Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Louise Elizabeth Buie, who died on December 2, 2003. This diminutive woman, known throughout her home state of Florida and beyond for her contributions to the civil rights movement in America, packed the equivalent of two lifetimes into her 89 years.

Beginning in the 1930s, Louise Buie, as a member of her local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), fought against segregation in its many forms. She served as president of the branch for fourteen years during the 1950s and '60s and was at the forefront of every battle to integrate schools, hospitals and restaurants. It was Louise Buie who demanded that black baseball players be allowed to room with their white teammates in West Palm Beach, and it was Louise Buie who insisted that West Palm Beach, Riviera Beach and other cities in South Florida hire African-Americans as police officers and firefighters. Previously, those municipalities had restricted

people of her race to jobs as janitors and laborers.

Louise's voice and dynamic personality were ever-present in seventy years of struggles over school desegregation and dozens of other disputes involving employment discrimination and demands for equal rights for all citizens. At a time when black citizens were denied admittance to most of the county's hospitals, she ignored the skepticism of her fellow African-Americans and started the fight that resulted in the desegregation of Palm Beach County's major medical facilities. When her grandchildren wanted to go to the beach during a time period when beaches were restricted to whites, Louise took her grandchildren anyway. Although she was arrested for her actions, Louise prevailed, and the beaches were opened to all citizens.

It was Louise Buie who forced the abolition of the Palm Beach County school district's ``all white'' textbooks that excluded any mention of the history and contributions of African-Americans in our nation. She was also at the forefront of the movement that brought courses in black history to the curriculum of Palm Beach County schools. As time went by, more and more of the barriers to full participation in our society were broken down by the efforts of this amazing woman.

Mr. Speaker, there is a song that is often chanted at protest marches and rallies. It begins, ``Ain't gonna let nobody turn us around.'' That sums up the life of Louise Buie. No one ever turned her around.

Although Louise was best known and most often honored for her civil rights work, she didn't confine herself to battles for the betterment of the lives of black citizens. Anywhere there was injustice, Louise could be counted on to speak out and assist those whose rights were infringed upon. She became known as the little lady with the big heart.

Her lifetime of fighting against injustice won her innumerable friends and admirers among people of all races and every economic stratum, including myself. Opponents of segregation came to recognize her as a formidable adversary and eventually realized the futility of holding to their outdated views. Elected officials and other powerful people respected her opinions and welcomed her input and wise counsel.

I knew ``Mrs. L.E. Buie,'' as she called herself, for a very long time. I cannot possibly calculate the immense value of all that I learned from her. As with so many other people she met in her lifetime, she was an enormous influence on me. I know how proud she was of my election to Congress, seeing that victory as validation of her decades- long effort to raise African-Americans to a level equal to that of white citizens. Nevertheless, we both knew, and I still know, that America has a long way to go.

Two years ago, in an effort to convince a local town to adopt the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday for its citizens, Louise Buie, at age 87, walked a mile with other marchers and stood on the steps of the town hall through more than an hour of speeches. When one of my long- time staff members, who had been sitting down, later commented on her stamina, she replied, ``I'm used to standing.'' Until a few weeks before her death, Louise Buie was still fighting battles and collecting awards. In recognition of the many lives she touched and the huge impact that she had on the people of Palm Beach County, the Urban League building in West Palm Beach is co-named for her.

Mr. Speaker, there will never be another human being like Louise Elizabeth Buie. Her impact will be felt for generations to come. She opened many doors, often with only the strength of her personality. Because of her work, innumerable African-Americans and people of all races have walked through those doors, and we are extremely grateful for the phenomenal person that she was. Her memory will live with me always.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Massachusetts for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to not get involved in the discussion that is ongoing. There is a great need for us to correct a few things, and I hope that I can without exuding the passion that I normally bring to debate.

I would borrow from an article in today's New York Times written by Paul Krugman where he says, ``Let's step back a minute. This is a bill with huge implications for the future of Medicare. It is also, at best, highly controversial. One might therefore have expected an advocacy group for retired Americans to take its time in responding, to make sure that major groups of retirees won't actually be hurt, and to poll its members to be sure that they are well informed about what the bill contains and do not object to it. Instead, AARP executives have thrown their weight behind an effort to ram the bill through before Thanksgiving. And, no, it is not urgent to get the bill passed so retirees can get immediate relief. The plan won't kick in until 2006 in any case, so no harm will be done if the Nation takes some time to consider.''

