Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Much has been mentioned on this floor about what has been left out of this report and things put in that were extraneous. Well, I do not know how those of us on the Committee on the Judiciary can support this bill when so much of the work we included in the bill was stripped out of it.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, when they visited New York, were amazed and awestruck about the level of preparedness we in New York had, and I think even the Speaker said that we need to do more for New York. In the September 11 report, they said we need to do more. In our committee we included a provision to fund the anti-terrorism cops. Stripped out in this bill on the floor. We included a provision to allow all localities to make retroactive application for funds. Stripped out in this bill. We certainly did not include any language to have a minimum guaranty for cities like New York, to make sure if the list grows too long, they still have the basic amount they need.

What we did manage to do is do the opposite of what the September 11 Commission recommended, which was to have a minimum guaranty for all States irrespective of their needs. I just hope my colleagues remember that when the agriculture bill comes on the floor and those of us from Brooklyn and Queens and Manhattan come and we say we want a minimum guaranty of wheat subsidies or corn subsidies.

But I will tell my colleagues something that certainly did get included in the bill, is a provision on page 395 of the bill, saying ``it is the sense of Congress we should have a more robust dialogue between the government of the United States and the government of Saudi Arabia in order to provide a reevaluation and improvements to the relationship by both sides.'' What is it with the love affair that you have with the Saudi Arabians?

The problems with our relationship on both sides? Have we jacked up their gas prices? Did we not be thankful to them when they defended our country? Did we send 15 of 19 bombers to their country?

Why do you keep doing this, every time we stand up in this House and say, enough with the Saudis, you stick language like this back in. What is with the love affair of President Bush and your party with the Saudi Arabian government? They are not our allies. They have not behaved like our allies. Yet, in the September 11 report, in the ultimate sign of contempt for the victims, you are laying down and prostrate at the feet of the Saudi Arabians. It is a shame.

Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable that in DNA people see this issue through many different prisms, all of them positive. For those of us in this Chamber who are concerned about law enforcement, DNA is truly a miracle. It is better than a fingerprint. It is better than a video tape. It is better than an eye witness. It is better than a lie detector. With DNA we can find out who did a crime, and as other speakers have spoken to here, we can also find out who did not do it.

But the prism I look at this issue through was formed early in my congressional career. The prism I look at DNA through is a series of cardboard boxes all stacked in a refrigerated warehouse in Long Island City. That is where I found rape kits that were evidence for crime scenes, completely anonymous except for the numbers written on the side of these cardboard boxes, 16,000 of them in early 1999 when I was first elected, all collected at crime scenes in New York City, all that had not been analyzed, all that had not been processed, all representing a victim that was awaiting justice.

That backlog is heartrending. That backlog does not represent a simple number on the box. That backlog represent an individual, an individual crime. And the mystery was that it was not being stored in that refrigerated warehouse because of any bureaucratic problem. It was not being stored there because of any legal loggerhead. It came down to one thing: money.

In 1999 I was proud to introduce in this House for the first time an authorization for congressional funding to help cities and states dig out of their backlog. With former Congressman Gilman and former Congressman McCollum we passed for the first time the Backlog Elimination Act. Because of that law, now localities across this country have been able to reduce their backlogs. They have not been eliminated. Also authorized in that law was a study that we learned the problem was not just in New York City; it was in small-town sheriffs' offices all around this country, in suburbs, in communities large and small.

The analysis of those rape kits did not just provide statistics; it provided hits on cold cases. In New York City alone 154 cold cases that had been put on the shelf literally and figuratively were solved. They got leads in more than 200 other cases.

Let us remember the nature of sexual assault. Experts tell us again and again that it is a recidivist crime. Someone that we are able to catch once and take off the street could conceivably not only solve several crimes but prevent several more from happening.

Last year the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and I tried to ramp up this issue one more time. And we realized that we had in partnership the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), who also saw DNA testing as an enormous opportunity. I believe we have crafted under the guidance of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), frankly, a bill that in anyone's prism would be seen as positive. There is no reason even in this moment of pitch partisanship in this House and in the other body, even in this time there is no reason why we should sit any longer on this legislation.

I would urge in the strongest possible terms that we pass this legislation. We have passed in similar ways out of the committee and on this floor before. We have unified this House behind the issue of using DNA to bring justice to those who did crimes, justice to those who did not do crimes, and justice to those victims of crimes and their families.

I would urge in the strongest terms possible that we not allow election-year politics to stop the other body from doing justice by this legislation. I urge passage of H.R. 5107.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas for a response.

I continue to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to reclaim my time, since the gentleman is not referring to gay marriage, and that is what this very important debate is about.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a great deal on this floor about the message we send our children, and we have different interpretations about what this debate means to our children. One thing I would urge my colleagues on the other side not to do is not to tell your children you are being conservative by supporting this. Conservative values, as I understand them, means not taking government and sticking it into every relationship and into every corner of someone's personal life, like you seek to do with a woman's right to reproductive freedom and like you seek to do with the most intimate of relationships today.

Certainly, do not tell them that you are passing laws in this body to protect them. That you should not tell the children when you have passed laws to weaken water standards, weaken clean-air standards and to underfund education. So when you are talking to your children, do not tell them that.

