Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act. Many of us share the belief that the Federal Government's response to Hurricane Katrina was disorganized and inadequate. FEMA was far too slow to arrive, and evacuees were left stranded in massive shelters with egregious standard of living violations. Victims of the storm are now spread all over the country, costing the government $11 million per day just to house only a portion of evacuees in hotels. Tens of thousands are still living in inadequate shelters and even tents--months after the storm--with little assurances for their safety and security.

These two problems--increasing the availability of temporary housing in times of national emergencies and improving training and preparedness for national emergencies--must be resolved to ensure that the humanitarian catastrophe that occurred in the gulf coast and continues to happen today will never occur again.

I come to the floor today to introduce the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act. My bill establishes no fewer than six National Emergency Centers spread throughout the United States. The Centers would be used, first and foremost, to provide temporary housing, medical and humanitarian assistance, including education, for individuals and families displaced due to an emergency. The Centers would also serve as a centralized location for the training and coordination of first responders in the instance of an emergency. In turn, the Centers will improve the coordination of preparedness, response and recovery efforts between government, private, not-for- profit entities and faith-based organizations.

The National Emergency Centers would be located on military bases, with a preference wherever possible for those installations closed during the most recent BRAC round. I am proposing these sites because the necessary infrastructure to house, feed, educate and care for evacuees over an extended period of time is already in place, thus limiting the cost and time needed to construct these facilities.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation was not prepared for the disastrous hurricanes that struck the gulf coast last month. The establishment of National Emergency Centers will go a long way to ensuring that our response to national emergencies are not as disastrous as the disasters that created the emergencies in the first place.

I ask for my colleagues' support and urge the House Leadership to bring this legislation to the floor for its swift consideration.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and the underlying legislation. My friends in the majority are again bringing to the floor a rule that blocks debate in the body before it begins. Under this rule not one Member of the House, Republican or Democrat, is permitted to offer an amendment. Under this rule and under this bill, the gun lobby is rewarded while public safety is thwarted.

A few examples: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) offered an amendment last night that prohibits suspected and known terrorists from purchasing firearms. That was not made in order. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), my good friend who will speak on this issue later, had an amendment that expands existing prohibitions on armor-piercing bullets to include those bullets capable of piercing body armor. And the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda Sanchez) offered an amendment that permits courts to hear suits based on the sale of weapons to persons with domestic convictions.

Under this rule, however, not one of these amendments, or any of the five other commonsense amendments offered by Democrats in the Committee on Rules last night, will be given any consideration by the full House.

Madam Speaker, our government was built on the foundation of an open and transparent participatory process. Yet, since 1994, when Republicans regained control of the House; I might add, Republicans that argued against closed rules, participation has been limited to only those who share their beliefs.

The underlying legislation, which dismisses existing lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers and prohibits the filing of future suits, is not sound public policy. On the contrary, it is outright political grandstanding.

During the last 3 years, more than 34 government entities have filed valid lawsuits against gun manufacturers, distributors, and trade associations. At the beginning of 2005, 18 of those suits had won favorable rulings, while only a handful had been dismissed. The remaining cases are still in court, and I gather that this legislation contemplates eliminating those citizens' rights to be in court.

In fact, several State appeals and supreme courts have also ruled that gun manufacturers and dealers can be held liable for the reasonably foreseeable use of firearms for criminal purposes. Settlements from these cases have forced gun manufacturers to make necessary safety modifications that the industry had previously refused to do. How many times do we have to see a baby with a gun in its hand or at its head or killing some member of the family before we get to safety modifications?

The ruling in the D.C. sniper case forced the gun manufacturer Bushmaster to inform its dealers of safer sales practices that will prevent other criminals from obtaining guns, something that Bushmaster had never done before. Other rulings have resulted in major crackdowns on ``straw purchases,'' where legally purchased guns are resold to individuals unable to lawfully purchase a weapon on their own. In each of these instances, it is beyond fair to say that they were not frivolous lawsuits. Yet, if the underlying legislation becomes law, when the cases are heard then none of them would have even been filed.

Perhaps my friends in the majority can help me understand what is so unreasonable in requiring an industry that produces a product with the sole purpose of killing to take the necessary precautions to protect public safety, and is it our belief that the American judicial system is incapable of properly dismissing lawsuits that are both unreasonable and overzealous? They do it all the time.

Let us be honest and call this bill and this debate what they really are: legislative abuse, with closed rules and a political charade. Republicans are using the legislative process in an attempt to penalize attorneys and trial lawyers, historically supporters of Democrats, who hold the gun lobby, a major campaign contributor to my friends in the majority, accountable for its actions.

The majority's reckless disregard for judicial integrity mocks our Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. Dangerously, it does so at the expense of American safety.

I implore my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying legislation, and I would say to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), that I know of nothing in my makeup that would cause me at any point in time to want to do anything in derogation of the rights of American citizens under the United States Constitution. The second amendment, the right to own a gun, is everybody's right. But manufacturers ought not be manufacturing guns that are not safe and are poorly manufactured, and nobody should be protecting them at all.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased and privileged at this time to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleague that just spoke that the many people that I know, and they are numerous in my State and elsewhere that were killed by guns and are advocates against guns, are not fanatics. They are people who are victims of murder.

Additionally, I thought I made it clear, I wish to make it clear again, that insofar as the second amendment is concerned, everyone that I know in this body is protective of a person's right to own a gun.

The fact of the matter is that manufacturers who act irresponsibly should be sued by persons if they so choose when that harm comes to them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

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

Mr. Speaker, just in case people think that it is only those of us who believe in our legal system that are opposed to this particular measure, I have in hand a letter from law enforcement's opposition to H.R. 800, and here is what it says:

``Dear Representative: As active and retired law enforcement officers, we are writing to urge your strong opposition to any legislation granting the gun industry special legal immunity. The bill would strip away the legal rights of gun violence victims, including law enforcement officers and their families, to seek redress against irresponsible gun dealers and manufacturers. The impact of this bill on the law enforcement community is well illustrated by the lawsuit brought by former Orange New Jersey police officers Ken McGuire and David Lemongello.''

I gather that their lawsuit would be dismissed as frivolous.

