Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2328) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2001 East Willard Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the ``Robert A. Borski Post Office Building.''

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2328, introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2001 East Willard Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the Robert A. Borski Post Office Building.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation honors a devoted former Member of this body. Former Congressman Robert Borski preceded the gentleman from Pennsylvania as the U.S. Representative of Pennsylvania's Third District. The citizens of the Third District in Philadelphia elected Mr. Borski to the House 10 times before he retired after the 107th Congress.

He continues to be a good friend to all who worked in this House with him. It is a deserved tribute to Mr. Borski's public service that this post office be named after him, and I am pleased the House is considering this bill today.

Congressman Borski was most active on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, where he was the ranking Democratic member on the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines. He was also a member of the Democratic Whip operations, serving as the regional whip for Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Congressman Borski was known especially for his accessibility to his constituents. He frequently utilized the town hall meeting in his district to meet with his constituents firsthand. In addition, he always had at least two offices in Philadelphia to save constituents from traveling all the way to Washington.

Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his work on this measure that honors Congressman Robert A. Borski. And just to say on a personal level, that I have had the honor to have worked with him for most of his 10 terms, and found him to be extraordinarily hard-working, very dedicated, very personable, not partisan, but clearly proud to be a Democratic Representative to this body.

It was a pleasure to serve with him. He is clearly deserving of this recognition.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I think you should get down on bended knees in gratitude to the gentleman for doing that.

Mr. FATTAH. And I have been on bended knees many, many times, for Congressman Borski was just extraordinarily helpful in my own career and in the careers of other younger Members. Every day he would ask me about how my family was doing, particularly my young daughter, Cameron. He was concerned about where she was going to school, what she was doing, what activities she was involved in, because he had daughters and he was totally involved in their upbringing. He would make sure that he made it to their soccer meets. I remember even one time there was a debate here on the floor and Bob said, look, my daughter's in a soccer meet, she's on a soccer scholarship over in Virginia, this is one of her first games and I'm going to go do it.

That is the kind of person he was. He represented our city in the finest of ways and traditions. I just wish him well as he goes forward. It is the least that we can do to name a post office in his honor. There are some Members who get elected to Congress, and it is an honor for them to be able to serve. I am convinced that Bob Borski is one of the few Members which this institution was honored by his service. I just rise today to support this bill. I thank my friend, the gentleman from the great State of Connecticut, and I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for yielding me this time.

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

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

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

I would just note for the gentleman, we were trying to filibuster a little bit to give him a chance to get to the Chamber to speak on this important resolution.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

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

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Whitfield). The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2328.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this very harmful amendment.

In the early 1990s, because of concerns about United Nations' operations and the lack of reforms by that body, the United States began withholding its payments to the UN and fell into arrears. We subsequently debated this issue for years, and, in November 1999, Congress and the Administration finally agreed on a plan to repay our longstanding debt to the UN in exchange for significant reforms by the world body.

This agreement conditioned U.S. payments of $819 million on substantial reforms at the UN. In return for the United States making good on its commitment, the UN reduced our contributions to its regular budget from 25 to 20 percent, and to the peacekeeping budget from 31 to 25 percent. The UN also agreed to open up its financial books to the United States and to establish an office of an Inspector General at each of its program offices.

We've debated these issues, and this body has decided the United States should continue to be a member in good standing at the UN. This amendment would send us back to a debate settled more than three years ago.

Mr. Chairman, as the UN's single largest contributor, the United States is granted unparalleled power to craft the UN's agenda and budget. Our financial leadership truly gives us the ability to shape world events.

Countries all over the world are looking to the United States for leadership, yet if this amendment were to pass, what they would see is a very powerful and wealthy country refusing to live up to its international commitments. Why, as a nation, would we want to unnecessarily complicate our diplomatic efforts at a time when we need every ounce of leverage?

While we must continue examining its operations and recommending operational improvements, the United Nations deserves U.S. support as it continues to combat terrorism, promote economic growth and assist countries in moving towards democracy.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the King/Hayworth Amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I believe protecting and preserving our environment is one of the most important duties we have as Members of Congress.

