Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with grave concern about the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006 and the direction in which our country's priorities are going. I find it amazing that we don't have the money to continue funding critical programs in this bill because we continue to fund outlandish tax cuts for millionaires.

We don't have the money to continue funding a sickle cell demonstration program which received $198,000 in fiscal year 2005 because we continue to fund ridiculous tax cuts for millionaires.

We don't have the money to continue funding trauma care and emergency medical services which received more than $3.4 million in fiscal year 2005 because we continue to fund outrageous tax cuts for millionaires.

We don't have the money to continue funding early learning opportunities which received almost $36 million in fiscal year 2005 because we continue to fund morally reprehensible tax cuts for millionaires.

We don't have the money to continue funding arts in education programs which received $35.6 million in fiscal year 2005 because we continue to fund unconscionable tax cuts for millionaires.

We don't have the money to continue funding alcohol abuse reduction programs which received $32.7 million in fiscal year 2005 because we continue to fund self-serving tax cuts for millionaires.

Mr. Speaker, the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006 provides us with a perfect example of what we are left with due to the irresponsible and reckless economic policies of the President and Republican Majority. It is a clear indication of the different approaches that Republicans and Democrats take toward ensuring the domestic security and well-being of our country.

The drastic cuts in the Labor-HHS-Education bill are also clear examples of the very different philosophical approach toward government that our two parties take. Democrats, on one hand, believe that the role of government is to serve the masses, especially those who have the least and need the most. We do not demonize and slash funding for federally sponsored programs that help individuals stay in school, assist the unemployed find work, help pay for college, and further improve rural health care. Democrats believe that government exists not only to protect the people, but to provide services that, as our framers put it, ``promote the general welfare'' of all.

Republicans, on the other hand, believe that government is intrusive. They believe that shared responsibility should not be a priority of our government, and the responsibility that we have to others is limited only to the unselfish and altruistic. Republicans are willing to sacrifice the greater good of the masses to further pad the pockets of the wealthy.

I'm tired of hearing the Appropriations Committee say, `We did the best that we could with what we were given,' because ultimately, we aren't doing the best that we can. Congress is failing the American people when we slash funding for programs that millions depend on.

Mr. Speaker, am I the only one who is offended that we don't have the money to continue funding foreign language assistance programs which received almost $18 million in fiscal year 2005 because we continue to fund odious tax cuts for millionaires?

Am I the only one who is appalled that we don't have the money to continue funding literacy programs for prisoners which received just under $5 million in fiscal year 2005 because we continue to fund irresponsible tax cuts for millionaires?

Where's the outrage from my Republican colleagues that we don't have the money to continue funding programs on America's Underground Railroad which received $2 million in fiscal year 2005 because we continue to fund offensive tax cuts for millionaires?

Where's the infuriation from Members that we don't have the money to continue funding drop-out prevention programs, mental health integration programs in schools, and women's educational equity programs which received a combined $12.6 million in fiscal year 2006 because we continue to fund appalling tax cuts to millionaires?

Just once, Mr. Speaker, just once, I would like to come to this floor with Republicans in the Majority and President Bush in the White House and say, we don't have money for tax cuts for millionaires because we have to fund programs that benefit the other 99 percent of this country.

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

I would like to ask my colleague from Georgia a question, if he does not mind, and engage in just a brief colloquy.

Does the gentleman know or has his staff related to him, when the last time occurred in America that a flag was burned, and how often that occurs, let us say, in the last year or 2?

And reclaiming my time, does the gentleman distinguish between flag burning and other forms of desecration when he cites the 119? I have no memory of a flag burning in recent times. And I am curious to know whether or not you do.

Flag burning is what this Congress constitutional amendment is about.

That is my point, reclaiming my time, among others. This is not something that happens frequently.

We begin this debate today as patriotic Americans, you and I, Dr. Gingrey, and the other 433 Members, voting Members of the House of Representatives, and the five delegates to this House.

We began this day with one of our celebrated ideals. It was in 1777 that the Founding Fathers of this Nation determined that there should be a flag as a symbol. Symbol, that is what it is. All of us abhor desecration of the flag. Desecrating the flag is disrespectful and downright disgusting.

But I am curious, because I asked two people in my district, knowing that I would be handling this rule, to observe on their way to work on June 14 the number of people that flew their flags. It is astounding, all of this talk about the flag, and how few people on June 14, that is just recently, on Flag Day, flew their flags.

I am curious, I wonder how many Members did that as well. We begin this debate today with an unresolved war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We begin this debate today with Americans dying in Iraq and Afghanistan and families crying as a result thereof.

We begin this day with the President of the United States saying that we have a Social Security crisis, and one would argue not against the notion that Social Security needs to be reformed in an appropriate manner by the body.

We began this day with a serious Medicaid crisis in this country which we are not addressing. We began this day with an equally serious Medicare crisis which we are not addressing.

We began this day with AIDS raging throughout this country, and sexually transmitted diseases are ripe in our society; and we are not doing as much as we can about it. But yet we come to debate embedding the flag in our precious Constitution in as far as its desecration is concerned.

We begin this debate with millions of Americans without jobs. Some unemployed, some underemployed, and some never to be employed again as a result of the laws of industry in this country from a manufacturing point of view.

This debate begins with oil magnates and their companies receiving their highest profit ever in the history of this country, and American drivers paying the highest prices ever for gasoline; and yet we do not have an energy policy, and other than a handful of us, including myself, no one is introducing legislation to address the high cost of gasoline.

We began this debate today with more than 40 million Americans without health care, 2 million Americans in jail, millions of children dropping out of school. And the best we can do is stir up emotions and divisions by holding a debate about our precious flag. Nothing in the way of positive understandings is coming about as far as immigration problems in this country.

So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the underlying resolution. I firmly believe that passing this bill would abandon the very values and principles upon which this country was founded.

Make no mistake, all of us, as I have said, abhor the desecration of the flag. The flag is a symbol of our country and a reminder of our great heritage. When I graduated from high school in 1954, my assigned topic at that graduation had to do with the song, ``The Old Flag Never Touched the Ground.''

When Frances Scott Key wrote the Star Spangled Banner,'' the flag was tattered and torn; when it was raised in Montezuma or at Arlington Cemetery, all of us are proud every day that that flag flies over this Capitol and elsewhere.

I find it unfortunate that a few individuals choose to desecrate that which we hold so dear. However, it is because of my love for the flag and the country for which it stands that unfortunately I have no choice but to oppose this well-intentioned, yet misguided, legislation.