``On January 12, 2001, Officers McGuire and Lemongello were shot in the line of duty with a trafficked gun negligently sold by a West Virginia dealer. The dealer had sold the gun, along with 11 other guns, in a cash sale to a straw buyer for a gun trafficker. In June of 2004, the officers obtained a $1 million settlement from the dealer. The dealer, as well as two other area pawn shops also, have implemented safer practices to prevent sales to traffickers, including a new policy of ending large volume sales of handguns. These reforms go beyond the requirement of current law and are not imposed by any manufacturers or distributors.

``If immunity,'' this is what the law enforcement community, some of them say, ``if immunity for the gun industry had been enacted, the officers' case would have been thrown out of court and justice would have been denied. Police officers like Officers McGuire and Lemongello put their lives on the line every day to protect the public. Instead of honoring them for their service, legislation granting immunity to the gun industry would deprive them of their basic rights as American citizens to prove their case in a court of law. We stand with Officers McGuire and Lemongello in urging you to oppose this legislation.''

It is signed by the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, The Police Foundation, the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, chiefs of police from New Jersey, Ohio, Massachusetts, Nevada, California, New York, North Carolina, Maine, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Rhode Island, and Kansas and Virginia and countless others that time will not permit me to add.

If police officers who are out there protecting us cannot find the protection in this House of Representatives from bullets or armor- piercing bullets, and we are going to protect people who manufacture that stuff from having legal suits brought against them, some

that may be dismissed, some that may be won, some that may be lost but it is an American right, just like that second amendment is an American right that I will go to my grave believing in, but I will go with these police officers in believing that it is wrong to deny people an opportunity to take their matter to court and have it decided appropriately by a court of law and juries of their peers who are all 435 of our constituents.

In addition to what is wrong is this system is wrong. When you close out amendments that would allow people to have an opportunity to come down here on the floor of the House of Representatives and represent their constituents, this is a closed rule; and I urge my colleagues to vote against this closed rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my good friend, Representative Hilda Solis, and Senators Kerry and Durbin to introduce the Public Health and Environmental Equity Act.

It has been 5 weeks since Hurricane Katrina devastated the lives and landscapes of the gulf coast region. The floodwaters that ravaged Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi in the last month have finally begun to recede and America and the world have become all too aware of the losses suffered by the citizens of these areas. They have lost family and loved ones. Most have lost homes, jobs, and businesses. And in their greatest hour of need, they were left abandoned and forgotten. Our own President was forced to admit the shortcomings of the so-called ``relief'' effort.

While nothing can ever make up for the misery endured in the first days of the storm, there is plenty we must do to alleviate additional harm as rebuilding begins. Understandably, residents are anxious to get back to their homes and to their lives. Anxious contractors with a different agenda have vowed that such a mission can be fulfilled sooner rather than later. They want us to believe that homes, buildings, and schools fully submerged from weeks of raw sewage, pesticides, solvents, decaying corpses, and teaming with mold will magically become clean and safe to move into.

How will they accomplish such a feat? Their plan: Have the EPA completely waive every environmental mandate that has protected us for 35 years. Simply put, this means that anyone involved in Katrina rebuilding will be allowed to dump where they want, pollute where and when they want, and contaminate for as long as they want. It's a quick- but-dirty solution for cleanup and reconstruction with no regard for maintaining clean air, water, or soil. Once in place, environmental loopholes attributed to Katrina recovery in the gulf region will also be the excuse for any company to create toxic breeding grounds anywhere in the country. Your backyard could be next.

Mr. Speaker, waiving these long-standing environmental regulations is an irresponsible and unconscionable way to jump-start the rebuilding process. What we'll end up with are toxic residues that will sicken these communities for years to come. Residents who return to their homes under such EPA waivers will face a lifetime of illness and uncertainty about the water they drink, the air they breathe, and the soil they walk on every day. Failure to fully implement current environmental health and safety regulations jeopardizes every human and ethical standard we claim to hold dear. Loosening these environmental safeguards will further victimize those still struggling to regain their lives.

We know what Katrina's victims look like; we know their income level; and we know why they've been ignored. To roll back highly regarded environmental protections will add insult to an already festering injury of racial and social injustices. The citizens of the gulf coast

want the same things the rest of America strives for--a safe place to live, work, and raise their families. They expect their elected officials to uphold laws that secure these basic necessities. They deserve our assurances and our actions that the value of their lives are no longer a back burner issue.

Katrina's victims already survived the worst natural disaster in modern American history. They've already survived a relief effort that can only be described as shameful. Why on earth would we create a man- made catastrophe and tell them it's in their best interest?

The resolution which we are introducing today makes Congress's commitment clear and obvious that we do not believe that Katrina--or any other natural disaster--should be used to justify rolling back and completely waiving environmental regulations. I ask for our colleagues' support and urge the House to move this resolution swiftly.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember and honor the invaluable contributions of Judge Constance Baker Motley. She died of congestive heart failure at NYU Downtown Hospital in New York City yesterday at the age of 84. Judge Motley was a woman of many firsts and true pioneer in the civil rights struggle.

Judge Motley was a woman with numerous accomplishments. She helped write briefs in the groundbreaking Brown vs. Board of Education case in 1954 and she headed a legal campaign that opened admission at the University of Mississippi to James Meredith in 1962. Meredith was the first African American student to attend that school. By the time he graduated in 1963, Constance Motley had made 22 trips to Mississippi on behalf of the case. Later that year, she helped 1,100 black children be reinstated in Birmingham after they were expelled for taking part in a demonstration. Judge Motley also served as the first black woman in the New York State Senate in 1964 and the first woman borough president for Manhattan.

In 1966, Judge Motley was sworn in by President Lyndon Johnson as the first African American woman to serve as a federal judge. She ruled on a number of cases that dealt with everything from discrimination in housing to denial of benefits to Medicaid recipients to prisoners who had been unconstitutionally confined to solitary confinement for more than a year.

Her aspiration for what she termed as ``dignity for all people'' emerged early. Constance Motley was the ninth of twelve children born to parents from the small Caribbean island of Nevis. At the age of 15, she was not allowed onto a public beach because she was black. It was then that she began reading all she could about black history. She later became president of her N.A.A.C.P youth council.

