Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 663 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, obviously, I would like to thank the Rules Committee publicly for allowing my amendment because I know there were probably 130 amendments, and I know they had a tough job deciding which ones to allow to go forward.

In short, my amendment requires our government to ensure that the applicant is not a known criminal or terrorist before granting them immigration benefits. Pretty simple. But as the current law now stands, background checks of alien applicants are required, but the law does not specifically require these security checks to be completed before these immigration benefits are actually handed out.

This means that many unworthy people have been able to receive these crucial benefits which then enables them to move freely throughout our country before their background checks are completely finished. By the time we finally discover something questionable in their background, of course it is too late to track them down. We cannot find them.

My amendment helps to close this loophole. My amendment will prohibit the Department of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and all courts from granting any kind of legal immigration status or benefits to an alien until, at a minimum, the alien's name is first completely checked against a database of criminal records and terrorist watch lists using the Treasury Enforcement Communication System database.

As it now stands, all three have been giving status to aliens before they get their final results back from security checks. The result is we are giving green cards, citizenship, work permits, and temporary status to terrorists, criminals, and other unsavory types under this arrangement, not always but sometimes.

For example, a new study by Janice Kephart, who was on the staff of the 9/11 Commission, looked at the immigration histories of 94 terrorists, including six of the 9/11 hijackers who had operated on U.S. soil between the 1990s and 2004. The results of this study are quite frightening. Two-thirds, that is 59, of the foreign-born terrorists studied committed immigration benefits fraud prior to or in conjunction with taking part in terrorist activity.

My amendment should go a long way towards preventing this irresponsible and dangerous loophole. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the full Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee used the word ``amazed,'' and I am just amazed, too, that this amendment would even be needed at this point.

The gentleman on the other side of the aisle has talked about the resources, but we cannot even talk about the resources until we implement the procedures. And so to get this procedure in place will then determine if we have the resources and we can take the next step. But I appreciate his example and his support.

I think it can be done and should be done; and before we give these benefits, we should be sure these people are who they say they are. It is the right thing to do.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, obviously our immigration system is broken. Recent reports have revealed that there are approximately 10-12 million illegal immigrants within the United States. Unless we act quickly, this number is estimated to grow by 400,000 each year.

The problem of illegal immigration has legal, economic and national security ramifications.

As Peggy Noonan recently observed in the Wall Street Journal, ``what does it mean that your first act on entering a country--your first act on that soil--is the breaking of that country's laws? What does it suggest to you when that country does nothing about your lawbreaking because it cannot, or chooses not to? What does that tell you? Will that make you a better future citizen, or worse? More respecting of the rule of law in your new home, or less?''

We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. The fact of the matter is that illegal immigration violates our laws, and goes against our Nation's dedication to the rule of law. It is wrong, both legally and morally, and must be stopped.

From an economic perspective, illegal immigrants fill jobs that would otherwise be filled by American citizens or legal residents. Public funds are being used to provide social welfare benefits and services to those here illegally at the expense of the American taxpayer. And our border patrols are using precious resources to track down these scofflaws, when they can be focusing instead on preventing terrorists from entering our country.

And in the aftermath of 9/11, we learned that illegal immigration endangers our national security. It is self-evident that we must secure our borders. Even if it were true that terrorists are not necessarily sneaking over the Mexican or Canadian borders, a proposition which I am certainly not prepared to admit, the fact is that the millions of illegal aliens in our country are creating an overwhelming demand for false identity documents and smuggling networks that could also be used to assist those with less than pure motives.

That's why I have cosponsored this legislation. As it stands now, it contains the reforms needed to remedy these problems. And I hope it will include my amendment to close a loophole in existing immigration law to ensure that criminal and security checks are completely finished before offering immigrants any sort of benefits.

I would also caution against including any sort of language in this legislation providing a green-light to legitimizing the millions of illegal ``guest workers'' here already.

Mr. Chairman, it is a shame that those of us who support this legislation have been accused of being anti-immigrant or worse, when nothing can be further from the truth. We all understand why foreigners, the vast majority whom are well-meaning and in search of a better life for themselves and their families, would want to come to America. We are the land of opportunity, but as I said before, we are also a nation of laws. Speaking for myself, I know that over the course of my career in Congress, my staff and I have helped hundreds, perhaps thousands of these aspiring Americans become citizens. I am sure that many of the supporters of this bill have done the same.

If we allow illegal immigration to continue on its present course, not only does it hurt our commitment to the rule of law, our economy, and our national security, but it also hurts these legal immigrants. Why should they obey the law and wait their turn? What do they think when they go through the whole process, but then see our government and our employers look the other way with millions of illegal aliens?

