Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in 1994, a terrorist bomb destroyed the headquarters of the Argentine Jewish Mutual Association, known by its Spanish acronym, AMIA, killing 85 people and wounding 200. To this day, the attack on the AMIA remains the deadliest anti-Semitic incident since World War II.

I take this opportunity to condemn the attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in

Buenos Aires, Argentina on July 18, 1994, and to honor the victims of this heinous act.

The AMIA attack, which showed the same cowardice as the September 11, 2001, attack, tragically illustrates the intention of Islamic terrorists to bring their jihad against Western values to our own hemisphere.

Substantial evidence attributes the attack on July 18, 1994, to the terrorist group Hizballah, based in Lebanon and sponsored by Iran. Evidence indicates that the tri-border region where Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil meet was used to channel resources for the purpose of carrying out the AMIA attack by terrorists linked with Iran.

Regrettably, the scheming of international terrorist organizations such as Hizballah and al-Qaeda are not confined to the tri-border region. Much of the Western Hemisphere is ideal for international terrorist groups to establish bases due to the ill equipped and poorly trained security agencies across the region.

Terrorism is their technique, but hatred is their ideology. The fight against terrorism must remain a top priority. Nowhere is this more true than in America's backyard.

While the case has been officially under investigation for over 9 years, the responsible parties have not yet been apprehended.

Massive judicial and investigative irregularities, destruction of evidence, and cover-ups have already distorted the long-delayed trial.

The biggest blow to the trial came last year when Federal Judge Juan Jose Galeano, who had spent nine years probing the bombing, was removed from the case. It was revealed he paid $400,000 in State money to a witness in return for testimony needed to move the stalled case forward.

So now, the court is focusing on investigating the investigation rather than look into who was to blame.

Make no mistake about it, failure to duly punish the culprits of the AMIA attack serves to reward terrorists and help spread terrorism. Therefore, I strongly urge the Government of Argentina to fulfill its international obligations and its promise to the Argentine people by pursuing the local and international connections to this act of terrorism, wherever it may lead, and to properly punish all those who are involved.

Argentina owes it to itself, its people and the human family to conduct an intense, fearless and comprehensive investigation that will lead to the identification and prosecution of the principal criminals.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my colleague, my friend from south Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), for yielding me the time.

While the two of us, my colleague and I, may have ideological differences from time to time, we are united in our support for the Coast Guard and the sometimes thankless work that they do every day to protect the ports and shores in our home State of Florida, as well as throughout this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report to the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act.

As my colleague from the majority previously mentioned, the conference report authorizes nearly $8.2 billion in fiscal year 2005 for the Coast Guard. This amount is $169 million more than originally approved by the House last October and more than $400 million above what was approved by the other body. These increases are clear indications of this body's commitment to the Coast Guard's pressing needs.

The conference report also includes $1.5 billion for the Coast Guard's acquisitions, construction and improvements account, a $550 million increase above what was requested. This increase is to be used by the Coast Guard to improve its Integrated Deepwater System, as well as assist the Coast Guard to reduce the list of unfunded shore facilities that has grown significantly over the past 5 years.

Furthermore, the conference report increases the number of commissioned officers and includes significant authorizations which will assist the Coast Guard to better meet our port and maritime security needs.

The Department of Homeland Security is also directed in the conference report to provide Congress with reports regarding joint operational centers for port security and port compliance with security standards.

I mention these two reports because of the great work that is being done in my home county, Broward County, at Port Everglades. There are few ports in the country as innovative as Port Everglades when it comes to security. The Port of Palm Beach, located in the district I represent, has also made significant security improvement as a direct result of the port security grant authorized by this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, the Coast Guard is responsible for patrolling the more than 12,400 miles of coastline in the United States. Nearly 2,000 of these miles are located in mine and my colleague's, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), home State of Florida where the Coast Guard plays an integral role in patrolling our shores and protecting our citizens. The increase in funding provided in the underlying legislation for this important grant of the United States Armed Forces serves as a statement about the role of the Coast Guard in our global war on terrorism.

Reports have shown that America's ports remain susceptible to attack and infiltration by America's enemies. In the last year alone, south Florida's three major ports handled more than 13.2 million tons of cargo. In all, well over 1.5 million shipping containers were processed by south Florida longshoremen during the last year.

Certainly, these statistics highlight the pressing need to increase the number of Customs agents working in America's ports, but they also suggest that the roles of the Coast Guard and Federal Maritime Commission in protecting our ports are greater than ever.

