davis, Lincoln

Davis.

Peter DeFazio, Diana DeGette, Bill Delahunt, Norm Dicks,

John Dingell, Lloyd Doggett, Joe Donnelly, Mike Doyle, Keith

Ellison, Brad Ellsworth, Anna Eshoo, Bob Etheridge, Eni

Faleomavaega, Sam Farr, Chaka Fattah, Bob Filner, Barney

Frank, Gabby Giffords, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bart Gordon.

Al Green, Gene Green, Raul Grijalva, John Hall, Phil Hare,

Jane Harman, Stephanie Herseth, Brian Higgins, Maurice

Hinchey, Mazie Hirono, Paul Hodes, Tim Holden, Michael Honda,

Darlene Hooley, Jay Inslee, Steve Israel, Jesse Jackson,

Sheila Jackson-Lee, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Hank Johnson.

Steve Kagen, Marcy Kaptur, Patrick Kennedy, Dale Kildee,

Ron Kind, Ron Klein, Dennis Kucinich, Nick Lampson, Jim

Langevin, Tom Lantos, Richard Larsen, Barbara Lee, Sander

Levin, John Lewis, Dan Lipinski, Dave Loebsack, Zoe Lofgren,

Stephen Lynch, Tim Mahoney, Carolyn Maloney.

Ed Markey, Carolyn McCarthy, Betty McCollum, Jim McDermott,

Mike McIntyre, Jerry McNerney, Mike McNulty, Martin Meehan,

Kendrick Meek, Michael Michaud, Juanita Millender-McDonald,

Harry Mitchell, Dennis Moore, Jim Moran, Chris Murphy,

Patrick Murphy, Jerry Nadler, Grace Napolitano, Eleanor

Holmes Norton, James Oberstar.

John Olver, Frank Pallone, Bill Pascrell, Ed Pastor, Donald

Payne, Ed Perlmutter, Collin Peterson, Earl Pomeroy, David

Price, Nick Rahall, Charlie Rangel, Silvestre Reyes, Ciro

Rodriguez, Mike Ross, Steve Rothman, Lucille Roybal-Allard,

Dutch Ruppersberger, Bobby Rush, Tim Ryan, John Salazar.

Linda Sanchez, John Sarbanes, Jan Schakowsky, Adam Schiff,

Allyson

Schwartz, David Scott, Jose Serrano, Joe Sestak, Carol Shea-

Porter, Brad Sherman, Albio Sires, Ike Skelton, Adam Smith,

Vic Snyder, Hilda Solis, Pete Stark, Ellen Tauscher, Bennie

Thompson, Mike Thompson, John Tierney.

Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Mark Udall, Tom Udall, Nydia

Velazquez, Tim Walz, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Maxine Waters,

Diane Watson, Henry Waxman, Anthony Weiner, Robert Wexler,

Charlie Wilson, Lynn Woolsey, David Wu, Al Wynn, John

Yarmuth, Rush Holt, Bobby Scott.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I enjoyed listening to my colleague and good friend, and he is my good friend, former chairman of the Rules Committee, speak about closed rules. Since he is the master of closed rules, I know he knows of what he speaks.

Title I of our rules package is, or at least should be, the least controversial part, as the ranking member has said, of what we are going to discuss over the next few hours. Title I is very simply the rules of the 109th Congress. We are taking the Republican rules from the last Congress and using this as our base. The changes we will make to improve on the previous Congress's rules will come later and will be discussed by the members of the Rules Committee. This section of the House rules package makes it clearer that the former chairperson of the Rules Committee, my friend from California, was being just a bit disingenuous when he said the other day that, and I quote him, we have not received even a draft, unquote, of the Democrats' rules. Of course he had, Mr. Speaker. They were the rules of the House that he helped draft as Chair of the Rules Committee 2 years ago. All we have done is taken the old House rules and improved them to make the House a more ethical, more democratic, more open institution.

Of course I will yield to my friend.

Now that you have.