Three years later, Clarence W. Blakeslee, a white philanthropist, heard Constance Motley giving a speech at an African-American social center. He was so moved by her stately oration that he offered to finance her aspirations for a law degree.

Judge Motley attended Fisk University in Nashville, my alma mater, then transferred to New York University. In 1946, she graduated from Columbia School of Law and become a volunteer at the N.A.A.C.P.'s Legal Defense and Education Fund, which had been founded by Thurgood Marshall.

Known for her dignified manner and quiet approach, Judge Motley was highly regarded as an extraordinary legal tactician. It was also one of the reasons Thurgood Marshall felt that she could be so effective during the Meredith case in 1961. Of the ten cases she argued before the Supreme Court, Judge Motley won nine. She continued to work tirelessly on a variety of civil rights cases. One of the most recent cases included her decision in 1978 allowing a female reporter to be admitted to the New York Yankees' locker room.

Mr. Speaker, Judge Constance Baker Motley was a brilliant advocate for the legal rights of all people. In her autobiography Equal Justice Under Law, Motley said defeat never entered her mind. ``We all believed that our time had come and that we had to go forward.'' It is with this faith that she lived, and in this spirit that she will forever be remembered.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) began this discussion by saying we need smart, experienced and independent people to take a hard look at the problems Katrina exposed and identify solutions before we move organizational boxes again. I cannot agree more. This motion to instruct is timely, and I urge Members to support it.

The truth of the matter is, what Congress needs to do is what we were taught as children, and that is to count to 10 and take a deep breath when there is a problem.

Listen, we are not playing pin the tail on the elephant or the donkey. We are dealing with tragic consequences of our fellow Americans. Before shuffling boxes, we need a clear, unambiguous plan for disaster preparedness, not something prepared in a back room.

We are 4 years out from 9/11, and obviously are woefully unprepared for disaster. The majority is going forward with a 5-month, $500,000 investigation into what went wrong in Katrina, and that should complement an independent investigation into what went right and what went wrong.

How do we do what the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) says? How do you integrate the military, how do you integrate the faith-based institutions, how do you integrate the volunteers? Where is the national registry for physicians?

We have not settled the issues from last year's storms and we continue to use the term ``Katrina,'' but there was an Ophelia and there is a Rita, and America's problems are continuing. Pass this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for the time.

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

Mr. Speaker, rarely in the last decade has the Committee on the Judiciary's majority been interested in working in a bipartisan fashion. So I am pleasantly surprised that cooperation and consultation won out over partisanship and ideology during the drafting of the underlying legislation. At the same time, however, as the underlying legislation comes to the floor under the blanket of inclusiveness, it is disappointing that the rule providing for its consideration is again restrictive.

Under this rule, all but a few select amendments are blocked from being presented to the body. All but a select few are blocked from offering amendments that would strengthen and improve the Violence Against Women Act. All but a select few are blocked from offering amendments that would place more law enforcement on the street and help reduce crime. All but a select few are blocked from making a good bill even better.

Forty-six amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules yesterday evening, Mr. Speaker: 15 by Republicans, 23 by Democrats, and eight bipartisan. Nevertheless, under this rule the House will have the opportunity to consider only 12 of them, that is, of the 46 amendments offered in the Committee on Rules yesterday, barely one out of every four is actually made in order under this rule. That is not democracy. It is autocracy. And it is just not right, no matter how noncontroversial a bill may be.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation is supported on both sides of the aisle. It is largely similar to legislation which passed overwhelmingly in the 108th Congress, and I plan to support it. I am pleased that the bill increases funding for the Department of Justice Inspector General and the COPS program well beyond the President's short-sighted budget request. The bill merges the Byrne Grant program with the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program authorizing $1.1 billion for the program in fiscal year 2006 and an unspecified amount through 2009. It also extends the Bullet Proof Vest Partnership Grant program to assist State and local law enforcement to upgrade and purchase new life-saving vests.

I am equally pleased that the Committee on the Judiciary included in the bill a provision authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff). This provision requires the Department of Justice to report to Congress annually on the number of detainees suspected of terrorism in the United States and those that the United States is holding and whether they will be treated as enemy combatants or criminal defendants.

Mr. Speaker, as a beacon of freedom, the United States has a responsibility to maintain a justice system that is transparent, fair, and respected throughout the world. The Schiff provision goes a long way towards restoring the respect that America once commanded regarding the treatment of prisoners of war. It is my hope and expectation that this provision will be included in the conference report that is ultimately sent to the President for his signature.

Finally, the underlying legislation reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act, which is set to expire in a few days. First signed into law in 1994 by President Clinton, the Violence Against Women Act provides significant protections to women, children, and families who are victims of sexual assault, domestic violence and abuse, stalking, and sex trafficking.

Under the act, women and children who are victims of these heinous crimes are provided with access to legal aid, social services, counseling, and most importantly, protection under Federal law. The underlying legislation reauthorizes and expands critical programs already in existence under current law while also creating new programs that improve our efforts to protect women and children from the sick and twisted.

Mr. Speaker, as I briefly mentioned, the underlying legislation is a good bill, and I will support it. Nevertheless, it is disappointing that Members of this body are being blocked from making this good bill even better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), a leader in this field and for a number of years in the California legislature and ambassadorial ranks.

Madam Speaker, as I said at the outset, this is a good bill and I plan to support it, but a good bill could have been made better had amendments of Members in this body on both sides been made in order.

We are not the workaholic Congress around here, and we have the time to undertake to do things that are critical for the American public. I am absolutely convinced that we could have allowed most, if not all, of the amendments that were included.

I have said on other occasions that my colleagues in the majority were championed by some of the best skilled legislators in 1992 and 1994. One of them, a deceased Member, former chairman of the Committee on Rules, a good friend of mine that I traveled actively with and dearly miss him, was Gerald Solomon. Others of course, former Speaker Gingrich and the distinguished Robert Walker. I saw them on this floor repeatedly saying that the big problem that existed with Democrats at that time was that they were operating on closed and restrictive rules.

I guess what changed here is the majority, and there are some who still have not got it, and that is, that people in this body represent all of the people in America. Until such time as we open all of the rules to Members who are desirous of offering germane amendments, we will be having restrictive and closed rules and shutting out, blocking out a part of the individuals who represent upwards of 600,000 to 800,000 people each.