Our predecessors understood the preservation of our natural resources was a moral and patriotic obligation. It was their vision and foresight that led to the establishment of the Yellowstone National Park in 1872 owned by all Americans. The creation of our first national park was a farsighted guarantee each generation would inherent a healthy and vibrant Yellowstone.

But, today, the park's health is in jeopardy. On peak days this winter $1,600 snowmobiles entered Yellowstone, generating tremendous noise and pollution.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, the harm caused by snowmobiles used in Yellowstone have been scientifically proven, studied further and proven yet again. Over the past decade the Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency and independent experts have conducted extensive studies and always reach the same conclusion: A phaseout of snowmobiles is necessary to restore Yellowstone's health. I hope we take action today to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Holt-Shays-Rahall-Johnson amendment to protect Yellowstone and Grand Tetons National Parks.

I believe protecting and preserving our environment is one of the most important duties we have as members of Congress. We simply won't have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways.

Our predecessors understood the preservation of our natural resources was a moral and patriotic obligation. It was their vision and foresight that led to the establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872.

The creation of our first national park was a far-sighted guarantee each new generation would inherit a healthy and vibrant Yellowstone, a park complete with wildlife, majestic vistas and awe-inspiring geysers.

But, today, the park's health is in jeopardy. On peak days this winter, 1,600 snowmobiles entered Yellowstone generating tremendous noise and pollution.

As a result, our park rangers are forced to wear respirators to combat the noxious cloud of blue smoke in which they work and park visitors are rarely free from the roar of snowmobiles.

And even after studying the latest generation of snowmobiles, the Environmental Protection Agency still found that a phase-out of these machines ``would provide the best available protection for human health, wildlife, air quality, soundscapes, visibility and visitor experiences.''

The harm caused by snowmobile use in Yellowstone has been scientifically proven, studies further, and proven yet again.

Over the past decade, the Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and independent experts have conducted extensive studies and always reached the same conclusion: a phase-out of snowmobiles is necessary to restore Yellowstone's health.

By a 4-to-1 margin, Americans overwhelmingly support protecting Yellowstone by replacing snowmobile use with park-friendly, people- friendly snowcoaches.

This amendment does not restrict winter access to the Park. Rather, it requires visitors to travel in a manner that ensures the integrity of Yellowstone's precious natural resources.

This amendment seeks no more and no less than doing for Yellowstone what the National Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency and the American people believe is necessary to protect the park.

Let's not waste another minute or another dollar of taxpayer money further studying this issue. Let's put into law a scientifically sound, environmentally safe and fiscally responsible decision that protects our nation's first treasure.

I urge my colleagues to support the Holt-Shays-Rahall-Johnson amendment to protect Yellowstone National Park.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), in a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that certain provisions of section 4 of the bill will unfairly treat the men and women of our armed services. Specifically, the bill would create a new section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that would allow the application of medical products to the general population in emergencies, but only with appropriate safeguards. New subsection (k) of the act, however, seems to allow the President to waive or the Secretary of HHS to modify the application of these safeguards for military personnel. Can the chairman enlighten me as to his intent in this provision?

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his explanation, and I look forward to working with him to make sure that we clear this matter up in conference with the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my chairman yielding me this time.

Throughout committee consideration of H.R. 2122, I expressed some skepticism about both the short- and long-term impact of the proposed approach on our ability to develop, procure and use new medical countermeasures against chemical, biological or radiological weapons. Thanks to the work of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Government Reform and the Select Committee on

Homeland Security, the bill before us today represents a substantial improvement over the original proposal. This bill would create agile, proactive capabilities in meeting the threat of unconventional weapons, capabilities we do not have today.

Part of the value of Project BioShield would be purely deterrent. Just having the ability to develop and stockpile vaccines and antidotes decreases the likelihood, or the lethality, of a biological attack.

