Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize an outstanding family physician, Dr. Katrina Poe.

Dr. Katrina Poe, 35, is being recognized by Staff Care Incorporated, an insurance company that provides short-term coverage to physicians as ``Country Doctor of the Year.'' This national honor is awarded to a ``doctor who has dedicated his or her life career to serving rural communities. Dr. Poe, a family physician at the Greenwood Leflore Hospital's Kilmichael Clinic, also serves as chief of staff at the Kilmichael hospital.

Since fifth grade, Dr. Poe, a native of Kilmichael, Mississippi wanted to become a physician. She graduated from Kilmichael High School in 1988 and went on to earn a bachelor's degree in biology from Mississippi State University in 1992. Dr. Poe attended medical school at the University Medical Center in Jackson, MS. Only two months after completing her residency training at UMC in June 2001, she began officially serving the people of Kilmichael where she spent several summers assisting Dr. L.C. Henison.

Dr. Poe, who was nominated by Nurse Linda Turner of the Kilmichael Clinic collected and submitted testimonials from patients to the Staff Care nominating committee citing the physician's devotion to the town and its residents. She has an average patient caseload per week of 250, a successful practice of 5,000 patients and works an average of 80 hours per week. The nationally renowned ``Country Doctor of the Year'' award includes a signature plaque that features an illustration of a physician making his rounds by horse and buggy. In addition, Dr. Poe will be provided with a ``fill-in'' physician for one week at no charge.

Dr. Poe has received numerous awards and recognition which include being named Business and Professional Woman of the Year, Winona Times; Family Medicine Assistant Chief Resident, University of Mississippi Medical Center; CIBA-Geigy Community Service Award, University of Mississippi School of Medicine and; Cultural Diversity Academic Achievement Award.

Dr. Poe, a shining example of Kilmichael County's finest, has garnered the personal and professional respect of her community, patients and colleagues and is worthy of this auspicious award. I commend Dr. Poe, the ``Country Doctor of the Year'' and wish her continued success.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for the time.

Madam Speaker, I am opposed to the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. First, I do not believe many of the so-called law enforcement tools will make us any safer.

I am probably one of a few Members of Congress who has been spied on by his own government. During the civil rights movement, an agency in the Mississippi State Government called the State Sovereignty Commission kept files on me and countless other people working for change.

I might add that none of us did anything illegal other than just convene and talk about how we would change our State.

From this experience, I have known that, when government has the authority to spy on its own people, it is almost always and will misuse that power.

Nothing good will come from many of the tools in the PATRIOT Act, and I fear that it will lead to more misuse of power.

It is too broad an authorization to continue to give the government these powers, such as to search the library records or to place roving wiretaps without a warrant that at least should say what phone is being tapped.

I am also opposed to the conference report because it fails to include the provision in the House bill that would allocate more Homeland Security funds based on risk.

The 9/11 Commission explicitly recommended that Homeland Security funds be allocated based on risk. The 9/11 Commission members recently said that if the House funding measures were passed, Congress would have received an A grade instead of an F on fulfilling its recommendation.

We must focus our scarce Homeland Security resources on areas that are most at risk of terrorist attack. We cannot yield to politics. We must fulfill the Commission's recommendation by passing the House proposal. Without that measure in this PATRIOT Act reauthorization, I cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the life and legacy of Rosa Lee Parks, whose refusal to give up her bus seat to a white man sparked the modern civil rights movement. She was 92 at the time of her death.

In tribute to Mrs. Parks, I would like to submit the following excerpt from the Washington Post Article, ``Bus Ride Shook a Nation's Conscience,'' written by Patricia Sullivan on Tuesday, October 25, 2005.

``Rosa was a true giant of the civil rights movement,'' said U.S. Representative John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), in whose office Parks worked for more than 20 years. ``There are very few people who can say their actions and conduct changed the face of the nation, and Rosa Parks is one of those individuals.''

Parks said that she didn't fully realize what she was starting when she decided not to move on that December 1, 1955, evening in Montgomery, AL. It was a simple refusal, but her arrest and the resulting protests began the complex cultural struggle to legally guarantee equal rights to Americans of all races.