Well, you helped make those rules, my good friend. Perhaps you didn't utilize the fact that you did as a draft. But in either event, I take it that I have made my point and you have made yours.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, many of the changes to House rules that our Republican colleagues did make in 1995 and subsequently, in my opinion, were good ones and some of them we have kept. Proxy voting in committees was eliminated. That was an excellent reform. We have kept it. It is in our rules package. You gave the Speaker emergency power to recess the House and convene in another place in case of a terrorist incident. That was a good reform, and it is in the package that we have offered. You prohibited public works projects being named for serving Members of Congress. That always kind of bothered me, and I am glad that you got rid of it, and it was a good reform and it is in our package.

So, Mr. Speaker, title I, I think, is pretty straightforward. I think we should all be able to agree on it, and the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee has indicated he agrees. They are the Republican rules of last Congress that today's majority agrees with, draft or no draft. We will get to the changes later. But title I are the rules that today's minority wrote 2 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I am glad my friend yields. You do agree that the rules that you wrote are the rules that are being adopted in this section that we are talking about?

Can I get a yes or no?

I object, and I reserve the right to object.

I reserve the right to object.

I just wish to share with Mr. Dreier in the spirit of bipartisanship that mincing words with reference to whether or not you knew that this portion of the draft of the 109th rules are those of the 110th actually don't even get to the level of substance that we ought be dealing with, with something as important as the rules.

You know the rules. I agree with you that that draft that you are talking about came from the 109th; but all I am suggesting to you is that you are not surprised by anything in title I, because you participated in writing it and, therefore, I think that the record should reflect that, notwithstanding the fact.

Now, I assure you, having served on the Rules Committee with you with distinction and respecting you greatly, that you can reasonably expect that you are not only going to have 24 hours notice, you are going to have a lot of notice regarding a lot of measures that we were never accorded. And, toward that end, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I will not object to your offer.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman has made his point.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

I want to assure my colleagues that this is not the intent of this provision. It is not intended to apply to a Member who is using her or his own airplane, whether or not it is on his personal campaign or official business. Specifically, it is not intended to apply to the use of the Members' representational allowance to reimburse a Member for mileage on his or her own airplane. We will work closely with the Ethics Committee and the Committees on House Administration to ensure that this is how these committees will interpret the rule.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida, my good friend, Kathy Castor, who is the first new Member to speak in the 110th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, who is my neighbor, Mr. Ron Klein, who I believe is speaking for the first time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today deeply concerned about the consistent delay of the commission members of the International Tracing Service (ITS) to permit Holocaust survivors and their families access to the millions of Holocaust records located at Bad Arolsen, Germany.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the nations who have yet to approve the recently agreed upon amendments to the Bonn Accords regarding these archives to give this issue the utmost elevated attention and to be made a top priority in their respective Parliaments.

The ITS Commission, comprised of the United States, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, and the United Kingdom, currently possesses nearly 50 million records documenting Holocaust victims and survivors experiences pre-World War II and during the Holocaust. The records are used to substantiate benefit claims by Holocaust survivors and their heirs and operate under the 1955 agreements, the Bonn Accords.

For the past decade, Holocaust researchers and most survivors have sought and failed to access the Bad Arolsen archive, because the ITS Commission believed it would violate the privacy of the survivors and their families.

Following years of delay, in May 2006, the Commission adopted amendments to the Bonn Accords permitting each Commission member to make the archives public and to receive a digitized copy of the Bad Arolsen archive, which they would be able to make available to researchers under their own country's respective privacy laws.

Unfortunately, 9 out of the 11 ITS Commission member nations have yet to ratify the amendments. With the express acknowledgement of the variance in each country's internal procedures, and the utmost respect for the letter of international law, I strongly encourage parliamentarians from other members of the ITS Commission to ratify the ITS amendments promptly so that the Bad Arolsen archives can be opened at the earliest possible date.

This ongoing delay is a further example of how the Holocaust survivors, who have been part of such unimaginable, horrendous genocide, and the greatest crime against humanity, are perpetually forced to endure severe obstacles and difficulties. Now, the few Holocaust survivors who are here with us today remain tormented by the unknown.

In the Holocaust's aftermath, there have been far too many demonstrations of survivors and heirs of Holocaust victims who have been

refused their moral and legal right to information, restitution of assets, or compensation for slave labor from the entities that profited during the Holocaust.

As the few remaining survivors pass away, many still pass away deprived of information concerning their loved ones and the assets that were rightfully theirs. Let us not continue to waste the precious time left for the remaining survivors. After all of the horrific acts to which they have been subjected, they are completely justified in uncovering the truth about their families and their loved ones without hassle or delay.

