Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the patriotic people of Vieques, Puerto Rico, for their tolerance and understanding during more than 60 years. In the past, the Vieques training range helped prepare the U.S. Navy forces for deployment to the Mediterranean Sea and Persian Gulf.

Nevertheless, military training activities on Vieques interrupted local fishing operations and other economic development, and the effect of the activities by the Department of the Navy reduced the potential for developing the island as a tourist destination. Also, the pollutants released in to the local environment caused some concern among residents who feared an increase in the incidence of cancer and other diseases.

I applaud the Department of the Navy for recognizing that for these reasons, among many, the island of Vieques is no longer a satisfactory place for training exercises. Recognizing that the serenity and beauty of Vieques should be enjoyed, and not destroyed, on April 30, 2003, the Navy closed the base and transferred the land to the Department of the Interior to turn it to a wildlife refuge and a wilderness area.

These days, we hear so much about weapons, terrorism, and the military. It warms my heart that the sounds of exploding bombs has been replaced by the laughter of children enjoying hiking, cycling, wild life observation, swimming, and fishing.

But worries about Vieques remain. Now that the military training exercises are over, the land must be cleaned up. The Island needs to be rid of the pollutants--thousands of unexploded bombs and toxins in the land, water, and air. Only then, would the land be truly returned to its rightful owners.

Mr. Speaker, the exercise of political and civil liberties, including freedom of expression, assembly, association, movement, press, and the right to multiparty elections, are fundamental rights. These fundamental rights belong to every individual, be it in the United States, Iraq, or Cuba; these rights are universal.

Nevertheless, regardless of this truth, the Cuban Government has carried out summary trials to expeditiously sentence prodemocracy leaders to try to intimidate and silence other prodemocracy activists on the island, while world attention is primarily focused on Iraq.

The oppressive Cuban Government has attempted to suppress the will of its own people on fabricated charges, accusing pro-democracy activists for purportedly ``working with a foreign power to undermine the government.'' Fearing a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba, under two draconian laws, the Fidel Castro regime has tried to silence the inherent right of individuals to freedom.

I rise to vehemently denounce these actions.

Mr. Speaker, in early 2003, dozens of supporters of the Oswaldo Paya's Varela Project were harassed, jailed, and threatened. On February 18, 2003, two members of the Oswaldo Paya's Christian Liberation Movement, Jesus Mustafa Felipe and Robert Montero, were sentenced to 18 months in prison on charges of contempt and resisting arrest.

On March 18, 2003, the Cuban Government began a massive crackdown on democracy activists. About 80 activists were arrested and made subject to swift trials and prosecutions that began on April 3, 2003. Foreign journalists and diplomats were excluded from the trials. Within days, over 50 of the activists had received prison terms ranging from 6 to 28 years. These sentences, which are an example of the dependency of the judiciary branch on the will of Fidel Castro, further call into question the legitimacy of Castro's regime. I condemn the illegitimacy of the Cuban judiciary system, and the Cuban Government.

In a further deterioration of Cuba's rule of law, on April 11, 2003, the Cuban Government executed three men who had hijacked a ferry in Havana in an attempt to reach the United States. The men were executed by firing squads after summary trials that were held behind close doors; four other ferry hijackers received life sentence while another received 30 years in prison.

Although their crimes should have been punished, this dismal excuse for a judicial system never allowed the suspects a chance. In one of the most deplorable signs of judicial dependency of the past decade, the three men accused of hijacking the ferry never received a fair trial. Under the Cuban ``Kangaroo Courts,'' they were found guilty in three days, and only given a few days to appeal their sentences before being executed by a firing squad a day later. I am appalled at these murders.

Disgusted by the crudeness of the Cuban Government's repression, on April 8, 2003, I supported House Resolution 179, which condemns the Cuban Government's crackdown, calls for the immediate release of all political prisoners, and endorses basic human rights and free elections in Cuba.

I will continue my high level of advocacy for a democratic Cuba in the 108th Congress, supporting a variety of legislative initiatives regarding sanctions, human rights, and drug interdiction cooperation. But more importantly, I will tirelessly labor to help bring democracy and respect for human rights to the island of Cuba.

In conclusion, I praise the courage of those Cubans who have been targeted in this most recent government crackdown, and strongly condemn the recent arrests and murders committed by Castro's regime.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a saddened heart for the untimely death of a South Florida resident who paid the ultimate sacrifice in the name of freedom. Captain Armando Ariel Gonzalez was killed on April 14, 2003 in a non-hostile accident when a commercial refueler collapsed at a supply area in Southern Iraq. I wish to express my deepest condolences to Captain Gonzalez' wife, and the entire Gonzalez family. Equally, I offer all my support and prayers.

I believe that a person's life is not measured by the time spent on this earth, but by what is accomplished while here. With this in mind, Captain Gonzalez will always be considered a hero. The ultimate passing of any true hero is a tragedy.

This tragedy only crystallizes the great risk and danger these brave men and women experience in the name of the people of the United States. All of America mourns the loss of our military men and women, though we cannot feel the depth of the families' pain. We must never forget that the peace and prosperity that we enjoy today are founded on the ultimate sacrifices made by those who have lost their lives in war throughout our Nation's history. They have earned our gratitude and respect.