However, as I indicated in my earlier colloquy with Chairman Tauzin, any authority to actually use experimental drugs or medical devices in emergency situations has to be defined and wielded with nothing less than surgical precision. Prior informed consent in connection with the administration of experimental therapy is a basic human right, a right no one should be asked to surrender except under the most extraordinary of circumstances. For example, if a patient is unconscious and cannot give consent or be informed before onset of a life-threatening disease or event, medical ethics allow use of an experimental therapy.

Mere military inconvenience can never justify waiving consent or failing to inform service members about medical countermeasures. No loosely defined concept of feasibility should allow the Secretary of HHS to waive or delay the requirement to provide essential information on medical risks and benefits prior to administration of a drug or vaccine, as could happen under the language in this bill Chairman Tauzin has agreed to revisit. If the medicine can get to the front, there should always be room in the transport for the leaflet describing its dosage, interactions and contraindications.

In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, soldiers, sailors, aircrews and Marines were ordered to take experimental drugs and vaccines. Despite Pentagon promises to provide critical medical information and keep accurate medical records, very little information was provided and very few records survived the trip home. That cannot happen again. In the course of 14 hearings on the subsequent health problems of Gulf War veterans, the Government Reform subcommittee I chair reached this stark conclusion: ``Unless providing medical information to service members is mandatory, it's just too easy for the military, in the heat of battle, to decide it's just not feasible.''

In the war against terrorism, we are all on the front lines. The citizen-soldiers of our all-voluntary Armed Forces fight and die to protect our rights and freedoms. They should not be asked to surrender those fundamental rights under different, less rigorous, circumstances than those they left behind.

Again, I appreciate the very good work of Chairman Tauzin, Chairman Davis and Chairman Cox and their respective ranking members; and I look forward to a conference agreement that relies on the protections of current law and requires prior notification of service members whenever an unapproved drug or device has to be used.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. I support this very modest amendment and know increased funding would have a positive impact by bringing arts to underserved communities like our innercities and rural areas and by encouraging more support for preserving and promoting our cultural heritage, something all Americans should want to do.

Federal funding helps symphonies, theaters, musical productions, ballet, and educational programs. I grew up in an arts family. My mom and dad, both performing actors, met in the theater and I know the arts make a significant contribution to all of our lives. The arts improve the lives of so many people including children, the elderly and those on limited budgets who might not otherwise have the opportunity to see some very beautiful, spiritual, and enriching performances.

Federal funding helps enable talented individuals to pursue careers in the arts. Besides the obvious cultural benefit, the economic impact of the arts is real and impressive. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and increase funding for the NEA and NEH.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1950, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005. In particularly, I would like to comment on Section 273: Staffing at Diplomatic Missions.

As Chairman of the Committee on Government Reform's Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations, I have held several hearings on rightsizing the U.S. presence overseas.

Rightsizing the U.S. presence overseas is the process of putting the right people with the right skills in the right places. It is first and foremost about keeping U.S. personnel safe, but it is also about successfully manning the diplomatic front in the war against terrorism. Under-skilled personnel running visa lines in sensitive countries, personnel handling communications without necessary language skills, or a lack of staff to handle workloads hurt diplomatic readiness and a key part of the war on terrorism: our nation's relationships with its allies. Moreover, rightsizing involves every government agency with a presence overseas, not simply the Department of State.

The war on terrorism, increased AIDS funding in Africa and the Caribbean, the new Millennium Challenge Account program, changes to the U.S. entry-exit rules, and a greater emphasis on foreign affairs all promise to increase the workloads of overseas missions, and place greater pressure on chiefs of mission to right-size staff.

At our request, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has pursued and continues to pursue the rightsizing issue in concert with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). GAO created a rightsizing framework consisting of three factors: physical and technical security of facilities and employees, mission priorities and requirements, and cost of operations. In addition, OMB has included rightsizing as part of the President's Management Agenda and begun using Europe as a test case for the GAO framework.