This issue is of particular importance to me, given the fact that South Florida is home to the second largest concentration of Holocaust survivors in the United States, and the third largest in the world outside of Israel.

Furthermore, as the President Emeritus of the Organization for Security and Cooperation Parliamentary Assembly in Europe (OSCE), I am committed to the issue of fair and just treatment of Holocaust survivors, and remain dedicated to the prevention of all bigotry, especially anti-Semitism.

Let us not forget that anti-Semitism has not diminished; if anything we have seen a resurgence in recent years. The threat or occurrence of anti-Semitism is still very real to many Jews in the United States and across the world.

Only last week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad held the second Holocaust denial conference in one year in Tehran; the latest in a series of abominable threatening and anti-Semitic, Holocaust denial statements and actions he has taken since he rose to power.

While extremist radicals may continue to spew such hatred and intolerance, I find it embarrassing that others who know better can turn their backs on the remaining Holocaust survivors or on the memory of those who perished in such a tragedy.

I can think of no better way to commemorate the 6 million murdered in the Holocaust, than for each and every international community member to seriously commit to monitor and combat anti-Semitic acts and promote Holocaust remembrance and education.

While tolerance takes time to teach, it is not too late for international member nations of the ITS Commission to assist the remaining Holocaust survivors and grant them direct access to the Bad Arolsen archives as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, we should never forget the horrific crimes of murder and destruction committed by the Nazis; and we must commit ourselves to ensuring that future generations shall never be forced to endure the suffering, humiliation, and ultimate death experienced by the victims of the Holocaust.

Holocaust Survivors'

Foundation--USA,

Miami, FL, December 18, 2006.

Congressman Alcee Hastings,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Hastings: We are Holocaust survivors, and

elected leaders of grass roots survivor organizations with

thousands of members in 15 states. As individual claimants

and class members, we have witnessed the failed enterprise

known as ``Holocaust asset restitution'' as it has proceeded

over the last decade, in litigation over and negotiations

over thefts and human exploitation by European manufacturers,

banks, insurance companies, railroads, and governments.

Sunday's important story in the Associated Press about the

monumental documentation of Nazi crimes at the Bad Arolsen

archive highlights the absurdity of the process survivors

have been forced to endure over this past decade.

One would have thought that Holocaust survivors, at the end

of our lives, would have been treated with the utmost respect

and dignity. In reality, however, much of what has passed for

``restitution'' has been the opposite of what we would have

expected, with catastrophic results. Instead, the process has

been driven by institutional and organizational imperatives,

instead of by the rights, interests, and priorities of the

survivors. Too often; these forays have yielded incomplete

information disclosure and absurdly low financial

compensation. Instead of being principals, we the survivors

have been treated as pawns. Instead of receiving dignity and

respect, we have received lip service and been patronized by

organizations, judges, executive branch officials, and

members of Congress.

Another hallmark of restitution, up until now, has been the

imperative to give European business and governmental

miscreants ``legal peace'' while calling for arbitrarily set

financial settlements to be doled out by institutions that

are self-interested or worse in their motives and practices.

For example, when the institutions and lawyers we didn't

selected ``settled'' with German industry, they agreed to

limit insurance claims against German industry to a

ridiculously low, arbitrary sum, without ever conducting an

audit of the amount of insurance theft by German insurers and

reinsurers. Now, it has been reported that class action

lawyers want to forgive Italian insurance giant Generali

without ever requiring full disclosure and disgorgement,

despite recent evidence that the company stole billions and

used the same punch card technology to manage its business

used by the Nazis in the Final Solution.

The media and Congress have ignored the fact that in almost

every instance, survivors have been denied access to the

necessary information required to mount full and effective

disgorgement of the ill-gotten gains of the European

plunderers. They have ignored the rush to judgment by

representatives we didn't select to close the books on

restitution. Now, with 16 miles of previously suppressed

documents from the Nazi period being made public, isn't it

time to halt the rush to judgment, the rush for ``closure,''

and require the full, transparent accounting that we

survivors are morally and legally entitled to move forward

without any further impediments? We call on all institutions

of good faith, in government, in the media, and in the

institutional world, to support us in our morally justified

demand for transparence and justice.