I find that anathema, particularly in light of the instruction that came from those in the majority. I remember so vividly hearing on the radio people talking about closed rules and open rules, and people did not even know what a closed rule and an open rule was, but the mantra was that the rules were closed. Open them up, so that the American public can have a transparent Congress that allows for the flow of legislation to be debated on this floor and that the will of the House then should prevail.

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

Madam Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules reported out a restrictive rule providing for the consideration of the School Readiness and Head Start Reauthorization Act.

A total of 24 amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules on this bill, 16 by Democratic members and eight by Republicans. In typical fashion, however, only 12 of those amendments were made in order. Half of our colleagues' proposals, half of their legislative ideas, half of their amendments are blocked from consideration under this rule.

This includes, among many others, the McCollum-Van Hollen amendment, which calls for providing assistance to Head Start providers complying with congressional transportation mandates and the rising costs of gasoline. This commonsense amendment provided much needed assistance to Head Start programs that are having to cope with escalating gasoline costs. They are now choosing between buying new books for their students and putting gas into their buses. Unfortunately, the House will not have the opportunity to debate this amendment because it was not made in order under the rule.

As all Members should know, Head Start was created to address the preparatory educational deficiencies among economically disadvantaged children as a part of the War on Poverty. Since that time, millions of children and families have been the beneficiaries of a proven winning educational model for early childhood development.

This body likes to talk about readiness in many contexts: disaster readiness, military readiness, emergency readiness. We devise and implement all kinds of plans in order to be ready or prepared for any eventuality. School readiness is more than just being prepared for entry into the educational system. It is preparation for entry into life's systems.

Head Start is just what it says: a head start. It gives systematically, economically and socially disadvantaged children the head start that potentially allows for the navigation and negotiation of hurdles in life's race that they may not otherwise have been able to maneuver without. It is at this very point in the lives of our children that they are introduced to varying themes and concepts that will shape them into the individuals they will become.

Several of my Democratic colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus have designed excellent amendments designed to broaden the scope of readiness for America's disadvantaged children.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) had an amendment and it asked for the recruitment of African American and Latino men to become Head Start teachers. This was made in order.

The gentleman from Mississippi's (Mr. Thompson) amendment calls for the Department of Health and Human Services to provide additional assistance in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina, and I suggested to the Chair that we broaden that to include any disaster so that children are covered who are in the Head Start category.

The gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Millender-McDonald) amendment allows homeless and foster children to be automatically eligible for Head Start. These amendments were designed to help, not hinder; to move forward, not backward; to grow, not stifle.

I am pleased that they were made in order and enthusiastically support each of these amendments.

Unfortunately, although the underlying legislation has the support of both parties, the rule also makes in order a controversial and discriminatory amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), our colleague. His amendment contains language that should give all of us pause and may cause this bill not to pass should it be approved by this body.

The Boustany amendment allows faith-based Head Start providers to discriminate with regard to religion when hiring personnel to run their programs.

Does this not blatantly and egregiously undermine what we are trying to do here? We are supposed to be about the business of creating opportunities and closing gaps.

The Boustany amendment only creates opportunities of systemic disadvantage and discrimination and closes doors to the very ones trying to open them for America's children.

Even more, title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act clearly stands in opposition to the gentleman from Louisiana's (Mr. Boustany) amendment, the same title VII that was voted on and agreed to by the Members of this great body 41 years ago. Title VII provides every citizen broad- based protection against employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.

Supporters of the amendment will argue that the Supreme Court decision in the Amos case allows for the amendment to be in order and is, therefore, constitutional. That decision does, in fact, allow for the consideration of religion in hiring practices. However, it does not allow for the consideration of religion to discriminate in hiring practices.

How soon we forget that it is the very same language that made this bill highly controversial in the 108th Congress, and it will allow for it to be controversial if it passes again. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about the lives of our children, if we are serious about readiness, if we are serious about reauthorizing Head Start, then it is critical that we continue to work in a bipartisan fashion and reject proposals which seek to divide this body

and its Members. The chairman of this committee and the ranking member and the members of this committee have worked very actively to fashion a reasonable and bipartisan effort. Congress should not be in the business of supporting State-sponsored discrimination. Forty-one years ago we said no. Today, 41 years later, no still is no.

The House should, without question or hesitation, reject the Boustany amendment and approve the bipartisan underlying legislation with some of the proposed amendments.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot impress enough to the chairman that title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to the use of religious organizations' own resources, not Federal taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my good friend with whom I serve on the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), my good friend and a leader in the fight for education and for veterans and other affairs in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), my classmate, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Education Reform, the subcommittee of relevant jurisdiction for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), a man of the cloth, a reverend representative.

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

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

My distinguished friend on the Committee on Rules never ceases to amaze me, but he has done it again. The gentleman says we are going to have a time and place to debate this. It will be for 30 minutes; 435 Members of this body are going to have 30 minutes to debate this. For the gentleman's information, the Boustany amendment has been made in order. And yes, we are discussing it and this is the time and this is the place to make sure that we do not discriminate with Federal dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my classmate and good friend.

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

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

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

When I was a child, my grandmomma took me to churches. She played piano for all of the churches in town, four in Altamonte Springs. Sometimes I did not know whether I was going to be sprinkled and be baptized here or repent and be baptized. It was very difficult, but all of the children in that town went to all of the churches.

For 41 years Head Start has existed, and it is the most empirically collected database organization supporting the children of the United States of America. And for all of those 41 years, all of these faith- based organizations have been involved in receiving contracts to do business. What we are saying is they cannot do it with Federal dollars. They have to do it with their own money.

Mr. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of one of the great figures in Jewish and world history, the late Simon Wiesenthal. Mr. Wiesenthal, a Holocaust survivor who crusaded to ensure that those responsible for the Holocaust were brought to justice, passed away earlier today in his home in Vienna, Austria. Simon Wiesenthal followed his creed of ``justice, not vengeance'' and oversaw the arrest, capture and conviction of many Nazi war criminals.