Certainly, do not tell them that you are being consistent, because many of the folks on the floor here are the strongest supporters of the Defense of Marriage Act, yet in the Committee on the Judiciary and on this floor over and over, when challenged as to its constitutionality, say, oh, absolutely; absolutely, it is constitutional. It has not even been struck down and already you are running away from your interpretation of DOMA. So do not tell them you are being consistent.

And certainly, do not tell them that you are being honest, because if you were being honest, you would not lie to them and tell them that you are doing anything to amend the Constitution today. The Senate has already defeated this. If you are going to be honest with them, you are going to have to tell them what you are doing is simply posturing. So, certainly, do not tell them you are being honest.

What you are doing is teaching them to hate. You are teaching them that the Constitution is the place you remove rights, not protect them. That, I think, has been a consistent theme of this year's session. So, perhaps, in that case, you are being consistent in using the Constitution that way.

And I have to tell my colleagues, there are so many people who hang their heads today when talking about their grandparents who served in this august body. They hang their heads when they talk about their grandfather who stood up on the floor of the well and argued in favor of slavery. They are embarrassed by that.

There are so many who hang their head when they talk about their grandfather who served in this august body and fought for denying the rights of women. They are embarrassed by that.

Why is it that you think your grandchildren will not some day grow up and be telling their children about granddad or grandmom and have to be embarrassed about this debate; have to be embarrassed and ashamed by the idea that you, their grandparents, God willing, they are able to tell the story and how embarrassed they will be? Will they be embarrassed like those who have to talk about their grandparents who voted to support slavery or voted in support of rounding up Americans and putting them in internment camps?

I hope that that is not the case. If you are concerned about what you will tell your grandkids, be more concerned about what they will tell their grandkids about you.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I know the author of the bill came to the floor a few moments ago, the gentleman from Missouri, and said we are trying to confuse this issue with legality.

I am actually confused by a couple of things. One, those of us who want ``God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance, we won. You would think from this debate that this morning when we took the Pledge of Allegiance, we did not say ``God.'' You would think that that crazy court in California that came up with the wrong decision was not reversed. We won that case.

The second thing I am curious about, what is it about bills and issues that you do not strip review from that you like less than this? How come when you say that there should be no abortions for women in this country, that you do not strip the review of that? How come when you do your budget,

you do not strip your review of that? How come when you do all of the other bills around, do not you love them as much? Are they not equally as important to you?

I am shocked there is any legislation you bring to this floor that you do not strip the review of the courts, because, frankly, by your interpretation of the Constitution, the court has no role there.

The final question I have, and I hate to vex my opponents on the other side with talk of legality, but if not the courts are interpreting the Constitution of the United States, who is going to do it? What is your suggestion? Are we going to have like a reality show, where maybe we let 12 people on an island come up with the decision? And what if you do not have Federal courts doing it, you just have the State courts?

Maybe I guess then the 14th Amendment is a bit troublesome. I guess there are no uniform constitutional rights in this country, no uniform right to bear arms, no uniform right to speech and to practice religion.

If anyone can answer any of those three points, I will gladly vote for this bill.

Mr. Chairman, the author of the base bill, the gentleman from Missouri, is a friend of mine, but apparently there is a second Congressman Akin around here somewhere. Perhaps he was the one who wrote the bill.

The original version of the bill says, with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and says that the Supreme Court shall be able to hear these cases. That was what the author of the bill said.

Now, the reason the author originally included that language, although he is now opposed to having it reinserted, the reason he put it in is because we do need someone to be the final arbiter of the interpretation of free speech, freedom of religion cases, of all cases, among the different States.

Imagine if we had a United States of America envisioned by the gentleman from Indiana, where every State court was free to kind of come up with their own interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. What incentive would there be on the parts of folks in Missouri, for example, or the folks in New York to have consistent constitutional values in this country?

Now, I have heard again and again, let us refer to the Constitution of the United States. I will freely confess one thing. Nowhere is judicial review in the Constitution. It was the creation of a great man that all of us went on record paying tribute to just last month. When John Marshall came up with this concept, it has been sacrosanct throughout jurisprudence since then.

But I ask my colleagues again and again, if not judicial review, then

what? Who is it that guarantees me as a member of the minority, someone who is one person who believes he has a right to stand up for gun rights, let us say, who guarantees my constitutional right to speak if not the court?

This is the body where the majority has its say. We do it every day. The courts are where the minority, even the tiniest of minorities, go to have their day in court. For those of you who are concerned about the Pledge of Allegiance, we won that case. We won.

We lost the case, by the way on my side, when the Supreme Court overturned precedent and appointed a President. But if we were Republicans what would we do? Strip the Supreme Court from any right to decide and let all 50 States decide who the President is?

I would conclude with a question. That is, do you believe that reproductive rights legislation should be protected from judicial review? If so, include it in your bill. Do you believe that tax should be subject to judicial review? If so, then strip the courts in those cases.

I would say to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) since he is on his feet, does he believe that a woman's right to choose, or your position, restricting abortion, is important of principle, that we in this Congress should strip judicial review? Yes or no.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

I guess what it comes down to is a person's view of where an individual who is in the minority on an issue, even an issue that is protected in the Constitution, where does that person go to have their rights protected? What if 435 of us believe one way about the Constitution, where does that one lone individual go?