This bill will not only uphold the rule of law, protect American tax dollars and enhance our national security, it will also restore a sense of dignity and pride to those immigrants who come here legally.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, during this season of charitable giving, I am proud to highlight the efforts of citizens in my district. In downtown Jacksonville, there is a haven for children living in poverty. The Sanctuary on 8th Street's mission is to encourage and empower children to become strong and independent by ministering to their physical, intellectual, social and spiritual needs.

Last month, the community rallied around this outreach in a remarkable way. When the mother of one of the youths tragically passed away, the community gathered funds to make funeral services possible. Due to their giving, the family was able to say their goodbyes to Latricia Ann Spencer on November 18th.

The Sanctuary on 8th Street received even more money than needed, from which they created the Spencer Fund. This emergency fund will provide funeral services for other families in need. This is an inspiring example of what individuals can achieve for their neighbors, and I commend everyone involved.

Mr. Speaker, there is exciting news recently from the University of Florida, in Gainesville, Florida, in the fight against pediatric cancer. UF scientists believe that they have linked stem cells to a certain type of childhood bone cancer. This discovery could eventually be the key to treating osteosarcoma, the most common form of bone malignancy among children.

Osteosarcoma is a highly aggressive cancer that kills 40 percent of the children diagnosed, most of whom are between the ages of 10 and 20. Currently the only treatment is year-long doses of chemotherapy and radical surgery. Scientists contend that these stem cells, which have also been linked to cancers such as leukemia and more recently breast cancer, are the only cells that freely replicate and the ability to target these cells will allow doctors to develop new forms of therapy that are much less toxic and far less invasive than existing treatments. Good work and a hopeful prognosis, UF researchers.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to congratulate Trinity Catholic High School of Ocala, Florida on its first-ever football state championship.

On Saturday, December 3, the Celtics completed an undefeated season by defeating Pahokee High School 37 to 30 in front of 4,327 fans at Florida International University to clinch the Class 2B state title.

Coach Kerwin Bell and his Celtics became the first team to bring a state championship in football to Marion County since 1979 in only the fourth year of the program's existence. The Celtics' season slogan, ``It's our time,'' embodied the determination that they showed in pursuing their goal. Despite a furious comeback by Pahokee to tie the game in the 4th quarter, the team pulled together and prevailed in a game that came down to the final whistle. The hard work of this group of young men has served as an inspiration to Ocala and Marion County and I congratulate them by saying, ``It is your time.''

Mr. Speaker, recent reports and statistics are showing that the American economy has rebounded from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and is back on its historic track of growth and productivity.

In November, 215,000 new jobs were created for a total of 4.4 million new jobs over the last 2\1/2\ years. Our economy grew at a solid 4.3 percent in the third quarter, and unemployment is at a low 5 percent rate. In addition, the productivity of American workers is at an impressive annual rate of 4.7 percent, the fastest pace in 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, this astounding economic growth has all taken effect ever since we passed, and the President signed, the jobs and growth bill into law in May of 2003.

However, we in Congress still have work to do. We must make these tax cuts permanent, cut wasteful spending, and create an environment so that key sectors of our economy, such as the telecommunications industry, can reach their full potential.

If we continue on this path, the ultimate winner will be the American people.

Mr. Speaker, counterfeiting is a growing international concern that requires international cooperation to defeat. It threatens our national security interests in areas of health, economics, and of course homeland defense. The Food and Drug Administration estimates that counterfeit drugs account for 10 percent of all drugs that are sold in the United States. An estimated 14 percent of these drugs that are sold through the mail are counterfeit, they are mishandled, or expired. Pfizer Pharmaceutical recalled 16.5 million Lipitor pills nationwide as a result of an FDA investigation that uncovered evidence that these pills were counterfeit.

Counterfeit technologies have caused immense harm as well. For example, in California a 13-year-old boy sustained severe injuries from a counterfeit battery that exploded in his cell phone. The phone exploded with such force that fragments of the phone lodged into the ceiling of his family's home.

Exploding batteries, doctored medications, foods, dangerous cosmetics and skin products, fake shampoos and soaps, doctored teas, substandard auto and airplane components, the list of counterfeit goods grows daily. Even fake and dangerous baby foods have been reported. In China, for example, infants suffered severe malnourishment and a dozen died after being fed fake infant formula that contained few nutrients.