Israel Arbeiter, Boston, MA.

Nesse Godin, Washington, DC.

David Mermelstein, Miami, FL.

Alex Moskovic, Palm Beach, FL.

Leo Rechter, Flushing, NY.

David Schaecter, Miami, FL.

Henry and Anita Schuster, Las Vegas, NV.

Fred Taucher, Seattle, WA.

Lea Weems, Houston, TX.

Esther Widman, Brooklyn, NY.

Greater Miami

Jewish Federation,

Miami, FL, December 11, 2006.

Hon. Alcee Hastings,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Hastings: On November 25, Arthur Max,

Chief of the Amsterdam Bureau of the Associated Press,

published an astonishing report about the massive and

previously closed collection of information from the Nazi

death camps under the jurisdiction of the International Red

Cross and now located at Bad Arolsen, Germany. The scope of

the records reported by Mr. Max is breathtaking, as are the

moral and policy implications of the revelation.

South Florida is the home to the second largest

concentration of Holocaust survivors in the United States,

and the third largest in the world outside of Israel.

According to Mr. Max's report, survivors and their families

have been unjustly denied access to many of the records at

Bad Arolsen regarding their own experiences in the camps, or

those of their family members. We are mandated by history and

morality to remember that this greatest crime against

humanity was in fact millions of crimes against millions of

human beings, all of whom have the absolute right to receive

all of the unvarnished truth about their fate and the fate of

their loved ones they wish to learn about today.

We are also painfully aware that far too many examples

exist of survivors and heirs of Holocaust victims who have

attempted to obtain morally and legally justified restitution

of assets, or compensation for horrific slave labor from the

entities that profited from the Holocaust, only to be met

with rejections, and then, as added insult, to be denied

access to the available sources of information they are told

justify these rejections.

In addition, there is now abundant evidence that tens of

thousands of destitute survivors live in our midst, in the

United States and Canada, in Israel, in the Former Soviet

Union, in Europe and Australia, and in Latin America, and

that government, and community--and restitution-based

resources are inadequate to meet their basic human needs. In

the United States alone, there are over 45,000 Holocaust

survivors living near or below the federal poverty level, and

who cannot afford adequate nutrition, housing, home care,

medications, or simple and necessary devices such as

dentures, eyeglasses, or hearing aids. This is unthinkable

in the year 2006, but it is true. As the following chart

attests, these numbers are staggering, and widespread

around the world.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Survivors

living

Survivor below or

population near

poverty

line ------------------------------------------------------------------------ United States................................. 175,000 87,500 Israel........................................ 393,000 137,300 Former Soviet Union........................... 146,000 126,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sources: Sheskin, Estimates of the Number of Nazi Victims and Their

Economic Status, January 2004; Brodsky and DellaPergola, Health

Problems and Socioeconomic Neediness Among Jewish Shoah Survivors in

Israel, April 2005; American Joint Distribution Committee,

Presentation on the Condition and Needs of Jewish Nazi Victims in the

Former Soviet Union. January 2004.

We would hope that a thorough accounting of the real thefts

suffered by the families of the Holocaust would not only

allow for proper and overdue restitution to individuals, but

would be a step toward creating sufficient financial

resources to provide a dignified level of human existence for

every survivor in the world who needs or requests relief.

As leaders of our general and Jewish communities, locally

and nationally and even internationally, the Federation Board

believes that our generation owes the survivors the dignity

of justice in their final years.

In light of these compelling facts, we call upon Congress

to take all steps necessary to guarantee immediate access to

the Bad Arolsen archive by a qualified group of researchers

in order to create a comprehensive and accessible database of

information for all affected families without any further

delay. As a starting point, we urge you to bring together the

responsible U.S. and Red Cross officials to determine the

scope of the task and identify the personnel and resources to

make this information accessible as soon as humanly possible,

beginning immediately. If necessary, we are asking that

Congress enact legislation, with funding if necessary, for

the immediate completion of these tasks.

In addition, we ask the United States Congress to explore

and encourage any and all methods, including on an emergency

basis, legislation, to provide all survivors and heirs a full

opportunity to access the Bad Arolsen materials and to

utilize said materials in support of their claims without

regard to any previous denials or deadlines.