Within days, her arrest sparked a 380-day bus boycott, which led to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that desegregated her city's public transportation. Her arrest also triggered mass demonstrations, made the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. famous, and transformed schools, workplaces and housing.

Hers was ``an individual expression of a timeless longing for human dignity and freedom,'' King said in his book ``Stride Toward Freedom.''

``She was planted there by her personal sense of dignity and self- respect. She was anchored to that seat by the accumulated indignities of days gone and the boundless aspirations of generations yet unborn.''

She was the perfect test-case plaintiff, a fact that activists realized only after she had been arrested. Hardworking, polite and morally upright, Parks had long seethed over the everyday indignities of segregation, from the menial rules of bus seating and store entrances to the mortal societal endorsement of lynching and imprisonment.

She was an activist already, secretary of the local chapter of the NAACP. A member of the African Methodist Episcopal Church all her life, Parks admired the self-help philosophy of Booker T. Washington--to a point. But even as a child, she thought accommodating segregation was the wrong philosophy. She knew that in the previous year, two other women had been arrested for the same offense, but neither was deemed right to handle the role that was sure to become one of the most controversial of the century.

But it was as if Parks was born to the role. Rosa McCauley was born February. 4, 1913, in Tuskegee, AL, the home of Booker T. Washington's renowned Tuskegee Institute, which drew many African American intelligentsia. She was the daughter of a carpenter and a teacher, was small for her age, had poor health and suffered chronic tonsillitis. Still a child when her parents separated, she moved with her mother to Pine Level, AL., and grew up in an extended family that included her maternal grandparents.

Her mother taught Parks at home until she was 11, when she was enrolled in the Industrial School for Girls in Montgomery, where her aunt lived. Segregation was enforced, often violently. As an adult, she recalled watching her grandfather guard the front door with a shotgun as the Ku Klux Klan paraded down their road. Her younger brother, Sylvester, a decorated war hero in World War II, returned to a South that regarded uniformed veterans of color as ``uppity'' and demonstrated its disdain with beatings.

She married barber Raymond Parks in 1932 at her mother's house. They shared a passion for civil rights; her husband was an early defender of the Scottsboro Boys, a group of young African Americans whom rights advocates asserted were falsely accused of raping two white women.

Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in commending Mrs. Rosa Lee Parks for her outstanding and historical contributions to the State of Alabama, the State of Michigan, the Civil Rights Movement, and national politics.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the life and legacy of Mrs. C. Delores Tucker, who once was the highest-ranking African American woman in Pennsylvania state government.

In tribute to Mrs. Tucker, I would like to submit the following excerpt from the Washington Post Article, ``C. Delores Tucker Dies at 78; Rights and Anti-Rap Activist'', written by Yvonne Shinhoster Lamb on Thursday, October 13, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the life and legacy

of Mrs. Constance Baker Motley, Esq., a former civil rights lawyer who fought nearly every important civil rights case for 2 decades and then became the first black woman to serve as a New York State Senator and the first black woman to serve as a federal judge.

In tribute to Mrs. Motley, I would like to submit the following excerpt from the Washington Post Article, ``Constance Motley Dies; Rights Lawyer, Judge'', written by Joe Holley on Thursday, September 29, 2005.

Judge Constance Baker Motley, 84, the first African American woman appointed to the federal judiciary and the only woman on the NAACP legal team that won the epochal school desegregation decision Brown v. Board of Education, died Sept. 21 of congestive heart failure at New York University Downtown Hospital. At the time of her death, she was senior judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Long before she ascended to the federal bench, she was a key figure in many of the major legal battles of the civil rights era. She represented Martin Luther King Jr., Ralph Abernathy and other civil rights leaders when they were locked up in Southern jail cells. She stayed in Medgar Evers's home not long before an assassin killed him in his front yard, and she was on the podium at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963 when King delivered his ``I Have a Dream'' speech.

As a young lawyer with the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, she helped Thurgood Marshall, then chief counsel of the fund, write the legal brief for the Brown case and then listened as he delivered his argument before the Supreme Court.