Mr. Speaker, when Congress created the Department of Homeland Security,

it recommitted itself to the security of America. The conference report for the Coast Guard Authorization Act is an extension of that commitment.

I urge my colleagues to support the underlying conference report.

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

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

I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, while I would prefer that this be an open rule, I rise today in support of the rule, as it makes in order those amendments which were submitted yesterday evening during the Committee on Rules hearing.

I note that this is the 149th rule that this body has considered in the 108th Congress. Of those 149 rules, 18 have been procedural. Of the remaining 131 rules, 106, or more than 83 percent, have been closed or restricted. One can only hope that the majority will use this rule as the template for future rules.

As my colleague from the majority pointed out, the underlying legislation blocks the implementation of new accounting standards recently proposed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. These new standards would require companies to deduct from their profits the value of the stock options they issue to employees and executives.

Supporters of the Stock Option Accounting Reform Act will note that their bill includes a compromise, requiring the inclusion of stock options afforded to a company's top five executives in that company's profits. The Wall Street Journal, however, has noted that such disclosure would not adequately reflect a company's true profits. Top executives of companies which offer stock options to their employees typically only receive 2 percent of the options that are issued.

Another study found that in the year 2003, only 18 percent of the options provided by the S&P 500 companies went

to the top five executives. The standard included in the underlying legislation potentially leaves anywhere between 82 and 98 percent of a company's stock option expenses hidden from the public. This failure to disclose runs the grave risk of inflating a company's profits and misleading investors.

For example, if this bill were law in 2003, Intel would have deducted $3.5 million from its 2003 profits, although it actually doled out more than $990 million in options.

Investors have a right to know the true profits and total expenses of the companies in which they invest. The underlying legislation fails them, in my judgment, in this arena.

In addition to my concerns about the policy of the underlying legislation, I am equally concerned about the implications of Congress overriding the rulings of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, an independent governing authority. I echo the comments that have already been made by the chairman of the Senate's Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, who has noted that Congress has no business undermining the Accounting Standards Board.

Independent boards, such as FASB and the Securities Exchange Commission, exist to ensure the veracity of the financial services industry. Efforts on the part of Congress to undermine their decisions compromise the integrity and reliability of the industry. When congressional pressure, political ideology, or legislative fixes play a role in the decisions of boards such as the FASB and SEC, these boards will cease to be independent.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), ranking Democrat of the Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee, as well as the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) will offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute that I intend to support. Their substitute recognizes the roles of the FASB and SEC as independent boards, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has a role to play to regulate and observe the financial services industry. The underlying legislation, however, runs the risk of crossing the line that currently exists. I urge my colleagues to strongly consider the implications of the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the chairman has certainly given us an enlightened view of the universe. I want to remind him that the Vatican did not agree with much of what he talked about. But Ptolemy, I did not know he was going to wind up being here with us on this important subject.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), a good friend of all of us, to enlighten us perhaps in yet another of the universal aspects of this business.

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

Mr. Speaker, just so that we can accurately record it so that I may dispense time on our side, how much time remains for both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my good friend, who is an original cosponsor of this legislation; and she and I came to Congress together, and she has worked actively. The first bill that she introduced was a measure dealing with what we are discussing today.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), my good friend, who represents the financial district of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

Mr. Speaker, 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 Georgia (Mr. Linder) for the time.

Mr. Speaker, this rule is typical for most appropriations bills, and I would support it. I rise today, albeit reluctantly, in support of the District of Columbia appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. Speaker, as there is no perfect legislation and certainly not when it comes to funding matters, I would be remiss if I did not say that the bill includes provisions that are controversial and detrimental, in my view, to the District's residents and the country as a whole. I do not have to tell any of 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 levels. It is the petri dish of the country where the ideological differences of those in this body wreak havoc on the lives of some 560,000-plus District of Columbia residents.

Taking into consideration the fact that the District of Columbia has no voting representation in Congress, we should be mindful of the privileged duties and be careful not to put our own parochial agendas on the table when considering this legislation. The underlying legislation includes a direct Federal funding increase for the District of $18 million over last year. A large part of the increase will go towards paying the cost of the District's court system as well as related criminal justice programs.

The bill also provides for direct appropriations for the Resident Tuition Support program and $13 million for District of Columbia charter schools. It also includes $14 million for school vouchers, despite the fact that a significant portion of the funds appropriated last year for this controversial program went unused.