Section 273 calls on chiefs of mission to assist in the rightsizing process by evaluating the necessity of all staff positions under their authority, even those from other Executive Branch agencies. This language was included at my request and reflects a small but important part of the oversight work the Subcommittee has conducted. Section 273 brings us closer to giving the managers of U.S. embassies and consulates overseas, the chiefs of mission, the tools they need to effectively administer their posts and carry out U.S. foreign policy.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this harmful amendment.

Cutting funds to the United Nations Population Fund will prevent vital assistance for poor women and children in developing countries. UNFPA's programs help families prevent unwanted pregnancies, undergo childbirth safely, avoid STDs including HIV/AIDS, and combats violence against women. I cannot understand how, in good conscience, a member could vote to cut these programs.

I believe we must support UNFPA and its family planning initiatives because world population continues to grow out of control. In 1960, there were 3 billion people that lived on this Earth. Today, there are 6 billion people; and in 40 years, without worldwide family planning services, it will rise to nearly 9 billion. The UNFPA responds to this growth by assisting the world's poorest countries in formulating population policies and strategies. Overpopulation threatens not only the world's political stability, but our global environment as well.

As a former Peace Corps volunteer, I can attest to the substantial contributions international family programs make to economic development, higher living standards and improved health nutrition.

We need to defeat the Smith/Hyde amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hyde/Lantos amendment and want to thank the gentlemen for their leadership.

The Millennium Challenge Account is an excellent initiative, and I believe it will make great strides in the way the United States provides aid to countries most in need.

I rise today, however, to speak about the Peace Corps, which will be reauthorized and expanded under this amendment.

I spent two of the greatest, most profound, years of my life serving with my wife Betsi as a Peace Corps volunteer in Fiji. Words cannot describe how important those years were to me, and how they helped me to develop as a person and a leader.

Expanding the Peace Corps from 7,000 to 14,000 members is an excellent idea. We will have an extra 7,000 well-trained and motivated young people prepared as future leaders of America. More importantly, this expansion doubles our commitment to the world's poor. 7,000 additional Peace Corps volunteers will help educate children, improve small businesses, bring cleaner water for communities, and provide hope for many more communities around the world.

I appreciate the Chairman and Ranking Member's commitment to the expansion of the Peace Corps, and urge the adoption of the Hyde/Lantos Amendment.

Mr. Chairman, last year, Congress enacted provisions to close loopholes in the federal animal fighting laws. We need to ensure the Department of Agriculture (USDA) has the resources it needs to enforce the law.

The Blumenauer-Tancredo amendment will provide a modest $800,000 for the USDA's Office of Inspector General to focus on animal fighting cases.

Dogfighting is banned in all 50 States and cockfighting is banned in 48 States. Dogfights and cockfights frequently involve not only deplorable animal abuse, but also illegal gambling, drug traffic, and violence to people. Additionally, cockfighting may be responsible for the spreading of diseases such as Exotic Newcastle Disease (END), a highly contagious virus that affects the respiratory, digestive, and nervous systems of birds. This disease has destroyed many poultry flocks throughout California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas and has cost taxpayers more than $100 million for containment and compensation.

As Co-Chair of the Congressional Friends of Animals Caucus, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Blumenauer-Tancredo amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which will restore funding to historically black 1890 land grant colleges,

and thank Artur Davis for bringing this disparity to our attention.

When the Budget Committee, of which I am Vice-Chairman, debated this year's Budget Resolution, Mr. Davis alerted us to a troubling discrepancy. Under the budget, historically black 1890 Colleges of Agriculture would have federal funds cut by 3.1 percent, while predominantly non-minority 1862 land grant colleges were only cut by .6 percent. The Budget Committee agreed to insert language into the Budget Resolution stating 1862 and 1890 colleges should be treated equitably.

Under the budget, Capacity Building grants for research and education activities at 1890 colleges were cut 17 percent, while Facilities Expansion funding for Extension Activities were cut by 10 percent. Our amendment restores this funding.

There are 1,890 extension offices working directly with minority farmers. Their activities are vital to the success of these primarily agricultural institutions, and provide critical support for farmers in the most economically-distressed areas.