Mr. Speaker, because of the very high regard in which I hold all members of the United States armed services, it is especially disturbing to me when one of these fine young men or women is killed. By any measure, their contributions, in terms of human sacrifice, are immense. As a nation we share the sense of loss that the Gonzalez family is experiencing. Though sorrow runs deep, our pride for Captain Gonzalez shines brightly.

Mr. Speaker, Army Staff Sergeant, Tarik Jackson, a graduate of Miami Springs High School, is a pride to the Florida Community. During an ambush on March 23 near Nasiriyah, Southern Iraq, he was shot while trying to get several injured soldiers out of the way of enemy fire. Motivated by his indescribable bravery, Sergeant Jackson walked for a mile after he had been shot in the arm, hip and thigh, and encouraged others to keep going.

The Purple Heart Staff Sergeant Jackson was awarded correctly recognizes his exemplary character and great courage.

I am glad to hear that the doctors expect Army Staff Sergeant Tarik Jackson to fully recover, although I understand that he will need months of rehabilitation.

Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Jackson's injury only crystallizes the great risk and danger these brave men and women experience in the name of the people of the United States. We never forget that the peace and prosperity that we enjoy are founded on the sacrifices made by those who have been maimed or killed in war throughout our nation's history. They have earned our gratitude and respect.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a Concurrent Resolution designed to meet the most important promise we made to the people of Iraq--a promise to help them become self- governing.

Rebuilding Iraq will be a daunting undertaking. The Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance has been established in Baghdad, and its leader, retired General Jay Garner, is responsible for coordinating humanitarian assistance, restoring the nation's infrastructure, and establishing an interim government.

The ORHA is made up of retired generals and diplomats, government technocrats, and oil executives. Efforts to establish and maintain civilian stability and coordinate humanitarian assistance will monopolize the ORHA for some time to come; tasks that would be daunting enough if they had inherited an intact bureaucracy and police force. But the ORHA's biggest stumbling block may turn out to be that none of its members have any experience in forging cooperation amongst radically differing political, religious, and ethnic factions to facilitate even the beginnings of a self-governing nation.

Iraq is the test case for our peacekeeping, nation building and humanitarian policies and success will demonstrate, to ourselves, and the rest of the world, that we can both win wars and transform societies. The three post-war initiatives of providing humanitarian assistance, restoring infrastructure, and establishing an interim government, must commence and progress simultaneously.

The Resolution I introduce today calls on the President to request former President Jimmy Carter and members of the Carter Center to assist the ORHA in establishing an interim government in Iraq. Former President Carter is uniquely qualified to forge a peaceful, cooperative structure among Iraq's political, religious, and ethnic factions. He has dedicated himself to resolving conflicts and enhancing freedom and democracy throughout the world.

Regardless of our opinions on the invasion of Iraq, we must keep the promises we made to the Iraqi people. U.S. and allied soldiers, civilians, and diplomats remain committed to what is certainly the most critical phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this Resolution to ensure they have all the experience and expertise available to help ensure their success.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) spoke about the fact that Democrats have received a motion to recommit for all the years that he is here. For all the years he is here, if we added up all of the motions to recommit that are allowed by the Republican majority, it would not add up to 9 hours of debate. We are given 10 minutes on a motion to recommit. That does not help very much in a free and open society in what is supposed to be the most deliberative body in the world. That has been curtailed and democracy loses when we close our rules, and democracy loses here today.

Regarding the substance of the matter, envision that you are profoundly in debt and you have only a portion of the money you need to pay for major expenses coming up. What would you do? Would you, instead of working harder, saving more and paying off your debt as soon as possible, run up your credit card balance with expensive gifts for your wealthiest friends? No. The mere idea is preposterous.

Mr. Speaker, if our economy was growing like it was before last year's obese, obtuse and downright obnoxious tax cut, I would be the first one to support cutting taxes, but our economy is not growing. In fact, it is hurting more that we are in a war, the war on terrorism, and we are not funding our homeland security responsibilities. The President and majority argue that further tax cuts will head off recession because to them tax cuts are a one-size-fits-all solution. The President and the majority have a tax cut obsession.

Stretched over 10 years and designed with wrong priorities in mind, the cuts are not aimed where they can light a fire under the economy. Instead, the Thomas tax plan takes money out of needed social programs and gives it to people who are wealthy. Right now America needs an economic plan that focuses on providing relief to low and middle income families hardest hit by the Bush recession. Instead of making tax cuts for families a priority, Republicans make the increase in the child tax credit a temporary afterthought. The so-called increase in the child credit is like a magic trick, sort of like the marriage penalty, it is there and in 3 years it is gone.

Indeed, America's greatness is based on its willingness to sacrifice today for the freedom and prosperity of tomorrow. This tax cut plan is completely out of touch with economic reality in America. It might as well come out of the Iraqi Information Ministry. We know how truthful they are.

House Democrats are proposing a package that is front-loaded and fast acting, a real stimulus plan that will jump-start the economy. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and on the underlying principle: The bigger the wallet, the bigger the benefit.

Mr. Speaker, the following is the story of Thomas Zogg, one of my constituents that e-mailed me, which is emblematic of the problems we are talking about today.