Our country was founded on certain principles. Our Founders had the broadest visionary scope of their times. Chief among these principles are freedom of speech and expression. These freedoms were included in the Bill of Rights because the Founding Fathers took deliberate steps to avoid creating a country in which individuals' civil liberties could be abridged by the government.

Yet, that is exactly what this amendment would do. In my opinion, it begins a dangerous trend in which the government can decide which ideas are legal and which must be suppressed.

I believe that the true test of a nation's commitment to freedom of expression is shown through its willingness to protect ideas which are unpopular, such as flag desecration. When I was a lawyer, I represented a member of the Ku Klux Klan, because they would not let him put his ad on a Negro station at that time that was owned by members of the Jewish faith.

I won that lawsuit, and I stood for his rights, because I knew if they took his rights away, it would be just a matter of time before they could be able to take mine away. As the Supreme Court Justice, the eminent Oliver Wendell Holmes, wrote in 1929, it is an imperative principle of our Constitution, that it protects not just freedom for thought and expression we agree with, but freedom for the thoughts we hate.

To the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), you and I and all of our colleagues hate it when someone burns a flag. I remember the very last time that I saw one burned sitting in my living room with my mom.

And almost without hesitation, both of us referred to those people as fools, and we used choice words in front of the word fools. Throughout this debate, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that some of our colleagues are going to try to paint some of us Democrats as unpatriotic. They will tell the American people that because we support the protection of our civil liberties and the constitutional right for an American to burn her flag, we are therefore not loyal citizens. They will demagogue us, and some may even accuse the judiciary, a separate and equal branch of government established under article 3 of the Constitution, of being a body filled with activist judges because the highest court in our land has already said that the act of burning an American flag is permissible under the first amendment of the Constitution.

To those who intend to levy such artificial claims, I say shame on you. You see, Mr. Speaker, this Congress and the Bush administration loves draping itself in the flag when talking about troops and terrorism. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, if they so choose to do that.

Yet this is the same administration that while standing, as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) did just a moment ago, in his comments talking about our troops who are dying for us to have the right to be here, and you and I and all of our colleagues are proud of the fact that we can serve in this United States Congress, and there are people as we speak, and certainly more than 1,700 Americans have died in Iraq, and some substantial number in Afghanistan, and, yet, when they come home to Dover, Delaware, with flag-draped coffins, this administration who is so proud of the flag and all of you who would support its being made a part of a Constitution, refuses to let

the public see the pictures of those persons with those flag-draped coffins, and I might add, punishes the media for trying to access them.

The hypocrisy is so thick, that you can choke on it.

Last night in the Committee on Rules, I offered an amendment to the underlying legislation and I said to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) that I found a way that I can support his measure to put the flag in the Constitution. It came by way of an incident that occurred in Durham, North Carolina on May 25 of this year. Three crosses were burned in Durham; one in front of a church, designed to intimidate people. The cross, the precious cross was burned. And yet we find ourselves here talking about the flag. I wonder about my colleagues which offends them more; or do they, as they do me, both offend me highly.

In 2003, the United States Supreme Court upheld a Virginia law banning cross burning in Virginia. The court ruled the burning of a cross by a terrorist organization such as the Ku Klux Klan is not protected by the first amendment because of the maliciousness and intent to intimidate behind the action.

Justice Sandra O'Connor wrote in the majority's opinion, ``While a burning cross does not inevitably convey a message of intimidation, often the cross burner intends that the recipients of the message fear for their lives. And when a cross burning is used to intimidate, few if any messages are more powerful.''

Mr. Speaker, as I began my discussion with my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), I asked, When was the last time we saw a flag burn? I have not seen a flag burning in America. And I might add, when it burns abroad it offends me just as much as when it burns in this country, but I have not seen one of those desecrations in quite some time. But cross burnings continue to plague the South and are used by hate groups to incite, intimidate, and, in some instances, harm and murder. Despite this real epidemic, Congress has always been silent on the issue.

Had my amendment been made in order, and it was not considered to be made in order in the Committee on Rules, the House would have been able to debate this important issue for the first time. The House will not be debating that issue, nor will we be debating the myriad of other issues of critical importance to the American people. There are so many other things that this body could be doing today instead of drawing up another way to impede our constitutionally protected rights.

We could be expanding veterans health care benefits. We could be increasing military pay. We could be providing our soldiers with adequate body armor and protection. We could be improving our schools, creating incentives for affordable housing, ensuring our seniors have long-term health care. We could be completing a transportation reauthorization bill and new school construction. These are just a few of the things, in addition to others that I have mentioned, that we could be doing.

Mr. Speaker, are we so insecure in our own patriotism that seeing someone else burning a flag will lead us to question our commitment to this great Nation? Let us ask ourselves the question, What is America? We know that its symbol stands tall no matter the circumstances.

I love this country and everything our flag stands for, even the things with which I do not agree, and they are numerous; for better or for worse, that is the cost we pay for democracy. I ask you to please consider, when you are talking about putting something in the United States Constitution, that you get past political rhetoric and that you understand the serious dynamics that are involved when we are talking about asking two-thirds of the States in this country and two-thirds of this body and the other body to pass something that will allow us to become more insecure.

I tell you, when I see somebody burn the flag, it makes me mad; it does not make me insecure. And that is what ought cause us to be reaching across to each other, because it is at that one point in time when somebody desecrates the flag that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and I have the exact same view, and that is everybody that is here. Therefore, it is a uniting thing, not a dividing thing between the first amendment rights of people.

Civil liberties are important. I do not like the fools who burn the flag, but I will stand up and protect their right to do so because to take their right means one day somebody might try to take mine.

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

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

I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) before he leaves the floor, that every time that we have amended the Constitution it has been to expand liberties and rights, not to restrict them. If this amendment passes, this would be the first time in the history of this country that we would pass an amendment that would restrict rights and liberties.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I cannot believe my colleague would even try to make such a specious argument, but the fact of the matter is there have only been 15 incidents in a country of 300 million people between the years of 2000 and 2005. There are substantial laws on the books that will prosecute fools who desecrate the flag.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), my very good friend on the House Committee on International Relations.

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

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

I would ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), my friend, does the gentleman know of any time that we have amended the Bill of Rights in the United States of America?

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, because I believe in the first amendment. That was the first thing done in the United States Constitution; and I believe that in 1777, when the Founders of this Nation established the flag as our symbol that they were correct then and they are correct now.

