Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I salute the work of the committee. I know that the ranking member has done an excellent job, the chairman has been a diligent supporter of science and of scientific freedom and I admire that, but I do want to express my profound disagreement on policy terms with much of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, we have held up for years now a transportation bill, literally years, because we are quarreling over the amount of money. To commit billions of dollars to go to Mars when we are not providing the funds for Americans to go from one city to another is simply a waste of money. The Mars money is in a zero-sum situation, and to commit $3 billion now, I am told, and billions more in the future to go to Mars when day after day when appropriations bills come up we are told, no, we can't do enough for housing and we can't do enough for health care, and the appropriators say, look, we agree with you, it's a good program we're cutting, we wish we had more, but we then set aside billions for Mars.

Indeed, I think this is a fundamental debate that the country ought to have. I hope we will see a bill that will put this question about whether or not we commit these untold billions to go to Mars coming at the expense of other important programs before us.

On this whole question of our priorities, I was struck on July 7 by a very thoughtful editorial in USA Today, with which I agreed, which called for a diminution of human space and more of the sort of scientific space travel that has in fact been so beneficial. Under the General Leave, I am going to insert this as well as a rebuttal from Mr. Griffin, but I believe, particularly now, that we have to talk about the priorities. These are not separate entities. The money that goes, the tens of billions that are being committed to go to space travel, come at the expense of cleaning up Superfund sites, of building transportation, of providing health care and providing housing. The country may decide in context to go forward with that, but we need to have that decision put before us in an explicit way.

Public Support Can't Fly if Manned Flights Remain Costly and Aimless

NASA's Deep Impact probe, which smashed into a comet

Monday, was a big hit. In fact, it was a billion hits. That's

how many computer ``hits'' NASA's website recorded in just 24

hours around the event.

This deep interest in Deep Impact is illustrative of a new

reality that the human space program confronts as it gears up

for next week's planned return of the shuttle. Robotic

probes, once the domain of pointy-headed academics, have

become NASA's new stars.

The probes have always generated more science. Now they

generate more enthusiasm and romance. They are cheaper,

faster and more exciting. They go farther and stay longer.

They explore the frontiers of the cosmos.

What's more, they make better use of the pre-eminent

technology of our times, the Internet. Thanks to signals sent

back by the Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity, the Red

Planet has been ``visited'' a little more than 670 million

times since January of last year.

When and if astronauts arrive there, the product they

provide the Internet consumer will be, in many respects,

inferior. No sooner would they arrive than attention would

shift to getting them home safely. Rovers, on the other hand,

plow on, month after month, sending data, living off nothing

but sunshine.

For its 22-year history, USA TODAY has been an avid

supporter of the human space program. We continue to believe

it should be maintained for such a day when engineers find a

way of bringing down its costs, making more ambitious

projects possible.

But it's impossible to deny its current status as a cure

for insomnia. The International Space Station, its main focus

for the past decade, orbits in near oblivion. The shuttle

doesn't really go anywhere. Sadly, it makes headlines only

when its flights end in tragedy. The launch of Discovery,

scheduled for Wednesday, night generate attention, but only

because of its novelty as the first in more than two

years. President Bush's plan for sending astronauts back

to the moon and on to Mars, announced in 2003, was met by

public apathy and unfavorable polls. Having pushed budget

deficits to the moon, he also has no plan to pay for it.

Nevertheless, Bush and Congress seem oblivious. They are

intent on a vision whose main impact is not to explore space

but to channel money to aerospace companies and

bureaucracies.

NASA is embarking on a costly shuttle replacement program,

when far cheaper options exist. This project is being

undertaken in the name of Bush's moon-Mars plan, an iffy

prospect at best.

Even now, in the early stages, almost two thirds of NASA's

budget, a little less than $10 billion annually, goes into

human space programs--the shuttle fleet, the Space Station

and Bush's plan.

NASA, to its credit, did come up with an elegant and cost-

effective way of continuing the human space program without

having it eat up most of its funding. The so-called Orbital

Space Plane was to have been lifted into space atop existing

commercial rockets. Alas, the idea was too good to survive.

Lawmakers representing aerospace contractors

and major NASA employment centers made sure it died.

That has left the space program on a costly and uncertain

trajectory. The shuttle replacement might get built by 2014,

or even 2010, as some people hope. Or it might end up like

the X-33 and the National Launch System, two programs

abandoned when their costs became clear. The moon-Mars idea

is even more problematic, requiring increasing allocations of

money from future presidents.

What does appear certain is that lawmakers will pump vast

amounts of money into a directionless human space program

just as the public's attention has shifted away.

That's too bad. After watching Deep Impact and other

robotic missions of late, it's clear that NASA's science

division has become a veritable hit machine. It would be

fascinating to see what it could do if set loose.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a two-page amendment. If it were a one-page amendment, I would be an enthusiastic supporter. The declaration of policy urging our government to promote the emergence of a democratic Palestinian government is greatly to be desired.

I must say the fifth item, insisting that it acknowledges, respects, and upholds the human rights of all people, if they would do everything else here, respect the right of Israel to exist, repudiate terrorism, that would be sufficient for me. We have some people we work with who do not uphold the human rights of all people. But in general I like the declaration. I do not think, however, that we should impose these restrictions on the funding.

This is an issue on which I trust President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon. Those are not people with whom I am always allied. I believe that Prime Minister Sharon, a political figure with whom I have not always found myself in agreement, I have said if I lived in Israel, I would not vote for Ariel Sharon. If he lived in Brookline, he would not vote for me. We can get along. Although I think he probably occupies more of my thinking than I do of his. But I admire his willingness to go forward with a policy that I think is very much in the interest of Israel.

I, as an American Jew, and I will be in Israel in August and I will be there again in January, I share the goal of a secure Israel as a Jewish democratic nation, and I admire the insight of Prime Minister Sharon and Deputy Prime Minister Olmert, that an Israel which governs millions of hostile Palestinians will have a hard time being Jewish and democratic, and, therefore, I support Israel's effort to reach peace. There is no guarantee that it is possible. It is a difficult situation. But I do not think we in Congress should make it more difficult.

There are people within Israel who do not agree with what Prime Minister Sharon is doing, but they have not been able to get a majority in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset. I do not want to see them win a partial victory in the U.S. House of Representatives that they cannot win in the Knesset.

While I agree with the declaration of policy, I believe that restrictions on funding to the Palestinian Authority ought to be left to the decision of the executive branch. I trust George Bush on this, and I trust this administration. I believe they are as committed to the declaration of policy as any of us. And I think in this case it is important for them to have some flexibility.

I do not find the Palestinian Authority any model of democratic governance, but it is clearly in everybody's interest, and the Israeli government agrees to this, to have the Palestinian Authority strengthened vis-a-vis the terrorists of Hamas. Maybe the right way to do it will be to cut back; maybe it will not be. I do not think that is a judgment we can make here.

Again, when we have in power an Israel and a United States with democratically elected governments that are committed to this process, having these congressional restrictions, I believe, is a hindrance; and this notion no more than 25 percent can be spent in a quarter does not, to me, have any substantive policy reason. Maybe there will be a joint decision by Prime Minister Sharon and President Bush that the Palestinian Authority is in fact doing what it should do and they want to be able to give them more money in a period of time. I do not think it is appropriate for this Congress to restrict that.

