Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a great civic and community leader, Paula Whitney, upon her retirement as President of the Mill Basin Civic Association. Paula Whitney is a lifetime resident of the Mill Basin community and can trace her roots back to one of the first families to establish a residence in the area. She has a deep love for this close knit Brooklyn community and has dedicated a large part of her time and energy to ensuring the opportunities provided to her and her family over the years are preserved and fortified for future community residents.

Paula Whitney joined the Mill Basin Civic Association in 1979 and held several offices before being elected president in 1989. As president, Paula Whitney has spearheaded many campaigns to improve the Mill Basin community and keep it family friendly. She has brought many problems that otherwise might be swept under a rug into the light of day and had an uncanny ability to demand the proper amount of attention and respect from elected officials, our local police precinct and our local schools. Thanks in large part to Paula Whitney's persistence and hard work, no issue raised at her meetings ever went unanswered.

Paula Whitney taught civic responsibility by example, and her two children, Michael Francis and Jeanne Marie, learned it well. Jeanne serves on the civics' Board of Directors. Paula is married to Allan Whitney, a civic leader in his own right, who serves as the Third Vice President.

Paula's dedication to our community runs deeper than devoting herself to just one organization. She has represented her Mill Basin community at School Board meetings, served as a former Board Member of the Mill Bergen Chemical People Task Force, as a member of the Flatlands Volunteer Ambulance Corps, and as a member of Community Board 18, where she is chairperson of the Libraries Committee.

Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I congratulate Paula Whitney upon the completion of her service as president of the Mill Basin Civic Association and thank her for her many years of hard work on behalf of my constituents and the City of New York.

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

The Judiciary Committee, I think, has been a font of some of the legislation I find most troubling in the last session. But this is a moment that I want to join with my colleagues in commending the chairman for doing what, frankly, we should have down a long time ago. Before Mr. Sensenbrenner took over the committee, it was customary for us to avoid the tough issues that went into reauthorization. But Mr. Sensenbrenner has been fair and honorable in trying to work out some of these thorny issues, and I think we have shown that we can work together to come up with an initiative that not only managed to bring us together but did that almost impossible thing, which was force the other body to finally act on some of these things as well.

A couple of programs in particular that are worth noting: For the first time since 2000, we are reauthorizing the COPS program. More than 117,000 cops are on the beat in small towns and big cities throughout this country, sheriffs departments, major police departments. This bill not only reauthorizes but recognizes some of the criticisms of the first bill, makes the money more flexible, lets police departments use it for the things they need the most, recognizes the need to pay some of the payroll for terrorism cops in particular since September 11.

This finally closes the loophole in the availability of counterfeit police and uniform badges. After years of being warned of the loopholes that exist, for the first time under this legislation, it will be illegal to sell or to transfer a counterfeit badge for any reason except for use in a theatrical production or for legitimate law enforcement purposes.

Also in this legislation, we, again, for the third time, push the ball down the field on approving the use of DNA technology. We allow those who are acquitted to expunge their samples. DNA funding that is allocated can be used for laboratories, which it has not been in the past. Aliens in detention, samples can be collected from them. And perhaps the most important thing, the Federal statute of limitations has been lifted because DNA evidence very often sits on the shelves for years and years and years without being associated with an individual. That statute of limitations is going to be expiring.

I just want to say, again, I commend Mr. Conyers and Mr. Sensenbrenner for a bill that does a great deal. It waited until the last moment, but it was well worth the wait, and I thank the gentlemen.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I have no question about the gentleman's values or his intent.

Is there any element of this bill that if we substituted ``Chanukah,'' which you mentioned, recognizing the importance of the symbols and traditions of Chanukah, would you find that offensive in any way?

Madam Speaker, he controls the time. He has yielded to me for a question, and now I am asking it.

Will the gentleman yield further for another question?

Would you find anything offensive about recognizing the importance of the symbols and traditions of Diwali, the Indian New Year for Indian Americans?

It is exactly the place to debate. We are on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Nevada and the gentlewoman from Virginia.

The bottom line is there was a good-faith effort made by the gentleman from New York to change ``recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas'' to ``the symbols of Christmas and Chanukah,'' and you said no.

It was an attempt to change ``strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas'' to ``ban references to Christmas and Kwanzaa,'' and you said no.

It was a chance to take this and put it into the words that the gentleman from Virginia, the gentlewoman from Florida earlier articulated, and the gentlewoman who is the sponsor says that she intends. The question must be, why? For someone who does not celebrate Christmas, the question looms: Why? Why not say to someone who wants to make this inclusive that, indeed, we are going to make it inclusive? The symbols of Chanukah are not valuable? Sure, they are, I think. The symbols of Kwanzaa are not valuable to some? Sure, they are. I cannot imagine why the gentlewoman who is the sponsor of this, who says that she speaks from a sense of inclusion, would not want to include those. Are those not worthy of being protected? What is the message that is being sent?

The gentleman from Nevada articulated his support. He perhaps should persuade his colleague to offer that UC.

Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member and the chairman. I offer my gratitude to both of them for the hard work they have done in, once again, trying to fit many programs into a very small package.

There is a mystery buried deep in this bill. This bill marks the end, the official end, of the COPS program. We know that the chairman and ranking member were not the ones that led to its demise. In fact, over the last several years, there has been an effort to, despite the fact that it has not been reauthorized, keep it going.

Now, we know that the COPS program ends in this bill, but the question is why. Let us try to figure out what the motive is.