Because so little funding already flows to these activities, cuts of this magnitude could cripple the ability of 1890 institutions to pursue their mission.

Again, I thank Mr. Davis for offering this amendment and urge its passage.

Mr. Chairman, as Co-Chair of the Congressional Friends of Animals Caucus I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Ackerman Downed Animal Amendment.

Animals too weak, from sickness or injury, to stand or walk are routinely pushed, kicked, dragged, and prodded with electric shocks at auctions and intermediate markets, in an effort to move them to slaughter.

There is no excuse for this unnecessary torment.

The Ackerman amendment will protect these downed animals by discouraging their transport to livestock markets and requiring they be humanely euthanized.

Some greedy individuals know livestock sold for human consumption will bring a higher price than livestock sold for other purposes. To them, the money is more important than the suffering of the animals. In moving these animals to auctions and other markets, these individuals display a cruel disregard for the animals. They also ignore the fact that meat from these animals may be unfit for consumption.

Downed animals do not deserve this kind of cruel treatment, and consumers do not deserve to be subjected to the risk of buying contaminated meat products.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2555, the FY 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations Act.

The National Security Subcommittee, which I chair, has examined port security and found the volume of containerized cargo and the openness of our massive, complex port areas represent inviting vulnerabilities that must be secured.

Our ports are key commercial entry points, serving as the gateway for 95 percent of international cargo. Each year, nearly 10,000 vessels make 68,000 port calls and unload more than six million containers in the United States.

But, according to a GAO report published in August 2002, ``Ports are inherently vulnerable to terrorist attacks because of their size, generally open accessibility by water and land, location in metropolitan areas, the amount of material being transported through ports, and the ready transportation links to many locations within our borders.''

H.R. 2555 includes $100 million for Transportation Safety Administration port security grants and $61.7 million for the Container Security Initiative, which will help DHS protect what could be one of our Nation's most vulnerable access points--our ports. It is imperative that we adequately fund efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to scale-up port and container security.

I also support the funding in this legislation for State and local first responders. H.R. 2555 will provide $4.4 billion for the Office of Domestic Preparedness, which includes $1.9 billion for domestic preparedness formula grants and $750 million for firefighter grants.

Before September 11, the firefighter grant program was funded at $200 million, but the changes our nation has undergone since that horrific day have made clear the need for a dramatic increase in funding. This bill provides that increase.

The bottom line for me is our ports are still vulnerable and our first responders need strong financial support to protect our Nation. This bill provides significant assistance in both areas and strengthens national security.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this vital funding bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act. I want to begin by appreciating the incredible time and energy that my colleague, Nancy Johnson, has put into crafting what I consider to be a good product, and thank her for her efforts.

When Medicare was created in 1965, the program's principal purpose was to help seniors pay for their hospital costs. Since that time, Medicare has not kept pace with how health care is delivered. Today, we are bringing this program into the 21st Century by including coverage for prescription drugs.

Our seniors need and deserve prescription drug coverage under Medicare. This legislation will give them tremendous assistance. After a $250 deductible, seniors will get 80 percent of their first $2,000 paid for by the program, catastrophic protection from any cost over $3,700, and discount on all their pharmaceutical costs from an Rx Drug Discount Card. The card will save beneficiaries between 10 and 25 percent on every purchase.

I believe this bill takes a positive step towards injecting competition into Medicare, but I regret we did not go further in reforming the program to ensure its solvency for future generations.

I also believe anything free, even health care, is over-utilized. I support the House proposal to add a small co-payment to home health care and to index Part B deductibles to inflation, and I support the Senate proposal to have seniors pay a portion of their catastrophic costs. This way, seniors have a greater incentive to get care because they need it, not just because it is offered.

Finally, we must be concerned with what this program will ultimately cost. It could go well over the $400 billion we budgeted and accelerate the program's financial demise if we are not vigilant.