I do not know whether my colleague was on the floor when I said to him, and I rather suspect he was not, that I resent flag burning, but I respect rights, and I will respect the rights of individuals within the framework of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights for as long as I am here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleague from Georgia, if he is interested in this colloquy continuing, perhaps it is that he would yield some time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), who may in turn yield time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) and myself and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I--

No, the gentleman does not.

No.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not want to create a constitutional morass,

but I had the time and yielded to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), and I tried to reclaim my time. The Chair then permitted the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) to yield time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), which should come after the time that I have utilized.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?

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

I would just comment, in the Johnson case, it was Justice Scalia that was the fifth vote that made the ruling that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) was speaking of just a moment ago. I would hope that he would know that.

The sum fact of the matter is none of us are in favor of anybody burning a flag. But the simple fact of the matter is all of us ought to be about the business of protecting the rights and the liberties of United States citizens.

What I have said I repeat, and that is I am not so insecure that when I see a fool burn a flag that it makes me anything more than incensed. It does not cause me to lose any respect for my country at all, but the rights of that individual are the things that we must be here to protect.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule providing for the consideration of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006.

First, Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues that Members who wish to do so can go to the Intelligence Committee office to examine the classified schedule of authorizations for the programs and activities of the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the national intelligence program. This includes authorizations for the CIA as well as the foreign intelligence and counterintelligence programs within, among other things, the Department of Defense, the National Security Agency, the Departments of State, Treasury and Energy, and the FBI. Also included in the classified documents are the authorizations for the tactical intelligence and related activities and joint military intelligence program of the Department of Defense.

Today more than ever, we must make the creation of a strong and flexible intelligence apparatus one of the highest priorities of this body. The terrorist attacks of September 11, combined with the continuing threat of further attacks, underscore the importance of this legislation, and I am pleased that it has been brought to the floor before the July 4 recess.

Now, Mr. Speaker, while I generally support this bill, it is not closed to improvements. As the Democrats noted in our additional views, this bill is the first authorization bill to be considered since the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 became law last December. The reforms undertaken last year, in the aftermath of two intelligence failures, created a Director of National Intelligence and dramatically reshaped the intelligence community. This authorization bill will therefore help define the authorities, priorities, and direction of the Director of National Intelligence and the entire intelligence community.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the committee rejected the President's paltry request for counterterrorism funding and, instead, fully funded the intelligence community's needs. Fully funding counterterrorism represents bipartisanship and good public policy. Of course, this does not seem to be the first time that this administration does not heed the advice of its own intelligence experts, but I digress.

Let me speak also briefly about the fact that this bill and the report accompanying it are pretty much silent on one of the most salient issues of the day, our military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The allegations of severe human rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay are at best extremely disturbing and at worst unforgivable sins of our Nation, which has always led the fight for human rights. I do not work there, so I cannot speak to the veracity of every single allegation. But I do know that Guantanamo Bay is a stealth prison, an unrecognizable blip on the radar screen of domestic and international law. Surrounded by a world of laws, treaties, norms and practices, Guantanamo is an unrecognizable entity, a small space where the law simply does not penetrate.

The prisoners are in judicial limbo, with limited access to lawyers and no legal recourse to profess their guilt or innocence or to protect themselves from abuse. In fact, many of them have now been jailed for more than 3 years without even having been charged with a crime. It sounds a bit Kafkaesque to me. Requests from objective outside observers to examine the condition of the prisoners have been rebuffed time and again. The Bush administration seems to trust in only itself to determine whether the prisoners are deserving of legal protections.

I am disheartened by the intelligence authorization bill's silence on this matter. The Members of this body should be greatly concerned with the utter lack of respect for the law or adherence to international agreements that characterize Guantanamo Bay. Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said, ``If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law.''

Congress has a responsibility to prevent Guantanamo Bay from becoming the personal prison of convenience for the Bush administration to stash people it does not want to suffer legal rights to. This body would be greatly remiss if we shucked that responsibility in favor of turning a blind eye to what very well might be the biggest terrorism recruitment tool since the attacks on September 11.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this bill provides authorizations and appropriations for some of the most important national security programs in this country. With the adoption of the manager's amendment, which we will hear about in much greater detail presently, I look forward to supporting the bill's ultimate passage.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague with whom I serve on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the distinguished ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

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

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

Before yielding to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), I would

just say to my friend from Florida that this judicial review that he talks about evidently is going to take place forever.

It is not about food, Mr. Speaker. The detainees are properly fed. But they cannot see their relatives. Most of them cannot see a lawyer, and most of them have not been told what they are charged with. When I say it is Kafka-esque, Franz Kafka wrote the book ``The Trial'' that said how horrible it was to be in a situation where one does not know their accusers, they do not know what they are charged with, and they are convicted of something in sitting there. We cannot do that in this country. It is not about food. It is about rights. It is about human rights and dignity.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend and classmate, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

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

Just one thing for my friend from Florida: Charge it and prove it. That is all. This is a great Nation. We can charge those folks with a crime, and we can prove that they did what the gentleman said.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this point to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

I am convinced of some things: some of my colleagues just do not get it when it comes to human rights.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I answer the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), I am on the side of the American people and I am on the side of the rights that I believe are principles inherent in our United States Constitution and throughout the United States Constitution.

I do not have time to yield to the gentleman, otherwise I would.

Make no mistake about it, most of us feel as strongly as most of you do, and I do not think that anybody here ought question our patriotism.

This Nation is the greatest Nation on this Earth, and we do not have to have anything to fear. We do not have to have any worry about trying people who harm this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will modify this rule so we can consider the amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) that was rejected in the Committee on Rules last night.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, the Waxman amendment has been explained. It would establish an independent commission, similar to the 9/11 Commission, to conduct an extensive, bipartisan, and thorough investigation into the multiple accounts of prisoner abuse that have occurred in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo.

Mr. Speaker, it has been well over a year since the shocking and humiliating photographs of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib first became public. I doubt there is any Member of this Chamber who was not appalled at that disgraceful act. Yet, in spite of these events, the House has done very little of substance.

Mr. Speaker, if you allow me to conclude by saying, a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Waxman amendment, so we can take immediate steps to fully investigate these very disturbing incidents of prisoner mistreatment.

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 introduce the Gross Overcharging Undermines Gasoline Economics, or GOUGE Act.