If we do not allow them access to the court, and one highest court, to mediate disputes between the various States, we simply do not have the system that we have today, and that should be the lesson of this effort. Every school child in America who had forgotten what the courts were supposed to be should be reminded of that by this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It frequently falls upon me as a nonlawyer on the Committee on the Judiciary to try to sort through the facts of these things and try to reduce them into small words that those of us who are nonlawyers can understand. But I was taken by one fact that was articulated by one of my colleagues on the other side that according to a recent survey, 80 percent of the American people are against frivolous lawsuits. I would love to know who the 20 percent are that like frivolous lawsuits so that we can have a focus group with them. They are probably lawyers of some sort, I would imagine.

First, let me just say we rarely have an opportunity to take a look at a proposal before us today and look at almost an identical proposal that was the law of the land between 1983 and 1993. Then, too, there was an effort to unclog the courts of frivolous lawsuits; then, too, the Judicial Conference, not this body, the Judicial Conference said we have to try to come up with some rules.

What was the effect? The effect was not reducing the amount of frivolous lawsuits; it was adding a whole new level of litigation around frivolous lawsuits. Rather than simply having a

judge say, that is frivolous, it is out of here, let us move on with the case, you then had suits and countersuits over whether or not something was frivolous, because it was elevated with the changes that were made in that decade.

We also found that an unintended consequence, and I think even my colleagues acknowledge that it was unintended by their effort, albeit insubstantial, to carve out civil rights suits, we found that when you were bringing a novel, new kind of suit, you found yourself being charged with making a frivolous lawsuit. Civil rights cases is just one of them. We also saw the same thing could have or did happen when you sued tobacco companies to recover for States.

And today, I would dare say that someone who brought a case that is being brought in New York today, suing the country of Saudi Arabia for their culpability in the September 11 attacks, someone could come before a judge and say this is a frivolous lawsuit because it represents no precedent, it has never been tried before and, therefore, should be dismissed.

Obviously, it did not have that effect in that 10 years of clearing out the docket of frivolous lawsuits. If anything, it increased them.

Secondly, we have heard frequently the matrix drawn between frivolous lawsuits, increase of litigation, and insurance rates. I looked at the bill fairly carefully. Nowhere does it require that insurance rates go down, so I will have to assume the same thing will happen upon passage of this bill, although the passage will not happen, because the other body will never take up such a bill, that you will put in the restrictions of average Americans getting into court and then, lo and behold, insurance rates keep going up and up and up, because that is what happened in California, and that is what happened in Florida. So if my colleagues think that by voting for this bill they will be reducing insurance rates, nothing could be further from the truth.

There has been some back-and-forth about this notion of venue shopping: you can only bring an action in the defendant's, not the person who is bringing the case, the defendant's principal place of business. Well, again, I have very talented lawyers on both sides of this, but the Congressional Research Service, the American Law Division, hardly a pantheon of partisanship, hardly the place to go to get the talking points for Fox News or for whoever guys think lies, they write, ``If a defendant's principal place of business was not the United States, then this option could not be exercised in a United States court. Consequently, it would appear that in certain circumstances, a United States citizen or resident injured in this country would not have a judicial forum in the United States in which to seek relief.''

That is what a relatively unbiased analysis of this thing looks like; but even if it is not, what problem are you trying to solve? You should allow Americans to take their cases where they are most appropriate, not where you believe it should be.

Now, let me conclude with this thought. I heard a couple of times on the campaign trail President Bush talked about not having a Washington- based, one-size-fits-all solution for our Nation's problems. There is another way to do this. There is another way. There is a way to look at cases that have individual facts, have individual people, take them before an individual, say a judge; or take those cases before a group of individuals, say six or nine or 12 individual Americans from their community, and allow them to vet the different sides of the argument and allow that to be the decision-making process. It is called the American justice system, and as contemptuous as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are that you could actually have a judge that has the common sense to make a decision or a jury that has the common sense to make a decision, or whether you can possibly have two lawyers in the adversarial proceeding get the truth out, we here in Washington have to say, this one size fits all.

Well, fortunately, this one size will only be in this one House and will never be the law of this one land.

Mr. Speaker, as a nonlawyer and observing that there are many young people in the gallery today, this is actually an instructive debate that we are having for the second time in 2 weeks. Last week, with the sponsorship of Republicans and Democrats alike, we paid tribute to John Marshall.

John Marshall was perhaps the most important jurist in the history of the United States, because despite what many people think, in the Constitution of the United States nowhere does it say who will settle disputes between the legislature, the executive, and the courts. What if each of the three branches come to a different conclusion?

Well, John Marshall, in 1803, 201 years ago, said the courts are going to decide. The courts are going to be the final arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not.

For 200 years, that has served as the way that we have operated, virtually unquestioned. It was even unquestioned in the year 2000 when, in the Constitution of the United States, it clearly says that Congress has the right to choose electors, and the Supreme Court took that upon itself. We Democrats, although we were very concerned about it, jurists, scholars of jurisprudence said it was a terrible decision, but no one says it should not be the courts to make that decision.

I would say to the gentlewoman or anyone who supports this bill, if not the courts then who? Who is going to make the decision about the constitutionality of this law?