So I agree with the declaration of policy. If we were in the whole House, I would ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified for that purpose, but I cannot do it in the Committee of the Whole, and I would vote for that. But I do not think we should impose these restrictions on the funding for the Palestinian Authority as a sign we do not trust President Bush and the Government of Israel jointly to make those decisions.

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

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

I am always puzzled when in defense of an amendment we are told that it is really not going to mean anything. We are told the President can waive it. Well, frankly, I think the purpose of an amendment is not to waive it, W-A-I-V-E, but for some of us to wave it, W-A-V-E, as a sign of what we think.

I am all in favor of this declaration, but I think the amendment's operative part restricting funding might get in the way. The single most important issue, it seems to me, is that the Palestinian Authority should agree to disarm and dismantle any terrorist agency network or facility. I agree that is essential. They have to be willing to confront Hamas, but they cannot do it without money. What are they going to do it with, rhetoric?

We are taking a gamble, there is no question. If the Palestinian Authority is in the end unwilling or unable to meet these responsibilities, then there will not be peace. That will be a tragedy for all concerned, but mostly for the Palestinians. No one should ask Israel to go forward if that is not the case.

That makes it all the more important to do everything we can to enable the Palestinian Authority and pressure them to do this. The problem is playing yo-yo with the funding does not work.

The President has the authority now to stop. We cannot force him to spend foreign aid. The President will do this in consultation with the Israeli government, with Vice Premier Paris, who works on this.

I believe this is an unwise intrusion of Congress. We do not have a disagreement here. We say we agree with Sharon's government of trying to see if peace can be made. We agree with the administration. I do not think that this kind of intervention by Congress is going to be helpful with a difficult and delicate peace process.

Mr. Speaker, one of the gravest weaknesses in our financial system is the growing pattern of grossly excessive compensation which the leaders of some major firms are paying themselves, with the acquiescence of passive boards of directors. The issues raised by the extraordinarily large pay packages some top executives are granting themselves go beyond simply the inappropriateness of people enriching themselves at the expense of their stockholders and their employees. Increasing inequality in income distribution in this country has broader policy implications, and there is also the growing problem of perverse incentives that result from executives receiving grossly disproportionate compensation based on decisions they themselves take. That is, it is clear that some of the accounting abuses we have seen, and some decisions to sell large companies to others are being influenced not by the basic economics of these situations, but by the extent to which top decision-makers personally profit from these decisions.

One of the most egregious recent examples is the $32 million payment made to the co-president of Morgan Stanley, Stephen Crawford, for work of only a few months as part of the upheaval that led to the ouster of Philip Purcell. In the New York Times on Wednesday, July 13, there is an excellent editorial on this subject, which notes that ``stockholders and employees are properly seething at the deal cut for Mr. Crawford . . . by a board that was oblivious to protecting the bank's reputation as it over-rewarded his fealty to Philip Purcell . . .''

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a subject which Congress must address. In particular, we must act to find ways to press boards of directors to do more to safeguard stockholders and employees from excessive compensation abuse, and we should in particular be looking at ways to curb the extent to which these sorts of compensation schemes based on various contingencies give perverse incentives to decision- makers. I and others on the Financial Services Committee will be offering some legislative proposals in this regard, and I offer the New York Times editorial here for Members' edification as an example of why some action is necessary in this regard.

[From the New York Times, July 13, 2005]

The Wages of Failure on Wall Street

Words like golden parachute hardly do justice to the

stunning $32 million worth of a not-so-fond adieu engineered

at Morgan Stanley, the troubled Wall Street securities giant,

for its departing co-president, Stephen Crawford.

Stockholders and employees are properly seething at the deal

cut for Mr. Crawford--after a mere three months on the job--

by a board that was oblivious to protecting the bank's

reputation as it over-rewarded his fealty to Philip Purcell,

the chief executive who was driven out in a messy power

struggle last month.

The board majority appointed by Mr. Purcell opened the

bidding on failure's rewards by ushering Mr. Purcell to the

exit with a $43 million sweetener. Now others from his team

of loyalists--sycophants is the term outraged critics

prefer--are lining up to walk the platinum plank behind Mr.

Crawford, who never ran a business division at the bank yet

rose to the top as Mr. Purcell's attentive protege.

Mere groundlings juggling finances at their neighborhood

A.T.M.'s must pause slack-jawed at how Wall Street insiders

are so ludicrously compensated for plain failure at steering

their companies. Few of life's losers land so affluently.

The repair task now falls to John Mack, the new chief

executive and Morgan Stanley veteran. Facing a furor among

stockholders and staff over the severance machinations, Mr.

Mack had second thoughts about his own guaranteed salary of

up to $25 million, so he is instead invoking a merit-pay

standard for himself. This amounts to innovation at Morgan

Stanley, where dozens of bankers, traders and managers quit

when the Purcell team ascended and ensconced their own in top

positions even as the bank lagged behind its competitors.

Mr. Mack is already seeking the return of the more

respected departees who ran profitable divisions. He has

retained the other Purcell co-president, Zoe Cruz; she was

smart enough to turn down the board's garish compensation

package.

The new chief won't get far with recovery, however, unless

he impresses workers and investors with a fresh dedication to

merit. That has to begin with the departure of the current

directors--on terms worth no more than their true value in

having compounded the turmoil at Morgan Stanley.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, the right wing hit man, who is now the deputy chief of staff in the White House made an outrageously, consciously dishonest set of attacks on Members of this body by arguing that liberals had show ignored the terrible events of September 11, despite the fact that we virtually unanimously voted to go to war in Afghanistan, and voted for a homeland security department, in fact advocated it over the administration's objections.

We now have learned that the response of this hit man was to leak the name of a CIA agent, probably in violation of the law, certainly in violation of the rules that ought to be in place. And now we have this defense, the lawyer having previously denied that he did it, now says, well, it was not really a problem because he only said it was Joe Wilson's wife, he did not mention her name.

Now, perhaps the President's hit man maybe got him confused with one of his Saudi prince friends that thought that Mr. Wilson was a polygamist and had several wives and therefore identifying his wife would have thrown people off the track.

But I do not think that is really acceptable in a court of law. And as to the argument that by not naming her no one knew who he meant, does anyone doubt that the right wing hit man I am talking about, whose name I have not previously mentioned, is Karl Rove.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is a very important improvement to what was a very important piece of legislation.

At a time when people wonder about whether or not we are able to go forward, it ought to be noted clearly there

are strong ideological and partisan differences over some issues, as there should be in a democracy, but we have been able, from time to time, to work together on things where there is a consensus of common sense.

In this particular instance, the underlying legislation here was one which was strongly supported by a coalition of environmentalists and taxpayer groups who had a common understanding that in effect encouraging people to continue to rebuild in areas that were going to be flooded made no sense from either the environmental or the taxpayer perspective.

There was also an unusually fruitful bipartisan collaboration that brought us this bill. Our former colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), a senior member of the Committee on Financial Services, worked very closely with a continuing Member, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and they did an excellent job of putting this piece of legislation together.