As the travel season approaches, many children are out of school and families are happily looking forward to vacations. What they won't be happy about is the skyrocketing cost of getting to their destinations. Unfortunately, whether traveling on the road or in the air, this summer's vacationers will be hit hard by the escalating cost of gasoline.

From March to April of 2005, the cost to fill up a tank of gas rose by more than 10 percent. That's more than twice the increase for the same period last year! But the detrimental effects of high gas prices don't just stop at the pump--they domino throughout every segment of the economy. For a basic item like a loaf of bread, it costs more to fertilize the wheat, more to transport the wheat to the baker, more for the plastic bag to package the bread, and more to get it to the grocery store.

Meanwhile, President Bush has suggested little to lessen the impact of high gas prices. In fact, the President doesn't believe anything can be done. In April 2005, he was quoted as saying, ``An energy bill wouldn't change the price at the pump today. I know that and you know that.''

With all due respect, Mr. President, plenty can and must be done. The Internet is full of comments from people reporting sudden gasoline price increases. In some cases, consumers have witnessed a 10-cent increase in less than 24 hours. There is no possible reason or explanation for these overnight increases. While states across the country are doing what they can to deal with complaints, they have limited recourse to make lasting, beneficial changes until there are consistent federal guidelines.

The GOUGE Act that I am introducing today addresses federal guidelines against gas gouging in four parts. First, the bill imposes a penalty on gas retailers who raise prices on any given day at a rate that is twice the inflation rate. Prices are compared to a base price index derived from the contract price on the New York Mercantile Exchange and adjusted for regional variances. These variances take into account stringent pollution controls, altitude requirements, and special reformulations across the country. The penalties would be no less than $5000 for the 1st offense, no less than $10,000 for the 2nd offense, and no less than $25,000 for the 3rd offense or thereafter.

A steady supply of oil is critical to cost effective gasoline production as well as national security. The second part of my bill helps to ensure this supply through use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).

Following the oil embargo in 1975, the SPR was created to provide a domestic inventory of crude oil, and was intended to be used in emergency situations when the supply of crude oil to the United States is disrupted. The first such use of the SPR was in 1991 during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait by then President George H. W. Bush.

The current Administration, however, has a very different policy on the SPR. In November 2001, President George W. Bush ordered the SPR be filled to its current 700 million barrel capacity with oil from the government's share federally leased oil sites. Since then, maintaining this capacity has had a detrimental affect on oil price increases. First, continuing to fill the SPR at the same time it is 98% full takes oil from the open market, decreasing supply and thereby potentially increasing prices. Second, these additional fills to the SPR are being made while crude prices remain high and volatile. My bill suspends these new fills and releases an additional million barrels per day onto the open market for 30 days to significantly ease market concerns that lead to artificially inflated prices. The laws of supply and demand clearly support this idea as a basic tenet of economics.

Third, the GOUGE Act directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to report on anti-trust practices throughout the oil industry and

to make recommendations to protect consumers from price gouging. This report is essential for putting the oil industry on notice and developing sound federal price gouging legislation.

Finally, my legislation establishes a Pricing and Economic Impact Commission to review the effect of oil supply and demand on the U.S. economy and national security. The Commission will be comprised or 23 members. The President will appoint 11 members total (including at least 1 each) from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, the Council of Economic Advisors, and the Office of Science and Technology. There will also be 12 members appointed by the House and Senate.

Mr. Speaker, our economy depends on reasonable gasoline prices to produce and transport items we use everyday. Without some kind of protection, we all pay higher prices for everything from food to pharmaceuticals. Now that the bubble on fuel cost has burst, prices will only increase. Without action, the supply demands of this summer will soon give way to increased requirements for the winter heating. My legislation works to protect consumers from arbitrary price increases by gas retailers, make effective use of the Strategic Petroleum Preserve, and monitor price irregularities in the oil industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 47, commending the establishment of the first kindergarten in the United States, in College Point, N.Y.

This legislation praises Conrad Poppenhusen, the Poppenhusen Institute, and the citizens of College Point, New York, for establishing the first early childhood education institution open to the public, in 1854.

This resolution rightly expresses the sense of Congress that the government should recognize the importance of childhood education, and the social and academic enrichment provided to students through free and public kindergartens throughout the Nation.

Studies commissioned by the Department of Education consistently demonstrate that children who attend kindergarten exhibit higher levels of mathematics and reading skills than those who do not.

Children enrolled in kindergarten have consistently and more rapidly acquired skills necessary for success in an academic environment. Additionally, students enrolled in early childhood education are exposed at an early age to students of different racial, cultural, economic, and religious backgrounds, providing valuable learning experiences and aiding in the social development of our Nation's youth.

Madam Speaker, let me conclude by again expressing my support for this legislation and encouraging my colleagues to support it. The time has come for our government to recognize and honor the establishment of our Nation's kindergartens, the very institutions that equip our children with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in school and life while also providing a diverse environment in which to learn and grow.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes, and I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me the time.

Let me quote, this would undermine American credibility at the United Nations. It would undermine our effectiveness. Those are the words of the distinguished Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, who said of the bill that we are considering, it will call into question our reliability as the founder and host Nation and leading contributor to the United Nations and would also harm our image worldwide.

My colleague from Utah pointed to the bipartisanship. I gather that he would agree that it is bipartisan when Nicholas Burns and Alcee Hastings and other Democrats and this administration join in opposing this measure.

In my opinion, this bill takes a shortsighted approach to reforming the United Nations. There are decent, necessary and desirable provisions in this legislation, but, Madam Speaker, this bill takes well-thought-out ideas and pushes them far into the realm of demagoguery, demonstrating a contempt for the United Nations that is entirely unfounded.

The United Nations Reform Act is yet another example of the majority's willingness to bulldoze over dissension and force its will upon those who would otherwise disagree. The draconian requirements of the underlying legislation will affect everything from the promotion of human rights in the organization to the inclusion of mandatory sunset provisions for all new U.N. programs.

The most shortsighted of the bill's provisions would require a mandatory withholding of peacekeeping funds unless the requirements in this legislation are met.

Madam Speaker, simply put, prohibiting the Secretary of State from exercising discretion regarding the withholding of funds to the United Nations is counterproductive. The Secretary herself told a group here in the Capitol day before yesterday that the Bush administration is not supporting the mandatory withholdings contained in this bill. It seems clear that if even this administration, which has never been reluctant to withhold criticism of the U.N., is against this provision, then it must be bad.