Well, could it be that it is not distributed evenly, the police officers, the over 120,000 police officers hired in the bill? This is an example of just some of the cities that have had officers hired under the COPS program. This is perhaps the most democratic, with a small ``d'', bill you can imagine, COPS in small police departments in rural areas and large big cities.

Perhaps it was that the COPS program was eliminated because it was not working. Well, that certainly was not the case. Crime has been reduced every year since the COPS program was put into place. The GAO did a study looking at the correlation between COPS hiring and the reduction in crimes and concluded that over a quarter of a million indexed crimes were not committed because of the COPS program.

Maybe it is because the program is no longer needed. Well, the former head of the Department of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, once famously said that homeland security starts in our hometown. Everyone is saying we

need more and more first responders, not fewer.

So the COPS program in this bill meets its demise, a successful program. We do not quite know why it is ending. We are grateful to the chairman and ranking member for having it go on this long.

But we do have a chance to resuscitate it. The House has passed the reauthorization of the Justice Department bill. We are awaiting action in the Senate. In that bill we authorized the COPS program to live to see another day. We have bipartisan support from Chairman Sensenbrenner, Democrats and Republicans joining together to try to make the COPS program come back to life.

I would urge my colleagues to think about whether or not at this time of heightened national security concern, we want the COPS program to end.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This is a technical amendment that fixes an oversight in the bill that left out four programs that would be helpful for courts, court officers, and court security personnel to take advantage of: the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant program; the Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Discretionary Grant program; the Assistance for Children's Justice Act, CJA, grants; and State Justice Statistics program for Statistical Analysis Centers.

These four grant programs, I think, the authors of the bill, Mr. Gohmert, myself and members of the committee, had intended to be available to courts as a result of this bill, and this amendment would include those.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his support.

For the balance my time here, I do want to point out one other provision that has gone largely unnoticed, but is a very important part of this bill.

I have beside me, and it is difficult to read from afar and, frankly, it is difficult to even read from up close, a Web site that distributes the personal information about judges, police officers, elected officials, and the like. This Web site, and we have obviously obscured the URL, goes so far as to talk about the comings and goings of undercover officers in New York City. It provides sensitive details of about 79 different officers, things such as what type of car they drive, things about what the comings and goings of their families are, personal habits. This is an example where we find the matrix, or perhaps I would call it the conflict, of the virtues of the Internet, how it is a place to bring information far and wide and the ability to use the Internet for what is in this case a very pernicious, mean- spirited, and perhaps deadly cause.

We know from the examples we have had judges' families stalked based on information the criminals were able to find on the Internet. In this bill we essentially incorporate H.R. 1710, the Internet Police Protection Act, that I offered. It becomes section 18 of this bill. What it says is there is a lot of publicly accessible information about judges; there is a lot of publicly accessible information about police officers. If someone wants to, if they really want to harass or harm a police officer or a judge, we should not allow the Internet to be used as a repository for information like that.

I am someone who spends a great deal of time as a member of the Judiciary Committee and a Member of this House fighting for the rights of people to free speech. I know there are going to be things on the Internet that are troubling to us, and we are always going to be in a tug and a push to try to figure out where we draw the line.

In this case, the line clearly gets drawn in the following place: if people are going to use the Internet to harass, intimidate, or harm law enforcement personnel, to harm court officers, to harm judges, then they should be illegal. This makes the test very simple. If they simply compile the database and a police officer's name happens to be on it with no intention of ill will, then obviously this would not make that illegal. But if it is clear that they are compiling a Web site like this one, which starts out, I should point out, the very first line says: ``Welcome to this legal, noncriminal Web site which provides publicly available information about NYPD, New York City Police Department, officers. This page is this Web site's most visited page,'' and it goes on to talk about how the information that was gathered was gathered in a lawful way. That is probably right. But it should be illegal. This is just the type of harassment tool, and perhaps even worse, that we need to keep off of the Internet.

I also draw another distinction, Mr. Chairman. When one is an elected official, a public official, their comings and goings are going to be more public than others. That is part of the cost of doing business. Any information about where a Congressman shows up obviously is not going to be covered by this legislation. But if one is a police officer, if one is an undercover police officer, imagine what it feels like to go home after a hard day at work dealing with some very bad people and find information about their comings and goings posted on a Web page.

This bill, the Court Protection Act, is going to make that illegal, as it should. And there may be tests that we have to figure out where the line gets drawn. Courts have come down in different places, but one thing we know: threatening speech is not protected speech. Speech that endangers someone's livelihood, endangers someone's life is not protected speech, and this provision in the Court Security Act will make that abundantly clear.

I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the Weiner amendment.

Mr. Chairman, despite the divisiveness of the term ``faith-based,'' most Americans are united in their support of religious organizations. Across the country, these organizations do great work, feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and in many cases providing affordable housing to those most in need.

That's why it's surprising that the Republicans are using an otherwise worthy effort to reform Government Sponsored Enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to throw a wrench in the relationship between government and the religious community. The Affordable Housing Fund created by the bill will commit 5 percent of Fannie and Freddie profits toward a grant program to build, maintain, and rehabilitate housing for low-income families. Yet language passed in the Managers Amendment stops that money from flowing to faith-based organizations. That amounts to $500 million a year that Republicans don't believe should go to organizations like Catholic Charities.