Dear Congressman Hastings, I wanted to bring to your

attention that while I most certainly appreciate the help I'm

getting from Unemployment, the bi-weekly payment of $550.00

is just not enough.

I was laid off back in August of 2002 and have yet to

secure a job that actually pays enough to survive.

So far, I have had to spend all of my savings, cash in my

retirement plan, sell my car just to make ends and pay the

rent. It's a terrible situation and now that I have nothing

of value left to sell, all of my unemployment money needs to

go toward paying rent.

All of my bills are falling behind, and there is no money

left to buy food. I don't even have any money to relocate

even if I could find a job outside of Florida.

I'm not sure what to do next.

I can't get health insurance, and as a diabetic, and I

can't afford to pay for a doctor's visit to get a

prescription. I can't afford to pay for medication either.

Lets hope it gets better soon or I'll be homeless.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time, and I am thankful for the opportunity for this intervention.

I rise to offer the amendment to the Workforce Investment Act Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003. Although this amendment is a technical one, if enacted, it will result in an increase of need- based funding for virtually every workforce development board in the country. In fact, if the administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request is appropriated, the amendment would result in an increase of no less than $77.5 million in guaranteed formula or need-based funding in areas with highest demand for assistance. Specifically, the amendment requires that no less than 85 percent of the total funds allocated to local boards under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Activities for Adults program are formula based. H.R. 1261, as reported, establishes a formula for this funding that takes into consideration the unemployment rate of a given area compared with the entire State and the size of the workforce. Further, it gives priority to those living in areas of high unemployment as well as disadvantaged individuals.

I rise today to offer an amendment to the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act. Although my amendment is a technical one, if enacted, it will result in an increase of need-based funding for virtually every workforce development board in the country.

In fact, if the Administration's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request is appropriated, my amendment would result in an increase of no less than $77.5 million in guaranteed formula- or need-based funding in areas with the highest demand for assistance.

Specifically, the amendment requires that no less than 85 percent of the total funds allocated to local boards under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Activities for Adults program are formula- based. H.R. 1261, as reported, establishes a formula for this funding that takes into consideration the unemployment rate of a given area compared with the entire state and size of the workforce. Further, it gives priority to those living in areas of high unemployment, as well as disadvantaged individuals.

My amendment ensures that those areas with the highest unemployment rates and

need for job training receive the greatest level of immediate and guaranteed assistance.

Even more, my amendment limits the ability of governors--Democrat or Republican--to play politics with adult job training and education funds, as well as those funds intended for dislocated worker assistance. The amendment is fair, and it is certainly in line with what Congress intended when it initially passed the Workforce Investment Act in 1998.

Mr. Chairman, America is faced with an unemployment epidemic of enormous proportion. Today, 8.8 million hard working Americans are out of jobs, many for reasons beyond their own control. Nearly 2 million of them have been without work for 27 weeks, and the average length of unemployment is almost 20 weeks, the highest since 1984.

Unfortunately, relief is nowhere in site. 4.8 million workers are stuck in part-time jobs because they can't find full-time work, and there is a meager one job available for every three unemployed workers looking.

My amendment sends guaranteed help to those most in need. It places assistance over politics and ensures that those without jobs receive a greater level of assistance than they currently do under H.R. 1261.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

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

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the time, and I would also alert my friend from Georgia, as I understand it now, we have but one speaker, so we are prepared to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill and the open rule under which it is being considered.

When I think back to all of the times my friends on the other side of the aisle allowed an open rule this year, I do not have to think far, since it has only occurred once before during the 108th Congress. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this full and open debate; and hopefully, this is a sign of what is to come.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I rise today in support of the rule and H.R. 766, a bill to provide for a National Nanotechnology Research and Development program.

As my colleagues may know, nanotechnology is an emerging science that involves the engineering of extremely small materials, devices, and systems at the atomic, molecular, and macromolecular level. The science and technology of precisely controlling the structure of matter at the molecular level is widely viewed as the most significant technological frontier currently being explored.

This legislation is significant because it ensures continued U.S. leadership in nanotechnology research and coordination of nanotechnology research across Federal agencies and the private sector. This measure will provide grants to investigators, establish interdisciplinary research centers and advanced technology user facilities. It shall expand education and training of undergraduate and graduate students and establish a research program to identify societal and ethical concerns related to nanotechnology.

Additionally, this bill assembles a team of advisory and governing committees to work cooperatively with each of the national Federal science offices to achieve the goals and priorities set forth by this legislation and the Federal Government. Through the national nanotechnology research and development program, our Nation can and will continue to make advancements in virtually every industry and public endeavor, including health, electronics, transportation, the environment, and national security.

Moreover, this bill supports the National Nanotechnology Initiative outlined in 1999 by allowing us to reach beyond our natural size limitation and work directly with the building blocks of matter. It holds the promise for a new renaissance in our understanding of nature. It holds the promise, in addition, for means for improving human performance and a new industrial revolution in coming decades.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 766 and this second open rule of the year. Perhaps that came about because of nanoseconds.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend and neighbor to the south, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) for yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support in the strongest possible terms for the United States leadership against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, H.R. 1298.

I have long been concerned with the problem of HIV/AIDS, not just in our own country but also as it affects the poor countries of the world. I am proud that the response to this disease has been truly a bipartisan one. AIDS is blind to party stripes or political affiliation.