The underlying legislation also includes legislative riders that prohibit the use of funds for abortions, registering same-sex couples. And for the distribution of clean needles and syringes. This bill has quickly become a smorgasbord of controversy.

Hot-button social issues should not enter into play 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.

Funding for the education of the Nation's children and the overall healthy well-being of its citizens should be our primary focus and goal. The District of Columbia appropriations bill is not the stage to act out 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 of. 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 legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who knows more about this appropriations measure and about the things of which I just spoke.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time.

I would say to my friend, and he is my friend, that I think he is very wrong in offering this particular measure. We in the United States go all over the world telling people about free and fair elections and about transparency in that regard. I, along with other Members of this Congress, have traveled throughout the world monitoring elections on behalf of a variety of organizations that do not necessarily come under the aegis of the United Nations.

I would say to the gentleman, I was last week elected as president of the Organization For Security and Cooperation in Europe. That organization is one of the lead organizations in the world on election monitoring. Members from this body under the aegis of that body have gone to the Ukraine, to Belarus. Soon we will be going to Kazakhstan. I have gone to Russia.

I was welcomed, when Russians awakened on that morning and had their Danish and their coffee, at the election polling place; and, surprisingly, I found that a great deal fairer in some respects than what I saw in my own county when you were there in 2000. I suggest that if one were not there for any other reason other than to observe an election, it would be foolhardy for us to not take into consideration the importance of encouraging free and fair and transparent elections, and what better way than to tell the world we are wide open for your peerage into the freest and fairest system in the world.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back and am prepared at the appropriate time to yield to additional Members.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my gratitude to the men and women of the Intelligence Community for their service to our country. Indeed, hey are our nation's greatest intelligence asset.

I also rise to express my continued concern over the Intelligence Community's ability to attract and retain a quality workforce that reflects the ethnic and cultural diversity of the United States. Doing so is required to ensure the Intelligence Community is properly postured to meet the formidable global challenges of the future.

Data collected by the Intelligence Community demonstrates that the proportion of women and minorities in the Intelligence Community continues to be significantly lower than their representation in the general Federal government and private sector workforce. While some improvements have been made by individual agencies in select areas, one fact remains--Women and minorities remain underrepresented in core mission areas, management and senior ranks of the Intelligence Community. This is unlikely to change given the respective representation of women and minorities in student and career development programs, and feeder pools. Meaningful steps, including investment in untraditional initiatives, will be required to reverse this trend.

I commend outgoing Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet for taking the first in a series of needed steps--the convening of a panel of distinguished individuals with extensive Federal government and private sector experience. I look forward to reviewing the panel's findings and recommendations, and to working with the new Director of Central Intelligence and individual agency directors to ensure implementation of constructive programs to improve the Intelligence Community's ability to attract and retain a diverse, highly-skilled workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the long and dedicated service of Sister Jeanne O'Laughlin, who will step down as president of Barry University on June 30, 2004.

Mr. Speaker, Sister Jeanne has been an exemplary leader at Barry University since taking office 23 years ago, in 1981. A tireless and enthusiastic promoter, she has helped to raise more than $200 million for her school, sometimes through humorous means, such as competitive ballroom dancing and singing at a fundraiser aboard a yacht.

Sister Jeanne has made an enormously positive impact on the academic environment at Barry University. At the time of her inauguration, Barry University had 1,750 students. It now boasts 9,042, the fourth largest private university in Florida. Sister Jeanne has presided over an increase in the number of academic schools from five to ten, and the construction of 38 additional buildings on campus.

Her multiple awards, achievements and honorary degrees, too many to list here, testify to her boundless energy, her spirit of goodwill, and her commitment to excellence in education. Her work on behalf of women's rights, the homeless, safe and drug-free school communities, hurricane reconstruction efforts, children, and numerous other organizations has had a lasting impact in South Florida. Simply put, her efforts have touched hundreds of thousands of lives.

Mr. Speaker, Sister Jeanne more than deserves our admiration and respect for her dedicated and compassionate public service. She is an example to educators everywhere, and, really, to us all as individuals, that superior results arise when you put your heart and soul into something you believe in. As Sister Jeanne has said, what she is ``most proud of in my 23 years at Barry University are the experiences that I've had with the people who have been in my life.''