We look forward to working with you to complete this

historically and morally necessary task with the utmost

speed. You will find enclosed two relevant articles

pertaining to this letter. Please contact either one of us if

you have any questions or concerns or wish to discuss in more

detail.

Sincerely,

Saby Behar,

President.

Jacob Solomon,

Executive Vice President.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

(Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.

Madam Speaker, I yield 8\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who has been a leader in this area for some time here in the Congress

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of The U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act. As Chairman Henry Hyde said earlier in the year in the House Rules Committee, this is the single most important piece of legislation that has come through the International Relations Committee this year and we must do everything in our power to pass it today.

India, the world's largest democracy, and the United States, the world's oldest democracy, must come together and strengthen their friendship. After centuries of an unsteady relationship, there has been a dramatic improvement starting with the Clinton Administration and continuing today.

This bill tells India that we believe in them, and that we want to support them just like they have consistently supported us.

The Civilian Nuclear Initiative will deepen the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership. The initiative reflects U.S. trust in India as a global tactical partner and indicates our admiration for India's democratic traditions, her commitment to tolerance and her commitment to freedom.

I, as well as many of our colleagues, have had the great pleasure of traveling to the country of India on several different occasions. Any person who goes to India recognizes the crucial necessity of clean.

This legislation will provide production of clean energy and can potentially reduce further pollution on the environment through decreasing the dependency on fossil fuels. Civil nuclear cooperation is vital to the development of a clean and safe environment for our Indian friends.

As our distinguished colleague and incoming Chairman Tom Lantos said in July and no doubt will repeat shortly, India is a nuclear nonproliferator. India has pledged to identify and separate her civil and military nuclear facilities and programs and place the civil portions under IAEA safeguards.

India, America's strongest ally in the Southeast Asia region, is on the verge of an energy crisis. India is the sixth largest energy consumer in the world, but in order to maintain their strong economic growth, India's energy consumption will need to increase substantially.

The facts are astounding, and civilian nuclear cooperation is the only way India's energy can remain secure.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me first thank the distinguished Chair of the House Rules Committee, my very good friend, Mr. Dreier, for yielding me the time. As a point of personal privilege, Madam Speaker, let me take a moment to commend Chairman Dreier for his able stewardship of the Rules Committee over these past several years.

I consider David to have been, on balance, a very good chairman. He certainly is an institutionalist and someone who clearly understands the role of the United States and the United States Congress in the world today. He was given the challenge of running the Rules Committee at a particularly difficult juncture in congressional history.

David, it has been a pleasure to work with you, to travel with you, and to learn from you. I look forward to our continued work together, albeit with slightly different roles in the future.

Madam Speaker, as Chairman Dreier has already pointed out, this is a comprehensive and massive trade bill that is being brought to the House floor today. It was introduced in the House within the past few hours, and we are asked to vote on it shortly. I seriously doubt that most Members have read this bill. Okay, maybe Chairman Thomas and Mr. Rangel. Others? Not really, not a chance.

In some respects, this was a troubling pattern in the Congress, which I hope will end tomorrow. As I have said multiple times this year, it is my great hope that this type of legislating will end at the close of this year.

Now, within this massive bill are provisions that are both positive and negative. If this bill was split into four or six separate bills, I suspect I would find myself voting against three or five of the individual pieces of legislation. But I don't have that opportunity because, once again, the outgoing leadership has closed down the process in the hopes of squelching democracy here in the people's House.

Despite my serious misgivings about several portions of this bill, I may wind up supporting it for the sections that deal with our Caribbean neighbor to the immediate south.

The major focus of this bill, as it relates to the people of south Florida and of the 23rd Congressional District, which I am privileged to represent, is the investment it makes in Haiti. The truth is, Madam Speaker, this Congress and this administration and the previous administration has had a dismal record as it relates to helping one of the most beleaguered nations in our hemisphere. This bill takes a step, albeit a small step, in helping our brothers and sisters in Haiti begin to take control of their economy, take control of their livelihoods and, hopefully, their circumstances.

It is not a panacea, far from it. But it is, in my view, a step in the right direction. One of the key provisions of the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity Through Partnership Encouragement, as it is referred to as the HOPE Act, will be that it provides new duty free, quota-free access to the U.S. market for apparel made in Haiti.