Today in Brooklyn and Queens alone Catholic Charities operates 3,000 units of affordable housing including 2,090 units for senior citizens, 480 units of family housing and 377 units of supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals. But the Church, the largest non-profit provider of low income housing in Brooklyn and Queens, will be shut out of the new program.

Faith should never be used to divide an electorate or play a political game. I believe that is exactly what Republicans have done in order to take the teeth out of a program designed to help those most in need.

We should all embrace the principle of Tikkun Olam which says that those who have a little more, should do a little more. That is exactly what the Affordable Housing Fund would have allowed faith-based organizations to do in partnership with the Federal Government until Republicans inserted their limiting provisions.

In the words of the Most Rev. Nicholas DiMarzio, Bishop of Brooklyn, in a letter to the Speaker dated October 3, ``There are ample ways to write safeguards into the legislation to prevent the diversion of affordable housing funds to uses other than what they are intended without requiring recipients to forego their constitutionally protected rights as a condition for participating in Affordable Housing Fund programs.''

I include the Bishop's letter for the Record.

Department of Social Development

and World Peace,

Washington, DC, October 3, 2005.

Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Speaker: I write as Chairman of the Domestic

Policy Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic

Bishops (USCCB) to urge you to retain the Affordable Housing

Fund as part of the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of

2005 (H.R. 1461) and bring the bill to a vote forthwith. The

Catholic Bishops have historically urged the federal

government to help meet our nation's promise of a decent home

for every American family, especially those families with

extremely low incomes.

As I noted in my June 10 letter to the House of

Representatives, the Catholic Community--through our

Charities agencies, dioceses, and parishes--serves tens of

thousands of men, women, and children who struggle to

maintain adequate housing. Besides sheltering homeless people

who turn to us for help, we have built, and continue to

maintain, thousands of affordable housing units. All of these

experiences have demonstrated to us how inadequate,

substandard housing hurts human life, undermines families,

destroys communities, and weakens the social fabric of our

nation. Despite our efforts--and the efforts of so many

others--there just is not enough affordable housing

available.

Proposals that would limit eligible recipients to

organizations that have as their primary purpose the

provision of affordable housing would effectively prevent

Catholic dioceses, parishes and Catholic Charities agencies

from participating in Affordable Housing Fund programs.

Similarly, proposals that would prohibit recipients from

engaging in voter registration and lobbying activities with

their own funds during the period they are utilizing

affordable housing funds would force Catholic agencies to

choose between participating in Affordable Housing Fund

programs or engaging in constitutionally protected voter

registration and lobbying activities with their own funds. I

urge you to oppose inclusion of these kinds of unnecessary

limitations and prohibitions in H.R. 1461 as it moves to the

House floor for a vote. There are ample ways to write

safeguards into the legislation to prevent the diversion of

affordable housing funds to uses other than what they are

intended without requiring recipients to forego their

constitutionally protected rights as a condition for

participating in Affordable Housing Fund programs.

The Bishops' statement, Putting Children and Families

First, notes: ``Many families cannot find or afford decent

housing, or must spend so much of their income for shelter

that they forego other necessities, such as food and

medicine.... [The Catholic bishops] support housing policies

which seek to preserve and increase the supply of affordable

housing and help families pay for it.'' We must put in place

a sustainable source of funds to build affordable housing and

this new fund would do that.

As I said in my June letter, this legislation presents

Congress with a genuine opportunity to make the shelter needs

of extremely low-income families a national priority. I

believe that such families who need housing the most should

be targeted to receive these limited funds.

With every best wish, I am,

Sincerely,

Most Rev. Nicholas DiMarzio, PhD, DD

Bishop of Brooklyn, Chairman, Domestic Policy Committee,

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Mr. Speaker, in 1913, a little girl name Rosa Louise McCauley was born in Alabama. As she grew up, her mother, Leona McCauley, encouraged her daughter to ``take advantage of the opportunities, no matter how few they were,'' and she did just that. In 1932, she married Raymond Parks, an active participant in civil rights causes. The couple joined the Voters League in the 1940s.

On December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks' life changed forever and she became an icon of the civil rights movement when she refused to give up her seat on a public bus to make extra room for white passengers. She was arrested and convicted of disorderly conduct for violating a local ordinance. Parks' arrest led to the formation of the Montgomery Improvement Association, which organized a boycott of public buses until the U.S Supreme Court ruled that Montgomery's policy of segregation on buses was unconstitutional.

Later, Parks moved to Michigan, where Rosa initially worked as a seamstress and later as an aide to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, from 1965 to 1988. She cofounded the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development in 1987 with, which sponsors a summer bus tour for teenagers that were interested in learning the history of America and civil rights.

Yesterday, at the age of 92, Rosa Parks passed away. Her contributions to American history will never be forgotten. Her dedication to the cause of civil rights will be sorely missed, but her legacy will live on forever.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the bipartisan leadership of the Judiciary Committee for its hard work shepherding through this powerful reauthorization of Department of Justice activities, a bill that I strongly support. The bill authorizes a total of $95 billion, including $24.4 billion for the FBI, $7.25 billion for the Drug Enforcement Administration, and $6.85 billion for U.S. Attorneys. It is a true victory that the committee leadership included reauthorization of the landmark Violence Against Women Act in this bill. It is essential that Congress stands strong and protects victims of domestic violence and other crimes against women. The bill's new $15 million a year grant program will help colleges and universities prevent dating violence, sexual assault and stalking on campuses.

