Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, October 10 marks the National Day of Taiwan,

and I rise today in support and to congratulate this beacon of democracy and freedom.

Taiwan has much to celebrate this National Day. It is a vibrant democracy where individual freedom is given the appreciation it certainly deserves. It is undeniable that Taiwan has moved rapidly toward full democracy. Elections for important posts in the government are held regularly, political parties have reached an established level of maturity, and people actively participate in the democratic process. Taiwanese citizens have a greater control over affairs of state than ever before.

There are so many throughout the international community who sincerely appreciate the political aspirations of Taiwan. Taiwan stands like an obelisk of democracy and hope in the South China Sea. Unfortunately, so many throughout the world have never fully benefited from all that Taiwan has to offer. For example, many of the medical advancements made by Taiwanese doctors and scientists have not been shared with the world because Taiwan lacks WHO membership. Taiwan enjoys one of the highest life expectancy rates in Asia, has relatively low infant and maternal mortality rates, and has eradicated major infectious diseases such as cholera, smallpox, and polio. Additionally, Taiwan's government was the first in the world to provide children with free hepatitis B vaccinations. The successes of Taiwan's medical experts must no longer remain locked in a chamber of politics, and access to these ideas must be extended to all countries.

The international community must recognize that each country in the world will benefit multi-fold from Taiwan's inclusion in the WHO, even if it is just as an observer. Until then, individuals in need of medical assistance throughout the world will not fully benefit from the wonderful advancements Taiwan has made in the field of medicine.

Mr. Speaker, health has no borders, and certainly neither does disease. Providing Taiwan with observer status in the WHO is long overdue. Taiwan is one of the most dramatic success stories of Asia. I join the people of Taiwan as they celebrate their National Day, and may America's support for the people of Taiwan be everlasting.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Relief for Life-Saving Blood Donors Act, a bill to provide a tax deduction for the selfless act of donating blood.

Each year, more than 4.5 million Americans need a life-saving blood transfusion, and about 25 percent of all Americans will need a blood transfusion at least once in their life. This means that almost every American will come to know, through their own experience or through those of a friend or family member, the importance that the small act of blood donation can make. Indeed, a single blood donation can help as many as three people.

While 60 percent of Americans are eligible to give blood, only about 5 percent of that population, or about 8.8 million Americans, actually do. According to the American Association of Blood Banks, the average donor is a college-educated white male between the ages of 30 and 50, who is married and has an above average income. Nevertheless, blood donations are increasingly coming from women and minority groups, engendering greater participation at the community level by members who seek to develop a more solid sense of neighborhood unity.

America's blood supply is critical to our Nation's seniors. While those aged 69 years and older account for just 10 percent of the population, they require 50 percent of blood transfusions. This statistic will only increase with the aging of the Baby Boomer population, and the need for blood will be even greater.

While there is no current, nationwide shortage of blood, regional and local shortages do occur. It is not hard to imagine that a major national trauma, such as a terrorist attack, disease, or natural disaster, could strain the blood supply even further. Since blood cannot be manufactured, the system is reliant on people to donate their blood.

Mr. Speaker, donating blood is a small but entirely selfless act that does nothing but help those who need it most. Congress should support this endeavor, and encourage people to give blood as often as they can.

This legislation provides a $50 tax deduction for individuals who donate blood, with a maximum deduction of $150 a year. This maximum reflects the advice of blood bank centers and institutions that encourage people to give blood three times a year. This relief is a small reward for people who do give, and an encouragement for those who might need that extra little push to attend a blood drive.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and call on the House to bring it expeditiously to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, epic floods, death, and starvation. Unfortunately for the people of Haiti, Grenada and the Cayman Islands these are not Biblical times of which I speak, but the here and now.

Mr. Speaker, Tropical Storm Jeanne and Hurricane Ivan have particularly devastated Haiti, Grenada and the Cayman Islands. There are no structures in place to respond to the needs of the populations, especially in areas like Gonaives, St. George and Grand Cayman, where Jeanne and Ivan hit hardest.

The unusual and extraordinary hurricane activity in the Caribbean during the 2004 season has prevented many Caribbean nationals in the United States from returning to their home countries, and for these countries to receive their repatriation.

Responding to these dire needs, I have introduced the ``Emergency Relief for Caribbean Nationals Act,'' which designates Haiti, Grenada and the Cayman Islands under section 24 of the Immigration and Nationality Act in order to make nationals of those countries eligible for Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

Mr. Speaker, if there was ever a time for the federal government to grant Temporary Protected Status it is now.