She and her colleagues did not anticipate the unanimous decision, she recalled. ``We thought we might come out with five to four, but when it was unanimous, we were flabbergasted,'' she said in a 2003 interview with an American Bar Association magazine. ``In fact, we thought we might even lose. . . . [Chief Justice] Earl Warren did that. He understood, having been a politician, that you had to have unanimity, because if you had a divided court, the Southerners would still be at it. . . . What we did not anticipate was the massive resistance to Brown in the South.''

After the 1954 ruling, she threw herself into what she called ``the second civil war.'' Writing hundreds of court papers and legal briefs to enforce Brown, she argued 10 school desegregation cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, winning nine of them.

In 1956, she represented Autherine Lucy, the daughter of a black tenant farmer who had applied to graduate school at the University of Alabama.

In 1961, she represented Charlayne Hunter (now Hunter-Gault) and Hamilton Holmes in their effort to enter the University of Georgia.

In 1962, she represented James H. Meredith in his arduous but ultimately successful battle to gain admission to the University of Mississippi. Marshall gave her the case, she said, because she was a woman. ``Thurgood's theory was, in the South, they don't bother black women because they all have mammies,'' she once said.

Meredith was admitted after 16 months of legal wrangling, numerous court hearings and tortuous legal resistance on the part of Mississippi officials, including Gov. Ross Barnett, who eventually was held in contempt of court.

``She was indomitable,'' said Jack Greenberg, who succeeded Marshall as director-counsel of the NAACP Legal and Education Fund and is now a professor at Columbia University School of Law. ``She would take on a project like opening up the University of Mississippi and just keep coming back again and again and again. She was like Grant at Vicksburg. She just dug in there and stayed there until they rolled over.''

In 1963, she represented more than 1,000 black children in Birmingham who had been suspended from school for participating in civil rights demonstrations. The same year, she led the NAACP's successful effort to prevent Gov. George C. Wallace from blocking school desegregation in four Alabama counties.

Both in the courtroom and on the bench, she impressed those who knew her with what Greenberg called her presence. ``That Motley woman,'' as her Southern antagonists often referred to her, was tall and always elegantly dressed. Always well prepared, deeply versed in the intricacies of the law, she was soft-spoken and reserved, Greenberg recalled, but formidable.

Her successor, Chief Judge Michael B. Mukasey, recalled appearing in her courtroom as an assistant U.S. attorney in the 1970s. ``She was very calm,'' he said. ``She was the kind of person who could control a courtroom because everyone knew who she was.''

Constance Baker was born in New Haven, Conn., on Sept. 14, 1921, the ninth of 12 children born to parents who had migrated earlier in the century from the island of Nevis in the West Indies. Her father was a cook for Skull & Bones, one of Yale University's elite social clubs.

Attending New Haven's integrated public schools, she became a voracious reader at an early age. She learned about W.E.B. Du Bois and other black heroes from lectures she heard at the Episcopal church. Reading a book about Abraham Lincoln that she had checked out of the New Haven Public Library, she decided at age 15 that she wanted to be a lawyer. She was impressed by Lincoln's observation that the legal profession was the most difficult.

Her mother wanted her to be a hairdresser. ``She had no conception of a woman wanting to be a lawyer,'' Judge Motley told the ABA magazine.

After graduating with honors from New Haven High School, she worked briefly as a maid before accepting a job with the New Haven branch of the National Youth Administration. She happened to give a speech one night at the Dixwell Community House, an African American social organization, urging that black members be given greater control over the facility. In the audience was Clarence Blakeslee, a wealthy white contractor and philanthropist who had built the community house. The grandson of Abolitionists, he was impressed with her energy, poise and eloquence and offered to pay for her education.

She enrolled at Fisk University in Nashville. On the train headed south, she experienced for the first time the reality of segregation when she was directed to ride in the Jim Crow car. On her first trip home, she brought her parents a souvenir of Southern life, a sign that read ``Colored Only.''

She stayed at Fisk for a year and then transferred in 1942 to New York University, where she received a bachelor's degree in economics.