Simon Wiesenthal was imprisoned at five German Condentration camps during the Nazi Holocaust, narrowly escaping execution on numerous occasions. After he was liberated, Mr. Wiesenthal went to work for the United States Army and began gathering information to be used in the Nazi war crimes trials. After the Nuremberg trials, while the governments of the United States and the Soviet Union were no longer interested in pursuing Nazi war criminals, Wiesenthal continued the charge to arrest and convict those responsible for the genocide of more than eleven million innocent people, including six million Jews and 89 of Wiesenthal's personal relatives.

Wiesenthal's most celebrated capture was that of Adolf Eichmann, one of Hitler's main engineers of his final solution. While Eichmann's wife claimed that he was dead, Wiesenthal was able to prove that the evidence for his death was insufficient. Wiesenthal then assisted Israeli efforts to track down Eichmann. Eventually, the war criminal was caught and executed thanks in large part to Wiesenthal's efforts.

After the extremely high profile capture of Eichmann, Wiesenthal was able to gather enough support to continue in his efforts. He continued his mission and was able to secure the arrests and convictions of other important Nazis. His work led to the capture of Karl Silberbauer, a member of the German Gestapo who arrested Anne Frank. Silberbauer's confessions disproved the claims that The Diary of Anne Frank was a forgery. Wiesenthal was also instrumental in the capture and conviction of Franz Stangl who was in charge of running the Treblinka and Sobibor concentration camps. Wiesenthal also is credited with locating Hermine Braunsteiner-Ryan, a housewife living in New York who had supervised the murder of hundreds of children during the war.

Simon Wiesenthal believed that it was his mission to ensure that the victims of the Holocaust were not forgotten and that the type of atrocities that occurred during the Second World War do not happen to anyone anywhere ever again. Personally, I was honored to have made his acquaintance and was humbled by his presence.

Thanks to Simon Wiesenthal's lifelong dedication to the cause and organizations such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center, neither he nor the victims of the Nazi atrocities will ever be forgotten. It is now our responsibility to continue the vision of Simon Wiesenthal. We can not allow the horror of what occurred at Auschwitz and Treblinka and the other concentration camps to be erased from our memory; we can not allow racism and hatred to fester to the point where genocide becomes an option; and we can not allow those who commit acts of genocide to walk away without having to answer for the horrific crimes they have committed. The world has lost a champion for compassion and humanity in the death of Simon Wiesenthal. May his memory always be a blessing unto all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of the Coast Guard reauthorizion bill. As my colleague previously noted, the rule permits Members who preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record to offer those amendments. I appreciate that this opportunity was afforded to Members.

I am, nevertheless, disappointed that the preprinting of amendments was even required. Despite the majority's claims, this legislative procedure which they call open is actually restricted. It is not an open rule because every Member is not permitted to offer any germane amendment.

Mr. Speaker, first established in 1915, the Coast Guard is responsible for patrolling the more than 12,400 miles of coastline in the United States. Nearly 2,000 of these miles are located in my home State of Florida.

Today, the more than 100,000 active personnel, reservists, civilian and volunteer members of the Coast Guard auxiliary are America's front line guarding our seas, shores, ports and borders. In South Florida, the auxiliary volunteers play a critical role in promoting boating safety and awareness in our communities. They assist in search and rescue operations and work every day to make South Florida the recreation hotspot that it is.

The underlying legislation authorizes $8.7 billion for the programs of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2006. This includes some $1.6 billion for its Integrated Deepwater System to assist the Coast Guard to upgrade an aging fleet of ships and aircraft and improve the technologies it utilizes.

With three major international shipping and cruise ports located within just miles of my district, the Deepwater System is critically important to Coast Guard operations in Florida and elsewhere.

The Coast Guard works tirelessly to protect the ships and individuals who utilize our ports in this Nation and in my district, Port Everglades, Palm Beach and Miami and Dania.

I am pleased that the committee has determined this program worthy of such critical funding, and I express my hope that the Committee on Appropriations will fund IDS at its authorized level.

The authorization bill also permits the Coast Guard to establish Naval Vessel Protection Zones offshore, and it increases the number of active duty personnel in the Coast Guard to 45,500. The bill also doubles the duration of time that Coast Guard Reservists may be called up to active duty from 60 to 120 days over a 1-year period.

While the increase in active personnel is certainly needed so that the Coast Guard can continue to accomplish its mission, the change highlights a growing problem facing our Armed Forces. That is, America's all-volunteer military has become increasingly dependent upon the extended call-ups of Reserves.

The war in Iraq has indeed made recruiting more difficult for our armed services, but so have the diminishing benefits and pay we offer to our soldiers and the health care services we extend to our veterans. This Congress, so quick to wrap itself in the American flag, continues to underpay our soldiers and shortchange our veterans. With a track record like this, who can blame a soldier for not re-enlisting and a veteran who questions her country's commitment to her well-being now that she is out of the military?

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this body, I thank the Coast Guard, as I am sure all of our colleagues do, for its service and commitment to the security of our great Nation. I am proud to offer my support for the Coast Guard and the underlying legislation.

Before ending, Mr. Speaker, I do want to make mention that during this time of great division and nastiness in Congress, it is commendable that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure was able to work in a truly bipartisan fashion. While our fellow citizens in the gulf States begin to rebuild their lives, they should take note of the bipartisanship and cooperation that went into crafting the underlying legislation.

As the author of legislation establishing an independent commission to evaluate the Federal, State and local governments' responses to Hurricane Katrina and with the support of more than 150 Members of this body and 75 percent of the American people, at least in one poll, it had been my hope that a similar willingness would have existed amongst my majority colleagues to address that issue. Unfortunately, as the American people have learned in the past 2 weeks and will find out again later this morning, no such willingness exists.

We can come together today and create an independent, bipartisan Katrina Commission with an equal number of Republicans and Democrats on it who will not be subject to political influence and partisanship. I implore my Republican colleagues to rise above the rancor in this body, follow the example set today by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and establish an independent Katrina Commission.

The majority's unwillingness to establish such a commission will leave us woefully incapable of reforming our current disaster preparedness and response programs. If the last 5 years have taught us anything, it is that this Congress is unwilling to police itself or this administration. The only viable option is an independent commission.