TPS has been granted in the past to nationals of Sudan, Liberia, Guinea-Bissau, Somalia, Burundi, Bosnia-Herzegovina, El Salvador and Guatemala due to political unrest in those countries.

Also, TPS was granted to Hondurans and Nicaraguans after Hurricane Mitch in 1998 and to Salvadorans after an earthquake in 2001, and to Montserratians in 1995 after a volcano eruption. Sadly, Tropical Storm Jeanne and Hurricane Ivan caused similar devastation and suffering in Haiti, Grenada and the Cayman Islands, and in the same way merit TPS.

The startling facts of the natural disaster in the Caribbean are the following:

Tropical Storm Jeanne came ashore on the Island of Hispaniola, lashing first the Dominican Republic and then Haiti on September 16. When Jeanne hit, Haiti was already struggling to deal with political instability and the aftermath of serious floods in May. Nevertheless, Tropical Storm Jeanne hit Haiti with devastating force. More than 1,500 people are now known to have died and more than 1,000 are missing. Also, more than 300,000 people have been left homeless.

The situation is so calamitous that Haiti's Prime Minister Grerard Latortue said after visiting the stricken northern city of Gonoies, ``We have a problem with bodies: there is a risk of epidemic. If you can picture this: there is no electricity, the morgues are not working, there is water everywhere.''

Only weeks earlier, Hurricane Ivan, the strongest storm to hit the Caribbean in a decade, pounded Grenada. Hurricane Ivan killed 39 people in Grenada and left 40,000 of its 90,000 people living in 183 houses, schools and churches that have been converted into shelters. Grenada's capital, St. George, was hit by 125 mph winds--flattening homes and disrupting power. The storm destroyed the city's emergency operations center, the main prison, many schools, and damaged the main hospital.

Now an environmental health hazard has arisen in Grenada. The runoff, which contains pathogens from several sources, including human waste, is contaminating rivers where people are washing and bathing.

Thereafter, Hurricane Ivan blasted the Cayman Islands with 150 mph winds that ripped roofs off houses, uprooted trees and caused flooding across the British territory. 15 to 20 percent of homes on the eastern part of the Cayman Islands were completely destroyed, and another 50 percent suffered significant damage.

The extraordinary and temporary conditions caused by nature, and resulting in floods, epidemics and other environmental disasters in Haiti, Grenada, and Cayman Islands warrant granting their nationals Temporary Protected Status. Giving TPS to people from Haiti, Grenada and the Cayman Islands is consistent with the national interest of the United States, and denotes the values and morals that have made this nation strong.

Therefore, I urge you to cosponsor the ``Emergency Relief for Caribbean Nationals Act.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my deep concerns about H.R. 10, the Republican Leadership's intelligence reorganization bill. There are many problems with this bill.

As the Ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, I have been engaged in the debate on intelligence reorganization ever since 9/11. I was privileged to join 8 of my colleagues in April to introduce H.R. 4104, the Intelligence Transformation Act, which helped to inform the 9/11 Commission and was a precursor to the great debate we have had on intelligence reform over the last two months.

The bill the House is now being asked to consider does not come close to reflecting the legislation that I and others introduced this April, and its flaws are many.

The provisions contained in Title I are intended to strengthen intelligence, but they are far too weak. Where is the strong budget authority for the National Intelligence Director? Where is the strong hiring and firing authority for the National Intelligence Director? Where are the detailed provisions necessary for improving counterterrorism information sharing? Where is the National Counterterrorism Center's real power to coordinate counterterrorism operations? They are not in the Republican Leadership bill.

Senators Collins and Lieberman have led a remarkable, bipartisan effort in the other body. They consulted with the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 families. Their bill is a battle-tested product.

If the House of Representatives is going to undertake a serious effort to improve our response to terrorism, we must do so seriously. We must improve this seriously-flawed bill.

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

The previous speaker, not the gentlewoman from Florida but the distinguished ranking member from New York, when speaking commented as to the site that could be viewed by one who was interested, and he said it was waysandmeans.house.com. I have been instructed that it was waysandmeans.house.gov. It is kind of catching up here, sort of like Vice President Cheney. You know, we can make those mistakes sometimes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, later today we will take up the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for the year 2005. It is a help, but it is simply not enough. From today's newspapers, we learn that the four hurricanes which struck over 6 weeks have wiped out thousands of jobs and billions of dollars' worth of property. Economists estimate that that is the case.

The hurricanes caused parts of 10 eastern States from Florida to Vermont to be declared Federal disaster areas. The storms destroyed or seriously damaged many hotels, restaurants, stores, factories and other businesses while temporarily closing seaports, harbors, theme parks and other tourist destinations. Insurance payments will be as much as $23 billion.