I wish to congratulate and thank Sister Jeanne O'Laughlin, and I wish her the best of luck in all of her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 40th anniversary of the devastating murder of three courageous civil rights heroes. We must preserve the memory of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, who boldly fought for African American suffrage and helped strengthen the historic alliance between African Americans and Jews. The initial disappearance of these three leaders spurred new efforts to register African Americans to vote. Later on, national indignation over their murders provided the final impetus for the passage of President Johnson's 1964 Civil Rights Act. Together with the Voting Rights Act passed the following year, legally mandated segregation in Mississippi and throughout the South was abolished.

The Congress of Racial Equality, (CORE) called the summer of 1964 ``Freedom Summer'' and led a massive voter registration and desegregation campaign in Mississippi. This summer was filled with the promise of implementing successful civil rights reforms. On June 21st as part of the Freedom Summer activities, Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner drove to Neshoba County to express sympathy with the congregation of Mt. Zion Church, which had been recently demolished by the Klu Klux Klan. In a conspiracy between elements of the local law enforcement and the Ku Klux Klan, the activists were arrested, and upon their release taken to a remote area, brutally beaten, and shot to death.

James Chaney, an African American civil rights worker from Mississippi, had recently begun to volunteer at the new CORE office in Meridian, Mississippi. Chaney had rapidly become the chief aide, guide, and companion to the CORE director, Matt Suarez. He was only 21 when he was murdered.

Andy Goodman, a white, Jewish, civil rights worker from New York, had arrived earlier that morning in Mississippi to participate as a volunteer in the Mississippi Summer Project. Goodman was known as an intelligent, unassuming, happy, and outgoing youth, and had arrived excited and anxious to improve the rights of African Americans. He was only 20 when he was murdered.

Michael Schwerner, another white, Jewish, civil rights worker from New York, was on a mission in Mississippi to reorganize the community center as well as other programs. Schwerner was the first white civil rights worker to be permanently based outside of Jackson, Mississippi. Although he came under attack, including hate mail, threatening phone calls, and police harassment for his determined efforts to register African Americans to vote, his dedication to fostering tolerance was unwavering. He was only 24 when he was murdered.

Since their tragic murder, the family members of these three activists have continued to preserve both their memory as individuals and their legacy within United States history. To honor the 25th anniversary of the murders, their family members spoke at an African American--Jewish communal relations Seder. James Chaney's brother, Ben, has dedicated his life to ensuring the civil rights of all Americans. This year, as founder of the James Earl Chaney Foundation, he created the Freedom Summer 2004 Ride For Justice. The 20-bus caravan embarked on June 10th and is currently traveling around the country to visit a variety of historically important civil rights memorial sites, including the grave of his brother. Ben is also continuing the mission of voter registration for which the three men were murdered.

These three civil rights workers are among the few of the brave leaders who led our country out of the darkness of intolerance and discrimination, allowing future generations to live without fear. All of us as Americans must take the time today, and every day in the future, to make a firm commitment to honor their memory by fighting even harder to safeguard the ideals for which they stood. We can learn from what they embodied and continue their work to stamp out prejudice forever. It is our duty to remember by guaranteeing that the African American voice be heard through the ballot box. We must preserve the historic ties of oppression that bind the African American and Jewish communities together. For the three who died, we will still continue the struggle for justice.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reflect on the passing of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, and to honor them by promoting tolerance and preserving the civil liberties and right to equality to which every American, regardless of their race, gender, ethnicity or religion, is entitled.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), my friend, for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and the two underlying resolutions. Let me say that one more time: the two underlying resolutions.

It is double-coupon day here in the House of Representatives. In two separate instances today, Republicans are forcing the House to consider two bills under one rule. Adding insult to injury, every rule we will consider today is closed, and none of the underlying bills have been considered in substantive part by the respective committees of jurisdiction.

With the exception of two manager's amendments, this rule allows for zero amendments to either bill. Zero amendments for the people's House to consider. Zero amendments to improve two bills that incorporate in the main only the ideas of their two sponsors without the input of anyone else.

The majority has skirted the legislative process, shut Members out, and stifled debate before it even begins. All this so it can pass a few politically driven bills that do nothing to address escalating gasoline costs and have zero chance of becoming law. Even the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), said last night in the Committee on Rules that he thought bringing these bills to the floor prior to committee consideration was shortsighted.