And we now, having enacted the legislation, encounter something that was unanticipated. This would clean it up. It would make a very good piece of legislation better.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he would consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) who will be my last speaker.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, if I understood the chronology correctly, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) was pointing out that there were Reagan administration witnesses, of which people had similar complaints. And I would stipulate to that. But this is not a question of just one administration or another. It is a disturbing failure of this House to carry out its constitutional responsibilities for independence.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, first of all, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) got here and I do not think most people understood that he was talking about the Reagan administration. He talked somewhat vaguely about a previous administration, as if we were somehow being partisan, and he cited the Reagan administration did the same thing.

Then he follows that up with this outrageous comment that we were supporting the Sandinistas and they were supporting freedom. If that is the gentleman's example of how not to be partisan, than I do not think the gentleman is going to be finding many people follow his example.

The problem we have here is a failure of this House to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities.

You say, oh, nobody was trying to be dishonest. Have people forgotten so soon the prescription drug issue? When the Department of Health and Human Services responsible officials refused to let one of their officials tell the truth, threatened their officials with retaliation, that was not an honest error. That was a deliberate pattern of suppression.

I mean, what we have here is a degree of submissiveness on the part of the Republican majority and the executive branch that I believe is unprecedented in American history.

You want an example of it? I believe the Republican membership has over the years become more afraid of its own leadership than of anything else, including terrorism. And you want the proof?

We had a very prolonged rollcall yesterday which had to be interrupted because we had a potential terrorist problem. The rollcall that was extended, because we had to evacuate and deal with the terrorist threat, took a lot less time than the rollcall that you used to pass the prescription drug bill. You were more afraid on your side of retribution from your leadership if you did not get that bill passed than you were of a terrorist threat.

I remember when the Clinton administration was new and the Democrats were in power. I served on the Committee on the Judiciary that had a very tough oversight hearing on Waco, called Janet Reno up and was very tough on her. I served on the Committee on Banking that had hearings on Whitewater.

Oversight has disappeared; and when we do have conscious and deliberate lies and we know the Health and Human Services misrepresented the cost of the prescription drug bill, they knew one thing and they threatened with retribution somebody who might have told the truth, and there was not any complaint from the Republican side.

As to the veterans budget, I do not think it is accidental that the underestimate came. It was not an overestimate, and it was not just an arithmetic error. There were people saying you do not have enough, you do not have enough. We remember. The gentleman from Wisconsin reminded me when the veterans affairs people sent out a notice telling their own people not to try to do outreach, do not bring us more people, and the gentleman from New York said it is going to be fixed. Well, at the cause of some disruption. Having the heads of the Department have to

stop and say, well, we will take some capital funds, that is not a useful way to run things.

So there has been a deliberate pattern here of a failure to oversee, and that is what the gentleman from Wisconsin's amendment seeks to remedy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time, and, like him and the ranking member of the subcommittee, I have some differences with the wording here. I was particularly struck by the second whereas. ``Whereas upon adoption, the 14th amendment extended the application of the fifth amendment to each and every State and local government.'' In fact, it did not. Not at adoption.

When the 14th amendment was adopted, it was not considered to extend it. And, in fact, it was what some would have called a liberal Supreme Court that decided to apply the Bill of Rights to the States through the 14th amendment. Now, I am glad they did, and I welcome the support in this resolution for that concept. I know not everybody on that side agrees with it.

Having said that, I am going to vote for the resolution, even though I disagree with some of the wording. I long ago had to come to the reluctant conclusion that voting for resolutions and literary criticism were two very different activities, and too high an aesthetic standard applied to resolutions would make me always vote no. So I tend to not pay too much attention to the whereases. I look at the resolves, and I agree with these resolves.

But let me rephrase the question, because this is the question the majority is asking. Remember, the Supreme Court, the five-member majority, made what I think is a wrong decision, but they did not take the property. You know who took the property? The elected government of the City of New London, people who were elected, and they did it pursuant to laws adopted by the elected legislature and governor of Connecticut. So what you are accusing the Supreme Court of, and I am agreeing with, is very simple: They were insufficiently activists.

Here is this Supreme Court majority letting elected officials do what they want. And the majority is asking an often-asked question: Where is judicial activism when we need it? Because people are not opposed to judicial activism, they are only opposed to judicial activism when they do not want the result. This is judicial activism you are calling for.

Let me read your resolves. ``State and local governments should only execute the power of eminent domain for those purposes.'' ``State and local governments must always justly compensate.'' It is State and local governments in the resolution that we are telling what to do. And your problem with the Supreme Court is that it is letting those pesky elected local and State governments do what they want.

My colleagues are saying, wait a minute, we cannot have elected officials just doing whatever they want. We cannot let elected officials deciding to do these things. If they violate constitutional rights, we want a Supreme Court that stops them. Well, so do I. But sometimes you call that activism. Because that is what you are asking for.

The Supreme Court has never taken a piece of property. Go right across the street. You can look. It has not gotten any bigger. I have been here 25 years, and they have not expanded one tree. What they did was allow locally elected and State elected officials to do it. So let me say that I agree with your complaint about insufficient judicial activism in this case. Let us just not think that that is a faucet you turn on and off.

The second issue is let us get consistent application of it. The gentleman from New York correctly mentioned a case where they took land in Texas for a baseball stadium. A number of Members here have been enjoying the new baseball team in Washington. We have seen a couple of outrageous assaults on the notion that Mr. Soros should be allowed to buy the team. Whoever believes in free enterprise ever thought they had the right to dictate who is the owner of a private team. That is an argument that you will lament for lack of judicial activism. But what they are doing here, the government of Washington, D.C., is doing exactly what you are saying is wrong here.

So I guess Members here are going to boycott that stadium. They are taking property down there on O Street. May not be property everybody here wants to go to, it may not be your farms and

your beaches, but it is private property, and the District of Columbia Government is going to take that private property over the objection of the owners to build that baseball stadium. So instead of trying to drive out some owner that you do not like, why not look into that situation?

But then there is finally an even more important aspect to this. In my earlier years on the then-Committee on Banking, we dealt with something called UDAG, Urban Development Action Grants, and I and some others, including a former Republican Member of this House, who went on to become the Mayor of Dallas, Mr. Bartlett, joined together to object to displacement.

We have had Federal programs that have given money to local governments for urban renewal, it was originally called, for various forms of advancement. So I would assume, and I have been upset with displacement of poor people with no replacement housing. It is considered a good thing if you remove blight. Do Members know what blight is? Blight is poor people with houses with peeling paint, and we have too often in the past funded the destruction of that housing and not funded its replacement.

Let me serve notice now, I will be, as we deal with legislation in the Committee on Financial Services, and hope others will do it as well, every piece of legislation that comes through here where we use public money in a way that would diminish the housing opportunities for low-income people, let us provide alternative opportunities, because here is the problem. The problem is this, they do not own. I think these are important principles.

But the resolution says it right: you do not let those with more resources benefit at the expense of those with fewer resources. The people with the fewest resources are poor people who rent.

So even though it is not the exact constitutional principle, I hope Members will join us when we say you are not going to use public money and public powers to destroy housing that low-income renters live in, because that will be in that spirit. And then we will go to a nice activist Supreme Court and ask them to enforce it.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, if Federal money is involved, and Federal money is involved in a lot of ways.

By the way, I am a great believer in autonomy for Washington, D.C. I belive they should be able to do what they want to do; but the money does pass through here, so people better be very careful how they draft it, or they may knock out that stadium. But certainly that would be the case.