I call on the House of Representatives to get past this set of disasters and realize that there will be others, and to establish in this Congress a disaster relief fund and a separate jurisdiction dealing specifically with disaster relief from drought to fires, to storms, to earthquakes and whatever may occur in our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong support of the underlying legislation. I commend our colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary for their excellent bipartisan work. Perhaps this should be a model to all of us here in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill makes DNA technology available to our criminal justice system in order to enhance its efficiency and certainty in exonerating the innocent as well as identifying and convicting the guilty.

News stories praising the successful use of DNA to solve crimes are plentiful. To give just an example, consider the following: After 14 years on Florida's death row, Frank Lee Smith died of cancer on January 30, 2000, before he was exonerated of rape and murder. An autopsy revealed that the victim had been raped and sodomized. Through shaky eyewitness descriptions, the police put together a composite sketch that set off Frank Lee Smith's arrest on April 29, 1985. The prosecution relied on the identification of Smith by the victim's mother and Smith's criminal history. The jury unanimously recommended the death penalty.

Mr. Speaker, only after Smith's death was a blood sample from him obtained by the State prosecutor's office which was then tested against a semen sample taken from the victim. The samples were sent to the FBI laboratory, which reported that Frank Lee Smith was excluded as the depositor of the semen. On December 15, 2000, 11 months after his death and 14 years after his 1986 conviction, Frank Lee Smith was exonerated based on exculpatory DNA testing results. These results not only cleared Smith of the crime, but also identified Eddie Lee Mosley, a convicted rapist and murderer, as the true perpetrator.

The case of Frank Lee Smith is not unique. Since 1976, 111 people in 25 States have been released after spending years on death row for crimes they did not commit. DNA testing was responsible for exonerating 12 of the people freed from death row and another 126 who were wrongfully convicted of serious crimes. In at least 34 of these cases, the same tests that exonerated an innocent person led to the apprehension of the real perpetrator.

Despite DNA's enormous potential, the current Federal and State DNA collection and analysis system suffers from a variety of problems. In many instances, public crime laboratories are overwhelmed by backlogs of unanalyzed DNA samples, as pointed out by my colleague and friend from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick). In addition, many of the laboratories are ill-equipped to handle the increasing flow of DNA samples and evidence.

Furthermore, the problems of backlogs and the lack of up-to-date technology result in significant delays in the administration of justice. For example, some estimates indicate that DNA evidence from at least 300,000 rape crime scenes have been collected but never analyzed in a crime lab.

As you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, the cases of those exonerated by DNA testing have revealed disturbing fissures and trends in our criminal justice system. They confirm that our criminal justice system is fallible. Judges, juries, police, defense attorneys and prosecutors are all human and all make mistakes.

But we have the means at our disposal to minimize this. The underlying legislation could have an immediate and direct effect, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage. With our action today, many crimes can be solved, many guilty people can be taken off the streets, and many victims can be spared from further crimes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this rule is typical of that for most conference reports, and I will not oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, there is no perfect legislation and certainly not when it comes to funding matters. The underlying conference report providing appropriations for the District of Columbia in fiscal year 2005 includes a variety of provisions that are controversial and detrimental to the District's residents and, frankly, the country as a whole.

I do not have to tell my colleagues about the uniqueness of the District of Columbia as a Federal city. It is the only place in the Nation where constitutionally Congress can exercise micromanagement at the highest and lowest of levels.

Taking into consideration the fact that the District of Columbia has no voting representation in Congress, we should be mindful of this privileged duty and careful not to put our parochial agendas on the table when considering this conference report.

As the gentleman from Georgia mentioned, the report approves the expenditure of a total of $8.3 billion in local funds for the District and directly appropriates $560 million for various District programs and projects. It includes $25.6 million for a tuition assistance program for college-bound students, $3 million for improvements to the Anacostia waterfront area, $6 million for a new public school library initiative, and $5 million to improve foster care in the District.

While there are many quality programs funded by the conference report, such as the ones I just mentioned, the report also includes legislative riders that are a smorgasbord of controversy. The report prohibits the use of funds for abortions, registering same-sex couples, and for the distribution of clean needles and syringes. None of these prohibitions were sought by the District, and they represent nothing more than the ideological impositions of the majority.

Furthermore, deep down inside the conference report is what the majority has dubbed a three-pronged school choice program. This program is heralded by school voucher advocates as a way to improve academic performance while promoting school choice. The reality is, however, the approach is a direct cut in Congress' funding commitment to the District's public schools.

That, Mr. Speaker, is an embarrassment to this institution.