In 1944, she became one of the first black women accepted at Columbia University Law School. During her first year, she met Marshall, who offered her a job as law clerk at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund office in New York. She received her law degree in 1946 and became a full- fledged member of the staff. Her early work focused on housing discrimination.

After passing the New York bar examination in 1948, she became assistant counsel of the Legal Defense Fund. She got her first courtroom experience in 1949 as Marshall's assistant on a Jackson, Miss., equal-pay case that an African American teacher had brought against the Jackson public school system.

``Woman lawyers were a joke in most courthouses and unheard of in virtually every place except New York City,'' Judge Motley wrote in Ms. Magazine years later. ``The whole town turned out to see the Negro lawyers from New York, one of whom [was] a woman.''

For the next 15 years, she served as a key attorney on dozens of school desegregation cases in 11 Southern states and the District. It was the best job she ever had, she recalled in the ABA interview. ``Plus, we were like a family,'' she said. ``I tried a lot of cases before I came on the bench, which is probably more exciting. But, you see, I coincided with history as I see it now.''

After leaving the Legal Defense Fund in 1964, she became the first black woman elected to the New York State Senate. The next year, she was selected to fill the vacant post of Manhattan borough president and then was elected nine months later. Again, she was the first black woman to hold the office.

In January 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson named her to the District Court for the Southern District of New York, a region that includes Manhattan, the Bronx and six counties north of the city. The first African American woman to serve as a Federal judge, she became chief judge in 1982. She took senior status, handling a reduced caseload, in 1986.

Several of her rulings stand out, including the 1978 case that allowed female reporters to enter the locker rooms of professional sports teams. In 1987, she ruled that, without exceptional circumstances, suspects cannot be detained more than 24 hours without a court ruling that sufficient evidence exists to justify the arrest.

In addition to numerous articles and essays, she was the author of ``Equal Justice Under Law: The Life of a Pioneer for Black Civil Rights and Women's Rights'' (1988). She was inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame in 1993.

Survivors include her husband of 59 years, Joel Wilson Motley Jr. of New York; a son, Joel Wilson Motley III of Westchester County, N.Y.; three sisters; a brother; and three grandchildren.

I take great pride in commending Mrs. Constance Baker Motley for her work to curb racial segregation and to win social justice in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about ``National Cyber Security Awareness Month.''

In this age of telecommunications, never before has it been easier for people around the globe to communicate, do business, and learn from one another. With the Internet, we can pay our bills, converse electronically with each other in real time, and read millions of articles in almost every publication around the world.

But while the Internet presents us with great opportunities, it also imposes great challenges. As we become increasingly reliant on technology to assist us in our daily lives, we must also increase our vigilance in protecting that technology from those who wish to use it for malevolent purposes.

Individuals should follow some simple, basic steps to protect themselves and their personal information when they use the Internet. Using strong passwords, anti-virus software, and firewalls are all ways to self-secure one's online information. Furthermore, online consumers must be particularly careful about whom they are dealing with to ensure that their information does not wind up in the wrong hands.

While there are many things that individuals should do to protect themselves, our federal government must also remain vigilant in protecting our nation's electronic infrastructure. Across America, millions of people rely on computerized control systems to provide electricity, monitor oil pipelines, distribute water, and harness nuclear power. Though many of these systems are secure, terrorists and hackers presently seek to infiltrate vulnerable computers to wreak havoc and destroy our way of life. The results of a cyber attack against our nation's critical infrastructure could be incredibly damaging to our economy and may possibly result in significant losses of life.

Led by the Department of Homeland Security, the federal government is aware of the harms of a cyber attack and is working to prevent any damaging attacks. But although our nation has thus far avoided becoming the victim of a significant cyber attack, we cannot be complacent. I commend the hard work by DHS to strengthen and secure our cyberspace, but encourage the agency to dedicate more time and resources to this issue.