Mr. Chairman, as this bill moves to conference, I want to highlight two provisions that was included in the original text of H.R. 3402 at my request. Section 321 will close loopholes that have allowed those impersonating police officers to evade conviction, while section 253 reauthorizes the Community Oriented Policing Services grant program, and makes it easier for local police departments to apply for and win grants by consolidating it into a single grant program. Whereas cities used to submit different application for hiring, and one for overtime and one for technology and one for training--this language allows them to only have to submit one application.

Section 321, language inserted in the original bill at my request and based upon the Badge Security Enhancement Act of 2003, amends criminal prohibitions on the use of a false badge to close loopholes used by many to evade prosecution and conviction. No longer will criminals be able to claim that they badges the use to impersonate police officers are just souvenirs or collectors items. Instead, my language amends the criminal code so that the only acceptable defense for possessing a counterfeit police badge is for use in a dramatic production or for a legitimate law enforcement purpose. There are countless website where one can purchase a very convincing NYPD police badge and then use it to commit a crime. It is common sense that we close these loopholes in order to protect the public and our law enforcement personnel. Also, language offered by Mrs. Slaughter expands the criminal ban on counterfeit police badges to also include the misuse of uniforms, identification, and all other insignia of all public officials, but maintains my language that limits acceptable defenses in the case of counterfeit badges.

Mr. Chairman, I consider reauthorization of the COPS program to be a singular triumph of this bill. By reauthorizing the program at $1.05 billion a year for 4 years, we are providing a valuable resource to local law enforcement as they fight crime and protect the homeland from terrorist threats. Throughout its history, the COPS program has put more than 118,000 cops on the beat in more than 12,000 communities, and added 7,407 officers to the force in New York City. This is the ultimate democratic program, with a small ``d,'' as it benefits small towns and big cities alike throughout our country. The reauthorization amount in the bill will pay for an estimated 13,000 new cops on the beat nationally each year, and 3,640 NYFD officers over the length of this authorization.

The reauthorization will also allow Federal funds for the first time to flow to hiring officers to perform intelligence, anti-terror and homeland security duties. These are federal responsibilities and this language will help special terrorism units throughout the country, such as those at the NYFD and the LAPD.

I have also worked with Mr. Rothman to ensure that $30 million a year of the COPS reauthorization goes to the Secure our Schools Program to make grants for school security, including installing metal detectors, personnel and student training, and coordination with local law enforcement.

Authorities across the country agree that COPS works. A GAG report issued this summer that found a 13 percent drop in violent

crime because of COPS. Former Attorney General Ashcroft once said of COPS in June 2003 that, ``Let me just say that I think the COPS program has been successful. The purpose of the COPS program was to demonstrate to local police departments that if you put additional people, feet on the street, that crime could be affected and that people would be safer and more secure. We believe that the COPS program demonstrated that conclusively.''

I would like to thank advocates both in this House and in the law enforcement community who have stood with me and fought for COPS reauthorization. The COPS program is endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, International Association of Chiefs of Police, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, National Association of Police Organizations, National Sheriffs' Association, U.S. Conference of Mayors. The PROTECTION Act, offered to reauthorize COPS for 6 years in 2004 had 224 cosponsors. I would like to thank Ms. Linda Sanchez and Mr. Keller for their support, and commend our committee's leaders, Mr. Conyers and Chairman Sensenbrenner for agreeing to include COPS reauthorization in this very important piece of legislation.

In particular, I would like to thank both the Democratic and Republican staff of the Judiciary Committee, both of whom worked tirelessly on this piece of legislation, and who deserve the entire House's thanks. I would like to extend my gratitude to Sampak Garg, Perry Apelbaum and Ted Kalo of Mr. Conyers' staff and Beth Sokul, Katy Crooks, Sean McLaughlin and Michael Volkov of Mr. Sensenbrenner's staff, who all worked with me on these important provisions in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the leadership of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their hard work shepherding through the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005, and to express my strong support of the bill. It authorizes $8.7 billion for the Coast Guard for fiscal 2006, which will be used to perform the essential duties of the U.S. Coast Guard in the areas of homeland security, maritime safety, law enforcement, and environmental protection.

Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight a provision that I offered and was accepted by the Committee that directs the Coast Guard to conduct a study of the pollution in Newtown Creek caused by underground oil spills in Brooklyn, N.Y.

Newtown Creek is a 3.5 mile long waterway that flows from the East River and separates the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens. The State of New York has ruled that the Creek does not meet water quality standards under the Clean Water Act. It is the single most polluted waterway in New York City, and its banks are home to the largest oil spill in the United States. The spill is 150 percent the size of the Exxon-Valdez spill.

In 1978, a Coast Guard patrol detected petroleum on the surface of Newtown Creek and identified a spill that spreads from the banks of the Creek through the Greenpoint neighborhood in Brooklyn. Evaluations at that time identified a spill totaling 17 million gallons attributed to refineries operated along the banks of the Creek by the predecessors to ExxonMobil, BP/Amoco and Chevron-Texaco. To date, 8.7 millions gallons have been cleaned but estimates indicate it will take at least 25 more years to finish the remediation, primarily conducted by ExxonMobil under a 1990 consent agreement with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

Even though it has been over 25 years since the oil spill was detected, the public health and safety risks associated with the oil spill are still unknown.