I never ever voted for funding for a public stadium. I am glad to see this because the biggest abuse of this is low- and middle-income taxpayers who are taxed to build public stadiums so people can make tens of millions of dollars having a good time playing ball. And, yes, I do believe if there were any Federal funds involved in either the Texas stadium, and that could include State funds depending upon their fungibility, but certainly it is the case, as I understand what is going on in Washington, D.C., it violates the principles here and it would be stricken by the minority and it would perhaps be stricken by the bill if Federal funds were involved.

Mr. Chairman, I invite Members to return with me to the thrilling days of the Reverse Houdini. That is what we are seeing today on the floor.

Older Members will remember Harry Houdini who had an act. His act was to have other people tie him in knots and then appear before the public and get out of the knots.

What my Republican colleagues will show you today, as they did in the Labor-HHS bill and other bills, is the Reverse Houdini. Under the Reverse Houdini, you tie yourself in knots. Then you appear before the public and tell them how much you wish you could help them, but you cannot because you are all tied up in knots. You do not mention that you tied the knots.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), in his capacity as chairman of the subcommittee, has done work which I admire and for which I am grateful. He rejected the shortsighted and thoughtless efforts by the administration to gut the CDBG program and to rearrange the section 8 program. And I admire and appreciate what they did. So given the very limited, indeed inadequate, resources with which the gentleman had to work, he did a very good job.

On the other hand, I must say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and others on the other side, I admire what you did with inadequate resources, but I do not admire that you are the ones who made the resources inadequate. Members who voted for the tax cuts do not come to the floor with clean hands when they talk about the consequences of the tax cuts.

We will hear today, as we heard on the bill dealing with Labor, Heath and Human Services and Education, laments. The gentleman said he wished he could do more for CDBG. Well, who is stopping him? What is stopping him is the budget he voted for. The budget he voted for was dictated by the tax cuts he voted for.

The President said last night that the war in Iraq will go on and on. He will not waver. No, he will not waver. Funding for all these important programs will waver. A month in the war in Iraq would have been more than enough to make unnecessary all of the apologies we will hear. We will hear the Reverse Houdini again and again and again.

Members of the Committee on Appropriations will come, and they will accurately say that, given the resources they were provided, they cannot adequately fund all of these programs. But we ought to make clear, it is their own decision that led to these inadequate decisions.

In the housing area where I have some involvement and jurisdiction, virtually no program is adequately funded. They did better than the administration would have had them do, and I appreciate that important programs like Youthbuild are going to be resuscitated from having been snuffed out; but we will still have too little in CDBG, the Community Development Block Grant program.

The CDBG is an excellent program, and we are being told, maybe, if we are lucky, we will get it back up to where it has been, in an era of massive tax cuts for the wealthiest and an ongoing war in Iraq. Community development will be going on much better in Mosul and Baghdad than it will be in Pittsburgh and Chicago. I do not mean to deny the needs of people there, but we should not have it come at the expense of people here.

The section 8 program is better, but it will still not be enough. Let us also note that public housing, the entity that houses some of the poorest people in this country, will again not get what it ought to get. I would urge my colleagues, let us stop coming to the floor and apologizing for the consequences of your own actions. Let Harry Houdini rest in peace.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, last week, we had a rather unpleasant debate on this Floor about what we should be doing vis-a-vis religious conversion. The gentleman from Wisconsin was involved, but once again, he is today dealing with religious conversion, but today, he was welcoming converts. He was welcoming those who for many years have whittled away and chopped away and hacked away at our efforts to help low-income people, and now he has, as he said, found some people who understand it.

Some of us must tell my colleagues, we are a little skeptical. To be told by some of the supporters of this amendment that I and others who have been fighting so hard to prevent these savage cuts in housing for low-income people that we are somehow insensitive to the homeless is like being called silly by the Three Stooges.

The fact is that there has been a sustained attack on everything the Federal Government has tried to do to provide housing, and it is not just in the past.

The Committee on Financial Services, on which I serve, reported out by an overwhelming vote a bill which included a provision which would take some of the profits from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not tax dollars but profits from corporations which get great Federal advantages, so we felt entitled to do this, and we were following a precedent set years ago with the Federal Home Loan Bank. We said, let us take 5 percent of their after-tax profits and help build houses for homeless people. It would produce an

amount five or six times each year what this amendment deals with. You want to help the homeless, you have to try and build them homes.

Well, we have been told by some of the most conservative members of this body that that is a terrible thing, and we have been told that they are going to try and stop the bill from even coming up.

So, if Members want to genuinely help the homeless, there are at least two pending ways to do it. One, cut back on Amtrak. Two, let us take a percentage of the profits from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a time-tested program, a concept endorsed I understand by Jack Kemp, a former Secretary of HUD, back when the Secretary of HUD was even on the Republican side, cared about housing, and let us go that way. Now, we say, well, but let us take it out of Amtrak.

I wish this concern for the poor had been around when we were doing some earlier bills. As I understand it, we voted a significant amount of money to send people to Mars. We cannot find enough money for the homeless so we have to take it out of Amtrak. Well, would it not have been better to take it out of the trip to Mars? I mean, literally, this Congress voted to start spending, at least this House did, to send people to Mars, and at the same time, we talk about, well, but we have to cut Amtrak to help the homeless. Where was the concern for the homeless when you were going to Mars?

Mr. Chairman, there are many ways to help the homeless. Many of us, in a bipartisan way on the Committee on Financial Services, and I would note that the gentleman from Ohio who just spoke was one of those Republicans on the Committee on Financial Services who voted with us on that proposal for affordable housing. He understands and voted, as did others on that committee from both parties, that there are better ways to do this.

I think, frankly, that we have done enough damage to low-income people. We are now giving true meaning to the phrase, let us add insult to injury; let us use the lowest-income people in this country as a pawn in this effort to dismantle a decent rail system.

I welcome them, as does the gentleman from Wisconsin, this newfound support for the poor. I am available to help people in a far less destructive fashion to let them learn how to do it. I understand, when you are new to something, you are not always good at it. When you are new at helping poor people, it may not come out too good. Some of us who have been trying this for a long time are available for instruction.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, we agree with the gentleman from Michigan that reducing salaries and expenses would be a mistake, and there has been some confusion that is not the fault of the gentleman from Michigan. There was, as Members on our side talked about various offsets, some lacking at salaries and expenses, but, in fact, it has been changed, and the gentleman had no way to know this. He was not misrepresenting.

But the offset in this is not from salaries and expenses. It is from business systems modernization, a $199 million account for technology. And the gentleman is correct, and we spoke with various other people who represent those who work at HUD. So this is not now a reduction of salaries and expenses. It comes from the account on page 57, line 20, and following, $199 million for internal revenue.

Secondly, I would say this: when Secretary Jackson testified at his hearing before our committee, the Committee on Financial Services, in which the gentleman from Texas now makes a very important contribution from his own experience and awareness of the need here, I told Secretary Jackson I was disappointed to see this reduction from one year to the next. And Secretary Jackson's response, and it is available from the record and we will make it available for anyone who wants it, was that he agreed it would be a good idea to have more money, but he simply had to work within this limited budget. That is, Secretary Jackson did not say this is enough. He said it was not enough. He did not have enough resources.