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides $15 billion over the next 5 years to increase and expand in a significant way our program to fight HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean. The scientific community has not yet found a cure for HIV/AIDS, but there is a vast body of knowledge that has greatly improved the quality of treatment for those who have HIV and AIDS.

Sub-Saharan Africa is far more severely affected by AIDS than any other part of the world. In fact, AIDS has surpassed malaria as a leading cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa, and it kills many more people than armed conflicts. The statistics, Mr. Speaker, are startling. Africa, where an estimated 3\1/2\ million people were newly infected with HIV in 2002, has approximately 10 percent of the world's population but more than 70 percent of the worldwide total of people infected with HIV.

In 2002, the joint United Nations program on HIV/AIDS, commonly referred to as UNAIDS, reported 29.4 million people were living with HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. According to the Congressional Research Service, at the end of 2001 an estimated 19 million Africans had lost their lives to AIDS, including an estimated 2.2 million who had died during that year alone. UNAIDS estimates that by the year 2020 an additional 55 million Africans will lose their lives to this awful disease.

Additionally, this pandemic is having a much greater impact on children in Africa than is the case in other parts of the world. According to UNAIDS, more than 600,000 African infants become infected with HIV each year through mother-to-child transmission, either at birth or through breast-feeding. These children have short life expectancies, and the number of them currently alive with HIV is approximately about 1 million. In 2001, about 11 million children became orphans because of AIDS in Africa. And because of the stigma attached to AIDS, children who become orphans through AIDS are at a high risk of being malnourished, abused, and denied an education.

In the Caribbean, the AIDS epidemic does not compare to the severity of the pandemic in Africa, but it has reached alarming levels. There are an estimated 420,000 people living with AIDS in Caribbean countries. Moreover, the HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rate in several countries in the Caribbean is among the highest outside of sub-Saharan Africa. Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Guiana are the countries crying out for assistance.

Every day AIDS claims the lives of thousands of innocent people. According to the latest United Nations AIDS report, roughly 600,000 people die of AIDS on a daily basis. While this legislation directs action toward the AIDS problem in Africa and the Caribbean, the disease wreaks havoc in other regions of the world, including the United States. The fastest growing HIV/AIDS epidemic is in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Further, Asia and the Pacific may also face a huge growth in this epidemic.

The impact of AIDS can extend beyond the direct loss of life. It has indirect effects on life and health costs not normally associated directly with the disease. Recently, for example, AIDS fueled deadly famines in east and southern Africa. The HIV/AIDS pandemic is a global human challenge that demands a global comprehensive response, and I am proud that the United States has signified that it is going to take the lead. This legislation authorizes up to $1 billion for the global fund as a way to show our international leadership in the fight against the HIV/AIDS pandemic and to leverage funds out of other countries to reach the levels needed annually to address this problem.

I had the good fortune during the break to meet with the executive director of the Global Fund and our own Secretary of Health and Human Services and the minister for health in Italy when they signed an agreement indicating the Italian-American understandings with reference to approaching this problem. And I assured, and I am sure many of my colleagues can as well, the director of the Global Fund that we would do everything that we can to ensure appropriate resources are in the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS and malaria and tuberculosis.

This is a good bill. In fact, it mirrors many of the provisions of a bill I introduced on Tuesday. Mr. Speaker, the toll of this disease has brought unspeakable sorrow and distress to Africa, the Caribbean and other areas of the world. Our government has not done enough to address this disease in Africa and elsewhere. We should be proud of this effort and view it as a new start on the road to eradicating AIDS. That is the purpose of this legislation, Mr. Speaker. With the additional resources, both financial and human, provided for in this legislation, we can begin to stem the tide of this disease. We know what works in the effort to combat HIV and AIDS, and we need to get on about the business of doing it.

Mr. Speaker, America is a great country in many ways. In the long history of humankind, our greatness will be measured as much by what we do for the needy and the less fortunate of the world and in our country as it is by the quality of life we achieve right here in America. The real measure of our humanity as a Nation is our ability to

share our treasure, our time, and our talents with truly needy people.

I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from California and the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). I appreciate that very much.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who has, since she has been a Member of Congress, been totally committed to trying to alleviate AIDS in the world and has been the leader in legislation with reference to this problem, and certainly working with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), has been directly involved in this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) who has stood out on this issue for all the time he and I have served here in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) who also has been in the leadership on this matter and serves on the Committee on International Relations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with millions throughout the

world to commemorate the tragic and horrific events of the Holocaust as we observe Yom HaShoah. It has been 59 years to the day since the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto rose in revolt against the Nazis. Perhaps now more than ever, the courage of these individuals to fight against anti- Semitism, racism, and prejudicial discrimination is to be honored and remembered.

On April 23, 1943, Jewish resistance fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto made their final appeal to the international community for assistance in their struggle against the Nazis. They wrote, ``A battle is being waged for your freedom as well as ours. For you and our human, civic, and national honor and dignity.'' Indeed, these brave and courageous men, women, and children were correct, and we were wrong for allowing their appeals to go unanswered.