The legislative intent of the amendment that directs the Coast Guard to study Newtown Creek (Creek) is for the Coast Guard to revisit the findings of its July 1979 report entitled ``Investigation of Underground Accumulation of Hydrocarbons along Newtown Creek,'' and address the following issues:

The actual current size of the Greenpoint Oil Spill (Spill) and the extent to which oil from each refinery site contributes to the Spill.

The extent and severity of surface water pollution and sediment contamination from the Spill, and methods to prevent further seepage into the Creek.

The Spill's impact on existing conditions in the Creek including but not limited to low levels of dissolved oxygen and high levels of bacteria.

The interaction between pollution from the Spill and pollution from other sources in the Creek including but not limited to Combined Sewer Overflow Pipes and the Newtown Creek Sewage Treatment Plant.

The extent to which oil and contaminated sediments in the Creek disperse into New York Harbor.

The extent to which the Spill has affected aquatic species in the Creek and Harbor, and methods to prevent further harm.

The extent to which the Spill has affected groundwater in the surrounding area, and methods to prevent further harm.

The extent and severity of contaminated soil in the area affected by the Spill, and methods to prevent further harm.

Any public health issues raised by the Spill and the current remediation efforts, both independently and in interaction with other pollutants in the Creek.

Any safety issues raised by the Spill and the current remediation efforts, both independently and in interaction with other pollutants in the Creek.

The extent to which the current remediation efforts are sufficient, and any new technologies or approaches that could accelerate product recovery and/or improve the scope of the remediation.

I would like to express my thanks to Chairman Young, Mr. Oberstar, Chairman LoBiondo, and Mr. Filner for their willingness to work with me on this very important yet often overlooked issue. The country will benefit from renewed Federal attention on this oil spill, the largest in the country.

Additionally, I would like to thank both the Democratic and Republican staff of the Transportation Committee and the Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation. In particular, Ward McCarragher and John Cullather of Mr. Oberstar's staff and Fraser Verrusio and John Rayfield of Mr. Young's staff were very helpful.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to congratulate the conferees on completing their work to fund our nation's transportation needs for the next 5 years. Mr. Young, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Petri and Mr. DeFazio in particular deserve credit for clearing the final legislative hurdle to making SAFETEA-LU a reality. After 11 extensions of TEA-21 and two years of debate, I am glad to see this day come.

As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that approved a $375 billion highway authorization bill in 2003, I supported H.R. 3 when it passed the House despite feeling that more funding was needed. I was happy to see that the total funding package in the conference report totals $286.4 billion, a 30 percent increase over the total highway funding in the last authorization bill passed in 1998. I wish the Congress had followed the Department of Transportation's own needs assessment and funded the bill at $375 billion, but I accept this compromise as a way to get much needed money to states and localities that need it now.

New York City will see a 23 percent increase in overall funding under this bill, about $8.5 billion dollars overall. In highway funds the city will benefit from about $3 billion, a 19 percent increase; and in transit funds the city will see $5.5 billion, a 30 percent increase. The 19 percent increase in New York City and state highway funding is of the utmost importance: it grows the state's federal funding stream above the rate of inflation and will allow for planned development to proceed.

On the matter of the minimum guarantee, I am a firm believer that states like New York should not be punished for having efficient transportation systems that keep fuel consumption down. I advocated for a 90.5 percent minimum guarantee in the bill. Given that some of my colleagues had called for a 95 percent minimum guarantee to favor states like Texas, I accept the conference report's 90.5 percent minimum guarantee that balloons to 92 percent by 2008.

I would also like to commend the conferees for settling on Senate language related to grants under the Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure Program. The language in the conference report will allow for new contracts to be awarded as the program expands into new cities instead of making all new projects subject to the old sole- source contract. In each case the state transportation agency will be required to consent to any grant award made. This arrangement will promote competition among vendors and place all firms capable of installing and operating traffic data collection infrastructure on a level playing field.

Mr. Speaker, I have worked hard to ensure that this bill will make significant improvements to the lives of ordinary New Yorkers. Included in this bill are a number of projects that will enhance transportation throughout New York City and in my district in particular.

At my urging, the bill includes:

$15,000,000 for the New York City Department of Transportation to build the facilities and purchase the ferry boats necessary to establish high speed ferry service between the Rockaway Peninsula and Manhattan.

$500,000 to help the New York State Department of Transportation install two permanent variable message signs that will display amber alert messages on the Belt Parkway.

$250,000 for the New York City Department of Transportation to study and implement pedestrian safety enhancements in Gerritsen Beach, Brooklyn.

$1,000,000 for the New York City Department of Transportation to study and implement traffic improvements to the area surrounding

the Stillwell Avenue train station in Coney Island, New York.

$600,000 for each of the boroughs of New York City to make improvements to pedestrian safety, allocated within each borough according to feedback collected on my website from New York City residents.

$250,000 for the areas surrounding each of 10 schools in New York City. Those funds are to be spent on efforts to improve pedestrian safety surrounding those 10 schools. Students walking to IS Q114 in Belle Harbor, PS Q200 in Electchester, PS K124 in Park Slope, PS K277 in Gerritsen Beach, Prospect Park Yeshiva in Midwood, PS X81 in Riverdale, IS X194 in Parkchester, IS R72/PS R69 in New Springville, PS Q153 in Maspeth, and St. Roberts Bellarmine in Bayside will all be better protected by improvements installed with funding provided in

Mr. Speaker, I move by unanimous request that we amend H.R. 5 to include a cap on premium increases for the duration of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. I am making a unanimous consent request.