We do believe the modernization is useful, but not at the expense of a fairly small amount. This is, what, less than 4 percent of the amount for modernization.

The fact is that housing discrimination continues to be a serious problem, and we have had recent hard evidence of that. By mandate of this Congress, we collect something that is known as the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, HMDA data people have heard; and the recent report from banks of the HMDA data shows a prima facie case of discrimination based on race. There may be some explanation for that, and we are going to be looking at that. People have said, well, there are other various reasons. But the fact is that the HMDA data is one indication of that.

I believe this country has made a great deal of progress in doing away with housing discrimination. It was not so long ago in the lifetime of many of us here when the Federal court still enforced racially restrictive covenants which said one could not sell their home to someone who was African American. That was changed less than 60 years ago. We still have racial discrimination. We still have racial discrimination particularly in housing;

$24 million, which is what we would have if the gentleman's amendment passes, is hardly excessive for this country of 240-plus million people to deal with a continuing manifestation of what I think is the greatest single domestic problem we face from our inception, which is racial unfairness and racial discrimination.

The enforcement of racial discrimination is complicated. People have become sophisticated. They do not admit that they are discriminating. The need to test, the need to do very sophisticated work is important. People have a right, if they are prosecuted, to various procedural defenses. If we are going to make a good case to prove this, we need the money.

So I would agree with the gentleman from Michigan that it would have been a mistake to take it from salaries and expenses, and this does not do that. I also agree with Secretary Jackson, at least on this one occasion, and I am trying to think of others and they do not come to mind, that it would have been better if we had more money for housing discrimination, given the role that racial discrimination and unfairness have played in this country. The gentleman from Texas, from his own career and his own life, has a very profound understanding of this; and when he came to this Congress, one of the first things he asked those of us who had been on the committee about was can we address this.

And we asked him to take the lead, and he has done that very ably. This is a very well-thought-out, really quite moderate amendment. Adding $7 million out of this $199 million pool, I think, makes a great deal of sense. The money will clearly be well used. Yes, there had been other surveys, but no one familiar with the state of race relations in America thinks we have reached a point where housing discrimination has disappeared. And $24 million in this Nation of 240 million people, what is that, a dime a person? I do not think a dime a person is too much for this country to spend, and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for confirming my arithmetic because I was a little unsure there, but I do not think a dime a person is too much for this country to spend in trying to further combat what has been one of our enduring obstacles towards reaching our constitutional goal.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for letting me correct myself.

Mr. Chairman, I misread this. Actually, the money comes out of the information system section of the IRS, not the business modernization. That is $1.6 billion, including hiring of passenger motor vehicles. So we are talking about car rentals for the IRS and other accounts. It is $1.6 billion.

Also I have been corrected by the gentleman from New York. The population is now closer to 290 million, so we are really talking about 8.5 cents a person. I would like to be precise. We are taking this out of the $1.6 billion information systems account.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman from California has been a very creative leader on this. I just want to agree with what he has had to say. This is very important for all of the older, urban industrial areas. I do not want take time with my own 5 minutes because the gentleman from California has made the case, as will the gentleman from Texas. I just want to express my strong support and appreciation for his leadership on this and on the BEDI issue.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by acknowledging that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) did a very good job of dealing with a difficult issue that was dumped in his lap in Section 8, and I acknowledge that. And I think he provided a great deal of comfort to tenants and administrators throughout the country by relieving them of the uncertainty that some proposed very drastic changes were there. And I thank the gentleman for that. And I understand also that he had a difficult situation. I would like to see even more.

The point I would just make is this: From a number of decisions that we have made, Section 8 has become the main housing program of the United States. I wish it were not. I think it is a mistake to have no production. And we have virtually no production. I think we have made the Section 8 program, by default, carry more load than it ought to.

Secretary Jackson talks about what an increasing percentage of the HUD budget Section 8 has become. That is partly because they have cut out everything else. And so what the Section 8 program is, is a survivor. And in an ideal world, we might allocate a little bit more to housing production, et cetera. But that is not where we are. We very much need this money. It is not nearly enough, but we are in a tight budget situation. Some of us wish we were not. Some of us voted not to be in it, but facts are facts.

As to renewals, the gentleman from Michigan may be right that there is enough for renewals. I hope he is. He may not be. But the point is that nothing in this amendment says it is only for renewals. The gentleman from New York pointed out that we have not had any new ones. Does anyone think that all of the people in America who need Section 8 housing now have it, and that we only have to work with renewals?

We had an amendment offered earlier by the gentleman from Minnesota, and I should acknowledge the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) voted for that affordable housing program that I talked about, and I should not have implied if anyone thought that he had not. But he talked about a $100 million more for the homeless, taking it out of Amtrak.

If you want to provide $100 million for the homeless, vote for this amendment because, you know what makes you homeless? Not having a home. That is what homelessness means. And one way to deal with the homeless is to get them homes. An additional $100 million in Section 8 is the best, most efficient way to provide homes for the homeless. So we acknowledge that there is an unmet housing need. And as I said again, and I mean this very sincerely. I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan with regard to CDBG and HUD and Section 8 and HUD. He brought some order of a situation that was fraught with confusion for people, and I appreciate his willingness to do this.

We are talking now about a somewhat marginal increase. We wish it could be bigger. But I would say the argument against this on the merits has to be that you think America is now providing housing for everybody who needs it.

I would say to other Members, across party lines, across geographic lines, in past years when there have been threats for shortfalls in Section 8, I know all of us on the Committee on Financial Services that deals with housing have gotten anguished complaints from other Members saying, How can we stop this?

Well, I tell you the best way to stop another wave of threatened shortfalls, people not having enough. Rents can go up. You cannot entirely predict what the needs are going to be. I tell you a very good way to prevent yourself from being again besieged by fears that there will be people turned away, et cetera. Put this money in here now. If it is not needed for renewal, I hope it is not, I cannot be sure it is not, if it is not needed for renewals, then I think we will find in this country $100 million worth of people who need housing. And that is of course what we do.

I would say again, if you were tempted by the homelessness amendment before, taking it out of Amtrak, let us put it here. As far as HUD's administration work is concerned, I think we can probably find some ways to deal with that. But I do not think that we ought to sacrifice HUD's primary goal of providing housing for people to deal with some of the bureaucratic issues. So I hope the amendment is adopted.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and I just want to express my support for what she is doing. As an authorizing member of the committee, I am very appreciative of what she has done on the appropriations subcommittee, along with my neighbor and ranking member. Well, not quite my neighbor, but my colleague.

And I just wanted to express my support and my hope that the very important issue she is raising now will be worked out satisfactorily.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Deputy Chief of Staff of the President of the United States, Karl Rove, a man who began as a political operator, and was rewarded for his political successes by being named to a very high position in the administration--indeed, he is clearly as influential in shaping the policies of the Bush Administration as anyone other than the President himself--made a speech which was harsh, as is his right, but which was thoroughly dishonest, which again is his right under the first amendment to the Constitution, but ought not to be a right which high officials of the Federal Government avail themselves of so freely.

Mr. Rove lied. The speech consists of a number of conscious, deliberate lies, particular ones and general ones. Here is what he said in his effort to further the deep polarization of this country from which he believes his side will benefit if he is able to shape the way in which it is perceived. ``The most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.''