Sadly, the fight against bigotry is an ongoing struggle, as I well know from my own personal experience. I have experienced racism all over the world--in Europe, in the Middle East, in Asia and, of course, here in the United States. Today, anti-Semitism, racism, and xenophobia continue to plague humanity. Those of us who preach and practice tolerance recognize that the fight for equality and acceptance continues in the 21st century.

Jews throughout the world, more than 50 years after the Holocaust, are forced to combat insidious acts of anti-Semitism on a regular basis. Likewise, here in the U.S., we have come a long way since the blatant and institutionalized discrimination that was the norm for African-Americans a generation ago. However, in each case, we are certainly not home yet.

A few years ago, many believed that anti-Semitism was gradually declining and restricted to fringe elements of our society. However, recent developments suggest that there is a resurgent anti-Semitism with a much broader base that includes elements of the far right, the far left, and components of immigrant communities from North Africa and the Middle East.

In the Middle East itself, it appears that the stalled peace process has been a convenient excuse to allow anti-Semitism to become a staple of the media and mainstream politics. Also, in Europe, there has been a resurgence of anti-Semitic and race-based attacks and murders. While European governments have begun to crack down on this unfortunate reality, their initial smugness toward the problem was quite troubling. Now is not a time for us to be silent, and Europe and the Middle East are not places where we can afford to be complacent.

Mr. Speaker, we shall never forget the horrific crimes of murder and destruction committed by the Nazis; and we must commit ourselves to ensuring that future generations shall never be forced to endure the suffering, humiliation, and ultimate death experienced by the victims of the Holocaust. As this body honors these memories, we must commit ourselves--as a country and as human beings--to never allow the pleas of those in need to ever again go unanswered.

We have but one world, and we have been given the great responsibility to make it ours. People of all shapes and sizes, colors and religions have been placed here by powers far beyond us to live together. It is up to us to decide what we make of our time and our world. Thus, as we craft a world in which our children and grandchildren will grow up, the days of religious and racial intolerance must be left behind. For I refuse to live in a day and age where it is acceptable for bigotry and intolerance to trump acceptance and coexistence.

We shall never forget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Humanitarian Assistance to Combat HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean and National Security Act of 2003.

I have long been concerned with the problem of HIV/AIDS, not just in our own country, but also as it affects the poor countries of the world. I am proud that the response to this disease has been truly a bipartisan one. AIDS is blind to party stripes or political affiliation.

Mr. Speaker, my bill provides for an additional $2.5 billion over the next five years to increase and expand, in a significant way, our program to fight HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean. My legislation also calls for the Administration to place a medical officer in each of our embassies to help coordinate our response to this disease. The scientific community has not yet found a cure for HIV/AIDS, but there is a vast body of knowledge that has improved in a significant way the quality of treatment for those who have HIV and

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to give national recognition to three phenomenal high school basketball programs in my district. The Dillard High School Boys and South Broward High School Girls Basketball Teams have accomplished what many would consider a miraculous feat: each school has won four consecutive Florida state basketball championships. The Deerfield Beach High School Girls Basketball Team is also to be honored for winning Florida's 2003 Class 6A Championship, the largest division in Florida high school sports.

We often associate good coaching with star athletes and great strategy. However, Darryl Burrows and Abby Ward, Dillard and South Broward High Schools' respective coaches, have shown much more than an ability to outwit the competition. Their teams have continually dominated the competition, and each team is considered one of the best in the country.

Additionally, Everett Jackson, Deerfield Beach High's coach, lead a team that overcame many obstacles in route to one of Florida's most prestigious high school championships. He and his players too are to be commended for a job well done.

Great high school sports programs promote character and leadership. The great accomplishments of these fine programs instill pride in their students and the entire South Florida community. Most importantly, these young student-athletes will carry with them the knowledge that they are champions, and they can be victorious over any challenge that life brings their way.

I submit for the Record the names of the coaches, principals, and athletes so that their incredible accomplishments will forever be documented by this body.

Dillard High School, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 2002-2003

Florida Class 6A Boys Basketball Championship, Principal,

Rayfield Henderson, Coach, Darryl Burrows, Chris Johnson,

Kevin Thomas, Johnny Williams, Marcus Edward, Joe McCray,

Vincent Mosley, Micheal Reddick, Jermaine Haynes, Chris

Rawls, Jimmy Tobias, Louis Holmes, Lavell Payne, Marcus

Allen, Pat Sims, and Renarko Cunningham.

Deerfield High School, Deerfield Beach, Florida, 2002-2003

Florida Class 6A Girls Basketball Championship, Principal,

Kathleen Martinez, Coach, Everett Jackson, Kendra Goodley,

Charnika Foster, Shuteamia Brayboy, Cristal Randolph,

Chytearra Kintchen, Princess Stewart, Lakeena Gillion,

Jessica Brown, Virginia Gregoire, Veronica Randolph, Kentrina

Wilson, Ju'Erica Overstreet, Monteza Hepburn, and Chalice

McMillian.