It has become a cliche when Members of the House speak repeatedly about winning the hearts and minds of the world; yet our constant use of gun-barrel diplomacy continues to fail. Do my colleagues really believe that withholding millions of dollars from the United Nations will encourage the member nations to go along with what we are trying to do today?

Adlai Stevenson, that great champion of world diplomacy, said, ``The whole basis of the United Nations is the right of all nations, great or small, to have weight, to have a vote, to be attended to.'' Now, more than 40 years later, the underlying legislation seeks to eliminate the right of any country besides our own to chart the future of the United Nations.

The only way for us to reform the U.N. is to work within it rather than threatening to take our ball and go home. We will not be successful by withholding the funds that are needed to do the job.

Thanks to the Bush administration, the United States' international reputation as a peace-loving Nation is in tatters. Now my friends on the other side want to pass a bill which will withhold peacekeeping funds while conflicts rage around this world unchecked? This is irresponsible, immoral and a foreign policy disaster.

Everyone in this body realizes that the United Nations is not a perfect organization, but on balance, the United Nations has been and will continue to be good for America on a range of global issues.

Let us not forget the thousands of United Nations personnel who risked their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan to bring about successful and free elections in those countries or the role of the U.N. in effecting the withdrawal of Syrian military forces from Lebanon.

In March of 2005, Secretary-General Annan released a string of initiatives to combat terrorism, proposals that the United States Government has openly supported. And in the Sudan, the U.N. has committed aid workers, troops, police, and money to ensure the success of peace accords.

The U.N. also continues to provide a global voice and to be a powerful advocate for change around the world. How many millions of children's lives have been saved through UNICEF, Madam Speaker? How many millions of lives have been saved through disease treatment and eradication programs? How many have been made better through development assistance, cultural programs, and advances in education? Can we really justify cutting off our support for all these efforts simply because the U.N. does not implement every single one of our reform proposals?

Madam Speaker, that is the reason I will be supporting the Lantos- Shays substitute to this bill. Eleanor Roosevelt, our country's first representative to the United Nations, remarked, ``Do what you feel in your heart to be right, for you will be criticized anyway.'' It may be that the United States will still be criticized even if we adopt the substitute and these reforms are pushed through. But I would rather do the right thing and be criticized than give up and go home because things did not go 100 percent of the way that we wanted it to.

The Lantos-Shays substitute takes a realistic approach to reforming the United Nations. It includes virtually all of the reforms in H.R. 2745, with one crucial difference. The substitute gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to make decisions regarding funds based on the needs of the United States. The substitute avoids the counterproductive all-or-nothing diplomacy of this measure, while still promoting the reforms everyone agrees are needed.

Madam Speaker, legislating unrealistic ultimatums will not achieve the goal that we are seeking. I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill- advised and shortsighted legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the chairman, and I agree with him regarding our rhetoric. When I made my references I was referring to the Bush administration and not to the distinguished chairman and other Members in the body. And I stand by those statements, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 8 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to yield 3 minutes to my good friend and classmate, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to join in whole-hearted endorsement in echoing of all of the words of praise that have been directed toward the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. I have known the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) to not only be gentlemanly and eloquent, but fair-minded and bipartisan in a substantial number of efforts, and I, like all of our colleagues here, deeply appreciate the work that he has done on behalf of this Nation and indeed this world throughout the course of his career, and I compliment him in that regard.

I also accept the chastisement of the distinguished Chair with reference to rhetoric, but I would urge that some of the rhetoric that I may have used is rhetoric that I learned here in the House of Representatives that has been used on both sides of the aisle much too often, in my judgment.

That said, I would like not to be an apologist for the United Nations. The United Nations needs to be reformed, and I think that it could be put better by the words of Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, whom I quoted when I began. I further quote him in saying that it is more important to press for structural reforms. I think Ambassador Burns is absolutely mindful of what all of us are. The gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde); the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), my good friend, the distinguished ranking member; the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), his colleague in filing this measure; all of the members of the Committee on International Relations, indeed all the Members of this body recognize that the United Nations has problems. But if we are in the business of using this as precedent, then we would not want to establish a precedent where using the hammer, as the gentleman from Indiana referred to the monetary withholding as being the hammer, to cause people to undertake to do what we say. Then we establish that as a precedent, and we look up next month, 2 months from now, another country comes forward. We are not the only dues payor, we are the largest dues payor to the United Nations. So someone else that decides that it should reform in a way more likely to comport with their government's understandings could use this as a precedent. I do not think that that is a good thing. I do not think that is good policymaking, and I have tried to make that clear.

Let me give the Members the analogy by way of an exact example. I happen to be the president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. It is the first time that an American has been the president, and we are holding the Assembly's conference here in Washington, D.C., and I thank the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate for the extraordinary effort that they have put in allowing that this Assembly be undertaken in appropriate fashion in a bipartisan way. Secretary Rice is one of the featured speakers at that Assembly.

I raise it only for this reason, and I see the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my good friend, who is the Chair of the Helsinki House side of the same Assembly that I am talking

about. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) can relate to what I am about to say, and I ask the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) to do so as well.

More than a year ago, the governing side of the OSCE was met with threats from the country Russia. And we agree even today that transparency and accountability in that organization is critical. They hold most of their undertakings behind closed doors. They operate on the consensus rule, and it primarily stagnates the mission of the OSCE. But Russia said that unless the United States paid more dues, interestingly enough in this particular instance, and that they paid less dues, and that reform measures that they were seeking were implemented, that they would withhold their dues from the OSCE. It did not stop the organization from running. It is not going to stop the Assembly from taking place here in Washington, D.C., July 1 through July 5. But what it did was that threat caused turmoil inside the organization that is in need of reform, and I think we run into the same kind of measure here in this particular proposal.

Listen, Madeleine Albright and John Danforth, Richard Holbrooke and Jeane Kirkpatrick are nobody's rookies, and they are not naive when it comes to what is needed. Thomas Pickering and Bill Richardson and Donald McHenry and Andrew Young, all eight of these individuals were people that served as our Ambassadors under Republican and Democratic administrations to the United Nations, and during that entire period of time, each of them in their own way contributed to meaningful reform. All of them have said, The need for United Nations reform is clear, but we urge that you carefully consider this legislation because it will not, it will not, do the necessary reforms at the U.N.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help ease the effect on consumers and airline passengers if the price of gas spikes dramatically. This bill reduces or refunds federal tax on gasoline and motor fuel when the price of gas spikes dramatically.