Certainly. My unanimous consent request is that H.R. 5 be amended by unanimous consent, the consent here of both the majority and the minority, that premium increases, health insurance premium increases, be limited to zero for the duration of the period of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Is the Chair ruling a unanimous consent request which expresses the unanimous desire of the House of Representatives, is the Chair refusing that to be put to the body?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Is the concern that it is not in proper form? There has not been a point of order that it is not germane.

Mr. Speaker, I have been recognized, so that is not the issue. Is the issue the form of the unanimous consent request?

Mr. Speaker, if I can be further heard on the unanimous consent request, and I believe the paperwork is on the way, it is a very simple matter. The sponsor of the legislation says he wants to do what is right for consumers. Over and over we have heard the connection between the legislation and reducing premiums. All I am saying is, if we all agree upon that, let us include the language herein.

No, I want to be heard on my unanimous consent, and I was recognized.

Mr. Speaker, I still have a unanimous consent that is, I believe, in the hands of the Parliamentarian now.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I think all of the assembled Parliamentarians, staffers, the histrionics of the other side, the apoplexy over the idea that perhaps we might actually reduce premiums is fairly instructive to this debate.

We had no hearings on this. We had no chance to mark it up. We had no chance to include a reduction in premiums.

The gentleman from Georgia said this is a pro-consumer thing. If you really wanted it to be pro-consumer, you would reduce premiums. I would ask any Member on the other side of the aisle who supports this bill to simply say, We do not really care about reducing premiums.

Mr. Speaker, who we are fighting for in this bill is the insurance industry; they are getting protected. The HMOs, they are getting protected. The pharmaceutical companies, that is who is being protected by H.R. 5. But, frankly, do not deceive the American public by what this bill will do.

Insurance prices will not go down. Do Members know how we know this? First of all, the industry themselves have said in public that they have no intention of reducing premiums if this legislation is passed. We can look at other States that have caps. Find me one where insurance premiums went down. Look at California, ask them whether their premiums have gone down.

Frankly, the only way we know for sure that premiums will go down is to cap the premiums, but you will not do that. Not only will you not do that; you will do everything possible to avoid even considering it. That is why committee was bypassed.

And do not also say that doctors are going to face fewer claims as a result of this legislation. They are already seeing fewer claims since they did in 2001. There were 25 per 1,000 physicians in 2001. There are 19 per 1,000 physicians in 2003. If we had a hearing in committee, we might find out what it is this year. You cannot say that, and you also cannot say this: you cannot say the amount being paid out in claims against physicians has reduced in States where there are caps.

You want us to be a Nation where there are caps. Let us look at the States where the caps are in place. The lowest number of claims per 1,000 physicians is in a State that does not have a cap, and the highest are among the States that do have the caps. What this issue is really all about, it is about who you all are fighting for and who we are fighting for.

You are fighting to take away the right of a jury. Your citizens, your constituents who apparently are brilliant enough to elect you, but not smart enough to solve a case that deals with medical malpractice, you are taking the right of a family who wants to take on a megapharmaceutical company or a mega-HMO, and the only way they can bring that suit is to make sure

they get enough money out of that company that they learn the lesson and they do not do it again.

Mr. Speaker, there is some irony here. You control the legislature, you control the executive, you control the judiciary, and still you do not trust any of those people to make the decisions. Only you know how much each and every one of these cases will yield.

Mr. Speaker, I have an alternative idea: get rid of the bad doctors, get rid of the bad lawyers, get rid of the bad judges, and get rid of this bad bill.

Mr. Speaker, Sunday July 10, 2005 (3 Tamuz, 5765), marked the eleventh anniversary of the passing of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory. When Rabbi Schneerson first became the Rebbe, or spiritual leader, of Chabad-Lubavitch, the movement had barely survived the brutality of the Holocaust. Yet, over the course of his 44 years as ``The Rebbe,'' Rabbi Schneerson turned Chabad-Lubavitch into a worldwide movement.

Under the Rebbe's leadership, Chabad-Lubavitch began to offer educational and social services to the elderly, ill, and infirm. Over time, and under Rabbi Schneerson's leadership, Chabad-Lubavitch became a global force for good-will and kindness. It is not surprising therefore, that upon Rabbi Schneerson's passing, both this House, as well as the Senate, voted unanimously to award him the Congressional Gold Medal.

It is a testament to the Rebbe's leadership that Chabad-Lubavitch's social, educational, and humanitarian efforts did not cease upon his passing. In fact, Chabad-Lubavitch presently has over four thousand emissaries operating more than three thousand institutions around the globe. Chabad-Lubavitch offers vital outreach and social services to communities in more than sixty countries on six continents.

In the wake of the devastating Tsunami in South-East Asia, Chabad- Lubavitch responded to the crisis in a manner consistent with Rabbi Schneerson's teachings and leadership. Chabad-Lubavitch of Thailand has extended a helping hand to all Tsunami victims and survivors, regardless of race or religion.

Chabad-Lubavitch has provided both funding and technical assistance to local relief organizations in order to support the local relief effort. Chabad-Lubavitch also provides interest free loans to Tsunami survivors in order to assist in the economic recovery of individuals and communities. Chabad-Lubavitch also participates in an ongoing effort to provide fresh food and drinking water to the villages of Koh Muk, Laem Naew, Baan Talae Nok, Ko Rah, Bak Jok, Ko Surin, and Tung Dap.