There is a lot to like in the bill we hope to pass tonight, and the Senate has already passed a plan I can support. My hope is the House and Senate conferees will draft a final bill that takes the best approaches from each chamber and that we can ultimately send the President a Medicare prescription drug bill supported by both sides of the aisle. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Smith-Cardin- Lantos resolution. I am a cosponsor of this resolution because I am deeply concerned about the surge of anti-Semitism in Europe and throughout other parts of the world, but particularly in Europe.

This is not a problem that simply can be monitored. It must be actively and aggressively dealt with, for we must never forget that just 60 years ago, Europe saw the worst scourge of systematic, government-ordained hatred, violence and murder in the history of mankind, in what was an unbelievable Holocaust.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has recognized and condemned anti-Semitic violence in its member states. At its parliamentary assembly in July 2002, the OSCE resolved to aggressively enforce laws and investigate anti-Semitic criminal acts. It is important that the United States openly support the OSCE's resolution and actively encourage it to address hatred and prevent violence in Europe.

Mr. Speaker, there are several topics on which the United States and Europe disagree. There must be no disagreement, however, on the absolute right of the Jewish people to practice their religion freely and to live in peace and prosperity. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe should not only investigate anti-Semitic crimes but also promote and facilitate discussions that address the root causes of xenophobic hatred.

I encourage my colleagues and the administration to take advantage of bilateral meetings with our European counterparts to reaffirm our deep commitment to the prevention of violence in Europe.

I again thank the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing this resolution to the floor and urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.

The Aqaba Summit presented one of the most promising moments in years of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. At that summit, Prime Minister Abbas pledged his commitment to a complete end to the violence and terrorism that has devastated the region. Prime Minister Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Sharon also took the first bold step on the Roadmap to Peace by recognizing the right of one another to exist in peace.

Mr. Abbas and Sharon had just returned from Aqaba, however, when violence once again flared. There is no way the peace process can continue while terrorist organization such as Hamas continue to act with impunity in the West Bank and Gaza.

Prime Minister Abbas maintains that terror can only be stopped on moral and political grounds. He remains unwilling to use force to dismantle terrorist organizations. Under current circumstances, however, Mr. Abbas doesn't have the ability to forcefully dismantle such organizations. It is critically important that the United States, Europe, Russia, the United Nations and the Arab League renew their commitment to cut terrorism at its roots, and provide Mr. Abbas the support he needs.

International support means denying the flow of dollars to Hamas. I am a cosponsor of House Resolution 285, which urges the European Union to classify all of Hamas as a terrorist organization, and not just its military wing. I find it astonishing that a distinction would be made between the political and armed divisions of a terrorist organization.

The Arab League must also commit itself to peace in Israel by denying Yasser Arafat the funding and support he needs to maintain control over security forces in the Palestinian territories.

I continue to support an active U.S. role in the Middle East peace process because the suffering of people--destined to live on the same piece of land--is too great, and the stakes for them too high.

I support this resolution's condemnation of the recent terrorist violence that victimized innocent Israelis, as well as its expression of sympathy to the families of both Israelis and Palestinians who have lost their lives. I urge its adoption and thank the gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, for bringing it to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, on June 23, I was participating in the World Economic Forum in Amman, Jordan with Congressman Jim Kolbe and other Members of the House and Senate. As a result, I missed four recorded votes.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted yes on recorded vote number 297, yes on recorded vote number 298, yes on recorded vote number 299, and yes on recorded vote 300.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time the gentleman has left?

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which will require the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, to develop a plan to screen or inspect all cargo that is carried on passenger planes.

To me, it blows me away that we would allow any freight to go in the belly of an aircraft that has not been inspected. And at the very least the public has the right to know that basically 20 percent of the cargo in the belly of an aircraft is totally unscreened. Its cargo is unscreened. We could have not one, not two, not three, but we could have a number of planes knocked out of the sky at any one time simply because we are not inspecting the freight cargo that is in the belly of an aircraft.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I will yield back to my colleague and thank him for his amendment. I cannot think of a stronger and more important amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, first let me say, and I do not say this out of formality but because I believe it deeply, that the chairman of the subcommittee has crafted a good bill, and this is the first bill on homeland security, and I applaud the gentleman for his tremendous efforts and work; but he has given us an opportunity to discuss something which has troubled me deeply.