In support of the Coast Guard, I ask that all of us look at the extraordinary work that they are doing and have done in the gulf coast region. We must know that every time one of those helicopters lifts and rescues victims from this awful tragedy that the time for that propeller is running out and these are already aging crafts. It is critical that we allow the Coast Guard the sufficient funding in order that they may revamp, restore, rehabilitate, and purchase the appropriate equipment to patrol our Nation's shores.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) put it so well when he indicated that the Coast Guard is overburdened and underprepared. It is our responsibility to ensure that we do better.

On the scale of our armed services, the Coast Guard is always an afterthought, it seems, when it comes to resources. But in terms of what they do immediately with reference to the 12,000 miles of shores that they patrol, it is critical that we have clear understanding of their needs.

I have been on Coast Guard cutters, as have many of my colleagues. I have seen them in their rescue operations for persons who are not even American citizens, risking their lives and sometimes suffering loss themselves trying to ensure that others are protected in a proper manner. They do an outstanding job and their Deepwater program will help them to do an even better job than they are doing. It is not fair to send people up in aircraft that are legend related in terms of their age and usage.

It is critical that we pass this measure, and I believe that it will pass overwhelmingly; and I hope that the future of the Deepwater program will be appropriately funded by this Congress so that the Coast Guard will have in its possession the necessary personnel and material in order to do the job to keep this Nation safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking Democratic member on the House Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time.

A footnote right there, Mr. Speaker. I hope the irony is not lost on the House that the gentlewoman, a New York Member, is being lectured to about homeland security issues and why there is no need for an independent Katrina commission. New Yorkers were told 3 and 4 years ago that there was no need for an independent commission on 9/11.

I note peripherally that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules has other business and has left the floor; but I was prepared to ask him, and perhaps his replacement in the chair for the majority can answer for me, what did the House of Representatives do in the last 3 years with reference to the tragedy of 9/11? What we wound up doing, because the victims and New York pressed forward, was establishing an independent commission.

The chairman pontificates that we should exercise our constitutional mandate; and so does his replacement, my friend and colleague on the Committee on Rules, say what our constitutional duty is. Every one of us is mindful of our constitutional duty. But are you then prepared to admit that we did not exercise it correctly in the 9/11 Commission period and that is why the 9/11 Commission came into existence in the first place?

Last year, as we all know, four hurricanes ravaged my home State of Florida and some of the gulf coast. Three of them literally destroyed parts of the district that I am privileged to represent. In the immediate and long-term aftermath, our communities saw FEMA's shortcomings. We saw that a once-reliable agency had been placed on the back burner as an afterthought in the Department of Homeland Security. Natural disaster preparedness and response programs have become trapped in a homeland security bureaucracy.

FEMA has lost its focus, and Floridians and others know that. Our delegation literally begged the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on what we saw in Florida. I even introduced bipartisan legislation in March with our colleague on the majority side, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), to address what we perceived to be FEMA's largest problems. Yet every time we took our concerns to the committees, we were told it is not a big enough problem to consider on its own. Our staff was told we do not think that an oversight hearing is needed.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what America saw in the gulf coast resembles the Federal Government's absolute incompetence that Florida saw last year. Despite a whole lot of lip service, nothing has changed.

The 9/11 Commission was created to provide a full and complete accounting of the 2001 terrorist attacks. Implicit in this mandate is the simple fact that Congress alone would not or could not provide such a full and complete accounting. There is no reason to expect that the Republican Katrina commission will do any better.

That is why I and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and 156 of our colleagues yesterday introduced H.R. 3764, legislation establishing a real independent commission, immune from political influence and absolute partisanship. And while they cannot officially cosponsor our bill, a significant part, 76 percent, of the American people agree with us. They question this Congress' ability to exercise real oversight and are calling for an independent and bipartisan Katrina commission.

Supporting the American people's concerns, you, Mr. Speaker, said at one point, and I quote, ``Our party controls the levers of government. We're not about to go and look beneath a bunch of rocks to try to cause heartburn.'' Put another way, Mr. Speaker: we helped create this mess, and we are not going to be able to investigate it ourselves. So forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I question the majority's ability to conduct effective oversight with this type of political candor.

Substantively, the Republican plan is partisan. And because my colleagues say it is bipartisan does not make it so. It is inadequate. In stark contrast to the 9/11 Commission, Republicans outnumber Democrats on the majority's partisan Katrina commission. In contrast to the 9/11 Commission, which was given 18 months to do its job, the majority's partisan Katrina commission is only given 5 months. As the chairman put it last night, do it quick, do it fast. Quickly, he said.

Despite the 9/11 Commission's $15 million budget to do its job, the majority's commission they propose is only given $500,000.

Footnote right there. What about the committees of jurisdiction already in existence in Congress? And what about creating a circus atmosphere that drains resources from this Congress do you not understand?

Shamefully, the House will not have an opportunity to vote on the Hastings-Menendez independent Katrina commission legislation, because Republicans have blocked us from offering it. Just as they always do, Republicans block what they cannot defeat.

Despite what Republicans will suggest, today's debate is not about politics. It is about the need for truth to

assure the American people that we all know their needs. For my constituents, it is about the failures of this Congress, and for others it is about the failures in New Orleans and in the States and at the Federal Government. It is about saving lives and rebuilding communities.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with the gentleman about what the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence did. I serve on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence conducted an investigation; the House did nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague from New Jersey, Representative Menendez, to introduce legislation establishing the Katrina Commission to examine and evaluate the Federal Government's response to Hurricane Katrina and assess our ability to respond to future large-scale disasters. We are proud that our legislation is the companion bill to S. 1622 which was introduced last week in the Senate by our colleagues Senators Clinton and Mikulski.

While the long-term impact of Hurricane Katrina will be felt for years, our evaluation of the Federal Government's response to, and preparation for, this and other major disasters--natural and man-made-- must begin immediately.

Mirrored after the 9-11 Commission, the Katrina Commission will consist of 10 members with no more than 5 being from either the Republican or Democratic parties, thus ensuring an independent and diverse make-up of commission members. The Katrina Commission will be afforded the same powers which the 9-11 Commission enjoyed and will be tasked at finding the answers to the critical questions that we all have. These include but are not limited to:

Were we adequately prepared to respond to a disaster of this magnitude? Are we any more prepared today than we were before Katrina?