Mr. Speaker, while we continue to honor Rabbi Schneerson's memory, we must also celebrate his ongoing legacy of kindness and compassion.

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Is this the appropriate place in the reading for a limiting amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the more appropriate question about this amendment is not why should we restrict any funds in this bill from going to the Nation of Saudi Arabia, but why should we allow any funds from this or any other budget to be going to Saudi Arabia.

There is not much in the bill, but there is $25,000 for the Saudis, the IMET program. More importantly, that money triggers allocations in future bills that permit the Saudis to buy U.S. arms at a discounted rate.

The administration, when they were asked to justify why we would give any money to a nation that exports terror, a nation that is getting almost $60 for a barrel of crude oil, here is what they say in their State Department budget justification: ``While Saudi Arabia controls the world's largest oil reserve, it faces an increasing budget pressure.''

So I guess one of the reasons we are providing aid to the Saudis is because of their budget pressures.

Frankly, we have heard a great deal over the course of years; in fact, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, who has done a terrific job on this bill in many ways, has argued in the past that the Saudis are doing better, they are doing better at cracking down on crime. But on May 28 of 2005, Syria arrested 300 Saudis trying to cross the border into Iraq to join the Jihad against the United States. I would say to my colleagues in the House that if you are relying on Syria to crack down on terrorism against Saudi Arabia, you know you have trouble.

Recently, a report in The Washington Post analyzed all of the Web sites where Jihadists brag about their so-called martyrdom, places where they list those who have given their lives so that they can blow up others, including our troops. They concluded that 70 percent of the homicide bombers on Islamic extremist Web sites are Saudis. Sixty-one percent of the Arab martyrs in Iraq are Saudis. This is just in recent months, in recent times since our last bill passed.

According to Ambassador Dory Gold, in testimony before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on International Relations in July of 2003, at least 50 percent of the funding for Hamas is Saudi blood money.

We all know the history of Osama bin Laden. When he left Saudi Arabia, he did so with, by some estimates, nearly $1 billion of Saudi blood money which was subsequently used, as we know, to attack my city, and others.

The time has come for us to say once again, just as we did last year in this bill, no aid to Saudi Arabia, no aid to a country that exports Wahabisim, no aid to a country that exports terrorism, no aid to a country that has been worse than uncooperative in our efforts to control worldwide oil prices.

There is no other way to view the Saudis except as our enemies, not as our friends. Nothing, I think, was more troubling for many of us than to see the President waiting in Crawford, Texas for over an hour while the Crown Prince came and then gave a lecture to our President on the way to fight terrorism.

The way we in the House should fight terrorism is to not provide any more aid to the Saudis, and my amendment would do that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to a couple of things that the chairman said.

For 3 years now, I have heard the argument for continued support for the Saudis as two somewhat contradictory positions. One, it is not a lot of money; and two, they are getting better.

Well, I think it is incumbent upon all of us, particularly in this bill when we are already short-funded, to justify why it is we provide any money at all if they are not an ally. If they are not espousing U.S. American views, if they are not improving democracy, what are they doing? I will tell you what they are doing, Mr. Chairman. They are traveling to Iraq and blowing up our troops.

That is not according to me; that is according to their own bragging Web sites and The Washington Post assessment about who they are. There is a dramatic increase in the amount of violence since we offered this bill last year, not a decline. There is a dramatic increase in the exporting of Wahabiism, not a decline. And there is no sign of greater cooperation. You know, a sign of great cooperation is not hiring a very expensive lobbyist here, running TV ads, running newspaper ads. A sign of cooperation is saying we are going to start cracking down on terror, not moving it out of our country into someone else's problem.

The problem that we face here, whether it is $25,000, $25 million or $25 billion, is we articulate our values in this bill. And our values are simply not to be supportive of the Saudi Arabian Government.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

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

First of all, let me just say to the chairman and the ranking member, they have done an excellent job with a limited budget. But I think we should give them an extra $25,000 to work with by saying that we are not going to provide comfort to the Saudis, we are not going to provide aid, taxpayer aid to the Saudi Arabians.

This is not just the position of a bipartisan group here in Congress. The Council on Foreign Relations has said for years individuals and charities based in Saudi Arabia have been the most important source of funds for al Qaeda.

The 9/11 Commission said Saudi Arabia is ``a problematic ally in fighting Islamic extremism.'' Our own State Department says Hamas receives funding from ``private benefactors in Saudi Arabia.''

There is not probably an observer of the scene today that does not recognize that Saudi Arabia has done a very deft two-face game. They come here, they send us a moderate face. They have convinced, obviously, our State Department, who walks along almost in lock step with everything that they say.

We here in Congress should say we understand that we are going to start judging nations in the post-September 11 world by what they do, not by what they say. And what the Saudi Arabians have done is export Wahabiism to the United States, export terrorism to the troops in Iraq, and export terror all around the world.

Vote ``yes'' on the Weiner/Ferguson amendment. Let us finally put an end to it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it very clear that it has been the Saudi policy to export their worst troublemakers like bin Laden, like Wahabiism, so that the problem is not turned inward. That is their policy.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my steadfast support of H.R. 2827, a Private Bill for the relief of Malachy McAllister, Nicola McAllister, and Sean Ryan McAllister offered by my friend from New Jersey, Mr. Rothman. I would also like to recognize my colleagues Mr. Engel and Mr. King of New York for their advocacy on behalf of the McAllisters.