Mr. Speaker, that is a lie. It is a lie consisting of a number of lies. I am a liberal, Mr. Speaker. And along with many, many other liberals in this Chamber, my response to the savage murders of Americans on 9/11 has no resemblance to the political dishonesty that Karl Rove put forward.

I voted for war in Afghanistan. No one who serves here votes for war easily. No one who has the responsibility of defending the country can be cavalier about sending the young men and women of our country off to battle, to kill and be killed. But the vote to go to war in Afghanistan, to authorize the President, in effect, to go to war, to take whatever measures were necessary, and we knew when we did that that we were talking about going after the regime in Afghanistan which was sheltering that murderer, Osama bin Laden, that vote was virtually unanimous. There was one ``no'' vote here. There were no ``no'' votes in the other body.

There are a lot of liberals here, Mr. Speaker. And virtually unanimously we voted to go to war in Afghanistan. Yet Mr. Rove would lie to the American people and characterize that decision to go to war in defense of the country as indictments and therapy and understanding.

Shortly after that, on the Judiciary Committee on which I then served, we spent a couple of weeks dealing with what should be done to increase the law enforcement powers of this country. And we voted out a bill by a unanimous vote of 36 to 0. There are a number of liberals on that committee: Myself, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the most determined defender of civil liberties I have ever served with, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the chairman on our side, the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentlemen from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of Members deeply committed to liberalism. And we voted unanimously for a bill that enhanced law enforcement powers. It was not therapy. It was not understanding. It was enhanced law enforcement powers. Now, it is true that many of us subsequently voted against a very different bill that came to the floor.

But the version we reported out of our committee was the one of which the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), boasted a while ago about his bipartisanship, because it provided significantly enhanced law enforcement powers.

Sadly the Republican leadership then decided to kill that bill, and with no debate, no chance to read it, substitute a very different bill that many of us opposed on procedural as well as substantive grounds.

But the fact is that the liberals on the Judiciary Committee unanimously supported increased law enforcement powers. So the notion that we were offering only therapy, that lie, is of

course refuted by the fact that we voted go to war. We voted for enhanced law enforcement powers.

But then comes the biggest lie of all. What Mr. Rove appears to be trying to do is to perpetuate one of the most damaging acts of dishonesty we have seen from a President of the United States, the argument that part of the reason for invading Iraq was to defend ourselves against 9/11. That is, of course, what is implicit in Mr. Rove's speech. He would put together the attack of 9/11, and what we did in Iraq.

But, the fact is now very clear, the Iraqi regime, despicable as it was, was not involved in the murders of 9/11. The war in Iraq was not based on an effort to deal with 9/11. That was the war in Afghanistan, which we supported.

So what you have from Mr. Rove, I would say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is a couple of specific lies in pursuit of a very big one, a big one that tries to get America to forget how dishonestly this administration argued for the war in Iraq.

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

I am very pleased to join in support of this resolution. Indeed, I was a prime cosponsor. The main sponsor is our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), who comes to Congress with a distinguished record himself in building homes.

This is a very important resolution, particularly at this time, because we have, I think, an excessive degree of concern right now about homeownership and its role in the economy.

Obviously, speculation is never a good thing. But those who argue that housing prices are now at the point of a bubble seem to be missing a very important point. Unlike previous examples, where substantial excessive inflation of prices later caused some problems, we are talking here about an entity, homeownership, homes, where there is not the degree of leverage that we have seen elsewhere.

This is not the dot-com situation. We had problems with people having invested in business plans for which there was no reality and people building fiber-optic cable for which there was no need. Homes that are occupied may see an ebb and flow in the price at a certain percentage level, but you will not see the collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble.

So those of us on our committee in particular will continue to push for homeownership. And I very much agree with the gentleman from Ohio who has chaired the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the Committee on Financial Services about the importance of this and about the various ways in which we do that.

Obviously, the market will take care of a large number of people, but it will not take care of everybody. And if we are going to expand homeownership, there will have to be a sensible set of public policies, such as reducing the downpayment in the FHA, such as protecting people from lending practices that may at first seem to benefit them but then victimize them. And I hope our committee will pass legislation that will protect people against that.

We also have pending now, and it came out of our committee, legislation dealing with those government-sponsored enterprises whose function is to promote homeownership and homes in general, the Federal Home Loan Banks, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And I hope that legislation along the lines that came out of our committee, which enhances the regulatory regime but does not intrude unduly on their ability to function, will be maintained.

I also want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio for having noted a very important point

that sometimes gets overlooked. Homeownership is an important part of our policy, but it is not the entire housing policy of the Federal Government; nor is it the entire housing need of the Nation. Some people will never own. There will be people who choose not to own; there will be people who for their economic circumstances will not be able to own. And there is no conflict between promoting homeownership and recognizing that decent, affordable rental housing will also be very important indefinitely for tens and tens of millions of Americans.

I welcome the initiative that the gentleman from Ohio talked about with regard to improving our public policies so that we are able to expand the stock of affordable rental housing and do it in a way that protects both the renters themselves and the taxpayers.

I just want to add, as I bring these remarks to a close, Mr. Speaker, and I enjoyed working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), that I want to pay tribute to a couple of organizations that have done a good deal to help us with this. I found the National Association of Home Builders has been a very constructive participant in our efforts to promote homeownership. The National Association of Realtors has also played a very useful role in helping us shape public policies that expand homeownership.

There are also a variety of advocacy groups that work with us so that we can make homeownership available to people who might not on their own in a market situation be able to afford it, while those groups, of course, at the same time, work with us on the need for affordable housing.

So as an example of what we are trying to do for an overall comprehensive housing policy, I very much support this. And let us be clear: if a family is inadequately housed, if they either have housing that is not adequate or are paying far too much of their income to get adequate housing, then a degree of social disorganization can result which causes problems elsewhere.

So maintaining a comprehensive set of policies that expand housing opportunities for people at various levels of the income scale is a very important part of our responsibility, and I welcome the chance to support this resolution as an example of one important piece of that.

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

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

I was a high school senior when the extraordinarily brave African American students entered Little Rock High School, and I very vividly remember the combination of emotions I felt: shame, that the Nation of which I was so proud was allowing the mistreatment of these people who simply sought to get an education equal to

that of their fellow students; admiration, beyond admiration for their courage; frustration at a Federal Government which was hesitant at first in its response; and anger at those who would betray the spirit of America by racially motivated assaults on these brave young people.

This ended happily, but not nearly soon enough. It was an extraordinarily important event in this country, and it reminds us that you cannot correct evil. And we are talking here, in my judgment, about a great social evil that plagued our country. You cannot confront it halfway. You cannot confront it with the hope that if you just close your eyes and wish, things will get better. You have to deal directly with it.

We are a better Nation by far for the events of these past years. And those at Little Rock, these young people, and the adults who guided them and protected them in the Little Rock community, deserve the continuing deep gratitude of this country for what they did.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) who represents Little Rock and has been the main advocate for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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

First, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for those remarks. He noted he was a freshman at college during this time. As a senior in high school, I certainly want to pay deference to my elders and thank the gentleman for his remarks.