What plans were in place before Katrina made landfall to meet power, utility, and telecommunications needs following the storm? What plans are in place for future disasters?

What was the availability of adequate resources to meet the needs of displaced individuals and families, including temporary housing, medical services and facilities, transportation, and food and water supplies?

Did our Federal disaster response plans consider the needs of all communities? What plans existed to ensure that underserved communities reached safety before and after Katrina?

How effective was the Federal Government in its rescue and other life-saving techniques?

Was the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina efficiently coordinated with State and local governments? Was it adequate and appropriate in size and scope?

What improvements do the Executive and Legislative Branches need to make to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our disaster response programs?

Mr. Speaker, my Congressional District received the brunt of three major hurricanes last year. As I said earlier today, certainly our first priority has to be to rescue those who are still alive and provide them with housing, medical attention, food, and water. However, as the Gulf Coast turns to the recovery and rebuilding processes, the billions that Congress will spend will not be enough to fix the problems that exist within FEMA.

Based on my own personal experience dealing with FEMA and its director over the last year, I warn the Members of this body that the problems you see today are just the tip of the iceberg--and it has nothing to do with the magnitude of the disaster.

Inconsistency in FEMA regulations, constant reinterpretations of the Stafford Act, Federal officials treating local emergency operations centers like revolving doors, lack of coordination, and FEMA's fluid and unclear chain of command are just a few of the many significant and real problems that Floridians dealt with last year and are still dealing with today.

I have literally begged the committees of jurisdiction in this body to hold hearings on these shortcomings. I even introduced bipartisan legislation in March with our colleague, Clay Shaw, to address a slew of institutional problems within FEMA that we experienced first-hand last year.

Yet every time we take our concerns to the committees, we're told, ``It's not a big enough problem to consider on its own.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, is the problem big enough now? How many people must die in a disaster before something becomes a ``big enough problem'' in this Congress?

Accountability is the only way to restore integrity in a broken system. An independent commission is the first step in repairing our disaster response system, which we all now know is woefully inadequate.

I ask for my colleague support for this legislation, and I urge the House Leadership to bring it swiftly before the House for its consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation establishing a National Independent Inquiry Commission on Disaster Preparedness and Response (NIICDPR) to examine and evaluate the Federal Government's response to Hurricane Katrina and assess our ability to respond to future large-scale disasters.

While the long-term impact of Hurricane Katrina will be felt for years, our evaluation of the Federal Government's response to, and preparation for, this and other major disasters--natural and man-made-- must begin immediately.

Mirrored after the 9-11 Commission, the NIICDPR will consist of 10 members with no more than 5 being from either the Republican or Democratic parties, thus ensuring an independent and diverse make-up of commission members. The NIICDPR will be afforded the same powers which the 9-11 Commission enjoyed and will be tasked at finding the answers to the critical questions that we all have. These include but are not limited to:

Were we adequately prepared to respond to a disaster of this magnitude? Are we any more prepared today than we were before Katrina?

What plans were in place before Katrina made landfall to meet power, utility, and telecommunications needs following the storm? What plans are in place for future disasters?

What was the availability of adequate resources to meet the needs of displaced individuals and families, including temporary housing, medical services and facilities, transportation, and food and water supplies?

Did our federal disaster response plans consider the needs of all communities? What plans existed to ensure that underserved communities reached safety before and after Katrina?

How effective was the Federal Government in its rescue and other life-saving techniques?

Was the federal response to Hurricane Katrina efficiently coordinated with State and local governments? Was it adequate and appropriate in size and scope?

What improvements do the Executive and Legislative Branches need to make to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our disaster response programs?

Mr. Speaker, my Congressional District received the brunt of three major hurricanes last year. As I said earlier today, certainly our first priority has to be to rescue those who are still alive and provide them with housing, medical attention, food, and water. However, as the Gulf Coast turns to the recovery and rebuilding processes, the billions that Congress will spend will not be enough to fix the problems that exist within FEMA.

Based on my own personal experience dealing with FEMA and its director over the last year, I warn the Members of this body that the problems you see today are just the tip of the iceberg--and it has nothing to do with the magnitude of the disaster.

Inconsistency in FEMA regulations, constant reinterpretations of the Stafford Act, federal officials treating local emergency operations centers like revolving doors, lack of coordination, and FEMA's fluid and unclear chain of command are just a few of the many significant and real problems that Floridians dealt with last year and are still dealing with today.

I have literally begged the committees of jurisdiction in this body to hold hearings on these shortcomings. I even introduced bipartisan legislation in March with our colleague, Clay Shaw, to address a slew of institutional problems within FEMA that we experienced first-hand last year.

Yet every time we take our concerns to the committees, we're told, ``It's not a big enough problem to consider on its own.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, is the problem big enough now? How many people must die in a disaster before something becomes a ``big enough problem'' in this Congress?

Accountability is the only way to restore integrity in a broken system. An independent commission is the first step in repairing our disaster response system, which we all now know is woefully inadequate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking Democrat of the Rules Committee for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the four bills which the House will consider today under suspension of the rules should this rule pass.

However, I also rise with great trepidation about the way in which the majority continues to run this body without regard for general order and procedure. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart) said that he is proud to be bringing this rule under the suspension provisions. I would ask the gentleman whether or not in his conference all of the T's were crossed and the I's were dotted to bring a matter out, since in your conference and in our caucus we have a provision that as a general measure we will not bring a matter under suspension for more than $100 million.

Under suspension of the rules, Members are afforded limited time for debate with zero opportunity to amend the legislation. When this rule passes, that is exactly what we will get. That is just wrong, regardless of the urgency of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this administration that is in charge of this Nation's negligence in responding to Hurricane Katrina strongly resembles the incompetence that Florida saw in the Federal emergency management organization last year. The Bush administration's refusal to accept responsibility for its inaction mirrors the arrogance that we continue to deal with today in Florida as we recover from last year's disastrous hurricane season.

Certainly our first priority has to be the rescue of those who are still alive and to provide them with housing, medical attention, food and water. However, as the Gulf Coast turns to the recovery and rebuilding process, the billions that Congress will spend will not be enough to fix the problems that exist within FEMA.