Malachy McAllister is an Irish Catholic national who fled to the United States from Belfast in 1988. He left his homeland and moved to New York City with his wife and four children. Since then, Mr. McAllister has been living in the New York metropolitan area, building a new, safe home for his family, abiding by the laws of our land, and contributing to society.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration seems intent on deporting him to a country where his life will be put in danger.

While in Northern Ireland, Mr. McAllister did participate in an Irish National Liberation Army attack on a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and played a role in planning another attack. He was imprisoned from 1981 to 1985, and has paid his debt to society.

When released from prison, he and his family were attacked by British loyalists who fired 26 shots into his home. After fleeing to the United States he applied for political asylum, which was denied to him in 2000 and to his children and deceased wife in 2003. The McAllisters have appealed the decisions to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, but they have no further legal options if the appeal is denied.

The House and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff should act to ensure that Mr. McAllister and his family can stay in America. H.R. 2827 makes Malachy, Nicola and Sean eligible for permanent resident status and halts pending deportation proceedings. If Mr. McAllister is returned to Northern Ireland, he will be in constant and immediate danger of persecution because of his political and religious beliefs and retribution for his past affiliations.

As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I believe the McAllisters should be granted political asylum. In the wake of September 11, we must make sure to balance security concerns with the historical role of the United States as a place of safe harbor for individuals fleeing political oppression. Mr. McAllister is the first person to express regret for his past actions and sorrow that they have led to his family's current position. He and his children deserve to live free of fear and continue building their American Dream.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is another amendment that offers to bolster the COPS program. The hiring count is zeroed out in this bill, and it takes the funds of the National Science Foundation, reduces the NSF not back to the level it was before its deep cuts, but puts it back to where it was in 2004 before those big cuts began.

First, let me say that a consensus is emerging in this House. We have had amendment after amendment that has been offered to take the COPS program back from the scrap heap, back from a point at zero, and try to restore the hiring component.

We saw it done from Census, a proposal to do it from the FBI, and a proposal now to do it from the NSF. Let me be very clear, I think the NSF should be higher than my amendment and higher than the level provided by this House, and I believe the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) would both like to have more than they have allocated.

The issue is this: we have reached consensus in Congress that the COPS program should not be zeroed out. We reached that consensus because in the reauthorization for the Justice Department we included a billion dollars to reauthorize the COPS program. We reached consensus yesterday on the floor when overwhelmingly an amendment was adopted to increase the COPS program. We just adopted an amendment to restore funds to the COPS program. The COPS program should not be zeroed out because it has been arguably the most successful Federal law enforcement program ever created, and it is also the most democratic.

I have a map showing cities all around the country and the number of officers that have been funded since 1995 and the level that crime has gone down, whether it be Jackson, Mississippi, 347 officers funded, a crime rate drop of 12 percent; San Antonio, Texas, 100 officers funded, a drop of 9 percent; Boston, Massachusetts, 139 officers funded, a 28 percent crime rate reduction.

Yet in this bill, we zero out the hiring component. It is mysterious why the COPS program has become such a target, but I can tell Members it is not because the program does not work. A broad coalition, bipartisan as we saw yesterday and in the sponsorship of my effort to reauthorize the bill, shows that just about every law enforcement group and just about every Member of this House believes in the COPS program.

This is another demonstration of the same point. Look at how evenly distributed the number of new officers is: Texas, 6,074 police officers on the street. When John Ashcroft spoke about this during his confirmation hearings for Attorney General, he said, ``Let me just say, I think the COPS program has been successful. The purpose of the COPS program was to demonstrate to local police departments that if you put additional police, feet on the street, that crime would be affected and people would be safer and more secure. We believe the COPS program demonstrated that conclusively.'' That is John Ashcroft.

When Tom Ridge was sworn in as the Secretary of Homeland Security, he said homeland security starts in our home towns.

Yet what we have done, the last 4 years, since September 11, we have had a steady decline in the COPS program to where it is zero. The hiring component is at zero. We are actually taking cops off the street rather than putting them on.

I have complete confidence that the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) understand the value of the COPS program. In the district of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), over $1.1 million has been awarded to add school resource officers. In the district of the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), over $26 million in the State of West Virginia.

So what does this amendment do? First of all, before my opponents stand up, let me do the argument for them. The NSF is a valuable agency. We are not saying it is not valuable. We are saying that dramatic increase they are going to get this year be limited to bringing them back to where they were in the 2004 budget before we slashed it down. Not that it should be cut, not that it should be reduced. It should be flatted out, increased rather, but only to the point where it was in 2004 before we had the reduction last year. I think it is fair and reasonable.

We also have to be careful about something else. We are in the unpleasant circumstance of having to take from Peter to pay Paul. But I would argue that Members should listen to the voice of this House. We overwhelmingly reauthorized the COPS program in the Justice Department reauthorization bill. The will of this House is to have a COPS hiring component. Yesterday's amendments showed it.

So before we get into this argument about what is better, science or police, I say they are both very, very important. What is more important, Census or police; they are both very, very important. What is more important, the FBI or the police on the beat; they are both very, very important. This amendment seeks to balance two ideals.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Just for the purpose of clarification, under my amendment we are not reducing the budget of the NSF. It is going up. It is going up. I just want to make that clear. What we are doing is we are saying it should rise back to the level it was cut back to.

If the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) made this characterization as well. The COPS program hiring component is zero. Not a little, not a medium amount, not cut back. Zero.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.