Just last week, Congress heard calls from the American public to set aside its differences and work in a bipartisan fashion. How short Republican memories are.

The rule we are considering at this moment is almost oxymoronic. On one hand, the rule provides for consideration of a bill addressing renewable resources. On the other hand, the same rule provides for consideration of another bill that authorizes drilling for nonrenewable resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of the country's most pristine areas. Republican policies just do not make any sense. While I certainly commend the majority for finally jumping on the renewable resource band wagon, their approach toward energy policy greatly misses the mark.

Each energy-related bill this body is considering today focuses on increasing production, while doing nothing to curb consumption. These bills abandon our responsibility to protect the environment, and they lay the groundwork for the construction of a new wave of refineries and energy plants in low-income and historically underserved areas, without protecting the health and well-being of the residents of these communities.

The Renewable Energy Project Siting Improvement Act and the U.S. Refinery Revitalization Act, which will be considered under the next rule, unjustly streamline the Federal authorization process for new refineries by targeting low-income and high unemployment areas for new sites.

I offered an amendment to the U.S. Refinery Act last night in the Committee on Rules that would have required the Secretary of Energy to just consider any adverse effect that the siting of a new refinery would have on the community in which the site would be located. It also required a 90-day public comment period to ensure that those living near a future refinery site be given an opportunity to voice their concerns.

Mr. Speaker, we all know the effects that Superfund sites have had on underserved communities. We have all heard the stories of cancer, birth defects, prolonged illnesses, and death caused by contamination at these sites.

Today, this body is laying the foundation for a new wave of Superfund sites and all of their downfalls. My amendment was fair and responsible to those who will be most affected by a new site. But as they so often do, the majority denied the House from considering a common sense amendment. In this case, Democrats are only secondary victims. The real victims are those who could soon find themselves living next to a new refinery which the Federal Government encouraged an energy corporation to build. Moreover, under this scenario, Congress is not taking the necessary steps to consider the health needs of those living in that community.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has a responsibility to the American people to develop and implement a responsible and long-term energy plan. Democrats agree with Republicans on this. However, Democrats also believe that all of us, from both sides of the aisle, need to be involved in the discussion. Our long-term energy plan must focus on reducing consumption instead of increasing production. America's energy woes will continue until we change America's mindset. Mass transit, hybrid automobiles, increasing CAFE standards, and significant involvement in renewable resources are the only way we will accomplish this.

I was saying to staff working with me that 40 years ago I ran for the State legislature in Florida, and what I was advocating at that time was not rocket science. Forty years ago I talked about us having mass transit and using solar energy and using wind and renewable resources. Forty years since I now am in the House of Representatives and what we were still doing is talking rather than acting on the consumption side trying to reduce same. None of the underlying pieces of legislation address any of these issues and the process in which they are being brought to the floor is downright reckless, and we continue this policy which began a few weeks back of bringing up separate bills under the same rule. Any bill, any bill that blocks Members of the House of Representatives, the people's House, from offering an amendment is closed. And Republicans have made it clear that debate on the House floor is not open for business. I think that that is a mistake on their behalf and I hearken back to my friends in the majority and how it was that they railed against Democrats in another era for closed rules. That is all you could hear on talk radio, closed rules.

Well, I can tell the American public that all you are getting from this Republican majority are closed rules, which shuts out debate not only of Democrats but Republicans. This is the people's House and closed rules do not give the people their voice.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying pieces of legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me discuss in calm reflection my colleague from New York's comments.

Firstly, he and I were at the Committee on Rules hearing last night and my recollection of the two distinguished chairs, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), was that they said that these matters as they are brought up on the substantive agenda did not go through regular order insofar as the committees of jurisdiction.

They did in fact say that the issues in both of these measures had been discussed. As a matter of fact, in the gentleman from California's (Mr. Pombo) case, he said that they had been discussed numerous times, and I would imagine some of the issues that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) would agree as well. But regular order is what we are talking about here and the committee process was not observed as it pertains to these measures.

What I urge my friend who I serve proudly with on the Committee on Rules is to pay attention to the comments of the chair of the Committee on Rules in another era. What he said was if a rule is not open it is closed and it is just that simple. So I do not understand why we keep playing games of disingenuousness in trying to suggest to the American public that these measures that are coming up are giving every Member of the House of Representatives an opportunity to discuss them and that regular order proceeds.