We are left with essentially three choices. One, we can say the State courts will make that final determination. But what if we have two State courts that are in conflict? Who is going to resolve that dispute?

Two, we can say that it will be the legislature that will always decide these things, and we have 50 different legislative interpretations, or the legislature will change every 2 years, changing interpretation of the law.

And the third choice is just anyone can choose whatever interpretation that they like.

Before we choose anything but the courts, before we support this, let us remember something here. The courts are where the minority goes to have their views heard. That one person who is standing outside a movie theater; the courts are where that one person goes who wants to protect his right to bear arms against a legislature that is overzealous, where the one person goes who has burnt a flag and wants to go to find out if what he has done is constitutional.

There are dozens and dozens of places in society where the majority rules. The court is the only place we go to protect our constitutional rights.

So to the sponsors of the bill, to the sponsors of the rule, I ask them, if not John Marshall's way, if not judicial review, if not the Supreme Court of the United States of America, then who will it be who will decide what is constitutional and what is not?

Mr. Speaker, I continue to hear concerns about an overreaching judiciary, and I asked a simple question. I will gladly yield to an answer. If not the judiciary interpreting the laws of Congress, then who does?

Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman have a response?

I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Certainly. Well, in that case, who is to interpret conflicts between the two State courts or 50 State courts?

Mr. Speaker, this Member of the other body was in violation of the rules referenced on the floor. Let me just clarify the record there. It is perfectly legal to write into a piece of legislation that one goes to a certain place for a point of review but not another place. Nowhere in the Daschle legislation did it say one has no right to the courts or no right to the Supreme Court of the land. That is simply misstating the facts.

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

Mr. Speaker, to vote in favor of H.R. 3313, I would say that the supporters of the bill have to reach four conclusions:

One, they have to decide that Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided. Some people on the Committee on the Judiciary freely admitted that. You have to agree that when John Marshall wrote, ``If the courts are to regard the Constitution and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution and not such act shall govern the case to which they both apply.''

Secondly, you have to come to the conclusion that DOMA is going to be struck down by this very conservative Supreme Court. Otherwise, why would you be here? If you thought the court was going to uphold it, and I have to tell you, I went back and I looked at some of the speeches. A lot of the debate was whether or not DOMA was constitutional. And, one by one, you stood up and said, oh, it absolutely is, it absolutely is, it absolutely is.

So you have to conclude in order to support H.R. 3313 that the Supreme Court is about to strike down DOMA, although I do not know where you get that indication, unless you believe it was violative of the Constitution.

Third, you have to believe that this clause is more important than abortion, more important than gun control, more important than the Flag amendment, more important than any other thing, because you are including this provision in this bill and you have not done it to protect abortion or to ban abortion or to protect gun rights. How come? Do you not feel strongly about those things? Do you not want to keep the Supreme Court out of those issues?

And finally, in order to support this, you have to have utter and complete contempt for individual rights and freedoms, something I thought conservatives stood for.

What if you are the only person in your State that believes something? What if you are the only person in your judicial area that believes something? And what if you are right? What if you are protected by the Constitution?

Time and time again I have heard people stand up and say this is about doing the will of the people. That is not what the courts are supposed to do. The courts are supposed to protect the minority to make sure their rights are not trampled on, protect women when they want to vote, protect blacks when they want to be considered citizens, protect those that want to have the full rights of the Constitution. That is what the Court is supposed to guarantee, because that is never what the majority does. The majority looks out for the majority rule. That is not the role of the legislature, that is the role of the courts.

If you draw those conclusions that you think DOMA is constitutionally flawed, Marbury v. Madison was wrongly concluded, that this is a more important issue than abortion, gun control, anything else, and that you have contempt for individual rights, vote yes on H.R. 3313.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the over 100 students from around New York City who participated this year in the Constitution Education Engagement Project. The CEEP program, of which Carl Bonomo is the founder and Dorothy McCloskey is the director, takes secondary school students from around New York City and asks them to have hearings, discussions and debates and arrive at a piece of legislation for this Congress to consider.

This year, the winner was from Wadleigh Secondary School. Karen Watts, Wadleigh's principal, led a group of students that represents the City's best and brightest: Vanessa Reyes, Aaron Gardner, Evelin Valladared, and Victoria Bunn. In addition, I want to mention individuals who deserve special commendation at two other schools that participated in CEEP: principal Joseph Zaza at the Leon M. Goldstein School and Susan Getting and Maureen Longeran at the Townsend Harris School.

The legislation that the Wadleigh team has come up with addresses problems that affect over 41 States in the United States, and that is the inequity between funding among different school districts. In New York State alone, $17,000 is spent per student in one district compared to $6,000 per student in others.

Since 1973, 45 different States have had to address the inequities in school funding. The students at the Wadleigh Secondary School deserve our thanks for their efforts to address the problems we have in our country through the legislative process.

I hope this House joins in paying tribute to their successes.

Equal Educational Opportunity Act (EEOA)

To provide equal access to quality education to all United

States Citizens and Residents

Section 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS

(a) This Act may be cited as EEOA of 2004

(b) Table of Contents. The table of contents for this act

is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short Title and table of contents

Sec. 2. Abstract

Sec. 3. The EEOA

Title 1. Quality Education--Requirement to provide quality

education to all citizens and residents.