This has a two-fold benefit. One, it should, over time, allow businesses in Haiti to flourish and build a stable economy and lead to a more stable democracy; and, two, it will also help to lessen the massive trade imbalance we currently owe to China.

Madam Speaker, as the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, my good friend, Charlie Rangel, has recently said Haiti and its fledgling democracy stand at critical crossroads. This is a key moment in the relationship between the United States and Haiti.

In order to capitalize on this moment, Haiti needs to be able to create sustained economic opportunity for its citizens. The provisions of this section of the bill can and likely will go a long way to fulfilling the U.S. part of this commitment.

As I said, Madam Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, and it certainly is not a perfect process. But this is what we have to work with today, and I may support this bill, warts and all, because of what it may do for the future of Haiti and its citizens who are desperately in need of support from the United States and other donor countries.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend Tom Lantos, who has been stalwart in fighting not only anti-Semitism but bigotry throughout this world.

I would like to start by saying that I am very grateful for the bipartisan cooperation of many House leaders to ensure that this important legislation was so promptly brought to the House floor. In particular, I would like to thank my good friends and colleagues, the majority leader, John Boehner; Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi; of course, as I have mentioned, my extremely good friend and mentor, the incoming chair of the House International Relations Committee, the distinguished gentleman from California, Tom Lantos; the current chair of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia; and my fellow Floridian and very, very good friend and colleague and classmate and ally in a number of mutual efforts on behalf of our respective constituencies; and the ranking Democratic member, Gary Ackerman from New York.

I sincerely appreciate the assistance of all of these colleagues in allowing me to introduce this legislation and bring it to the floor for a vote on the second-to-last day of the legislative year and, importantly, prior to the occurrence of this nasty conference.

The haste with which this bill was brought to the floor and its bipartisan support is a clear testament to the importance this congressional body places on public condemnation of anti-Semitism worldwide and the desire of congressional leaders to rid the globe of the scourge of anti-Semitism.

The commitment of Iranian President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders to hold a Holocaust denial conference on December 11 of this month is unabashed, reprehensible anti-Semitism at its worst. I learned about this 2 weeks ago at a conference in Malta. And to the man and woman that were there, everyone condemned this action.

More than 70 years ago, a different leader from a different nation rose to power based on his open hatred of a particular group of people. He started by forcing Jews to identify themselves with the Star of David on their clothing and enacting restrictive laws for Jewish shopkeepers. He ended his crusade, ``the final solution,'' with the mass murder of 6 million or more Jews in extermination camps.

I would recommend to Mr. Ahmadinejad that he do as some of us have done in the past, not even requiring of him that he meet in this Congress our only Holocaust survivor, who in fact suffered immeasurably, as did his family and friends and colleagues, at the hands of this kind of hatred. I would recommend to him that he do as I did: visit Auschwitz and Treblinka, and perhaps it would be there that he may come to learn of the horrors that so many people were confronted with.

If ``never again'' means anything to us now, then we cannot ignore this latest egregious act of anti-Semitism. The world will not turn its back to President Ahmadinejad and Iranian leaders' anti-Semitic, anti- Israel, and anti-U.S. public acts and statements. The same country that spews such hatred towards Jews is also on a determined path towards nuclear weapon possession. But that is a whole different conflict that needs to be discussed on a whole different day.

For today I want to just end and focus on the topic of anti-Semitism. Let Iran's second Holocaust denial conference serve as a wake-up call for the entire international community about the endurance of anti- Semitism in this world. As the president emeritus of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Parliamentary Assembly, the world's largest regional security organization, and someone who has traveled extensively across this globe, I am acutely aware of the prevalence of anti-Semitism not only in Iran but worldwide. Combating anti-Semitism fits into my world view of the importance of fighting all types of bigotry. I have dedicated my entire professional life toward eradicating hate spewed by racists, anti-Semites, xenophobes and homophobes.

I greatly appreciate the fact that my colleagues recognize the importance of a unified international condemnation of Iran's commitment to hold another Holocaust denial conference. We have a shared responsibility to promote awareness of injustice and preach tolerance education if we ever are to succeed in combating this widespread epidemic of hate.

I certainly am deeply appreciative that Mr. Lantos and Ms. Ros- Lehtinen saw fit to permit this matter to be brought to the body.