Additionally, my friend spoke of the other body in terms that I probably could have pointed out to him that it is one thing to say that there is obstruction in the other body, but the last time I looked the majority leader was a Republican and the executive branch of government is in the hands of the Republicans and the House of Representatives is in the hands of the Republicans. So when we talk about obstructionism, I do not think Democrats can be faulted for Republicans not being able to get their measures past their bodies.

But now what are we doing here? Let me tell you what we are doing, and no lesser authority than our good friend, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) in speaking to reporters, he is quoted as saying, and the backdrop for this is the U.S. House of Representatives may vote today to send oil drills into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) is not expecting any backup from the Senate. Young said he viewed the idea as serious but not likely to succeed. The Senate is not going to take it up, so what are we doing here? Are we doing something political or are we doing something to bring down oil prices? Are we doing something political or are we doing something to give the American public the impression that we are doing something about renewable energy? Are we doing something political or are we really going to go after solar and wind resources? Are we doing something political or are we really going to advance hybrid automobiles in this country?

It is funny to me how my former fiscal conservative friends are now decrying our state of this Nation as they run these deficits up and as gas prices go through the roof, and we were here talking about projections for additional instructions to give us an opportunity to produce more energy rather than to learn how to consume less and use modern technology in doing so.

This rule is closed and I urge Members to vote against it.

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

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The way the Chair phrased it, I did bring it up, and we were talking about statements that were made by my friend from New York; am I correct?

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, in the body of that conference, were Democrats permitted in that conference?

Were Democrats permitted to attend the conference that the gentleman continues to say was reported out, House Democrats?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume merely for the purpose of pointing out to the chairman and my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), that House Democrats were not permitted to be involved in the conference, House Democrats, not the other body.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I do not want to belabor this. What part of House Democrats does my colleague not understand?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Kristopher Tantillo, a high school student who attends Lincoln Park Academy in Port St. Lucie, Florida. Kristopher was recently selected as one of six students in Florida to represent the State at the National Panasonic Academic Challenge to be held this June.

The 17th annual Panasonic Academic Challenge is a ``quiz-bowl''-type tournament in which teams of our nation's top students test their knowledge with difficult questions in mathematics, science, English, social studies, fine arts, foreign language, and computer science. This Academic Challenge, started years ago as a small local effort, has now blossomed into one of the premier high school academic tournaments in the United States, involving thousands of students from every state and U.S. territory.

Kristopher Tantillo exemplifies exceptional academic skills and scholarship, and I hope that he will continue to dedicate himself to further study and academic opportunities. Once again, I offer my congratulations to Kristopher on this noble achievement and wish the best of luck to him in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Small Disaster Assistance Act of 2004. This legislation is critically needed. All too often, communities are denied federal assistance from natural disasters because the number of people affected by the disaster do not meet an arbitrary threshold which fails to consider human needs.

An unofficial threshold exists under current Federal Emergency Management Agency regulations that require a minimum of 100 homes to be destroyed or receive major damage during a natural disaster for a major disaster declaration to be warranted by the president. Some may argue that, on the surface, this is a fair regulation. But in practice, it is not. In practice, thousands of Americans are forced to pick up the pieces following a natural disaster with no help from their government.

Every year, thousands of Americans have their homes damaged or destroyed by natural disasters. Yet, the Federal government fails them when it denies a state's request for federal emergency assistance regardless of the number affected.

Just last August, hundreds of my constituents in Riviera Beach and Palm Beach Gardens, Florida were left in the dark and heat--literally-- when three tornadoes touched down in Palm Beach County. I, along with Florida's two Senators and Palm Beach County's Congressional delegation, worked with Florida's governor and urged the President to issue a major disaster declaration.

The economic impact of the storms, combined with continued rain, was estimated to be between $70 million and $80 million. To make matters worse, many of those affected by the storm were unable to depend on insurance for relief and assistance in recovering from the storm. According to the joint assessment that was done at the time by FEMA, the State of Florida, and Palm Beach County, 81 percent of the homeowners affected were uninsured. For the uninsured, federal assistance was virtually the only way for them to recover.

The effect of the storm was drastically compounded when the historical economic and social hardships of the communities most affected were included in the assessment. Although it is difficult to place a dollar amount

on this reality, such consideration was certainly appropriate in this instance.

Nevertheless, our request was denied. In his letter to Florida's Governor, Undersecretary for Preparedness and Response Michael Brown's denial noted that the extent of the damage in Palm Beach County was ``not of the severity and magnitude'' to warrant a disaster declaration. This was a response that I found to be quite troubling.