What we have asked for here is 3 days. That is a part of the Rules of this House of Representatives, and every Member of this body, particularly those of us on the Committee on Rules, know that to be true. Despite my Democratic colleagues' best efforts to make this an inclusive and comprehensive process, one that addresses the real concerns of all of America's seniors and disabled, we were shut out from negotiations. We were shut out in June, and we are shut out now.

What we have before us, plain and simple, is an evisceration of Medicare. This bill was filed at 1:30 a.m. this morning. There is an axiom that says, ``He who makes the rules, rules.'' All of us in the minority know that the majority rules. We should, however, in this great country be exemplars of fairness, lest we be perceived as fools making rules. If we cannot be fair, who can? And it is that this process is wrong, and it is just that simple. It is not a question about Medicare or anything, if we did this on the next bill, the forest measure, if we did it on yesterday's bill. This is the first time in the whole of this year that we have brought a bill in the daylight, and my colleagues know that.

What we are doing here is critically important. I, for one, do not want to go back to my district that joins the district of my good friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), where both of us have as high as 34 percent seniors, and tell them that I sure did read this information that is in this bill. Never mind about castigating anybody, the fact of the matter is most Members of this body, all of them on this side, have not read the present contents of the bill.

Yes, there were hearings; yes, there were opportunities for people to talk through the years. I came here along with many of you 11 years ago. We were talking about prescription drugs then. I read my clippings. I was saying, ``I am going up there and try to get you prescription drugs.'' The Democrats were in the majority, we did not get it. The Republicans have been in the majority, and we have not gotten it. And what we are getting ready to get is have this country in turmoil because we are not protecting all of our seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and namesake, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the ranking members. I know that they have done a serious and yoeperson's job in bringing us this far, which, while I thank them, I still have reservations, and I know the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and I have talked about them. But that does not mean that they did not work hard.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank again my good friend from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for having yielded me time.

As the gentleman previously mentioned, this is a typical rule for a conference report and I will not oppose it. I will, however, oppose the underlying conference report, not because my good friend said it would not have been productive to have some of us in the conference. I do not serve on the committee so I do not know how I got thrown into that. I would not have been in the conference in the first place and perhaps he should not have been.

But, Mr. Speaker, President Theodore Roosevelt told Congress in 1907, ``The conservation of our natural resources and the proper use constitute the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of our national life.''

Indeed, it does, Mr. Speaker.

In 2002 alone, wildfires burned more than 6\1/2\ million acres at a cost to taxpayers of more than $1 billion. Hundreds of families were evacuated and uncontrollable fires caused millions of dollars worth of damage. The images of the recent wildfires in southern California are fresh in our minds and pictures of homes burning to the ground and thoughts of livelihoods being destroyed will never be forgotten.

Yes, the underlying report takes significant steps to improve our ability to combat and mitigate wildfires. And, again, I congratulate the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and their ranking members and their committee for their work. But in my opinion it goes a bit too far. And for anyone who says that this or any other bill is not a perfect bill but we should support it anyway, I say absolutely not. If we know that a problem exists in the legislation, then let us fix it. Let us fix it before it becomes law.

The underlying conference report loosens current law regarding the logging and controlled burning of our Nation's forests. Moreover, it eviscerates environmental studies and the ability of organizations and private citizens to submit appeals on the cutting down of as many as 20 million acres. Under the report, appeals are subject to, in my view, unnecessary and unrealistic deadliness that insult the process and force Federal judges to adhere to judicial deadlines that make it impossible to fully consider the complexities of the appeal.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when more than half of the United States is experiencing some form of drought and dryness, it is critical for Congress to consider legislation that is proactive in defending and responding to the adverse effects of wildfires. And I spoke last night with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and my friends in the Committee on Rules about the fact that drought is an attendant feature that must deal with our concerns about forest fires.

It is equally critical for Congress to also consider legislation that helps communities mitigate the effects of the reoccurring events that often result in an excessive and prolonged fire season. In fact, my colleague on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) and I have introduced a bill that does just that. H.R. 2781, the National Drought Preparedness Act, moves our country away from an ad hoc response-oriented approach and towards a more proactive mitigation-based approach.

Our bill provides States and local communities with the resources and tools to develop drought preparedness plans and think about the ramifications of drought before we find ourselves in one.

We are now faced with a vote clearly indicative of the concerns raised by President Roosevelt nearly one century ago. Whether we answer the challenge made by the late President or allow his legacy to fall victim to an influential timber lobby is a decision that Members will have to make later today.

I realize we do not oppose removing excess vegetation that increases the risk and facilitates the spread of wildfires. I certainly do not take issue with the report's efforts to address insect manifestations in forests. It is, in fact, crucial that Congress address these two issues.