My legislation, the Gas Price Spike Relief Act of 2005, temporarily cuts the federal gas tax for consumers by providing a tax refund to retailers if the price of motor or aviation fuel rises 10 percent during the course of a month. When the price of fuel jumps this drastically, the Gas Price Spike Relief Act will reduce the tax on motor and aviation fuel by 4.3 cents/gallon and allow retailers to apply for a refund of this tax, ensuring that this tax relief will not affect any money designated for the repair of highways and roads through the Highway Trust Fund. Providing this relief will spur the reduction of gasoline prices at the pump as well as the price of airline tickets.

This legislation address a growing need to provide relief to average Americans from wildly fluctuating gas prices. For example, from March to April of 2005, the cost to fill up a tank of gas rose by more than 10 percent. That's more than twice the increase for the same period last year! We need to be helping working families out--not abandoning them like Republicans have--when no logical explanation exists for ridiculous gas price spikes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Gas prices have gotten out of control. This legislation will provide some needed relief while maintaining the gas price stability our Nation needs. I look forward to working with my colleagues and moving this legislation forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation which will go a long way to reducing the burden placed on American consumers due to escalating gas costs.

My bill, the Working Families Gas Tax Credit Act, provides a $250 tax credit to individuals who make $25,000 or less, and $500 for joint filers who make $50,000 or less, if the cost of a gallon of gasoline over a taxable year has increased from the previous year by more than twice the rate of inflation.

The credit will increase annually at an amount equal to the rate of inflation. The cost for a gallon of gasoline is based on the U.S. Regular All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices, prepared by the Energy Information Administration of the Department of Energy.

Except for housing costs, low- and middle-income households in the United States spend more of their earnings on transportation than anything else. This minimal credit would go a long way to helping low- and middle-income families cope with escalating gas costs and limited resources.

I ask for my colleagues' support, and I urge the House Leadership to bring this bill to the floor swiftly for its consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Haiti Compassion Act. Do our colleagues know that before Haiti had even achieved its own independence in 1804, 500 Haitian troops joined American colonists in an attempt to drive the British from Savannah, Georgia? In that one battle, Haitians made up the largest military unit to fight in the 1779 siege. Haiti demonstrated through noble action and sacrifice its loyal friendship to the United States more than 225 years ago. It is now time for Congress to do the responsible thing and protect the lives and well-being of those who have stood by us for centuries.

2004 was a debilitating and tragic year for Haiti and her people. Haiti remains severely devastated by the combined effects of ongoing political turmoil and the aftermath of the natural disasters of 2004, such as Tropical Storm Jeanne and Hurricane Ivan. Political oppression and human rights violations are rife in Haiti while poverty and homelessness have become the norm for too many innocent people. To return a Haitian national back to Haiti is not only morally unjustifiable, but poses a severe threat to their personal safety.

If you don't take my word, then ask, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. On March 11, 2005 the U.S. Department of State issued a travel warning to U.S. Citizens, warning them of the ``absence of an effective police force in much of Haiti, the potential for looting, the presence of intermittent roadblocks set by armed gangs or by the police, and the possibility of random violent crime, including kidnapping, car-jacking, and assault.'' The Department of State's Consular Information Sheet states, ``There are no ``safe areas'' in Haiti.'' As a result, ``U.S. Citizens should avoid travel to Haiti at this time.''

At a time when current U.S. policy is to compel its own citizens not to travel to Haiti, it is unjust to return Haitian nationals to this type of dangerous situation. To return a Haitian national back to Haiti where there is ongoing violence and a devastating environmental situation would pose a severe threat to one's personal safety. Both Democrats and Republicans have mentioned the history of blatant discrimination and mistreatment of Haitians in the immigration process. Therefore, the time has arrived for us to offer some much-deserved compassion and effective action on the behalf of our loyal friends.

My legislation would designate Haiti under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act in order to render nationals of Haiti eligible for temporary protected status. In light of the political, civil, and governmental crisis and tragic conditions caused by the recent environmental disasters in Haiti, my legislation would make nationals of Haiti eligible for temporary protected status.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, not because of what it allows but rather because of what it does not allow. As my colleague from the majority noted, this rule permits Members to offer amendments to the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill under the House's 5-minute rule if they do not need waivers of the House rules.

As someone who will be offering an amendment to that bill later today, I appreciate that the majority structured the rule in such a manner. However, I am greatly concerned that the rule blocks the ranking Democrat of the Appropriations Committee, my friend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), from offering a critical amendment which would have added $500 million to the bill to fully restore EPA's State and Tribal Grant Program, and Clean Water State Revolving Fund to their fiscal 2004 levels.

These two programs allow communities around the country to repair and modernize their water systems, and the underlying legislation greatly underfunds each account.

For the fiscally conservative in the House, the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was revenue neutral, paying for itself by capping the tax cut for millionaires at just over $138,000. The amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) could have benefited literally millions of Americans by making their drinking water cleaner. But the Rules Committee, on a straight party line vote, prohibited the House from considering the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, we live in trying times with enormous fiscal constraints, many of which have been brought upon ourselves. As the chairman and ranking Democrat of the Interior and Environmental Appropriations Subcommittee will probably note today, they did the best that they could with what they were given.

Indeed they did. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their hard and perhaps most importantly bipartisan work on this legislation. I do believe that they did the best with what the majority gave them.

The underlying legislation includes funding which is essential to Everglades restoration, in my district and throughout South Florida. The bill maintains funding for the National Endowment of the Arts at its current level, and it increases funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities by a little less than $500,000.

The bill also increases funding for operations at our national parks, as well as a $67 million much-needed increase in funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Despite these increases the underlying legislation makes major cuts in funding to some of our most important environmental and health programs. $240 million has been cut from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. $110 million from the State and Tribal Assistance Grant Account.

Conservation funding is about $750 million below, or less than half of what was promised when Congress passed the Conservation and Restoration Act in 2000. Overall, EPA's budget has been cut by $300 million.

This is only the second of 13 appropriations measures which this body will consider over the next few months. It is also the second appropriations bill in which we can see the drastic and dramatic effects of the Bush tax cuts. Republicans are going to try and associate domestic funding cuts with the cost of the war in Iraq. It seems like a plausible reason, and certainly one that the public could believe. But the truth is that domestic spending cuts are not occurring to pay for the war, they are happening to pay for the President's tax cuts.