Sec. 101. Definition of Quality Education

Sec. 102. Establishing a Uniform Standard

Title II. Funding--Establish permanent funding source that

will allow goals of act to be met.

Sec. 201. Establishing special fund for act

Sec. 202. Increasing education expenditures on an adjusted

per student basis

section 2. abstract

We live in a time when only the educated are free. As we

become more technologically advanced and information plays

more of a critical role, only those individuals who have had

a sound education will be able to compete and succeed in the

global marketplace. This need for a quality education is most

critical for those people who are on the lowest social and

economic levels of our society. Now more than ever all must

have access to a good education in order to have a fair

chance in life. Sadly, those who are most in need of quality

education have the least amount of access to it.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution

provides that every citizen will have equal protection of the

law, but a Supreme Court decision in the case of Plessy v.

Ferguson (1896) almost erased the protections provided by

this amendment. The Plessy decision created the system of

separate but equal and allowed for the legal separation of

people based upon nothing but the color of their skin. This

ruling allowed for the establishment of separate school

facilities for white people and people of color. These

facilities were anything but equal. Schools that served

students of color were inferior in many important aspects.

The physical conditions of the schools were poor, books and

other materials were in poor condition, outdated or not

available at all. The teachers were paid less than their

white counterparts. The landmark ruling in the Supreme Court

case of Brown v. the Board of Education (1954) ended the

practice of legal segregation in public schools and struck

down the Jim Crow laws that forced second-class citizenship

on people of color. Despite this, American society in many

ways remains as segregated as it was before 1954. Nowhere is

this segregation more evident than in our public schools.

Even though great people such as Charles Hamilton Houston the

architect of the argument for the Brown case, Supreme Court

Justice Thurgood Marshall, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.,

dedicated their lives to ensure that there would be equal

educational opportunities for all Americans, we have yet to

see this become a reality.

Recent studies show that the country's largest inner city

school districts remain dramatically divided along lines of

race and economic class. These studies find that the poorest

school districts have a population that consists mostly of

minority students while white students make up the majority

of wealthy districts. The difference in the funding received

by school districts is also very surprising. In New York

State alone, $17,000 is spent per student in the wealthiest

districts while only $6000 per student is spent in the

poorest districts. This stark difference led to the creation

of the Campaign for fiscal Equity (CFE), a group of parents,

businessmen and politicians who sued the state of New York to

get more funding for the poorer school districts. After a

long battle that lasted for several years, the New York State

Courts ruled that the state must provide equal funding to

those poor school districts. But New York is not the only

state where we see this type of inequality--41 out of 50

states in the country have a similar situation.

Unequal funding has had a direct impact on the academic

achievement of under funded schools and students. Students

who attend schools located in districts that receive less

funding also have lower scores on standardized tests and are

more likely to be below grade level in reading and math.

Students from these under-funded schools are also more

likely to drop out of school and fewer students from these

attend and graduate from college.

Recently, the federal government has tried to address the

problem by the passing the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

NCLB requires all school districts to achieve minimum

academic standards as measured by standardized tests. Those

states whose school districts do not meet these standards

would lose some of their federal funds. The NCLB Act has been

criticized because it does not provide the funding that

schools would need to meet the standards set by the law. In

fact, those school districts whose students are the most in

need of additional funding would likely be the first ones to

lose funding if their students, who also have the greatest

academic deficits, do not achieve satisfactory scores. Many

parts are NCLB are good and should be expanded, but a couple

of the things that the law does not do is provide funding

that is substantial enough to achieve it's goals, and it does

not require that states provide equal funding. It is the goal

of the EEOA to address the problems that NCLB does not.

section 3. the equal educational opportunity act

Title I.--Quality Education For All Citizens and Residents.

The federal government will be required to ensure that every

child within the boarders of the United States is provided

with the opportunity to receive a ``quality educational

experience.''

Sec. 101. Definition of ``Quality Education''--For the

purposes of this Act, a ``quality education'' will be defined

as: (1) An education that provides each student the

opportunity to develop the skills that are necessary to

become a productive member of their local, national and

global communities. (2) Developing the skills and knowledge

necessary to effectively participate in the global

marketplace. (3) Adequate physical facilities to meet the

demands of the uniform distribution of funds. (4) Well-

trained certified teachers who are paid at a competitive

rate. (5) Providing a variety of learning experiences that

include opportunities for extracurricular interests and

social development.

Sec. 102. Establishing a Uniform Standard--To ensure that

each child receives a quality education this act shall

establish a framework for the equitable distribution of

funding to create the programs and curriculum necessary to

meet the goals of a

quality education as defined in Sec. 101 and to provide

states and local school boards with the resources to address

each school's unique challenges in meeting the requirement

for a quality education through a flexible and equitable

distribution of dollars so each school has an equal

opportunity to shore up its curricular weaknesses as they

define it in their local communities once the basic national,

state and local requirements and standards have been met, a

standard by which individual state education programs will be

measured.

Title II.--Funding. A special fund will be established to

fully implement all aspects of the EEOA. Additionally a

special committee will be created to develop a formula for

per student expenditures that will result in equal spending

for all students.