I also note for reasons that be of no interest to anybody outside this Chamber, a set of decisions, procedures, and rules that we adopted earlier made it harder to bring this resolution to the

floor than Members might have thought. Had we simply been considering the merits of this resolution, the commemoration for one of the great blows for freedom and against bigotry in America, it would have been easy; but there were a lot of complicating factors. Members should know it was the diligence, the persistence, occasionally annoying, of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Synder) that got this bill to the floor. I am happy that we are passing this today commemorating this great event, and I am also happy that it is not a subject I will have to discuss with the gentleman from Arkansas for the next few months, it having occupied a great deal of my time previously. He deserves a great deal of credit for his diligence.

I would just add, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and I remember as contemporaries, I want to say a word about social change. The people who integrated Central High School and the people who supported them, the leaders of the NAACP and the black community in Little Rock and in Arkansas, those who pressed a somewhat hesitant administration in Washington, DC to fully support them, they were not the moderates and centrists of their day. Some thought they were pushing too hard for their rights. Some thought they were being too obtrusive. We are very grateful that they were. I hope people will study this event, and the history that will come in part from this bill, that will be financed in part from this bill, and we hope from additional appropriations, will be something people will pay attention to so they will understand both the depths of the problem that America confronted and the kind of moral and mental and physical courage that it took to dismantle it.

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

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

The gentleman from Kentucky has quite correctly described both the need for this bill and what it does, and I am very pleased that this is one in a number of genuinely nonpartisan efforts that the Committee on Financial Services has brought forward.

I think there is a consensus in our committee. We have some issues about which we disagree, and we will continue to do so in a good spirit. But we also have a consensus that it is possible to work to make sure that the financial sector, the financial intermediaries in this country, are able to perform their function, which is so important in our capitalist society, but still protect consumers from abusive practices, that is, legitimate protection of consumers need not be seen, should not be seen, as inconsistent with support for the function that the financial intermediaries should perform in our system.

This legislation is a very good example of that. It was introduced previously, as the gentleman from Kentucky mentioned, in a previous Congress. One version of it was also introduced, very similar, by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), who is on our committee. Our committee acted; the House acted. We are hopeful that the Senate will this time, because we are passing it early enough in this 2-year session to get its attention to go along with us.

And I would also note, as the gentleman from Kentucky graciously mentioned, that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) addressed as well at the session when we brought this up, the problem of payday lending, abusive payday lending for members of the military. As we know, members of the military, particularly now that we have mobilized the Guard, we have young, not always young, men and women in the military who may find themselves in economic distress

through no fault of their own because of an unforeseen call-up. They are fully entitled to our protection against those people who would prey on them.

So what we have done in this bill is to protect them from inappropriate sales, given the stressful situation in which they find themselves, the pressures they are under; and we have added, thanks to the initiative of the gentleman from Illinois, protection against abusive payday lending. And I appreciate the majority, the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the committee, in working with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) so that we were able to bring forward a comprehensive bill that we believe will protect members of our military from any kind of financial impositions on them of an inappropriate sort.

So I am delighted to join in what I hope will be an overwhelming, if not unanimous, vote for this bill; and I hope the Senate will act promptly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the committee who have brought this bill forward.

This is a bill that has particular meaning to me. The City of Taunton has been in the district I have been privileged to represent for just a couple of years. Prior to that, it was represented by one of our late colleagues; and when you talk about history, which this bill does, building as it does on the history of the City of Taunton, you could not talk about the history of this institution without some reference to the man who represented Taunton before me and that is our late colleague, Joe Moakley.

Joe Moakley represented Taunton for years. He was the one under whose representation the discussion of a national park began. I was privileged to take this over actually from his immediate successor, my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch). It is on behalf of both of us that we present this, and we do want to invoke the memory of Joe Moakley when we go forward with this bill.

The City of Taunton, Massachusetts, is a wonderful place. I am lucky enough to have one of my congressional district offices right in the heart of this area. I have checked and I do not believe I will derive any particular benefit from it, so I do not have to vote ``present'' on the bill. What I do have is a chance right now to really be a part of this great history.

The Sons of Liberty Flag was first raised here. The Sons of Liberty raised

the flag Liberty Union in 1774. There were buildings that played an important role in the Revolution. They were there in Taunton. Taunton Green is a major place in our history. We would include here the Church Green Historic District. It has the Church Green National Register district.

One of the original settlers, and I think this is particularly relevant to talk about, the modern impact of this, Elizabeth Pole was the first woman we believe to found a community in America, and on the seal of the city of Taunton the phrase ``Dux Femina Facti'' is included. That translates, I am reliably informed by better Latin scholars than myself, into ``the person responsible for this was a woman.''

It was in early recognition of what we are still dealing with, namely, that we make a great mistake when we refuse to give individuals the full opportunity to engage their talents, no matter what their gender or whatever other characteristics that they have.

I realize that this does not mean that we get a park immediately. It begins the process of study. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that an objective study of the sort we get from the excellent staff that we have at the National Park Service will document the importance to the history of this country of this area of Taunton and the importance of making it a part of our National Park System. I thank the two gentlemen from New Mexico for their energy and work in this.

Mr. Speaker, the following is a list of some of the salient points of the City of Taunton.

The city of Taunton has a history of equality, patriotism,

commerce and innovation that make the areas ideal candidates

for inclusion within the National Park System. The area to be

included within the study includes the Church Green Historic

District, which includes the Church Green National Register

District, Main Street, and the Taunton Green National

Register District.

Among the original settlers of Taunton, Elizabeth Pole is

credited as being the first female to found a community in

America. Her legacy is preserved at the Old Colony Historical

Society Museum on Church Green. The role that Elizabeth Pole,

a woman, played in founding Taunton is an important aspect of

our colonial history that should be emphasized as part of the

study. The National Park System has devoted many resources to

the role of women in our nation and history. However, no

other site presently in the National Park System matches the

unique circumstances surrounding Ms. Pole and her role as a

pioneering colonial female. The phrase ``Dux femina facti''

which translates into ``the person responsible for the deed

or accomplishment was a woman'' adorns the Seal of the City

of Taunton.

A statue of Robert Treat Paine symbolically faces away from

the Church Green National Registered District down Main

Street towards the Taunton Green National Registered

District. With the transformation from English colony towards

independent nation, the center of the city moved towards the

Taunton Green. Robert Treat Paine, a Taunton resident, was as

a signer of the Declaration of Independence. He along with

John Adams served as members of the First Continental

Congress in 1774. Paine and Adams' careers were linked again

as Paine served as an Associate Prosecutor at the trial of

the Boston Massacre. Paine went on to become the first

Attorney General of Massachusetts and was a member of the

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. While serving in the

Continental Congress in October of 1774, Paine was not a

party to the historic event that occurred near his home when

the Sons of Liberty raised the ``Liberty & Union'' or

``Taunton Flag'' on October 21, 1774 over Taunton Green on a

112-foot Liberty Pole. The Liberty and Union flag that still

flies over the Taunton Green is recognized as the first flag

of open defiance to the crown.

In addition to Robert Treat Paine, Taunton's General David

Cobb left his mark on the Revolutionary War. General Cobb

served as aide-de-camp to General Washington and was

entrusted with the duty of negotiating the evacuation of New

York. After the war, General Cobb served as Judge of the

Court of Common Pleas for Bristol County and was instrumental

in preventing bloodshed in Bristol County during Shay's

Rebellion.