I chair the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Government Reform. We learned clearly before September 11 of the terrorist threat. We knew it was a new threat, and we knew that we needed to develop a strategy to confront it and to reorganize our government; and we are in that process. But what blew me away when we debated the Aviation Security Act was the fact that I had always thought that we screened all of the luggage put in the belly of the airplane by passengers.

We put an amendment on the bill in 2001 that said by the end of 2003 we would have to search all baggage. We finally got it included in the bill, even though the Inslee amendment was not made in order. It was put in as a manager's amendment, but people said we could not do it by the end of 2003. Then when the bill came back from the Senate and we had our conference bill, it said by the end of 2002.

I thought, ``If we could not do it then by 2003, how can we do it by the end of 2002?'' And what I was told was that we really do not want people to know that we cannot secure the aircraft from explosives, so that is what they did. We had to amend the bill eventually and say we would have adequate security measures.

Mr. Chairman, the definition of adequate security measures includes machinery we do not have yet, dogs that we are using, swabs on the outside of luggage, and then hand searches. The bottom line is even the passenger baggage on aircraft is not fully checked for explosives. And then we learn to compound that, we have the cargo holds. Cargo that is put in the belly of a passenger aircraft is not checked, and it is just wrong.

We cannot say that we have adequate security measures to inspect cargo. We do not. It is a fraud. Maybe the chairman is right that this is an amendment that is going to be a problem, and maybe when we get to conference we will have to find a better way to deal with it, but we have to send a message.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is a plane could be blown out of the sky from explosives in the belly of an aircraft because someone shipping cargo is simply able to get it on the airplane. We have learned from the terrorists there is no line they will not cross. I hope this amendment is passed; and then if we have to change the amendment, we can do that in conference.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which will require the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to develop a plan to screen or inspect all cargo that is carried on passenger planes.

Since September 11, our nation's homeland defenses have undergone tremendous improvements. I truly believe we are safer today than we were prior to these heinous attacks, but we don't feel safer because we had a false sense of security that was cruelly lifted.

In 2001, when Congress was considering the Aviation Security Act, I was shocked to learn that less than 10 percent of checked baggage on domestic flights was being screened. I worked with Congressman Jay Inslee to add a provision to the bill requiring all checked baggage to be screened for explosives.

During a recent hearing of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I was equally surprised to learn that air, which accounts for approximately 22 percent of all baggage on passenger flights, is not being screened for explosives. If we are not screening all the baggage and cargo on passenger planes, then we are once again giving the American people a false sense of security.

The bottom line is as long as cargo and baggage screening is incomplete, there are

gaps in aviation security that are unacceptable. TSA must come to grips with this challenge, which continues to leave too many air travelers at risk.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this common- sense amendment.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the City of Stamford, CT, which was recently ranked the fifth safest city in the country and the second safest city in the Northeast. Perhaps even more remarkable is that recent FBI statistics indicate Stamford led the Nation in reducing crime during 2002, recording an amazing 22 percent decrease.

This achievement is all the more impressive because Stamford was able to reduce crime despite having a smaller police force. This extraordinary accomplishment is a testament to the dedication of Chief Louis DeCarlo and the entire police force, as well as the excellent leadership of Mayor Dan Malloy and the City Government.

Stamford has led our region and Nation by implementing creative measures to reduce crime, including the use of community policing. The City also sent School Resource Officers to schools where they were able to effectively connect with the City's youth.

I also congratulate the people of Stamford who have worked so hard to make their hometown a great place to raise their children, to work and to visit.

As a former longtime resident of Stamford, I can attest to how wonderful a place it is to live. Stamford's tremendous potential is reinforced by its designation as one of the safest cities in America.