What I do take issue with, however, is why the majority cannot just stop there. Instead, it uses the report to further its agenda under the blanket of healthy forests. Cutting down national forests and limiting public participation and administrative reviews does not get us any closer to stopping the spread of wildfires, and it certainly does not make our forests any healthier.

Teddy Roosevelt once noted, ``Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people.'' He continued, ``A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself.''

Mr. Speaker, we must not allow the late President Roosevelt's warning to be realized by the 108th Congress. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and oppose the underlying report.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my good friend of long-standing here in the House of Representatives and a vigorous fighter for human rights and the protector of the rights of people who are set upon as this despicable act has done. I would also like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my friend, and have him to know that I, along with him, am deeply saddened because so many of our colleagues that we serve with in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe were affected. I have contacted Bruce George, our President's office from the U.K., and Dr. Yaleintas, or Professor Yaleintas, and expressed our condolences to them.

Most importantly, I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) has already, for expediting this matter for us and giving us an opportunity to go to the majority leader and the minority leader; and I thank them for expediting this process. The majority leader's office has been extremely helpful in that regard.

It would be remiss of me if I did not take this opportunity to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), who is my good friend and my soulmate geographically in Florida, as well as in our friendship; the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) from the majority side, my good friends that I have gotten to know through our efforts, not only in this resolution, but others; and also the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley); and countless others who have had direct involvement.

I had the good fortune less than 2 months ago to travel to Turkey with Brent Scowcroft, and it was the most illuminating and enlightening experience. It was not my first visit to Turkey; I have been there now a total of seven times.

On November 15, 2003, two explosions set off minutes apart devastated Nev Shalom Synagogue, Istanbul's largest synagogue and symbolic center to the city's 25,000-member Jewish community, and the Beth Israel Synagogue about 3 miles away. In addition, yesterday, explosions hit the Turkish headquarters of the London-based HSBC Bank and the British Consulate General, killing at least 26 people, including Roger Short, someone that I knew and the British Consul-General, and wounding over 450.

In the span of 5 days, terror claimed over 50 lives and injured more than 800 people in Turkey.

The House of Representatives gathers here today united in expressing that we abhor and denounce these hateful, repugnant, and loathsome acts of terrorism. We gather here to, in unison, make sure that the world understands our outrage by this week's attacks.

The United States is determined to stand by Turkey in the fight against the scourge of terrorism. The acts of murder committed in Istanbul were a cowardly and brutal manifestation of the moral vacuum directing the disease of international terrorism. My and all of our heartfelt condolences go out to the victims and their families.

Madam Speaker, the United States and Turkey are natural allies based on our shared values and common interests in building a stable, peaceful, and prosperous world. Moreover, as a predominantly Muslim nation with a secular government, Turkey is an example, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has pointed out, of a successful secular Muslim democracy. Turkey is a pivotal showcase of the Muslim world that fundamentalists hate. Turkey is an ally of the United States and a friend of Israel and is NATO's only predominantly Muslim member. It has supported the war against terrorism, commandeering and offering peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan and offering peacekeepers for Iraq.

Terrorism respects neither boundaries nor borders. Instead, it intends to harm every nation that respects democracy, freedom, equality, and the rule of law.

These acts further demonstrate that the war on terrorism is not a war between civilizations. The attacks in Turkey were perpetrated by Muslim terrorists against a predominantly Muslim nation. They suggest that this is not a religious war, but one that is based on politics, culture, and our way of life.

Madam Speaker, I conclude by once again denouncing these vial, anti- Semitic, and anti-Muslim attacks against men, women, and children and expressing my sympathies to the individuals and families of the victims. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, after that array, you have to be a very strong man to oppose this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be included in the Record.

Mr. Speaker it gives me no greater disappointment to rise today in opposition to the co-called Prescription Drug and Medicare Modernization Act Conference Report. I might call it something else but that wouldn't be appropriate.

Since 1965 Medicare has been a vital instrument in ensuring quality healthcare to America's elderly and disabled. Medicare's 40 million beneficiaries use thousands of different health care products and services furnished by over 1 million providers in hundreds of markets nationwide. However, today a great number of you seek to dismantle Medicare with a fool's gold of a bill tilted the Prescription Drug and Medicare Modernization Act.

Despite my Democratic colleagues' best efforts to make this an inclusive and comprehensive process; one that addresses the real concerns of America's seniors and disabled, we were shut out from negotiations. We were shut out in June and we are shut out now. Today we have before us what the Republicans think is a Medicare and Prescription Drug reform. This is not a reform. This is a gutting of Medicare. It eviscerates one of the most successful great society programs in order to line the pockets of pharmaceutical companies.