DHS as a whole has been slow in completing its critical infrastructure protection policies, an important goal in protecting America's cyberspace. In December 2003, President Bush issued Presidential Directive 7: Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection (HSPD-7) establishing a national policy for federal departments and agencies to prioritize critical infrastructure, including cyber-related infrastructure. DHS was charged with developing the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) to serve as the guide for protecting infrastructure. The NIPP was due in December 2004. In February 2005, an ``Interim NIPP'' was issued, setting a deadline of November 2005 for the ``Final NIPP.'' According to the General Accounting Office, the ``Interim NIPP'' was incomplete: it lacked both national-level milestones and sector-specific security plans. The ``Final NIPP'' remains incomplete to this day.

The GAO has also criticized DHS for failing to build better partnerships and information-sharing relationships between the public and private sectors to improve cyber security. Such partnerships are essential to effective coordination among all levels of government and between the public and private sectors. DHS has also failed to develop or deploy an effective analysis and warning system in the event of a cyber attack. This is an important step in preparing the country for cyber attack.

Securing our cyberspace is not an obligation we can afford to delay. I encourage DHS to act quickly in addressing these issues, just as I encourage all Americans to take pro-active measures in protecting themselves online. Let's all recommit ourselves to protecting our personal information and our national cyber infrastructure during this ``Month of Awareness'' and in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, later today the House will consider a measure that provides $30.8 billion in funding for the Department of Homeland Security. It also makes significant structural and policy changes to the Department. I am pleased that the conferees adopted many of the policy changes for which the Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee advocated during the Department's authorization process.

For example, I am pleased that the Department is directed to undertake a quadrennial review, examine and justify multiyear procurement projects and develop a long-term strategy to ensure optimal development of explosive detection systems. I have to say, it is a sad state of affairs, Mr. Speaker, when Congress has to tell the Department to do planning.

In the short history of the Department, it has earned a reputation for lacking focus and being crisis-driven. It took the London bombing to remind the Department that it is the lead Federal agency for protecting rail and transit. It took Hurricane Katrina to remind the Department that it is the lead Federal agency for all disasters, not just terrorism. We do not have the luxury of time to wait until the Department gets another wake-up call. In July, the Secretary of Homeland Security proposed a number of structural changes. Since that time, Katrina revealed dysfunction at the highest levels of the Department.

I cannot understand why the conference report adopts many of the Secretary's proposed changes wholesale as if Katrina never happened. The establishment of a preparedness directorate would not make us any more prepared if FEMA is not fixed. The Department's changes are outdated. If we grant them to Mr. Chertoff, we will find ourselves revisiting this issue again after the next catastrophe. We need to fix the Department properly, not with duct tape and wires, what this conference report does by giving Secretary Chertoff carte blanche on the agency's structure.

In response to this error, 13 members of the Homeland Security Committee have introduced the Department of Homeland Security Reform Act of 2005. This bill recognizes Katrina happened, and among other things, creates a statutory requirement that the head of FEMA have disaster and emergency preparedness experience. Current law requires the head of the National Park Service to have substantial experience in land management. The least we can do is require the director of FEMA to have prior experience in disasters. We do not need any more Brownies.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time and for allowing me the opportunity to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support for the conference report on H.R. 2360. It has some good provisions. For example, I am pleased that the conference report funds transit and rail security grants at $150 million. However, I am concerned that less than 1 percent of the TSA's budget is dedicated to addressing the vulnerabilities in surface transportation. At this rate, maybe we should stop calling it the Transportation Security Administration and call it an ``aviation security administration.''

I am also troubled that the conference report gives blanket airport liability protection to airports that opt out of the Federal screeners program. One of the first things that Congress did after the 9/11 attacks to signal to the American people that it was safe to fly again was to federalize security.

I am pleased that the conferees adopted many of the changes which the Democrats on the Committee on Homeland Security advocated during the Department's authorization process. I commend the conferees for creating the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Intelligence Officer. We have been calling for such changes to give the Department focus on bio-preparedness and intelligence.

We have also been advocating a quadrennial Department of Homeland Security review and long-term policy planning at the highest levels of the Department. I am pleased that this legislation would also require the Department to do so.