Sec. 201. Establishing a Special Fund to Fully Support the

EEOA--A fund will be created that will be used solely for the

purpose of providing support of the EEOA. The fund is to be

developed and established by appropriate legislation.

Sec. 202. Increase in Per Student Expenditures--A

commission will be created to determine per student

expenditure required to support the provisions included in

Title I of this act. Several factors will be taken into

consideration when making this determination, including: 1)

economic and social conditions that exist in a student's

school district 2) the academic and social circumstances of

the student 3) the ability of the student's school and

community to raise funds independently. Taking these factors

into consideration will insure that the schools and students

who have the greatest need will receive the greatest amount

of funding and support. School districts that have adequate

spending for each student will not be required to reduce

their expenditures. When developing the per student spending

formula, the commission shall also consider external factors

such as the cost of living in each school district, property

values in the district and additional community resources.

This will allow the amount distributed to each school

district to be prorated according to these factors. (Building

a school in Georgia does not cost as much as building a

similar facility in New York City, therefore the actual

dollar amount spent on a student in Georgia may be less, but

the value received from the expenditure is equivalent).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the over 100 students from around New York City who participated this year in the Constitution Education Engagement Project. The CEEP program, of which Carl Bonomo is the founder and Dorothy McCloskey is the director, takes secondary school students from around New York City and asks them to have hearings, discussion and debates and arrive at a piece of legislation for this Congress to consider.

This year, the winner was from the Wadleigh Secondary School. Their piece of legislation, which addresses the inequities in education funding, I will be introducing in the Record following these remarks, as well as the list of students who participated to make this project such a success.

The legislation that they have come up with addresses problems that affect over 41 States in the United States, and that is the inequity between funding among different school districts. In New York State alone, $17,000 is spent per student in one district compared to $6,000 per student in others.

Since 1973, 45 different States have had to address the inequities in school funding. The students at the Wadleigh Secondary School are among our brightest and best. They are members of the CEEP program, which seeks to address the problems we have in our country through the legislative process.

I hope this House joins in paying tribute to their successes.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their fine work on this bill. This is an extraordinarily important bill each year. It is very easy to demagogue that we should provide the funding that we do; but, in fact, for relative pennies on the dollar, we get an enormous amount of benefit for our country.

I rise to engage the chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy to discuss the continuing humanitarian crisis in the Dominican Republic.

This last May, as many as 2,000 Dominicans and Haitians were killed during flooding in the region surrounding the Haitian-Dominican border. In what was perhaps the worst natural disaster ever to hit the Caribbean, there are over 660 dead in the Dominican Republic alone, and tens of thousands lost their homes as entire towns were washed away.

The flooding was a result of a confluence of two unfortunate circumstances. The first is obvious. It was hurricane season in the Caribbean and there were heavy rains. But the second, as the chairman knows, was that poverty in the Dominican Republic and Haiti has forced Haitians and Dominicans to raze entire forests. The wood they harvest allows them to just barely scrape by. Without trees to hold the soil firm, the beautiful hills of the Dominican Republic and Haiti were laid bare, and those living in the valleys below were made susceptible to the mudslides which have wreaked so much devastation.

Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and the ranking member have worked hard to provide assistance for both the Dominican Republic and Haiti in this bill, and they deserve to be commended for their efforts. Haiti, torn apart recently by a political crisis, has been provided an additional $50 million in an effort to jump-start their economy and stabilize the new government.

The Dominicans are suffering as well. In the late 1990s, the Dominican economy was growing by 8 percent a year, a remarkable achievement. Last year, the economy shrunk and is expected to shrink another 1 percent this year. Inflation is near 30 percent, and unemployment is at 16 percent.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his continuing interest in helping the people of the Dominican Republic. I hope he will work in conference to provide additional aid to them.

Before the chairman has an opportunity to respond, I will yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) to add her words.

Mr. Chairman, I will try to take less than that if possible.

I rise in support of the Otter amendment. The question should be should we have any aid going to the West Bank and Gaza. That should be the question. Is it buying us pro-American values? No. Is it buying us less violence? No. Is it buying us a more transparent government? No. Is it buying us more democracy? No.

And to make matters worse those receiving the aid are refusing now to sign a declaration saying that the money will not go to terrorists. There is no reason in my eyes that we should be providing any aid at all.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

My amendment is a simple one. It simply says that no money in this bill shall go to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. To many of those watching this debate, they would be surprised to learn that any money goes to Saudi Arabia at all. It should not, and there are reasons it should not.

First of all, the Saudis are shielding known terrorists. This is not a theory of mine; this is a fact. Just yesterday, the person who was standing to the right of Osama bin Laden as he presented a chilling videotape shot after September 11 showed up at a Saudi airport and gave credit to the Saudi Government for taking him in and offering him amnesty for his crimes. ``Thank God, thank God,'' he said. ``I called the embassy and we were very well received.''

Saudi security forces allowed kidnappers to escape after killing 16 Westerners at a Khobar residential compound on May 29 of this year. Al Qaeda terrorists who kidnapped and killed American contractor Paul Johnson say they used official police uniforms and vehicles received from sympathetic Saudi police. Saudi Prince Abdullah responded with a 1-month amnesty for any terrorist who surrendered voluntarily.