Mr. Speaker, I am disturbed to my core that any person in their right mind would find this bill fit to deliver to America's seniors. HR 1 is seriously flawed and inept for several reasons. First, the prescription drug benefits is only available through private insurance companies and HMOs.

Second, the bill does not ensure affordable prescription drugs. Because of the arbitrary budget cap pushed by the administration, HR 1 has high deductibles and does not guarantee an affordable premium.

In addition, this scam of a sham bill creates large coverage gaps-- with many seniors being required to pay high premiums even when they don't receive benefits.

Lastly, the bill does not promise prescription drug benefits to all beneficiaries. By relying on private insurance companies to offer coverage, this approach does not guarantee the same benefits for seniors, like Larry Colado of Myakka City, Florida, who lives in a rural community. Larry Colado is a Vietnam Veteran turned farmer who cannot afford health coverage and now faces losing the little that he has because, unlike Darwin, this administration believes in the survival of the richest.

Approving this bill may not guarantee a destitute future for members of Congress, but it will guarantee a destitute future for those seniors who do not and have not served in this body.

Mr. Speaker, simply put, this bill should be wrapped around a toilet paper holder and stuck in one of the Capitol's bathroom stalls.

I adamantly oppose the so-called Prescription Drug and Medicare Modernization Act. It is a snake oil and it stinks.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank my good friend, the gentleman from Sanibel, Florida (Mr. Goss) for yielding me this time. It is a pleasure to serve with the gentleman on both the Committee on Rules and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and, as I said last night, not in a self-serving way, I do not know of any two committees which work harder or more diligently than the two on which the gentleman and I serve. It turns out that we are the only two Members on both of those committees, and what I said last night is we must be gluttons for punishment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, providing for the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. This bill authorizes classified amounts in fiscal year 2004 for 14 United States intelligence agencies and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, including the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, as well as foreign intelligence activities of the Defense Department, FBI, State Department, Homeland Security Department, and other agencies.

Members who wish to do so, and I urge Members to do this if they have concerns, can go to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence office to examine the classified schedule of authorizations for the programs and activities of the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the national intelligence program. As I said, this includes authorizations for the CIA, as well as the foreign intelligence and counterintelligence programs within, among others, the Department of Defense, NSA, Department of State, Treasury and Energy, and the FBI. Also included in the classified documents are the authorizations for the tactical intelligence and related activities and joint military intelligence program of the Department of Defense.

The measure covers specific and general intelligence operations including all of our operations that we put forward in any manner. Today, more than ever, we must make the creation of a strong and flexible intelligence apparatus one of the highest priorities of this body. The terrorist attacks of September 11, combined with the continuing threat of further attacks, underscore the importance of this legislation. I am pleased that it has been brought to the floor in a truly bipartisan manner. Thanks to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and all of the members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the specific subcommittees, a good job has been done on behalf of this country.

Let me say though, Mr. Speaker, that just because this is brought here in a bipartisan manner does not mean that it is a perfect bill; far from it. There are several areas that many of us would have liked to have seen improved. One of them that we have an exacting concern about is the expansion of the executive authorities under section 374, the amendment of the National Financial Services Act. We feel that that bears further scrutiny and certainly, without judicial review in that section, could pose problems at some point in our future. It is something that many of us will continue to review.

We also felt very strongly, and I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) who will speak specifically to it, that we should emphasize the area of language ability in a more dramatic fashion.

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides authorizations and appropriations for some of the most important national security programs in this great country. Any hesitation by this body in passing it would be a disservice to the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking member, and she is my friend, for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), our colleague on the other side who just spoke, has left the room. For I did want to remind him what the ranking member just has said and that is every member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence vigorously and actively supports the intelligence community in its entirety and fully recognizes the extraordinary and dangerous work that they do on behalf of this great Nation.

I rise in support of this measure. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, I have had the privilege to meet many talented and dedicated intelligence professionals. I sincerely appreciate the sacrifices they have made to ensure that United States interests both in

our homeland and abroad are protected. We must make a continued investment in human resources, our greatest intelligence assets. This bill does that by increasing funds available for language proficiency maintenance and awards initiatives and providing specialized training for collectors and analysts.