At the same time, I am concerned that the conferees adopted many of the organizational changes that Secretary Chertoff proposed in July, as if Hurricane Katrina never happened. The establishment of a preparedness directorate will not make us any more prepared if we do not have competent people in place.

In response, Mr. Speaker, 13 members of the Committee on Homeland Security introduced legislation today to create a coherent organizational picture for the Department. The Department of Homeland Security Reform Act of 2005 would authorize many of the new offices the administration plans to create and this conference report funds. The logical step for Congress is to consider this bill as it provides direction for some of the new positions the administration planned to create on its own.

Much more needs to be done to make DHS the Federal agency that America deserves. I strongly urge my colleagues in the House to support the Homeland Security Reform Act, legislation that builds upon the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Resolution 437. This resolution puts a partisan congressional committee in charge of the investigation.

The rule that has been offered does not allow for meaningful debate. It also does not allow for an amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) that would create an independent commission to investigate this catastrophe. I am also an original cosponsor of that amendment. Letting Congress investigate the government failures of Hurricane Katrina is like letting the fox guard the hen house. We are not protecting what we need to protect, and there will be a lot more questions than answers in the end.

More than ever, the last 2 weeks have shown that we need an independent assessment of what happened. Where did the Federal Government go wrong? What could the State and locals have done better? What happened to citizens' preparedness?

In my role as ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I have looked for answers and have tried to put together a timeline of events. I am submitting with my statement today for the Record a timeline that the staff of the committee has put together for me showing what happened compiled from public sources. This document shows the complexity of the issues and the need for an independent assessment of what happened.

I do not understand the opposition from the other side of the aisle against creating an independent commission that the American people have asked for. It was done, with opposition from Republicans, after 9/ 11; it was done after Pearl Harbor; and after the Khobar Towers terrorist attacks. We have always had it. Indeed, the type of commission proposed by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and others has historically been used after large events that affect the country. Why not here? What does Congress want to protect? What is Congress trying to hide?

After 9/11, Congress did the right thing. On September 20, they sent the largest contingent ever to travel to New York City to view the devastation of the World Trade Center and console the families of the victims. It has been nearly 3 weeks since Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf Coast, and there have been no official congressional delegations to the region.

Mr. Speaker, what do we have to hide? Indeed, I have twice requested the Committee on Homeland Security to travel to the area and was refused. I was told that it did not make good sense for Congress to go down and conduct oversight and fact-finding missions at the time. Yet we went to New

York, but now we cannot go to my area of the country.

Now we want Congress to take charge of this investigation. For the good of the Nation, let us put aside partisan politics and not create a strawman committee. I encourage a vote against the rule so we can consider the independent commission option, give it a vote and let the American people know we are listening to their requests.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE05.039

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Twenty minutes per side is not enough to argue a catastrophe of this size. The rule does not allow any amendments from our side. A number of Democratic districts have been affected, those of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), as well as myself. We do not have an opportunity for input into what relief opportunities we can give in our districts.

This is not right. If this is a democracy, we ought to have an opportunity to participate in providing for the relief of our particular districts.

The Republican side has taken a position that Democratic input is not needed. This is not the way to go. This is a democracy. We need a rule that allows for the maximum input from both sides.

I am sorry to say that even in this time of devastation, our Republican colleagues have decided that America should not pull together and work for the common good. Unfortunately, the people of Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana are the ones who will suffer because of this lack of total input from Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I am joined this evening by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), my colleague from New Orleans, on a Special Order held by the Congressional Black Caucus to discuss the events of the last few days relative to Hurricane Katrina.

As you know, we have had serious troubles in our part of the country. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) and myself, who are members of the Congressional Black Caucus, have had our districts pretty much decimated because of Hurricane Katrina, and we have some serious concerns about our government and its response. On behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, we want to share those concerns tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield at this point to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), another Member of this body that was also affected by Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender- McDonald).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of this special order.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, this is a Congressional Black Caucus hour. We wanted to talk about Hurricane Katrina and its impact on our Member districts. What I would like to do is offer the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Orleans, Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

Mr. Speaker, ``National Preparedness Month,'' an initiative of the Department of Homeland Security and the American Red Cross to ``encourage Americans to take simple steps to prepare for emergencies in their homes, businesses and schools'' began on September 1st. As the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, I serve as the Honorary Congressional Co-Chair.