Our education system will never improve if we continue to divert our attention away from improving public schools, the schools that are free of cost and guaranteed to every child in America. Our public schools will never improve if we continue to underfund the No Child Left Behind Act. If the majority wants to point fingers at who is to fault for failures in our education system, then it ought to stop pointing fingers at the District of Columbia and start pointing them at all of our districts that have failing schools.

In less than 3 years after its passage, the No Child Left Behind Act has been underfunded by President Bush and Congressional Republicans by more than $27 billion. Let me repeat that. In less than 3 years after its passage, the No Child Left Behind Act has been underfunded by President Bush and Congressional Republicans by more than $27 billion.

If we want to have a real discussion about education, then let's have one. But let us be honest with the American people about what we are doing to the entire Nation's education system. Let us start telling the American people the truth and stop using the District as a petri dish of ideological shortcomings when considering the needs and lives of the residents of the Nation's Capital.

It is high time that we as lawmakers in this great body stop playing political chess games with our responsibility to this process. We should allow the people of Washington, D.C., to govern themselves, and they should have a voting privilege in the House of Representatives.

Funding for the education of the Nation's children and overall healthy well-being of its citizens should be our primary focus and goal. The D.C. appropriations bill is not the stage to act out our experimental projects that will not necessarily prove beneficial in the end.

We must be mindful of the District's citizens that we have been given charge over. They are silenced in this process by the Constitution, and we must be responsible in our actions on their behalf.

I urge my colleagues to consider this responsibility when voting on the underlying conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 7 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the non-voting Delegate that should be voting like all of us, especially on this subject, who on behalf of this community has pursued outstanding legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), my friend, for yielding me the time. I also welcome the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) to the committee and thank him for taking my place as the most junior member on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule which tosses aside bipartisanship and abdicates this body's role to independently craft responsible public policy. This closed rule neglects millions of Americans who are hurting today not only from hurricanes but also from prolonged drought, flood, and freezes.

As all in this body know, my home State of Florida and others throughout the East have been ravaged over the last month by a series of hurricanes. It is the first time in more than a century that any State has been hit by four storms of this magnitude in less than a month. First there was Charley, and then the others that followed; and when the last one passed, millions were left literally picking up the pieces of their homes and lives.

Nineteen States along the eastern seaboard, from Florida to Vermont, were declared disaster areas. Seaports and airports came to a halt and the insurance industry is reporting more than $23 billion in claims, not including the millions of uninsured home owners and renters who lost everything they had in these storms. For them, their only relief is Federal Emergency Assistance.

In my district, the after-effects of these storms will be felt for many years to come. From Ft. Pierce in the north to Pahokee and Clewiston in the west to Ft. Lauderdale in the south, people are hurting.

I thank my colleagues for their encouraging words and support during this trying time. But we need more than consolations, and we need more than understanding.

The underlying supplemental appropriations bill which the House is considering today is deeply appreciated, appreciated by all of us in Florida; but, frankly, it is not enough.

We know that the majority knows that and the President knows that, but the willingness to deliver for those in distress just is not there unless a photo op comes along with it. This closed rule blocks my good friend from Florida (Mr. Boyd) from offering a substitute that would have provided nearly $2 billion in emergency assistance beyond the President's shortchanging proposal, to help all communities recover from the hurricanes.

When I attempted to amend the rule at 7 a.m. this morning, to make the Boyd amendment in order, the majority defeated it along a straight party line vote. The underlying legislation mirrors the President's request and neglects the well-known needs of Florida and her neighboring States. In contrast, the Boyd substitute provides nearly $500 million more than the President's request in emergency agriculture disaster assistance, not only for Florida agriculture, which is suffering from more than $2.2 billion in losses in just 4 short weeks, but also for North Carolina and New York.

Citrus and sugar growers, ranchers, nurseries and dairy farmers are all shortchanged or just plain ignored in the underlying legislation. In contrast, they are helped under the Boyd amendment which was not made in order. The Boyd substitute would also increase emergency funding to the Department of Defense for reimbursements to the National Guard and facility repairs, beach nourishment, and repairs to VA hospitals and the Kennedy Space Center.

Most importantly, the Boyd substitute mirrors the bipartisan agreement that was reached between the outstanding chairman of this committee and the ranking member of the committee equally outstanding but was rejected by the President who seemingly has a knack for leading with a reckless disregard of the obvious.

The rule also blocks the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) from offering an amendment to help States who are suffering from prolonged drought. In doing so, Republicans have dug themselves into a hole, and we are now going to see some true colors shine. Not only are they blocking the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), someone who spent his entire life fighting for the well-being of farmers and ranchers across this country, from offering his amendment, but now they are trying to make in order an inferior amendment that the Committee on Rules never heard testimony on.