I am pleased that this bill also includes a provision similar to one I offered on the House floor. It requires the intelligence community to establish a pilot project to recruit people of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds and those proficient in critical foreign languages. Annual statistics, and the committee's November 5 public diversity hearing demonstrate that the intelligence community continues to lag behind the Federal workforce and the private sector in the number of women and minorities in its ranks, especially in core mission areas. Clearly, more must be done to increase diversity across the intelligence community. I believe that this pilot project is another important step in this regard.

Finally, it is important to note that this bill authorizes only part of the operating funds for the intelligence community. A huge portion of intelligence funds were provided in the $87 billion Iraqi counterterrorism supplemental and in the supplementals that proceeded it. I am extremely concerned about our government's increasing overreliance on supplemental appropriations.

Budgeting by supplementals greatly undermines the committees's ability to effectively oversee how funds appropriated by Congress are spent. I fear this trend may lead to less accountability in the budget building and accounting process, a perhaps unintended, but nonetheless unacceptable, consequence.

On balance, this bill does much to enhance our Nation's international security efforts. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to support it. I am prepared at this time to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this motion to instruct conferees.

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

Before I begin, Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the great work of so many Members to make election reform a reality in the 107th and 108th Congresses. First, the American people owe a large debt of gratitude to the Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney). Without them, the Help America Vote Act never would have passed and the possibility

of $1.5 billion in 2004 would never be possible.

I also want to acknowledge the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the ranking members, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for their commitment to funding the Help America Vote Act. I would like also to thank the Black Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus and specifically, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jim Davis), the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) and his mother, former Representative Carrie Meek, and many more, such as the gentlewoman who just spoke, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), and countless Members here in the House who were instrumental in getting us where we are today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer this motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2989, the Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. This motion instructs House conferees to accept the provision from the Senate-passed bill providing a total of $1.5 billion in election reform assistance to States and local communities.

When the House considered this legislation last month, it appropriated only $500 million. Since Congress passed the Help America Vote Act, States, including my own, have struggled in implementing the requirements of the new election laws, largely because Congress has not fulfilled its financial commitment.

In 2003, the Congress provided only $1.5 billion of the $2.16 billion that was authorized for that year. $830 million of that amount has yet to reach the States. And while the Help America Vote Act authorized $1 billion for fiscal year 2004, the House only appropriated half of that amount. In contrast, the Senate-passed bill appropriates $1.5 billion, covering the full fiscal year 2004 authorization as well as making up for a significant portion of last year's funding shortfall.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the current draft of the Transportation- Treasury Appropriations conference report includes $500 million for election reform. That is for the whole United States. I am also aware that a possible agreement exists to provide additional election reform funding in the omnibus, perhaps as much as $1 billion. One of the reasons I highlighted the $500 million for the whole United States, the State of Florida has funded $200 million. And that is substantially 40 percent of the total amount that we did for the whole United States. However, what I am not aware of in this measure is why the majority is unwilling to fund all $1.5 billion in the proper spending measure. The majority has stated that the budget does not allow for an additional $1 billion. And the President will veto anything over the already agreed amount.

The reality is, Mr. Speaker, the majority is going to violate the budget agreement when it passes an omnibus in 3 days or whatever day it is that we leave here with the $1 billion in the bill. Every penny appropriated in the next 4 days or the final days of this portion of the session is going to be spent in fiscal year 2004 regardless of what bill we included it in. The budget is going to go bust. So if we are going to bust it, at least fund something which will benefit all Americans.

Next week I am scheduled to travel to Maastricht, Holland, and on to Moscow in my capacity as vice president of the organization for security and cooperation in Europe's parliamentary assembly. I will represent the United States as an observer to the upcoming Russian elections.

While I am certainly honored by the task, the irony of the situation is striking. Imagine an elected official from the United States, Florida, advising another country on how to run its elections. Perhaps the OSCE ought to be sending election monitors to the United States. In fact, I plan to invite them to do just that next year.

Realize, when I attend the international meetings of the OSCE, America's ability to conduct fair and reliable elections is often mocked. Parliamentarians from around the world question our election results while Americans are faced to deal with the harsh and unfortunate reality that the Supreme Court may be the only place in the Nation where votes actually matter.

We are spending billions of dollars to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet we are hesitant about spending $1 billion to protect our own. Congress must continue to strive to identify methods and practices to encourage and increase participation in America's electoral process. As a country, we must work toward a day where fairness and transparency are manifest in our elections process and cut-throat politics are forever overwhelmed.

Fully funding the Help America Vote Act is the next step that Congress must take to ensure that we never again find ourselves questioning the methods by which we choose our leaders.