South Broward High School, Hollywood, Florida, 2002-2003

Florida Class 5A Girls Basketball Championship, Principal,

Steven Pomerantz, Coach, Abby Ward, Julia Noga, Domonique

Thomas, Alysha Harvin, Keunta Miles, Brittany Washington,

LaShaunda Slade, Krystle Stanley, Tonya Holmes, LaQuetta

Ferguson, and Lamese James.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I would like to engage my colleague from Florida in a colloquy if he would be so inclined. I ask my colleague his understanding of the modifications that took place in conference, because Members have come to several of us

asking us our understanding; and quite frankly, I am not clear and perhaps he can help us to understand whether or not it, in fact, was modified as it pertains to all sex crimes or was it modified to include just sexually exploited situations as it pertains to children.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, so the antiquated sexual offenses are not contemplated under the gentleman's amendment as he understands it?

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my good friend from Florida, and he is my good friend, to take into consideration when we decry downward departures that the people that are on the firing line, the Article III judges, make those departures after very careful consideration.

Having served in that branch of government at one point and being an opponent, as almost universally the Federal judges were, of mandatory sentencing and sentencing guidelines, it is not to be taken lightly.

I agree with the gentleman that the appellate review is more than necessary and reporting regarding same should be important. But please do not take the downward departures to mean that the judges did not see something that we do not have an opportunity, when we make these laws, to clearly understand what the judge in fact saw and heard in the sentencing provision, or even in the trial.

I could cite numerous examples where downward departures have saved families and lives. I would hope my friend would understand that.

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

I would make the comment that the hope would be that we do not chill the Federal judiciary with departure restrictions. I think it would be a mistake on our behalf.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), a gentleman who has been and continues to be a stalwart in the way of providing for the AMBER Alert, a leader in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who was formerly a member of the Ohio judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Mr. Speaker, several measures are brought to the attention of the body, and specifically they are now known as the Feeney amendment. I may be able to add a little clarity by putting forward that the bill, the bill as it is presently before us, that this particular rule is contemplating, establishes de novo appellate review of departures, prohibits downward departure on remands based on new grounds, requires government motion for extra one-level

adjustment based on extraordinary acceptance of responsibility, and prohibits the Commission from ever altering this amendment.

It chills departure by imposing more burdensome reporting requirements on judges who depart, and gives the Department of Justice access to Commission data files that identify each judge's departure practices. And it requires the Department of Justice to report downward departures to Judiciary Committees, unless within 90 days the Attorney General reports to Congress on new regulations for opposing and appealing downward departures.

Our colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), as well as our colleague on the other side of the aisle, the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), and many Members of this body have worked very hard to ensure that we have the AMBER Alert, which has proved itself to be more than useful in our society for a very, very important and worthy cause.

That said, it is unfortunate that in this particular measure for AMBER Alert, some ill-conceived, maybe unconstitutional, very restrictive measures have been put forward in the substantive bill.

With that, I would urge Members to pay particular caution to the rule itself, and when they examine voting for AMBER Alert, to be mindful that there are a number of provisions that they are voting for that are not just covered by the headline, but are covered by the rights of individuals in our society and the rights of the members of the judiciary who have a firsthand opportunity to make a determination as to what should be done in the way of sentencing.

When I served in the judiciary, one of the things that I was proud of was exercising discretion in a meaningful manner, and I always tried to err on the side of reconstructing families. I think this legislation is prohibitive in many respects. And I think no less an authority than Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, in his remarks very recently, said to us that mandatory sentencing can and, in fact, has led to an increase in the significant number of persons in our society, 2 million now in America, that are in prison.

We make these laws and we talk all the time about unfunded mandates, and we make these laws without fully realizing the implications as to what may transpire once they are made. The Federal judiciary will be impacted by what we do in the name of something that is the right thing to do, AMBER Alert.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, most respectfully, the majority leader's comments are taken not lightly by any of us. But I would urge that we understand that this law that we are passing establishes new separate departure procedures and standards for child-related offenses and sex offenses. Permissible departures are those that the Commission specifically enumerates. It limits age and physical impairment departures in child and sex cases. It prohibits gambling dependence in child and sex cases. It prohibits aberrant behavior departures in child and sex cases. It prohibits family ties departures in child and sex cases. And one that is particularly troubling, because I saw this case in my past responsibilities, it prohibits diminished capacity departures in child and sex cases.

Everything is not as cut and dried as we would have it be, and I urge Members, while supporting AMBER Alert, to be mindful that we are supporting a number of provisions that would be addressed by the court system for some time to come.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today not in support or opposition to the legislation before this body, but rather to bring to this body's attention the Majority's lack of consideration and complete disregard to issues of environmental justice.

Yesterday, during the Rules Committee hearing on H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003, I offered an amendment that directed the Secretary of Energy to take all necessary steps and efforts to mitigate any adverse impacts that U.S. energy policy and the provision of H.R. 6 may have on minority, rural, Native American, and underserved communities. Additionally, it also requires the Secretary to submit to Congress an annual report detailing the Department's efforts to implement the requirement that I just described.

My amendment, as my colleagues and I in the Democratic Party see it, was non-controversial and essentially a reinforcement of a policy that already exists in the Department of Energy's. However, like in so many instances since 1994, the Republican Majority has neglected the responsibility that the Constitution instills upon us to always protect the rights of the minority and speak up for those whose voices all too often go unheard.