In an October of last year interview in ``The Voice of Jihad,'' Abu Hajjer, an al Qaeda member ranking high on Saudi Arabia's most wanted list, commented with the following quote: ``It is true that we must use the country of Saudi Arabia, because it is the primary source of funds for most Jihad movements. It has some degree of security and freedom of movement.'' This is what members of al Qaeda say about Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis have famously also failed to crack down on terror. Last October when I offered a similar amendment, I heard some of the opponents say, oh, they are getting their act together. As of last month, not a single arrest or prosecution had come from the U.S.-Saudi Joint Terrorist Financing Task Force, which is supposed to cut down on the financing of terror coming out of Saudi; not a single one.

Since September 11, not a single Saudi donor of funds to terrorist groups has been publicly punished, despite Ambassador Bandar's assertion that Saudi Arabia would ``prosecute the guilty to the fullest extent of the law.'' Since September 11, not a single one.

Last month's report by the Council of Foreign Relations on Terrorist Financing says: ``Saudi Arabia has not fully implemented its new laws and regulations and, because of that, opportunities for the witting or unwitting financing of terrorism persists.''

This is not some fringe element of Congress; this is the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Saudis finally are exploiting Wahabism. This is not even a question that the Saudis dispute. In March of 2002, an official Saudi magazine, Ain al-Yaqueen, wrote that the royal family wholly or partly funded some 210 Islamic centers, 1,500 mosques, 202 colleges, and 2,000 schools in countries without Muslim majorities to spread Wahabism.

So why is there any money in this bill going to the Saudis at all? Why is this amendment even necessary?

The most telling is from the President's own budget request. In the President's budget request, they explain why it is necessary to keep a small amount of money for the Saudis in our budget, with taxpayer dollars. Here is what it says. The modest amount of IMET funds requested permit the Saudi Government to purchase military training in the United States at a considerably lower cost than is charged countries that are not eligible. And get this: it says, the President, while Saudi Arabia controls the world's largest oil reserve, it faces increasing budget pressure.

This is why the United States taxpayer is providing funds to Saudi Arabia. Well, they are not going to after tonight if we vote ``yes'' on the Crowley-Israel-Berkley-Weiner amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

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

Mr. Chairman, as I conclude, and the hour is getting late and there are no further speakers on my side, I just want to once again clarify the record of the Saudis.

Every time we have this discussion in this Chamber, we hear about how the Saudis have changed their ways, that they finally decided they do not want to fund terror, they do not want to export terror, they do not want to be terrorists themselves, that if only we in the House of Representatives allow them a few more years of funding, a few more years chasing the fantasy that there are moderate friends in that region, that maybe things would turn around.

Well, the gentleman that is sitting here talking to Osama bin Laden shortly after September 11, it would be just great if somehow we can capture that guy, that guy who is laughing on the tape while Osama bin Laden took credit for the heinous acts of September 11.

Well, this is a picture from yesterday's newspaper at a Saudi Arabian airport of that fellow being wheeled into Saudi Arabia under an amnesty program by the Saudis.

If we think for a moment that U.S. authorities are going to have a chance to interview this person, think again. We learned from the explosion at the Khobar Towers years ago, when to this day the FBI has not been granted access to the crime scene, that we do not get Saudi cooperation. We learned from the Council of Foreign Relations, who just put out a report, that we do not get cooperation cutting down on the funding that the Saudis provide for terror.

So this person, the right hand to Osama bin Laden, is now somewhere in Saudi Arabia, our so-called ally that we with taxpayer dollars are funding in this bill.

Frankly, it is inexplicable. It is inexplicable. You can no longer live by the fantasy that somehow they are going to be helpful, that we are going to solve the problems of the Middle East if only we embrace the Saudis. We can no longer follow that fantasy thinking.

Every year when I bring this amendment up, I hear the same protests from the distinguished chairman and those that support the Saudi regime. They say, this is the wrong time, things are getting better, things are getting better. Sure it has been hundreds of years of exporting terrorism, but now it is getting better. We are right on the precipice. If only we give them a few more dollars in taxpayer funds, things will get a little bit better. It is not happening.

According to the United States Government, not a single arrest has come as a result of this vaunted U.S.-Saudi task force on the financing of terrorism; and this person, who is no doubt involved in the attacks of my city on September 11, the attacks in Pennsylvania and here in Washington, is now in the possession of what he calls his family in Saudi Arabia.

It is not a coincidence that 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11 came from Saudi Arabia. It is not a coincidence that, according to the State Department, more than half of every single dollar for terrorists comes from Saudi Arabia. It is not a coincidence, because that is what the Saudi government is all about.

What is remarkable is that we keep going along with it. We provide funding, we embrace them, and we do not seem to learn.

Let us make this the year that we finally say not a single taxpayer dollar will go to Saudi Arabia in this bill. Let us take the explanation in the budget request that this will allow them to save money on military training, because, ``While Saudi Arabia controls the world's largest oil reserve, it faces increasing budget pressure.''