There is no difference between a home that is destroyed during a disaster when less than 100 homes are affected and a home that is destroyed during a disaster when 1,000 homes are affected. To a family who loses its home because it happens to be located in the wrong place at the wrong time, their life comes to a screeching halt by no fault of their own.

The Small Disaster Assistance Act amends the major disaster assistance title of the Stafford Act to provide assistance for disasters where 100 or fewer homes receive major damage to or are destroyed during a natural disaster. My bill requires the President to give special consideration to areas that are historically and economically disadvantaged, have a median family income below the national, state, or local average, high unemployment, a iarge population of uninsured homeowners or renters, and a large elderly population.

The bill places a limitation of relief at $1 million for disasters where less than 50 homes qualify for assistance, and $2 million for disasters where between 51 and 100 homes qualify for assistance. These numbers were generated from the national averages of disasters where 100 or less homes qualify for assistance.

This level of authorization will cover the clear majority of small disasters. In instances where more assistance is needed, the bill gives the President the authority to exceed the limitation if (A) continued disaster assistance is needed, (B) there is a continuing risk to public safety, or (C) necessary assistance will not otherwise be provided on a timely basis.

When mechanisms do not exist in our public policy to help those in need, then it's time for us to change our laws. Failing to provide the President with the ability to authorize assistance to smaller disasters is just plain irresponsible. My legislation provides such authority. I ask that it be brought swiftly to the floor for consideration, and I urge my colleagues to support my efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize three remarkable young men from my district.

Albert Richards, 14, Cairon Austin-Hill, 14 and Marquay Wright, 12, were walking to school in April 2004, when they noticed a fire burning in an empty field. With no thought for their own safety, they raced over and stamped out the blaze before it could cause any injuries or property damage. Their quick thinking may have averted a major disaster.

As we so often hear about the bad things young people do, it was refreshing and, indeed, encouraging to learn of Albert's, Cairon's and Marquay's actions. These young ``firefighters'' are examples of the best of America's young people. Their bravery and selflessness are very laudable qualities in people of any age, especially children. I am very pleased to have such fine young men living in my district.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Leonard Pitts, Jr. of The Miami Herald, winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize in Journalism for Commentary. As a long-time fan of Mr. Pitts' work, I am delighted that he has been honored with this very prestigious award.

Leonard Pitts is a hugely talented writer with a sharp eye and a sharp wit. Newspaper readers in Miami and around the country who are fortunate to read his column would surely agree. Mr. Pitts' work is an important contribution to the social and political debate in America, and I am immensely grateful for his dedication to upholding the highest standard of his craft.

Formerly a pop music critic, Leonard Pitts was hired by The Miami Herald in 1991. By 1994 he was writing about race and current affairs in his own column. Syndicated nationally, Leonard Pitts 1999 book Becoming Dad: Black Men and the Journey to Fatherhood was a bestseller.

After the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., Pitts' Herald column headlined ``We'll Go Forward From This Moment'' was widely circulated on the Internet and frequently quoted in the press. In the column, Pitts bluntly expressed his anger, defiance and resolve to an unnamed evil terrorist. He wrote, ``You monster. You beast. You unspeakable bastard.'' These words, which I remember reading the first time, expressed what so many of us were feeling at the moment and still feel today.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share this moment with Leonard Pitts, Jr. and his family. On behalf of this body, I express my congratulations to him and wish him well.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the measure offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

A woman's right to choose what happens to her body has been reaffirmed as constitutional time after time by the Supreme Court. The Majority's decision to insert an anti-choice provision into a bill funding our Armed Services is troubling, and quite frankly, offensive.

If a servicewoman or female dependent of someone in our military chooses to have a procedure done to her body with her own funds, regardless of her occupation or where she is stationed, then she ought to be permitted to do so. And she ought to be able to have it done by a U.S. military doctor. It's her body. It's her money. It's just that simple.

It's unfortunate that Representative Davis' amendment is even needed. It's just shameful that the conservative wing of the Republican Caucus is trying to invoke controversy into a bill that all of us want to support. I cannot stand idly by while some attempt to demagogue those of us who believe in a woman's right to choose. No one is going to tell me what I can or cannot do with my body, so I certainly am not going to start telling women what they can do with theirs.