The Republican budget that Congress approved 2 weeks ago only set aside $50 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan combined. The remaining costs, probably another $50 billion or more, if this year is any indication, will be funded by Congress through so-called emergency supplemental appropriations. These emergency costs will be added to the national debt, because we irresponsibly did not budget for it though we knew they were obvious. What has ensued is not the fault of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Speaker, it is the fault of those who supported the budget resolution.

Later today, some Members will seek to improve the funding shortfalls, which the chairman and ranking Democrat sought to avoid.

For example, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) will offer an amendment that restores the President's 33 percent cut for environmental justice programs to the fiscal year 2005 level.

The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) will also offer an amendment that will increase funding for the cleanup of brownfields sites by $2 million.

Additionally, I will offer an amendment that will require EPA to identify and take the necessary steps to protect minority and low income communities from bearing a disproportionate burden of poor environmental policy which adversely affects their health and well being.

All communities currently do not share in the burden of health and environmental risks, and my amendment expresses Congress' support for EPA doing what is necessary to protect these communities.

Mr. Speaker, individuals in our country on their own are not going to force power companies to reduce mercury emissions from smokestacks. Individuals on their own are not going to conduct major environmental restoration, and they certainly do not have the capacity to clean up our drinking water. But collectively, collectively, Mr. Speaker, we can all make this happen.

When utilizing the Clean Air Act, EPA can force power plants to come into compliance with new standard reviews. When enforcing the Clean Drinking Water Act, EPA can require cities and counties to provide their residents with safe drinking water.

With innovation that can only occur in a consortium of stakeholders, the Department of the Interior can make major environmental restoration projects a reality.

Enforcement is not free and neither is environmental restoration. Everyone in America shares in the responsibility of contributing his or her own fair share. Is there any Member in this body who is unwilling to pay just a little more to ensure that everyone in America has clean air to breathe? If given the chance, who would not be willing to pool his or her resources with others in his or her neighborhood to collectively ensure that everyone, everyone, has safe drinking water, or that no child will be forced to grow up playing in backyards polluted by dangerous levels of mercury and other toxins.

I do not blame or fault the appropriators for the funding cuts in the underlying legislation; but I do fault the majority in this body for creating a situation in which failure to adequately fund America's needs has become imminent. The American people will feel the same way when they wake up tomorrow and realize that their children and grandchildren will be paying for our fiscal mismanagement for generations to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) with whom I serve on the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit confuzzled by the continuing argument of my colleague and friend on the Committee on Rules that his State is impacted by virtue of education formulas. I do not disagree with what the gentleman says, but I find it interesting that the State of Utah, while the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is arguing that they are not getting enough money for education, the State of Utah legislature passed measures saying they do not want any Federal money for education. They need to make up their mind so we know what all they are doing out there.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so we can consider the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that was rejected in the Rules Committee last night on a straight party-line vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Obey amendment would add $500 million to the bill to restore funding for the EPA Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program to its fiscal year 2004 levels. This program allows communities around the country to repair and modernize their water systems. I find it incomprehensible that we do not understand the dynamics of that or that most if not all of us in this body do not have communities that would benefit from modernizing our water systems. The Obey amendment offsets these expenditures by capping at just over $138,000 the tax cut for people making over $1 million this year. The Obey amendment pays for itself and adds nothing to the Federal debt while maintaining funding levels in every other program in the bill.

This amendment will correct one of the most serious shortfalls in this bill. It is absolutely critical that this funding be restored. We can fix this today if we allow the Obey amendment to be considered on the floor. But the only way that will happen is if we defeat the previous question.

I want to assure my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the Interior Appropriations bill, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Obey amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will block consideration of the Obey amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote.

I urge my colleagues in the House to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2361 that is of critical importance to the health and well-being of minority and low-income communities throughout the United States.

In an effort to cut down on the time constraints, let me just briefly explain the amendment. It prohibits the EPA from using funds in this bill to work in contravention of Executive Order 12898 and delay the implementation of that order.

My amendment makes clear Congress's support for the executive order and its original intention to achieve health and environmental equity in minority and low-income communities.

Mr. Chairman, to seek out environmental justice is an effort to achieve health and environmental equity across all community lines. In adopting my amendment, Congress will call on EPA to move forward with the identification of at-risk minority and low-income communities so appropriate steps can be taken to improve their health and well-being.

Justice should never be reserved only for those who can afford to help themselves. I ask for my colleagues' support to ensure EPA takes the appropriate steps to protect minority and low-income communities from continued environmental injustices.

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

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the findings of the EPA Inspector General Report and those in support of the amendment.

Evaluation Report: EPA Needs To Consistently Implement the Intent of the Executive Order on Environmental Justice--Report No. 2004-P-00007--

March 1, 2004

Executive Summary

Purpose

In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898,

``Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-income Populations,'' to ensure such

populations are not subjected to a disproportionately high

level of environmental risk. The overall objective of this

evaluation was to determine how the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) is integrating environmental justice

into its day-to-day operations. Specifically, we sought to

answer the following questions:

How has the Agency implemented Executive Order 12898 and

integrated its concepts into EPA's regional and program

offices?

How are environmental justice areas defined at the regional

levels and what is the impact?

Results in brief

EPA has not fully implemented Executive Order 12898 nor

consistently integrated environmental justice into its day-

to-day operations. EPA has not identified minority and low-

income, nor identified populations addressed in the Executive

Order, and has neither defined nor developed criteria for

determining disproportionately impacted. Moreover, in 2001,

the Agency restated its commitment to environmental justice

in a manner that does not emphasize minority and low-income

populations, the intent of the Executive Order.

Although the Agency has been actively involved in

implementing Executive Order 12898 for 10 years, it has not

developed a clear vision or a comprehensive strategic plan,

and has not established values, goals, expectations, and

performance measurements. We did note that the Agency made an

attempt to issue an environmental justice toolkit; endorsed

environmental justice training; and required that all

regional and programmatic offices submit ``Action Plans'' to

develop some accountability for environmental justice

integration.

In the absence of environmental justice definitions,

criteria, or standards from the Agency, many regional and

program offices have taken steps, individually, to implement

environmental justice policies. This has resulted in

inconsistent approaches by the regional offices. Thus, the

implementation of environmental justice actions is dependent

not only on minority and income status but on the EPA region

in which the person resides. Our comparison of how

environmental justice protocols used by three different

regions would apply to the same city showed a wide

disparity in protected populations.