The amendment will be offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer). Not only does it provide less assistance than the Stenholm amendment, but it also cuts funding in the Farmland Conservation Program. The Neugebauer amendment literally robs Peter to pay Paul.

As is done here often, we are refusing to help those most in need. We have tried the bipartisan approach led by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, but the President said, no, thank you. We have tried the bipartisan approach in the Committee on Rules, but the Republican leadership said, We are just not interested.

When the Committee on Rules had the opportunity this morning to reject the President's ``my way or the highway approach,'' it balked and folded.

I wish I could be more bipartisan, Mr. Speaker, especially on an issue as critically important to the welfare of all of our constituents in Florida as well as the Northeast. But they are making it difficult on the other side to be bipartisan. How is it that we got money to pass trillions in tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans, but we do not have the money to help Americans recover from natural disasters of all kind.

Where is the compassion? But better yet, where is the outrage? I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and do all that we know we can if we were to pass it to help those most in

need. My constituents are depending on our vote. Please do not let them down.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), my good friend and a leader in this fight.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, would the Chair tell us, please, how much time each side has remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth), an outstanding new Member of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). When my colleague from Florida was speaking, he tried to get his attention. I do not know whether he wanted to have a colloquy or whether he wanted to make a statement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Disasters know no boundaries, and they certainly know no political affiliation. But what we have created here is a system that pits disaster against disaster and States against States and that just is not right.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order an amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) that would add language to the bill to provide nationwide crop loss disaster assistance for weather-related losses for the last two crop years. This would help our Nation's farmers who have been hit so hard by not only hurricanes but by terrible droughts in the West and Midwest and by freezing weather in the North.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question. A ``no'' vote will not stop the House from taking up the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. However, a ``yes'' vote will prevent the House from considering the Stenholm amendment and providing the help that is desperately needed by our farmers.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic. We cannot provide the assistance we need to provide here tonight when by a minuscule comparison of funds, this is just a little more than 1 percent of what we are spending in Baghdad.

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Putnam

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, last fall, the Syrian Accountability Act was overwhelmingly approved. That bill required the President to impose a number of economic and diplomatic sanctions against Syria if the Syrian government failed to end its support for various terrorist organizations, refuses to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction, and fails to withdraw its troops from Lebanon. Correctly, the President invoked such sanctions earlier this summer.

Since the passage of that act, Syria continues to host terrorist headquarters in Damascus, it maintains 17,000 Syrian troops in Lebanon, it supports the terrorist organization Hezbollah, and it continues its vicious anti-American propaganda on government-controlled media.

The Syrian regime is one that not only supports and facilitates terrorist attacks against innocent civilians throughout the world, but also engages in a widespread campaign of terror against its own people.

In 2003, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights classified Syria as one of the world's most oppressive regimes.

According to Human Rights International, in 2003 the Syrian Government used its vast powers to prevent any organized political opposition, continued grave abuses including the use of torture in detention and arbitrary arrests, and allowed violence and societal discrimination against women.

Unfortunately, the gross violations of human rights are not limited to Syria's immediate borders. The repressive regime also extends into neighboring Lebanon, which Syria continues to occurpy. This fact was recently acknowledged by the international community through the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, calling on all foreign troops to withdraw without delay from Lebanon and to stop meddling in the country's November elections.

For all these reasons, I support wholeheartedly House Concurrent Resolution 363, which condemns the continuing gross violations of human rights and civil liberties by the Syrian dictatorship.

Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 363 details and condemns the persistent repression of the people of Syria and Lebanon by the dictatorial Syrian government. It articulates our support for Syria's human rights and pro-democracy activists and calls on free and democratic nations to take a unified stance and condemns the deplorable and heinous human rights record of the Syrian government. Also, it calls for the United States to assist Syrian dissidents in their efforts to help bring freedom to Syria.

I take this opportunity to speak directly to the President and urge him to take these instructions seriously. With respect to Syria, the United States must encourage greater openness, democratization, and economic reform, and to do so it must engage with civil society.

As president of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE PA) I am intimately aware of the success of the Organization in motivating the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries to sigh on to progressive standards of human rights and internal goverance. The United States should use a similar strategy of encouraging civil society activists in Syria.

The people of Syria struggle daily from freedom, respect for human rights and civil liberties, democratic self-governance, and the establishment of the rule of law against an authoritarian and tyrannical regime. I support them in their great effort, and denounce the oppressive government of Syria.

Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support this important resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America because I believe in its stars and stripes, and I believe that they symbolize our strength and our diversity. I do so out of respect for and love of our country, not because the cameras are rolling and voters are watching. Apparently, the same cannot be said of some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

The underlying legislation, more than anything else, is about the politics of a national election. The Republican political spin machine is in full

gear playing, in my view, to the lowest common denominator, to reinvigorate some who may not be as invigorated as the majority party would wish that they be. Instead of wrapping themselves in the flag and marketing their candidates with gimmicks, the majority in Congress ought to work for the people and legislate in their interests.

Senator Kerry recently said it very well. He said, ``The flag doesn't belong to any President, it doesn't belong to any ideology and it doesn't belong to any political party. It belongs to all the American people.''

The underlying bill is totally unnecessary since there is no binding decision in any court, Federal or State, holding that ``under God'' in the Pledge is unconstitutional.

This is a solution in search of a problem. Given the serious challenges we face, we must act responsibly. But this unnecessary legislation, designed by political consultants as the answer to an uninspired right-wing constituency, detracts from the real work that needs to be done in this body.

In 8 days, 13 appropriation bills must be signed into law. So far, only one has the President's signature. Not even the appropriation for Homeland Security has been completed, despite the terrifying threats the Nation faces. Similarly, this coming Friday the authorization for Federal transportation programs is scheduled to expire and we are nowhere near a new transportation bill.

Did you hear that? Congress has one requirement, to pass the appropriations bills, to act responsibly and pass all 13 appropriations bills before September 30. Under this leadership, Congress has failed miserably.

Why has this congressional session been so disastrous, you might ask? Well, it is because the majority has made the conscious decision to play politics, rather than legislate; to squander opportunities for success, rather than create them; to give lip service to the Nation's needs, rather than address them. The underlying bill is an illustration of that irresponsibility, and in my view, it is ridiculous.

We are at war, a war on terror and a war in Iraq. Unemployment is high, jobs are being outsourced abroad, the economy is anemic, people cannot afford housing at the lower rungs of our economy, health care costs are through the roof, and more than 44 million Americans are uninsured. Right-wing Republicans are suffering the consequences of the wrong decisions made during these years that just passed, as are liberal and moderate Americans; and I, for one, wish this body were discussing how to solve these pressing problems instead of legislating on nonissues.

Now, more than ever, we must use the legislative session wisely and productively to strengthen America's way of life. Now, more than ever, we must do what is necessary to promote the principles that have made us strong.

Simply put, the underlying bill is, at its core, un-American. Indeed, passage of this legislation would represent one of the broadest attacks on the separation of powers in American history. If Congress, by statute, can end-run the Bill of Rights, no rights to liberty, due process or equality under law are safe. Further, it would set the terrible precedent of barring citizens from challenging government infringement of fundamental rights in Federal court.

Mr. Speaker, the Pledge of Allegiance is the recitation of the strong sense of patriotism and pride for American ideas and rules. Throughout my lifetime and that of many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle here, we have tried to live up to its underlying values. I have done so, as have many of my colleagues, out of conviction, and not at the insistence of a paid political strategist that suggested legislating patriotism.

In the name of liberty, in the name of democracy and in the name of religion, I oppose the underlying legislation, and I call on my colleagues to do the same.

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

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

I shall not take an awful lot of time, but I do have a considerable amount of experience in this area, and I can tell my colleagues that the Doctrine of Judicial Review, the notions with reference to ``fundamental due process'' and ``full faith and credit'' are matters that we should hold dear and not be about the business of court- stripping on specific matters.

The gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) put forward the exact proposition that I did in last night's Committee on Rules among other things that she has said with which I agree, and that is that another day will come, and this establishes a bad precedent. I note that the original sponsor of the measure is here, and I put to him that question last evening. Perhaps, he and I will have an opportunity for a further exchange with reference to the same matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would ask the gentleman from Missouri to participate in a colloquy with me, if he would.

Mr. Speaker, I asked last evening what jurisdiction in the United States of America today exists where a child cannot say ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time just for the moment, that is that same Supreme Court that the gentleman would prefer not have jurisdiction in these matters, no matter whether they rule on a technicality. The gentleman's argument is that the Supreme Court makes mistakes because it is constituted of human beings.

Well, let me tell my colleague, a whole lot of mistakes are made in this body of us, 435-plus and five territories, because we are human beings. But respect for the courts is key and critical,

and to refer, for example, judges with whom I disagree, I call them strict constructionists, but I do not demean them. And I do not come down here and refer to them because I have a different point of view. I am from Florida. The United States Supreme Court made a decision that I thoroughly disagree with. But at the very same time, I respected that decision and went about my business, because it is the Supreme Court. We have three branches of government, not one that can make all of the laws.

Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, the fact of the matter is that the Dred Scott decisions, Plessy v. Ferguson, a litany of decisions were changed over time.

One thing I would urge my colleague to really pay attention to, I will give him an illustration of two of this Nation's most prominent judges: One, Felix Frankfurter; and the other, Hugo Black. Hugo Black was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, and Felix Frankfurter was an activist American civil libertarian. And when they went on the United States Supreme Court, they were ideological opposites. Over the course of time and events, if the gentleman will read their decisions, they changed.

My fear, as I have said, is, one day, we are no longer going to be in Congress. One day, mark my words, a different party will be in the majority. One day, conditions in the United States will be different. One day, world affairs will dictate an altered world reality. I ask my colleagues to vote against the underlying bill because if the reaction to these different scenarios goes beyond the constitutional limit, we would have already created the precedent that Congress cannot be checked and balanced by the judicial branch. That would be unfortunate.

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

Mr. Speaker, the 1994 assault weapons ban has expired and our nation is again vulnerable to guns known to most in the law enforcement community as ``the weapons of choice for criminals.''

My bill would reinstate the repealed criminal provisions relating to assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and make America safer.

The House Republican leadership opposed reauthorizing the 1994 Assault Weapons Act and President Bush, though he had said he supported it, did nothing to help keep the law alive.

Indecisiveness. Flip-Flop. Isn't that what the other party calls ``saying one thing and doing another'?

Because the President steadfastly refused to put his leadership--or lack thereof--where his mouth is and help renew the ban, it has expired without so much as even a vote in the House of Representatives.

From this Chamber, for the past 3 years, I have been highlighting the President's efforts on behalf of the rich and big corporations at the expense of working families and small businesses. Mr. Speaker, sadly, I once again must speak of the damage our President is inflicting on the average American.

There is no reason why we should let assault weapons back on the streets. Do people need an assault weapon to protect their home? No! Do people need an assault weapon to hunt? No! Do people need an assault weapon to target shoot? No! Semiautomatic weapons are killing machines with absolutely no positive value in any sensible community and lifting this ban has put these weapons of death back in the hands of criminals.

A Bureau of Justice Statistics survey published in November 2001 reported that almost 7 percent of State inmates and more than 9 percent of Federal inmates carried military-style semiautomatic weapons in carrying out the crime for which they were convicted. In 1997, roughly 43 percent of inmates who carried a military-style semiautomatic or fully automatic weapon fired it and more than 25 percent of them killed or injured their victim.

Mr. Speaker, the expiration of the Assault Weapons Act favored gangs, terrorists, drug dealers, and other criminals, and put in danger my children and yours, and our heroes and protectors, the police officers.

Our local police are not prepared for the reinstitution of assault weapons to our streets. The bulletproof vests that we give our police officers are no match for the guns that are going to be back out in our neighborhoods. And we are going to allow criminals to carry large- capacity clips with over 50 rounds, when our police officers can only respond with 10 to 15 rounds?

Every single law enforcement organization, including the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Sheriffs Association, supports our efforts to reinstitute the Assault Weapons Act. I would support my law enforcement officers, and the safety of our communities and of this Nation over any gun manufacturer any day.

President Bush sent America's youth unprotected--in unarmored HUMVEES and without bulletproof vests--to war in Iraq, and now has been instrumental in bringing back to America's neighborhoods weapons of war to threaten police officers and law abiding citizens.

Moreover, we know terrorists are now exploiting the weaknesses and loopholes in our gun laws. A terrorist training manual discovered by American soldiers in Afghanistan in 2001 advised al-Qaida members to buy assault weapons in the United States and use them against us.

The Assault Weapons Act has respected the rights of gun owners. Only criminals and terrorists have been kept from their guns of choice.

Mr. Speaker, the American people were struck with dismay upon hearing that on September 1st, 2004, terrorists seized School No. 1 in the city of Beslan, North Ossetia, Russia and held over 1,000 children, teachers, parents, and school employees hostage.

After 53 hours of unspeakable horror, we saw on TV when the hostage- takers began firing on hostages who were attempting to flee and set off explosions in the compound, and when Russian security forces stormed the school compound.

Tragically, as of September 7, 2004, the official death toll stood at 394, plus the 30 terrorists: 186 children are missing. The North Ossetian health ministry said 156 of the dead were children. More than 700 people needed medical help after the crisis. The regional health ministry said 411 remained hospitalized, 214 of them children.

There is absolutely no justification for such acts, which do not represent the will of the average Chechen, who wants the carnage in the Caucasus to cease.