In 1994, then President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898 establishing an Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice and directed all federal agencies and departments to make environmental justice part of their mission. Included in the Working Group were 17 departments and federal agencies, including the Department of Energy. The Working Group made a series of recommendations including the establishing of an Office of Environmental Justice within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Under President Clinton, the EPA worked a great deal toward ensuring that environmental justice was a priority of all departments. However, like in so may other issues of equality

and justice, the Bush Administration and Republican Majority have done little to advance the cause. And in many instances, their policies create situations where environmental injustice thrives.

Commitments that have been made by the Majority to consider issues facing minority communities when crafting legislation has been nothing more than lip service in the 108th Congress. Today's debate on H.R. 6 provided a great opportunity for Congress to reaffirm its commitment to environmental justice. But Republicans on the Rule Committee, by a straight party line vote of 9 to 3, denied me the opportunity to offer my amendment on the floor of the House. In doing so, Republicans further denied House Members the opportunity to reaffirm to minority and other underserved communities that Congress is committed to ensuring environmental justice is a priority to U.S. policymakers. The only thing left is for me to question whether or not the Majority really is committed to protecting the rights of minorities--and in this case, Mr. Speaker, I'm not talking about political affiliation.

Mr. Chairman, it is virtually impossible for Congress to consider energy policy without taking into consideration the effects that new and existing legislation will have on the environment and communities living in areas that are most impacted by such policies. If environmental justice is to be a policy of this government, then Congress must also look at the origins of the problem that exist.

More times than not, environmental injustice arises as a result of poor energy policy. I am not just talking about toxic emissions into the air from unclean smokestacks disproportionately affecting minority and underserved communities living nearest to these plants. I am also talking about, for example, the siting of future factories, production of automobiles, and the location of a waste dump. All of these issues are part of this energy bill, and all of these issues adversely affect minority and other underserved communities.

Environmental justice can no longer just be a part of the mission of the Executive Branch. Instead, it must also be the practice of federal departments and agencies, as well as the Congress.

My amendment further links energy policy to issues of environmental justice. It does not change the policy or the mission of the Department of Energy. Instead, it recognizes that energy policy does play a role in achieving environmental justice and requires the Secretary of Energy to consider this reality in implementing the provisions of H.R. 6.

Though the House will never have the opportunity to consider my amendment, I submit its text to the Record so that the American public can see the injustice that was done this morning by the Republican Majority when it denied consideration of my amendment.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

In Division C, title IX, after section 30908 add the

following:

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the base bill, H.R. 1036. In my view, this is a cynical, political bill that like other so- called tort reform bills that the majority has brought to the floor this year, would protect and favor wealthy businesses and campaign contributors at the expense of those victimized by irresponsible conduct.

I advocate a decent society. My strong opposition to H.R. 1036 does not reflect a broad opposition to gun ownership. I own a gun. I am for sensible gun laws that do not take away the legal rights of individuals to have guns for recreational purposes and personal protection. Gun ownership can further American values, but H.R. 1036, instead, usurps them.

I said to someone earlier today that since I was a child I have had, family and others, BB guns to single shot .22 rifles, that are sports persons and are involved at some degree in having owned a gun. I have no family member that has ever caused a criminal problem because of a gun. That does not mean that my family is any better than anyone else's, and I believe that I would go to my grave fighting for the right of Americans' values, which include owning a gun.

But I cannot have anyone make sense for me how AK-47s can be sold on the open market at a gun show. Nobody can make that make sense to me, that anyone other than the military and law enforcement should be endowed to hold those guns in their possession. I see no reason for them.

The majority, encouraged by a forceful and wealthy industry, is pushing Congress to enact a disastrous bill to give gun makers and dealers extraordinary shelter from liability suits. I do not wish to prey on the misery of one family that has suffered immensely at the hands of a gun, but several Members in this body represent the area of Palm Beach County, four of us do, and in our constituency are people who suffered a few years ago, none more than Ms. Pamela Grunow, the widow of a schoolteacher killed by gun violence.

Pamela Grunow deserves to have her day in court, and I am appalled that some representatives of the people have the contempt to propose legislation that would deny her this right.

On May 26, 2000, a 13-year-old student, a young man named Nathaniel Brazil, shot and killed his language arts teacher, Barry Grunow, at Lake Worth Middle School, that is in my district and the district of three other Members, two Republican and two Democrat.

The gun used to kill Mr. Grunow was a .25 caliber semiautomatic pistol, which is commonly known as a junk gun, or ``Saturday night special.'' Such handguns have little or no sporting or self-defense use, and are disproportionately used by criminals and juveniles to commit murder and other violent offenses. Pamela Grunow is seeking to hold the distributor of this gun responsible for selling an unreasonably dangerous and defective product.

Under Florida law, a distributor or dealer who sells a defectively designed product can be held liable, just as the manufacturer can be held liable. But some congressional colleagues of mine have the audacity to challenge the federalist and legal systems of the United States. Their hubris is infinite. You do not know better than the State governments legislating on this issue or the judges listening to these lawsuits.

Pamela Grunow deserves her day in court. She may not win, but, under Florida law, she should have that opportunity to lose or win.

An identical bill was reported out of committee last October, but the majority leaders decided not to put the measure on the floor after a series of sniper attacks in the metropolitan Washington area. Those sniper attacks made even the bill's sponsors squeamish. But less than a year later, even before the suspects in that particular atrocious crime are prosecuted, the majority is pushing an identical antivictim bill to be enacted. Less than a year later, H.R. 1036 would bar legal action filed by victims of the sniper shootings against the gun dealer, where the sniper suspects, two federally prohibited purchasers, allegedly obtained their Bushmaster assault rifle.