In approving my motion to instruct, the House will send a clear message that it supports funding a fair and reliable election system in America, no matter what it costs. I ask for my colleagues' support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), distinguished whip and my good friend, who I earlier noticed in my remarks. But for him and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney), this measure would not have passed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), my good friend from Houston.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and to make the further comment that he has been extremely instrumental in causing us to get this far.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for his comments and my thanks for his extraordinary work on behalf of America and all of us. And I apologize for the faux pas. I guess I had the primary on the brain and did not recognize the great State of Rhode Island but no offense was meant.

Mr. Speaker, I did not offer this motion to instruct to rehash the 2000 election debacle. We have plenty of opportunity to do that in 2004. But I did offer the motion to highlight and remind Members of the commitment that this body made last year to reform our country's election system. I offered this motion so that the thousands of my constituents and others around the U.S. who were demonized, demoralized and disenfranchised after the 2000 election can go to bed tonight knowing that Congress is serious about ensuring their votes are not only counted but actually count.

I have already introduced the next generations of election reform in the form of the Voter Outreach and Turnout Expansion Act. The VOTE Act allows no excuse absentee voting, requires early voting opportunities, not less than 3 weeks prior to the general election day, requires adequate notification to voters who submit incomplete voter registration forms by mail, treat election day as a Federal holiday, and provides leave time for private employees to vote on Election Day.

These are the ideas of the present, and we task ourselves in making them the realities of the future.

Mr. Speaker, States are eager to implement the improvements required by the law, but they have insufficient resources to meet these goals. Today, we will reaffirm our commitment and appropriate the necessary funding to the Help America Vote Act that Congress guaranteed to States last year.

A dependable and reliable election system remains the linchpin in the integrity of our democracy, and we have no choice but to protect it. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this motion to instruct.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees tomorrow on the bill H.R. 2989, the Departments of Transportation and Treasury and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 2004.

The form of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Hastings of Florida moves that the managers on the part

of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of

the two Houses on the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 2989

be instructed to recede from disagreement with Senate

Amendment 1928 (relating to the provision of $1,500,000,000

for grants to assist State and local efforts to improve

election technology and the administration of Federal

elections, as authorized by the Help America Vote Act of

2002).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon for yielding me this time, and I appreciate her so very much for her bringing this motion.

It is most regrettable that we are in this dispute in the manner that we are because in many respects it comes from a lack of communication between the two respective sides.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to support the gentlewoman from Oregon's (Ms. Hooley) measure.

Since 1965 Medicare has been a vital instrument in ensuring quality health care to America's elderly and disabled. Like my friend from Florida, my mother is on Medicare, and like my friend from Florida, my mother is desperately ill. The real truth of the matter is if it were not for Medicare, I would not be able to sustain my mother's present care.

Medicare's 40 million beneficiaries use thousands of different health care products and services furnished by over 1 million providers in hundreds of markets nationwide. However, today a great number of people in this House seek to dismantle Medicare with a fool's gold of a bill titled the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act.

Despite my Democratic colleague's best efforts to make this an inclusive and comprehensive process, one that addresses the real concerns of America's seniors and disabled, we are shut out from negotiations. My friend on the other side from Florida, and he is my friend, may have seen this bill. But I serve on the Committee on Rules. We have not met on it for it has not been filed, and we will not see it until maybe an hour before we go to the Committee on Rules on this measure.

The bill does not ensure affordable prescription drugs because of the arbitrary budget cap pushed by the administration. H.R. 1 has high deductibles and does not guarantee an affordable premium. In addition, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act creates large coverage gaps with many seniors being required to pay high premiums even when they do not receive benefits. Let me tell the Members about one guy that is from Myakka City, Florida, Mr. Coldao, a Vietnam veteran-turned-farmer who cannot afford health coverage and now faces losing the little that he has because drug companies flee rural areas in search of bigger profits.

Approving this bill may not guarantee a destitute future for those of us that are Members of Congress, but it will guarantee a destitute future for those seniors who do not and have not served in this body.

Mr. Speaker, simply put, this bill should be wrapped around a toilet paper holder and stuck in one of the Capitol's bathrooms. It is that bad. It is poison for this country. It stinks.

And now I want to tell my friend about this AARP. I am a member of that organization until yesterday. And

I did not go to AARP and burn my card. I sent to its director notice that I resigned, and let me tell the gentleman why. Because I never received a mumbling word from anybody at AARP asking me, one of the 35 million members, what I think about this particular measure. I did not receive a questionnaire from them, and I ask my friend from Florida, are all seniors being treated equally under the Republican plan that he has seen and Democrats have not? What are the effects on Medicaid in the State of Florida and in the State of Oregon and this Nation as it pertains to the poor? And most importantly, here come the baby boomers. Baby boomers, get ready. Get ready to go bust under this plan.