Mr. Speaker, it is the nature of terrorism that every time one thinks there is a limit to the depths to which terrorists can sink, they contrive even more inhumane atrocities. I am particularly repulsed at the use of children as hostages and the subsequent death of many of them.

Mr. Speaker, I condemn, in the strongest terms, this and previous terrorist attacks on innocent citizens of the Russian Federation, and stand in solidarity with the government and people of Russia in combating the forces of international terrorism.

As memorial services are underway in the city of Beslan and elsewhere in Russia, the people of the United States stand with the people of Russia, and send them their prayers. Also, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, allow me to offer our sincerest condolences to the victims of the attack and to their relatives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me this time. I thank he and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for their steadfast support for the victims of Charley and Frances. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has put in immeasurable time and work, as have others of us who have been directly impacted.

I rise tonight in strong support of this emergency supplemental appropriations measure. I also echo the words of the chairman when he stated earlier today that this bill must merely be a down payment of disaster assistance to Florida's hurricane victims. I know that all of our colleagues join me in expressing sympathy and understanding to those who lost their homes, their belongings, and in some cases their loved ones who were either killed or injured to Charley and Frances. We stand united in our efforts to help those who have lost so much.

In the district that I am privileged to represent, the wrath and strength of Frances is clear and evident. Hundreds of homes have literally been destroyed and all but scraps of wood remain. Our citrus, sugar and tomato fields are flooded, and more than 2 million homes remain without electricity days after the storm has passed and for some days to come. For the millions who have been affected, life has come to a standstill.

As a fifth-generation Floridian, I know firsthand that hurricanes and

tropical storms are part of life in south Florida. But if Andrew, and most recently Charley and Frances, taught us anything, it is that the resilience of our community to recover and rebuild is stronger than anything Mother Nature will ever throw our way. With time and the necessary resources, I am confident we will recover.

I am deeply grateful to the full leadership of both sides in this instance, and our hearts go out to those that have lost so much. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), all of us in Florida really have a lot of work to do in the future. Like the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) spoke about establishing an appropriate relief fund, it is something long overdue in this Congress, and this may be a good first step for us to be reminded that it is time for us to have a disaster fund in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this morning's papers carry, among others, the following stories:

--The New York Times reports that ``The 9/11 Commission is Said to Sharply Fault Role of Congress''.

--The L.A. Times has a story titled, ``The State Department Seeks Shift in Iraq Effort''.

--The Sun Sentinel reports that the American death toll in Iraq has reached 900.

--The Washington Post covers military recruitment, concluding that the pool of future recruits has dwindled to its lowest level in three years.

--And, all these papers and others have stories on the poor shape of the economy and the hardships that the American people are facing.

So, I ask: don't we have better things to deal with two days before going into recess. Is there any sense of responsibility in this Republican Congress?

This bill, more than anything else, is about the politics of a national election. The White House political machine is in full gear, playing to the lowest denominator to reinvigorate the xenophobic and intolerant wing of the Republican Party.

Recognizing that they lack the votes to pass the discriminatory Federal Marriage Amendment, the Republican House leadership is now focusing on slamming shut federal courthouse doors to gay and lesbian Americans.

This bill is at its core a bar on redress for violations of fundamental rights. If Congress by statute can end run the Bill of Rights, no rights to liberty, due process, or equality under the law are safe. Further, it would set the terrible precedent of barring citizens from challenging government infringement of fundamental rights in federal court.

For more than 200 years the federal judiciary has been a check on legislative and executive action. By eliminating an entire subject from the courts' jurisdiction, this legislation threatens to upset the delicate balance between the branches of the federal government that has served our nation well. Indeed, passage of this legislation would represent one of the broadest attacks on the separation of powers in American history.

Once again, it's proven that the most unpopular and vulnerable members of society are all too often the first targets of government repression. But once the federal courthouse door has been slammed shut to one group, it won't be long before others are similarly excluded.

I am reminded of an incisive quote by Holocaust survivor Ellie Wiesel. He said,

``They came first for the communists, and I didn't speak up

because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came

for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I

wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics,

and I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they

came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.''

I am here to strongly oppose this legislation.

I can remember of one other group in America that had to wander every county courthouse in the country to try to vindicate their rights under the Federal Constitution.

Blacks have experienced the injustice, abuse, and disgrace that the Republican Party is promoting with this bill. For example, after the Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that school segregation violated the Constitution, racist lawmakers furiously sought to exempt federal courts from ruling on public education laws.

I became a public servant with the express mission of preventing one of the worst chapters of American history from repeating itself.

Therefore, I oppose this rule and the underlying bill, and ask--beg-- my colleagues to act responsibly and protect the constitution by voting no.