We believe the Agency is bound by the requirements of

Executive Order 12898 and does not have the authority to

reinterpret the order. The Acting Deputy Administrator needs

to reaffirm that the Executive Order 12898 applies

specifically to minority and low-income populations that are

disproportionately impacted. After 10 years, there is an

urgent need for the Agency to standardize environmental

justice definitions, goals, and measurements for the

consistent implementation and integration of environmental

justice at EPA.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Acting Deputy Administrator issue a

memorandum reaffirming that Executive Order 12898 is an

Agency priority and that minority and low-income populations

disproportionately impacted will be the beneficiaries of this

Executive Order. Additionally, EPA should establish specific

time frames for the development of definitions, goals, and

measurements. Furthermore, we recommended that EPA develop

and articulate a clear vision on the Agency's approach to

environmental justice. We also recommended that EPA develop a

comprehensive strategic plan, ensure appropriate training is

provided, clearly define the mission of the Office of

Environmental Justice, determine if adequate resources are

being applied to environmental justice, and develop a

systematic approach to gathering information related to

environmental justice.

Agency comments and OIG evaluation

In the response to our draft report, the Agency disagreed

with the central premise that Executive Order 12898 requires

the Agency to identify and address the environmental effects

of its programs on minority and low-income populations. The

Agency believes the Executive Order ``instructs the Agency to

identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental, effects of it (sic) programs,

policies, and activities.'' The Agency does not take into

account the inclusion of the minority and low-income

populations, and indicated it is attempting to provide

environmental justice for everyone. While providing adequate

environmental justice to the entire population is

commendable, doing so had already been EPA's mission prior to

implementation of the Executive Order; we do not believe the

intent of the Executive Order was simply to reiterate that

mission. We believe the Executive Order was specifically

issued to provide environmental justice to minority and/or

low-income populations due to concerns that those populations

had been disproportionately impacted by environmental risk.

A summary of the Agency's response and our evaluation is

included at the end of each chapter. The Agency's complete

response and our evaluation of that response are included in

Appendices D and E, respectively.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the end of the Holocaust. This year's anniversary is particularly compelling not only because it marks six decades since the liberation of the Jewish people from history's darkest hour, but also because our world has failed to heed the universal message of the Holocaust. Crimes against humanity anywhere are an affront to all people everywhere.

Indeed, I would be doing a disservice to the Holocaust survivors throughout South Florida if I do not address that most unconscionable crime of genocide. Sixty years ago the world failed to aid the victims of the Nazi regime. We conveniently dodged our duty by claiming unsubstantiated evidence, a lack of effective resources to respond, and the existence of more pressing concerns elsewhere in the world.

Today, we are remembering the Holocaust while again evading taking the necessary steps to end the genocide in the Darfur region of the Sudan. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and millions displaced from their homes by a bloodthirsty militia backed by the Sudanese military and government. Yet we insist that our resources are spread too thin, that events elsewhere in the world command our attention, and that deciding upon the strict definition of these crimes should determine whether we respond forcefully or not. Mr. Speaker, shame on us for using the same old excuses.

Elected officials often speak about spreading freedom, establishing democracies, and ensuring minority rights around the world. These are noble endeavors indeed, Mr. Speaker. But what about spreading the saving of human lives? The sacred Jewish text the Talmud reminds us that to save one life is to save the whole world. How many worlds are dying every day in Darfur? I am sure that the Holocaust survivors here in the Capitol Building today can tell us because they witnessed firsthand the cataclysmic annihilation of their families, their neighbors, their friends, and their people. Their memories are still fresh, their thoughts still lucid, and their commitment to educating the world about the Holocaust is more than admirable.

Sixty years ago, without rhyme or reason, an entire nation of people were murdered, wrenched from the Earth by an unholy evil. This malevolence persists today in the form of bigotry and intolerance, torture and genocide. Every instance that we ignore and every crime that we brush off feeds the incipient hatred that compels the concentration camp, the slave labor force, the disdain for human life, and the ease with which it is taken.

Mr. Speaker, we owe it to those whose names have since been lost to refuse to condemn the genocide in Darfur with only our words. We have come too far in 60 years to slide back again. If we have learned anything from the Holocaust it is that it must not be allowed to happen again. Today is Holocaust Commemoration Day, but it is not enough for us to simply remember. We must also never forget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the outstanding life of Dr. Kenneth B. Clark who passed away on May 1, 2005 at his home in Hastings-on-the-Hudson, NY. Dr. Clark was 90 years old.

Dr. Clark was a social scientist best known for his pivotal research used during the Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954. Along with his wife, Mamie Phipps Clark, the two documented studies of the damaging affect on black school children from the separate-but-equal doctrine. As an attorney, Thurgood Marshall successfully used this research in his argument against racial segregation in public schools. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the practice of racial segregation as unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Dr. Clark was born in the Panama Canal Zone on July 14, 1914. His mother is credited as his model of perseverance and struggle through social issues. Over the objection of his father, Dr. Clark's mother insisted on returning to the United States. She made the solo trip back to New York City with Clark and his sister Beulah, in 1919. As a seamstress at a sweatshop in the garment district, Dr. Clark's mother supported her children and became one of the first stewards for the women's garment union. ``Somehow she communicated to me the excitement of people doing things together to help themselves,'' Dr. Clark once said.

In addition to his work in psychology, Dr. Clark had many of his own groundbreaking achievements as an educator and leader. In 1940, he became the first African-American to earn a doctoral degree at Columbia University in New York. His wife later became the second African American to earn a doctoral degree there. Dr. Clark served as the American Psychological Association president, and in 1960, he was the first tenured African-American professor at the City College of New York. The State Department hired him as a personnel division consultant from 1961-62. By 1966, Dr. Clark was a member of the New York State Board of Regents where he remained for 20 years. After retiring from the Board of Regents, Dr. Clark set up a consulting company that specialized in equal employment opportunity and affirmative action.

Dr. Clark is survived by his daughter, Kate Harris, his son, Hilton B. Clark, three grandchildren and five great-grandchildren. Mamie Clark died in 1983. Dr. Clark's work as an educator and researcher remains a lasting legacy for civil rights issues. He was motivated by belief that a ``racist system inevitably destroys and damages human beings; it brutalizes and dehumanizes them, black and white alike.''

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Clark was an eminent scholar whose legacy will be cherished and remembered. He was a mighty influence who brought people together across racial lines. His spirit and insight were instrumental in establishing equality in education and beyond. The impact of Dr. Clark's work helped to raise the dignity and worth of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 23.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 144, H.R. 748, final passage, I mistakenly voted ``yes.'' I request the Record reflect I intended to vote ``no.''