Based on my own personal experience dealing with Under Secretary Brown directly over the last year, I warn the Members of this body that the problems you see today are just the tip of the iceberg, as the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) just said. And it has nothing to do with the magnitude of this awesome disaster.

My colleague says that he is proud. I wonder if my colleague from Florida is proud of the fact that $1.5 billion from last year's hurricanes are still outstanding. I wonder if my colleague is proud of the fact that his county, Dade, and my county, Broward, were denied Federal assistance from FEMA this year with this same Hurricane Katrina. I wonder if my colleague is proud of that fact that there are blue roofs in Florida where people's roofs are still not covered, and it does not even rise to the magnitude of what is going on in the Gulf Coast; but last year's FEMA problems are not corrected.

Inconsistency in FEMA regulations, constant reinterpretations of the Stafford Act, Federal officials treating local emergency operation centers like revolving doors, lack of coordination and FEMA's fluid and unclear chain of command are just a few of the many significant and real problems that Floridians dealt with last year and are still dealing with today.

I have literally begged the committee of jurisdiction in this body to hold hearings on these shortcomings. I even introduced bipartisan legislation in March with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) to address a slew of institutional problems within FEMA that we experienced firsthand last year. Yet, every time we take our concerns to the committees, we are told it is not big enough as a problem to consider on its own.

Well, Mr. Speaker, is the problem big enough now? How many people must die in a disaster before something becomes a big enough problem in this Congress?

The new mantra that I hear from my colleagues in the majority is that there will be time to investigate. It is almost as if we cannot chew gum and walk at the same time. We must do what we are doing for the Gulf Coast, but we also must do what we have to as a responsibility in Congress in the nature of oversight.

Later today I will introduce legislation establishing an independent commission to examine the failures of the Federal Government in responding to Katrina, as well as evaluate our current ability to respond to any type of large-scale disaster, natural or man-made.

The President and congressional Republicans argue that we should not play the blame game because they may be in part to blame. Congress placing FEMA in the Department of Homeland Security and allowing the agency to operate completely unchecked helped create the disaster that we are in today. We created the problem, and now we need to fix it.

I question, however, whether there are enough in this body who have the courage to do what is right and not only criticize the administration, not only criticize local and State officials, criticize this Congress as well for our incompetence and inaction. But actually doing something is what is required. Accountability is the only way to restore integrity in a broken system, and an independent commission is the first step in repairing our disaster response system which we all now know is woefully inadequate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in solidarity with the Members of this body--Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, southerner and westerner, black, white and brown--in support of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill for Hurricane Katrina. Just as all of you were there for my constituents last year after an unprecedented four hurricanes devastated my home state of Florida, I stand here today with you to offer my full support for all of those affected by Hurricane Katrina.

On the eve of August 25, 2005, Katrina first made landfall in South Florida. Broward and Miami-Dade Counties were the first to witness the strength of this devastating storm. As a result of her strength and ferocity, more than 150 families saw their homes, some even in my district, receive major damage or were completely destroyed. Tens of thousands of homes and businesses were out of power for days and many in South Florida remain homeless today because of Katrina.

Despite this obvious disaster, I find myself today infuriated that FEMA has denied individual assistance to the residents of Broward and Miami-Dade Counties. The agency claims that the magnitude of the disaster in South Florida does not merit Federal assistance. I disagree. It does not matter if 1 or 100 homes are destroyed because of a natural disaster. Federal emergency disaster assistance exists to help those in need when they have no one but the Federal Government to turn to. It is beyond irresponsible for FEMA to neglect the needs of my constituents simply because the extent of the damage does not reach some artificial and fluid threshold.

My thoughts and prayers remain with the residents of Florida who have been affected by the storm, as well as the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. As this great body convenes today, I am deeply troubled by the pictures that I see on television and in the press. Our fellow citizens are in a battle not only with the elements of Mother Nature but also homelessness, disease, starvation, and dehydration.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that this body is heeding the call of the Democratic Leader and meeting today to pass this emergency supplemental. But I am shocked that in the richest country in the world with our vast resources, our own fellow citizens are literally dying in the streets of New Orleans because we cannot get them food to eat and water to drink. I've even heard that organizations such as the American Red Cross are being prohibited from delivering essential humanitarian assistance to New Orleans residents because they are being prohibited access to downtown. I am outraged.

Making matters worse, our news programs now refer to the residents of New Orleans as refugees, as if they are not American citizens. Our words are extremely powerful, and the use of the term ``refugee'' suggests that Katrina's victims are second class individuals who rather than expecting the assistance from their fellow citizens instead should be grateful for anything they receive. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Americans must answer the calls of civic and moral responsibility that comes during a tragedy such as Katrina. Do all that you can-- donate money and supplies, open your homes, say a prayer--so that the lives of those who have lost so much can return to some form of normalcy.

We have a responsibility to do all that we can to help those most in need, and our government must do everything in its power. If the roads are flooded and we are unable to drive people out of downtown New Orleans, then airlift them out. Figure out a way to get water and food to those who need it. Do it quickly, and do it now. The lives of our fellow citizens are at stake.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues an international dilemma that has been brought to my attention. There is a disturbing situation taking place that is seriously affecting the relations between the African nations of Cameroon and Nigeria. President Olusegun

Obasanjo of Nigeria promised several years ago to withdraw his troops from the Bakassi Peninsula in the Republic of Cameroon. President Obasanjo has yet to follow through on this arrangement. Not only has the Nigerian military remained in the Bakassi Peninsula, on June 17 and 18, there was an unfortunate violent incident that led to the death of a Cameroon soldier and the wounding of another. I call upon Nigeria to adhere to the International Court of Justice's decision and obey the rule of law by returning the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon, thereby finally putting an end to this ongoing dispute.

I call upon President Obasanjo to withdraw Nigerian troops from the Bakassi Peninsula and return the territory to the Republic of Cameroon. The West African region is extremely volatile and has already experienced numerous conflicts and wars. I sincerely hope that both nations can reach an agreement in accordance with the decision set forth by the International Court of Justice and work together in establishing greater cooperation and stability. A genuine effort from both sides is needed to resolve this issue in a peaceful and timely manner and I anticipate the realization of this goal.