I was filled with sadness and disbelief when a press release from the Department came across my desk on Thursday announcing the initiative, saying that it would help Americans take simple steps such as ``get a kit, make a plan, be informed, and get involved.'' The release seemed hollow and inappropriate in light of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and my home State of Mississippi.

My message to the Department and others in government is simple: we will need more than a few emergency kits and press releases to ensure that our Nation is adequately prepared to respond to a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

Hurricane Katrina was an unprecedented natural disaster, but to government officials tasked with protecting our Nation's communities, it should not have been a surprise.

Risk assessments have long told us that the Gulf Coast was in danger. The New Orleans Times-Picayune did a series of articles as early as 2002 about the risks to New Orleans from a hurricane. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has created reports and conducted exercises on Gulf Coast preparedness and response issues. Yet, it pains me that here we are a week after the hurricane struck with potentially thousands of deaths, communities razed, a city underwater and under siege, and gasoline shortages and price gouging across the Nation.

From what I am seeing here in Mississippi, our government failed in both its preparedness and its response to this disaster. I also believe that if terrorists, rather than a hurricane, had attacked the Gulf Coast--the result would have been no different.

It appears our preparedness plans did not anticipate that thousands of people would be stranded in a stadium or convention center. Or that citizens would be roaming the streets begging for food and water and seeking shelter wherever they can find dry spots--as they're doing in Mississippi.

Instead of a well-prepared plan, victims have had to rely on ad hoc charity from cities with big hearts such as Houston that are opening up venues to house now-homeless evacuees.

I have even heard that people are being put on two-day bus rides to Washington, DC, for shelter. While Washington should be commended for opening the DC Armory to victims, there is something wrong with having to put evacuees who have lost everything on buses for several days so far from what might be left, if anything, of their communities.

How will families and friends of these evacuees know how to find them? The same could be asked of those who are being turned away from the Astrodome and moved on to Dallas or San Antonio.

I also wonder how an electrical outage could take down such critical infrastructure as two oil and gas pipelines servicing a large section of the country? In 1998, President Clinton issued a presidential directive that required the government to look at pipeline and electrical grid security. In December 2003, President Bush issued a homeland security directive that repackaged the government's efforts.

The last several years in Congress, we have continually heard that the administration and private sector are working to secure our critical infrastructure. Yet, a power outage managed to cripple the pipelines, resulting in skyrocketing gas prices across the Nation. Overnight, some communities saw gas prices rise 40 cents, others $2.00.

What message does this send to terrorists if our petroleum systems are so vulnerable? I also wonder what extra steps the Federal Government and the energy sector are taking today to ensure that these facilities are bolstered against attack from terrorists who might try to exploit the current situation.

Despite the increasing threat of hurricanes, especially this year, our government continued to cut the funding of the Army Corps of Engineers, thereby cutting the funding for flood control projects. In 2005, President Bush only requested $3.9 million for the floor projects in New Orleans, although the Army Corps of Engineers said it would be able to spend $20 million if the funds were only provided. Congress increased the funding to $5.5 million, which still was insufficient to fund new construction contracts to secure the levees. For Fiscal Year 2006, the President has asked for even less, requesting only $3 million. Allowing dams and levees to remain vulnerable to disaster and attack simply is unacceptable.

The administration must focus on the very real threats to our communities, towns, and cities if we are to secure our Nation. Preparedness is our prime defense against natural disasters and terrorist attacks. What Americans face today is a result of what happens when our government fails to prepare.

Natural disaster or terrorist attack--our government must do better. We all deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Frederick Douglass once said, ``The life of a nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful and virtuous.''

I have heard a lot of comments the last few weeks from folks saying this bill is needed for the war on terrorism. The way they talk about it sounds like our Nation might fall to pieces without it.