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

Madam Speaker, as my colleague on the Committee on Rules already noted, this rule is typical for a conference report. It is closed and it allows for 1 hour of debate. I should note that I am pleased to rise today to debate the content of the energy and water appropriations bill and only the energy and water appropriations bill. Let us just hope that when Congress adjourns the first session of the 108th Congress, it will have considered 13 such appropriations conference reports.

To Republican leaders who say that considering 13 separate appropriations reports is not possible or just highly unlikely, I note that while the other body remained in session last week, the House took the week off. Where there is a will, Madam Speaker, there is always a way. The will of the majority is clear, and it is not on the side of the American people.

But I should not dwell on this body's work ethic nor shall I attempt to predict or foresee the prospects of this week, however dim they may be. Instead I rise in support of the underlying conference report.

As previously mentioned, the energy and water appropriations bill provides $27.3 billion in funding for the United States Department of Energy and many of our country's most important water-related projects. The bill appropriates about $4.5 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, about $1 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation, $22 billion for the Department of Energy, and about $140 million for independent agencies including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

The report also includes more than $15 million in funding for the restoration of Florida's Everglades, and I thank all of our colleagues in the House for continuing to support that vital project in the State of Florida. It further contains legislative language ensuring that the State of Florida fulfills its commitment to improve water quality in the Everglades, and I would urge the Florida legislature to undertake its responsibilities most immediately in that regard. Both of these are prime examples of Congress's continuing commitment to the largest environmental cleanup in the history of the world.

I am proud of the fact that several of our colleagues including the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), and myself are the immediate Representatives for the lake and Everglades area. There are other Congress persons, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), all of whom have been directly involved in this historic undertaking. I am proud of the work that Florida's whole congressional delegation has done on a bipartisan basis, particularly the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member who is not from Florida but has helped us with this to keep this project moving ahead. The subcommittee chairman and the ranking Democrat are to be thanked for their tireless work, and I look forward to working with each of them in the future.

In addition to funding Everglades restoration efforts, the underlying report provides more than $4.5 million for south Florida beach renourishment and protection projects, $500,000 for Florida Keys water quality improvements, and more than $17 million for improving south Florida's ports and waterways.

I am well aware that some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have severe reservations regarding the report, particularly funding for the Yucca Mountain site, a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator study, and an anti-environmental rider that affects a fair process already underway in Alaska. Their concerns are real, and, frankly, I am disappointed that we have not better addressed them in the conference report.

Again, Madam Speaker, this is by and large a good report. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1829, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2003. In 1934, Congress established Federal Prison Industries, a government corporation that employs inmates in Federal prisons to produce goods and services for the Federal Government. FPI employs 21,000 inmates in 111 prison factories to manufacture a number of products for the government. Prisoners manufacture such items as clothing, textiles, electronics, fleet management and vehicular components, graphics and industrial products. In return for cheap labor, inmates receive valuable job training opportunities that teach them the necessary skills that may help them become productive, hardworking citizens once they reenter society.

Under current Federal law, FPI is a mandatory source of goods and services for Federal agencies. That means, Mr. Speaker, that any agency that wants to buy at least $2,500 worth of goods and services must first seek to do so through FPI. If FPI cannot process an order, the agency is then given a waiver to make the purchase from another source.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation seeks to phase out, over a 5-year period, the preference given to Federal Prison Industries in contracts with Federal agencies. Supporters claim that it is unfair to exclusively employ prisoners when small businesses and private firms want to secure contracts with the Federal Government. However, I claim that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I claim that it is unfair to spend $587 million tax dollars to dissolve an effective and self- sustaining program.

I claim that it is unfair to obligate an additional $75 million a year for the

next 5 years to implement an educational and vocational program to replace the already successful educational and vocational program. I say that is a wasteful way to spend tax dollars.

As a former judge, I know the importance of prison employment training programs. I personally witnessed the benefits of giving prisoners constructive work when incarcerated. While the FPI may be reform, I propose we seek other options. I propose we first ask the Bureau of Prisons what they think about reforming FPI. I propose we ask the Federal agencies that receive FPI products and services what improvements can be made. I am not convinced that H.R. 1829 is necessary or that it is the best solution in reforming Federal Prison Industries. Mr. Speaker, I will oppose H.R. 1829.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), my good friend from Chicago.

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

Madam Speaker, Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad made repugnant anti-Semitic statements when addressing the tenth Islamic Summit Conference.