As such, the history of the revolutionary war as symbolized

by Robert Treat Paine, General Cobb, the Sons of Liberty and

the Taunton Green are an important component of the study.

The distance down Main Street from Church Green to Taunton

Green past the homes of Paine and Cobb and Elizabeth Pole to

the Liberty & Union Flag are symbolic of our transformation

from colony to independent nation.

The anchor for the U.S.S. Constitution was forged in

Taunton, as was the anchor for the Civil War's Monitor. The

Taunton River served as a catalyst for industry and trade. At

one point, Taunton was one of the busiest inland ports on the

Atlantic coast.

The prime industry throughout Taunton history has been

silver. To this day Taunton is known by many as the ``Silver

City.'' As with Taunton's political, cultural and religious

legacy, the silver industry was born on Main Street, between

Church Green and Taunton Green. In 1824, Isaac Babbitt

invented and manufactured a new alloy that resulted in pewter

ware of a greater quality than ever before manufactured. Two

employees, Henry G. Reed and Charles E. Barton went on to

found Reed and Barton, one of the oldest privately held

companies in the nation and set a standard of excellence

known throughout the world. The standards established by Reed

& Barton are evident to this day; in 1994 Reed & Barton was

selected to produce all of the victory medals for the 1996

Atlanta Olympic Games.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I have been concerned about a program known as Youth Build, which I know many Members are familiar with, which is a very good program which gets young people in urban areas and elsewhere to learn how to build houses. And the results are some very nice houses for deserving people, and an improvement of a neighborhood, and most importantly, skills for these young people.

Now, we ran into a little difficulty. It is not one of the more expensive of our programs although it has been, at $60 million, not nothing. The President in his budget proposed I think $50 million for it, but proposed that instead of being funded out of the HUD budget it be transferred to the Labor Department's budget. That led to, I guess, it falling between the cracks of the two appropriate subcommittees; so that while I understand there is support for the program and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), a former chairman of the HUD subcommittee, tells me that he strongly supports it, and I understand there was a very close vote in the Appropriations Committee on an amendment to put it back into the bill, both bills now come to the floor without that appropriation for Youth Build. And I think this is a case of something not being rejected on the merits, or not being something we cannot afford, but something that has sort of fallen through the cracks because of this proposed change in where it goes.

So I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee, given the, I believe, support, it was in the President's budget, there was virtually a tie vote in the Appropriations Committee, could the gentleman tell me, is there some hope

that we can give to these young people that this important program will survive?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I wonder if the gentleman from Ohio could give us some guidance on what the chances are for the ultimate survival of this very important program which the President supports, and I believe is supported on the merits. Could we get it in the bill next week? Or what is the prospects of this Youth Build program not dying because of kind of a shuffle here.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, does that mean, and maybe we can discuss this again in the Transportation HUD bill, but that, since it is not a large sum of money, the President supports it, it has a lot of support here, that we can expect at some point in the process before we finish the appropriations, this program could be funded?

I thank the gentleman.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Kirk

Mr. Speaker, as I continue, I just want to apologize for the inevitable mispronunciation that may come in. I hope that no one will think that this in any way denigrates the respect and admiration that we have for these brave people and the deep sympathy we extend to their families.

1. Master Sergeant Evander E. Andrews

2. Specialist John J. Edmunds

3. Private First Class Kristofor T. Stonesifer

4. Machinist's Mate Fireman Apprentice Bryant L. Davis

5. Engineman First Class Vincent Parker

6. Electronics Technician Third Class Benjamin Johnson

7. CIA Johnny Michael Spann

8. Private Giovanny Maria

9. Electrician's Mate Fireman Apprentice Michael Jakes, Jr.

10. Staff Sergeant Brian C. Prosser

11. Master Sergeant Jefferson D. Davis

12. Sergeant First Class Daniel H. Petithory

13. Sergeant First Class Nathan R. Chapman

14. Captain Matthew W. Bancroft

15. Lance Corporal Bryan P. Bertrand

16. Gunnery Sergeant Stephen L. Bryson

17. Captain Daniel G. McCollum

18. Staff Sergeant Scott N. Germosen

19. Sergeant Jeannette L. Winters

20. Sergeant Nathan P. Hays

21. Staff Sergeant Dwight J. Morgan

22. Staff Sergeant Walter F. Cohee III

23. Specialist Jason A. Disney

24. Major Curtis D. Feistner

25. Captain Bartt D. Owens

26. Chief Warrant Officer Jody L. Egnor

27. Staff Sergeant James P. Dorrity

28. Staff Sergeant Kerry W. Frith

29. Specialist Thomas F. Allison

30. Master Sergeant William L. McDaniel II

31. Staff Sergeant Juan M. Ridout

32. Specialist Curtis A. Carter

33. Chief Warrant Officer Stanley L. Harriman

34. Senior Airman Jason D. Cunningham

35. Technical Sergeant John A. Chapman

36. Sergeant Peter P. Crose

37. Specialist Marc A. Anderson

38. Private First Class Matthew A. Commons

39. Aviation Boatswain's Mate-Handling First Class Neil C. Roberts

40. Sergeant Philip J. Svitak

41. Chief Petty Officer Matthew J. Bourgeois

42. Staff Sergeant Brian T. Craig

43. Sergeant First Class Daniel A. Romero

44. Sergeant Jamie O. Maugans

45. Staff Sergeant Justin J. Galewski

46. Sergeant Gene A. Vance Jr.

47. Staff Sergeant Anissa A. Shero

48. Technical Sergeant Sean M. Corlew

49. Sergeant First Class Peter P. Tycz II

50. Sergeant First Class Christopher J. Speer

51. Sergeant Ryan D. Foraker

52. Lance Corporal Antonio J. Sledd

53. Private James H. Ebbers

54. Specialist Pedro Pena

55. Sergeant Steven Checo

56. Chief Warrant Officer Thomas J. Gibbons

57. Staff Sergeant Daniel Leon Kisling Jr.

58. Sergeant Gregory Michael Frampton

59. Chief Warrant Officer Mark O'Steen

60. Sergeant Michael C. Barry

61. Operations Officer Helge Boes

62. Specialist Brian Michael Clemens

63. Specialist Rodrigo Gonzalez-Garza

64. Sergeant William John Tracy Jr.

65. Chief Warrant Officer Timothy Wayne Moehling

66. Chief Warrant Officer John D. Smith

67. Private First Class Spence A. McNeil

68. Private First Class James R. Dillon Jr.

69. Navy Petty Officer Third Class Jason Profitt

70. Staff Sergeant John ``Mike'' Teal

71. Lieutenant Colonel John Stein

72. Senior Airman Jason Thomas Plite

73. First Lieutenant Tamara Long Archuleta

74. Staff Sergeant Jason Carlyle Hicks

75. Master Sergeant Michael Maltz

76. Sergeant Orlando Morales

77. Staff Sergeant Jacob L. Frazier

78. Private Jerod R. Dennis

79. Airman First Class Raymond Losano

80. Sergeant First Class John E. Taylor

81. Captain Seth R. Michaud

82. First Class Petty Officer Thomas E. Retzer

83. Specialist Kelvin Feliciano Gutierrez

84. Sergeant Christopher Geiger

85. Petty Officer First Class David Tapper