As the ranking member on the Committee on Homeland Security and someone who has seen firsthand what our government is and is not doing to keep us safe at home, I am here to set the record straight. The bill today is about eliminating the sunsets of a handful of provisions in the PATRIOT Act and the 9/11 bill. Some of these provisions are untested and we do not know how helpful they are because the President has not provided information. Others, such as the library snooping provision, have never even been used, according to the administration. How good of a terrorism fighting tool is it if it has not been part of our war on terror yet?

I am disappointed that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle refused to allow an amendment offered to extend the sunsets for a few years. Extending them will allow the President to use them, but at the same time hold them accountable for their use. The sunsets are critical in keeping this administration honest and truthful in its efforts to protect our Nation.

Anyway, is the goal here today to protect Americans from terrorism at home? The attack on London 2 weeks ago was a wake-up call, yet the administration did not expand our own Nation's efforts to protect our transit system. The Nation lacks a transportation security plan for protecting its 30 million daily commuters. It was due in Congress 3 months ago. Today London was attacked again.

It is time for the administration to stop hitting the snooze button. Let us give transit security the attention it needs. Let us not confuse the bill today with the real efforts to protect our Nation against terrorism. If we ask Americans, they will prefer Congress to protect subways or buses.

Mr. Speaker, let us get it right. Let us protect Americans at home from real terrorist threats.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this Amendment that would properly fund the government-wide Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

In the wake of 9/11, many Americans have grown concerned that sweeping new law enforcement powers adopted to bolster national security may, in fact, be eroding the civil liberties that they were intended to protect.

The freedoms we enjoy as Americans--indeed, our way of life--are at risk if our government can spy and gather information on us simply under the guise of protecting those freedoms.

I know too well what happens when a government is left unchecked in its surveillance and spying efforts. While I was in college, I attended a speech given by Martin Luther King, Jr. My government responded by creating an FBI file on me. It seems like a whole generation of innocent Americans are at risk of having files created on them.

Those of us in Congress tried to address potential governmental violation of civil liberties by creating a Civil Liberties Board as part of the 9/11 bill passed last December. This board was created in response to the 9/11 Commission's concerns that the government lacked ``an enhanced system of checks and balances to protect the precious liberties that are vital to our way of life.'' We intended the Board to be the mechanism by which civil liberties and privacy considerations would be elevated throughout and within the Federal Government and its myriad operations and programs.

The President supported and signed the bill. And then failed to fund it less than two months later. He has failed to fund critical border and aviation initiatives contained in the bill. And he has failed to fully fund the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, giving it a mere $750,000. This lack of funding for a Board--which, by the way, he took almost 6 months to name Members for--suggests a lack of serious commitment to the preservation of civil liberties and privacy rights.

Too often, this White House has chosen to simply ignore that which it doesn't like.

Congress didn't vote to ask the Administration to think about having a privacy and civil liberties board. On the contrary, it voted to establish the Board and then gave the White House the power to fund it in a bill that the President said he supported.

Without an adequate budget, however, the Board is only a shell--a powerless entity unequipped to accomplish the goals envisioned for it by the 9/11 Commission.

Funding the Civil Liberties Board will fulfill our commitment to protect the rights of all Americans as our Nation battles against domestic and international terrorism.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join in support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from New York.

As public officials, we face many difficult decisions. This issue should not be one.

The amendment before us this morning would strike a provision in this bill that bans OSHA from conducting fit tests of the respirator masks worn by our first responders.

These masks are crucial to the survival of our first responders and it is only common sense that these masks must fit properly to perform as expected.

We would never ask our soldiers on the battlefield to go into combat with equipment that mayor may not perform as expected. Our first responders who are our domestic defenders deserve the same treatment.

We must do everything we can to help those who sacrifice so much to protect us.

Only yesterday, a group of 80 arms control and security experts released a survey commissioned by Senator Lugar of Indiana which says that they believe there is a 70 percent chance of a WMD attack in the next 10 years.

We all agree that we should focus our efforts on preventing any future WMD attack, but we must ensure that our first responders are adequately protected should an attack take place.

I strongly support the amendment offered by Mr. Owens and urge my colleagues to do the same.