Madam Speaker, I denounce and condemn this statement as dangerous, morally bankrupt and beyond the pale of civilized dialogue. His statement comes directly out of the Hitler playbook, and reflects centuries of anti-Semitism that have led to pogroms and genocide. Jewish, Muslim, or agnostic, black, white, yellow, or pink. We are all appalled by words and actions that spread hatred.

Prime Minister Mahathir has a long history of making unambiguous anti-Jewish utterances and actions and he has time and again identified himself as an implacable enemy of Jews.

Prime Minister Mahathir was an anti-Semite in 1970 when he wrote of the ``hook-nosed'' Jews. He was an anti-Semite in 1984, when he wouldn't let the New York Philharmonic play a composition by a Jewish musician, and in 1986, when he called Jews ``monsters.'' He was an anti-Semite in 1994, when he banned ``Schindler's List'' and in 1997, when he attacked George Soros as a Jew robbing his country. And, indeed, he is an anti-Semite today.

In an interview with the Bangkok Post, Prime Minister Mahathir complained that his remarks had been taken out of context. ``They picked up one sentence where I said that the Jews control the world,'' he protested, declaring that the reaction proved ``they do control the world.''

On the contrary, the reaction of most of the international community reflects the obvious: Prime Minister Mahathir is a bigot; an irresponsible and incendiary, nauseating prejudist.

Nevertheless, it got a standing ovation from the kings, presidents, sheiks and emirs--including key U.S. allies.

I am disillusioned that the moderate voices in the Arab world also remained silent. The Egyptian foreign minister, Ahmed Maher, called the speech ``a very, very wise assessment.'' Asked by the AP whether he thought the speech was anti-Semitic, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said: ``I don't think so.''

In addition, I am especially outraged by the actions of French President Jacques Chirac and Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis to block the inclusion of a condemnation of Mahathir's anti-Semitic speech in the official statement of an EU summit.

Mahathir is retiring Oct. 31 after 22 years in power. Good riddance!

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the National Commission on Employment and Economic Security Act.

More than 2.6 million Americans have lost their jobs since President Bush took office in January 2001. In fact, the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in September 2003, 9 million Americans were officially jobless. Some experts, including the BLS, have suggested that the number of unemployed or underemployed is actually somewhere near 15.5 million. The BLS notes that approximately 6.5 million workers are underemployed or so frustrated at the current job market that they have given up looking for jobs.

During times of high unemployment, Americans experience increases in domestic abuse, alcoholism, crime, illness, and in many instances, suicides. All of these increases stem not only from the loss of one's job, but also from the depression that develops as a result of extended unemployment.

Realize, current U.S. public policy addresses the economic hardships that arise from unemployment through the unemployment insurance program. For a privileged few, the government even assists in providing health care to the unemployed. But what the U.S. government fails to do is provide assistance to the unemployed in dealing with the human dimension of unemployment.

Perhaps this is true because the human factor does not allow for a one size fits all formula solution. Or perhaps it's because Congress never thinks about the human factor, labeling the unemployed as lazy and unmotivated, rather than the victims of economic situations of the times that they are. But for whatever reason, Congress has never addressed this very important tool in understanding the effects of long-term unemployment. That, Mr. Speaker, is completely unacceptable.

The legislation I introduce today establishes the National Commission on Employment and Economic Security, a national commission to examine the psychological effects of extended unemployment. Specifically, the 15 member commission is instructed to examine increases in violence by employees and former employees in the workplace and in their private lives, the effects of well-paying jobs in the U.S., the psychological insecurity caused by the loss of a job, and make recommendations to the Legislative and Executive branches on actions to alleviate the psychological insecurity of the U.S. workforce.

I am confident that this commission will provide Congress and the President with an array of policy recommendations on how we might best address the human factor of unemployment. The livelihoods of more than fifteen million Americans are depending on it.

I ask for the support of my colleagues, and I urge the House Leadership to bring the bill to the floor expeditiously.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay commendation to Indian River Community College, which serves the east coast of Central Florida and many of my constituents. The school has developed an innovative program to combat a local, state and national problem--the critical teacher shortage. Indian River Community College pioneered the ``Bridge to Teaching'' program to recruit and train college graduates to embark on careers in teaching.

In addition to the praise of local school officials benefiting from the recent graduates, the accelerated teacher certification program has been selected as a national model of ``best practices'' for colleges throughout the country by the National Council for Continuing Education and Training.

For their commitment to quality programs and responsiveness to the needs of the community, Indian River Community College and its President, Ed Massey, deserve the congratulations of Congress.