It is hard to even read with a straight face. Vote yes on the Weiner- Crowley-Israel-Berkley amendment. Finally end funding of U.S. tax dollars to Saudi Arabia.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, it is for the purpose of a question. The gentleman talked about how the cooperation helps us in the war on terror. The Council on Foreign Relations issued a report recently that said that we are not getting that cooperation. The FBI has said that they are not getting cooperation in investigating crimes against U.S. citizens. Where does the gentleman derive the idea that we are getting cooperation with this money?

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Weiner

Amendment No. 24: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

prohibition against direct funding for saudi arabia

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, has this been cleared with our leadership here, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for their work on this bill.

In this bill we are investing in the neighborhood of about $47 million to wipe out the boll weevil. It poses a threat to an important U.S. commodity. It poses a threat to a way of life to many people. In fact, at the same time we are dramatically reducing the funds necessary to wipe out the Asian long horn beetle, my friend here. The Asian long horn beetle has devastated trees in New York, Illinois and New Jersey and is showing a path that could spread to over half the trees in the United States.

There is a way that we can stop this. An eradication program was begun by APHIS 3 years ago funded by this Congress that has finally started to crest the expansion of this pest. Unfortunately, in the chairman's mark we underfund by a magnitude of about $20 million what APHIS says will be necessary to eradicate the threat.

The problem that we face here in this House is we run the risk of wasting a rather substantial investment of money that we have paid in the last 2

fiscal years to wipe out this insect. What this bug has done since 1996 has devastated trees throughout New York, and I know the old story about the tree growing in Brooklyn. In fact, there are thousands and thousands of trees that have been impacted already and without a steady investment of funds will continue to.

What we propose to do here is not to take the optimum amount of funding. According to the State of New York, it would take about $72 million a year for the next 5 years in order to wipe out this pest, but take the minimum amount that APHIS says they require, which is $30 million over the next several years, to eradicate this threat so it does not move any further.

Right now, Ground Zero for this problem is in the New York-New Jersey area; but we have seen it spring up in the center of the country in Illinois. We have also seen how difficult it is to get a handle on it. To be very honest with you, the only way they have found to get rid of this pest once it is in a tree is to chop down the tree and scrap it and to shred that tree to bits. We cannot risk over 47 percent of the trees in this country which, according to the Department of Agriculture, are susceptible to this threat. Now is the time to cut it off at the tentacles or whatever it has. Now is the time for us to continue our battle against this.

The last thing we should be doing, Mr. Chairman, is allowing the good work of the committee in the past which has invested money to wipe this out and then say, essentially, we will stop on a dime and revert to a place where we will try to hold this in check until we have more money. We have started on this path. The only responsible thing to do is to continue on this program which will require about $30 million a year.

My amendment provides an additional $19.6 million which would prevent this pest from spreading any further.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the point of order.

Point of Order

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, am I right that there are two parts to the point of order? One, that we have not yet reached page 5 which my amendment strikes; and the second part is that it increases outlays; is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I am asking is the point of order, does it make two separate points? One being we have not reached the page and the other being that it does outlays? Just so I understand what I am responding to.

Mr. Chairman, if I could be heard on the point of order. We are at the chapter of the bill. We are at page 5. We are at the relevant paragraph of the bill. That is a matter of fact. And as far as the outlays, this has previously been scored for another amendment, and I am making a 6 percent reduction, and we are waiting for word from CBO, which hopefully will be coming momentarily which will clarify the other point.

I think I have just about maximized my statement.

May I be heard on the point of order?

If the ruling of the Chair is that we have not yet reached that point, will I be free to offer it again when the time is more propitious?

Mr. Chairman, so if you are required under the rule to have an offset, then obviously they are going to be at two different sections of the bill. How can you possibly offer them two places at once?

If I can further be heard, so the point in the bill we are at is not in issue? It is only whether it is budget and outlay neutral?

Does the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) want to be heard on this?

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I have already made my remarks; I want to try to facilitate as quickly as possible the amendment.

The justification is the same. The number has been changed to reflect what the CBO said would be necessary to take into account the change in the rate of outlays to accommodate the Budget Authority change that we are trying to make.

If the chairman would like for me to yield to him on my time, I would, in the interest of time, if he has any questions about the amendment. If not, in that case, let me just summarize again.

The number that we chose to increase by would provide what APHIS says is the necessary full funding to eradicate this pest, which is something that has ravaged New York City, ravaged Queens and Brooklyn, also has been spotted most troubling in Illinois and in New Jersey. We would be dramatically walking away from our commitment to wiping out this pest if we were to reduce to the chairman's mark.

We have to decide what we want to do. Do we want to take this cause that we have decided is necessary to be eradicated, we funded tens of millions of the dollars to eradicate it by a date certain? If we were to adopt the number in the chairman's mark, we would essentially be saying a lot of that money would be wasted because we would allow that pest to further infect trees not only in New York and New Jersey and Connecticut but apparently all throughout the Midwest.

I ask for a favorable consideration.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I have a fax here from the CBO scoring section that confirms that my amendment's outlays do not exceed the budget authority. As to the point of order, I still am not clear on. We are at page 5 where my amendment chooses to decrease funding.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ofered By: Mr. Weiner

Amendment No. 18: Page 5, line 15, insert ``(decreased by

$19,667,000)'' after the dollar amount.

Page 18, line 9, insert ``(increased by $19,667,000)''

after the 1st dollar amount.