At a time when America needs more corporate responsibility, Congress should not give one industry a free pass. Gun makers and dealers act as though their industry was being treated unfairly. That is absurd. The gun industry wants to receive special legal protection that no other industry in America enjoys. Gun makers and dealers want to be free from the accountability of their negligent or dangerous conduct, regardless of how many people they injure or cause to be killed.

I want to make this clear: Absent legal immunity, gun makers would simply be treated like any other industry. Pharmaceutical companies must design medicine bottles that are childproof. Car manufacturers must design automobiles that withstand crashes. But those in the majority party are prepared to exempt gun makers from the responsibility of designing their products to protect against misuse that is reasonably foreseeable.

Robert A. Ricker, former Executive Director and Director of Government Affairs of the American Shooting Sports Council and former Assistant General Counsel for the NRA, recently revealed that the gun industry has long known its practices aid criminal access to guns, yet has done very little about it. In light of Mr. Ricker's declarations, it would be the height of irresponsibility for Congress to pass H.R. 1036.

America cannot afford for Congress to act irresponsibly on this issue. In 1999, firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for black men ages 15 to 34, as well as the leading cause of death for all black 15- to 24-year-olds. Former Surgeon General Satcher even saw fit to declare this an epidemic.

As a representative of the American people, I am sickened that those culpable of causing pain and devastation may be immunized from liability due to their political clout.

My dear colleagues, blood money is guiding this bill. Those supporting H.R. 1036 are pushing ill-conceived and reckless legislation through Congress, motivated by the wrong priorities.

This bill is not only a gift to the gun lobby, its timing, with floor consideration coming just a few weeks before the April 24, 2003, National Rifle Association's annual meeting, is particularly suspect. In my view, some politicians are more concerned about satisfying the priorities of contributors than in seeking justice under our American values.

The cold barrel of the gun industry is pushing on its victims' throats. The majority is proposing that Congress pull the trigger. H.R. 1036 will shoot down the fundamental right to a day in court, even retroactively. It is scandalous that this anti-American, antivictim, anti-American values, prointerest group bill is being brought to the People's House.

I oppose the bill.

I wish to end, Mr. Speaker, by saying what I said when I began: Let the NRA and all people who own guns know that one Congressperson stands here for their right to own their gun, so do not misunderstand my opposition to this scandalous bill that will do detriment to the fundamental premise of a person's right to sue someone that has caused foreseeable harm.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I want my friend from Texas to catch my voice as it thunders in his direction. I am not antigun. I am prosensible gun legislation, and I am in favor of American values that allow for people to own guns legally. And I do not believe any of my colleagues that are opposed to this legislation would argue that under the Constitution a person has a right to bear arms. But under that same aegis that gives us a system that has served us well these number of years, a person has a right to sue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who serves on the Committee on Rules with distinction.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) to respond to our colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the ranking member of the relevant subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. Does my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) have additional speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield back after closing.

Mr. Speaker, I have had one additional speaker show up.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), my friend, who was a leader in the State senate in Maryland on this particular issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions), and I also thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Stearns), who is still here, for reminding me that Florida has a law that is similar to this that I do not think ought to be preempted. But at the very same time, Florida under the aegis of a previous Attorney General did in fact sue gun manufacturers too. So we have been a leader on both fronts.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this in closing. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and I live very close to Orlando. I was born and raised in Alta Mont Springs that is 10 miles north of Orlando. I will not be in Orlando when the National Rifle Association meets there 3 weeks from now. I will not be receiving contributions from some of their members, interestingly. I am sure that there are some of their members who agree with me.

Gun dealers and owners who illegally sell or use guns are subject to prosecution under Federal laws, as my friend from Texas pointed out at the Committee on Rules yesterday, such as Brady. That is not what we are talking about here today. Today we are talking about the civil damages these actions cause, the innocent victims of gun violence. This bill, in my opinion, would eviscerate this possibility; and I think in that regard that it is wrong.

Let me says that with my warm live hands I will protect the right of American citizens and American values to legally own guns. In that place where I was born in the halcyon days of segregation, be assured that almost every family member and everybody there had a gun, and I can assure you they needed them. And, therefore, when we talk about the right to bear arms, know that there were many of us that believe in that right. So the National Rifle Association should know that with these warm live hands I will defend their right to own a gun, but none of them can make sense of AK-47s being sold in the street. None of them can make sense of Saturday night specials that have caused devastating damage to this overall society, such that one Surgeon General declared an epidemic because of gun violence against our children and their community.

None of them can make sense for the gun manufacturers and gun dealers, who may be few, of being exempted from legislation that rightly ought be considered if it were not exempting certain people and giving them special conditions that so many on the majority side rail about all the time saying others are seeking special conditions. If car manufacturers have to meet standards that avoid liabilities, if drug manufacturers, and I can go on and on and on through the product liability phase of this discussion, then be assured gun manufacturers, if they do something that is foreseeably wrong, should be held to the same standards as everybody else.

Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to vote against this bill and for each one of them to use their warm live hands to protect American values.

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