The hazards of counterfeit products have also affected our transportation. In 2003, the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association cited safety violations due to counterfeit auto parts: Brake linings made of compressed grass, sawdust, or cardboard; transmission fluid made of cheap oil that is dyed, and oil filters that use rags for the filter element. Additionally, the FAA estimates that 2 percent of the 26 million airline parts installed each year are counterfeit, equaling approximately 520,000 parts. While still the safest form of travel, a Business Week investigation found that bogus airplane parts played a major role in at least 166 U.S. based accidents and mishaps during a recent 20-year period.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, approximately 5 to 7 percent of world trade is in counterfeit goods. The FBI estimates that intellectual property theft costs the United States companies between $200 and $250 billion a year in revenue. According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, counterfeit merchandise is directly responsible for the loss of more than 750,000 American jobs, in addition to tens of thousands more lost of privacy of software programs, movies, and music. The auto industry could hire 200,000 additional workers if sale of counterfeit auto parts was eliminated.

In some cases, the counterfeiters are not only breaking the law, they are supporting terrorists. According to Interpol, seized al Qaeda training manuals recommend selling fake goods to finance illegal activities. One example is the confiscation of $1.2 million of counterfeit German brake pads and shock absorbers in Lebanon in October 2003. The profits from the products were earmarked for supporters of Hezbollah. Another poignant example is the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which was financed partially through the sale of fake Nike t- shirts from a store on Broadway.

We are currently involved in trade with a country that refuses to enforce these laws. Mr. Speaker, I am referring to China, which has ignored its own anti-piracy laws on American movies, music, computer software, and other products. In 2003, China accounted for 66 percent or $62.4 million of all counterfeit goods seized by the U.S. Customs Service at ports of entry into the United States. In 2004, U.S. industries lost between $2.5 and $3.5 billion due to privacy alone. Some reports estimate virtually 90 percent of products in some industries sold in China are pirated from the United States.

In June, Under Secretary John Dudas testified in a hearing I held in the House Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection subcommittee, ``This administration has been pressing China to impose prison sentences and/ or stiffer fines on violators, provide little or no deterrence.'' Chinese government efforts since have yielded no results.

U.S. Trade Representative Bob Portman recently announced the U.S. would be requesting from China an explanation of the steps it has taken to curb privacy of U.S. products. In the announcement he said, ``Piracy and counterfeiting remain rampant in China despite years of engagement on this issue.''

In conclusion, requiring accounting ability is an essential first step to stopping Chinese abuse of U.S. intellectual property rights. I support this request, and I hope the President's trip to Asia this week will further convince Chinese officials of the need for enforcing intellectual property rights laws.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha said yesterday that ``our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home.'' I know Mr. Murtha to be a man of honor and integrity and I am sure he is sincere in his belief that there is not more to accomplish and we must immediately withdraw our troops. I could not disagree more with his assessment.

We must stay in Iraq to finish the job and leave with honor. To cut and run now and leave with our tail between our legs would send the message to terrorists around the world that America has lost its will to win the War on Terrorism. This would merely embolden our terrorist enemies and lead to open season on America and our allies. We cannot allow this to happen. We must stay the course in Iraq and finish the job. The stakes are too high to fail.

Throughout American history, we have been tested in times of war many times. But virtually every time, we stayed the course and prevailed.

We did not experience quick victory in the American Revolution. In fact, it took our Founding Fathers years to win our hard-fought independence. We were defeated at the Battles of Long Island, Harlem Heights, White Plains and others, and we will never forget the dark days at Valley Forge, yet we did not give up our desire for freedom.

And let's not forget in WorId War II, where we suffered rapid and repeated defeats at Guam, Wake Island, the Philippines and Kasserine Pass.

But when General Douglas Macarthur was forced to leave the Philippines, he did not say, ``We should have an immediate withdraw of all American troops.'' Instead, he uttered the immortal words: ``I shall return.''

And we aren't even losing in Iraq! We are winning, and making a difference. Because of our intervention in Iraq, a murderous dictator and a totalitarian regime have been overthrown, free elections have been held, and a new constitution has been drafted and ratified.

This is an important and emotional debate. When to send our servicemen and women to war and when to bring them home is perhaps the most difficult decision we as Member face. I have been to Iraq and everybody I met was enthusiastic, about doing their job and helping the Iraqi people.

We must fight this temptation to set an artificial timetable as to when we bring our troops home. All this will do is allow the terrorists time to regroup and lay in wait until we leave. But do not take my word for it. Take the word of a top American commander in Iraq who called setting a deadline for troop withdrawal ``a recipe for disaster.''

Army Maj. Gen. William Webster, whose 3rd Infantry Division is responsible for security in three-fourths of Iraq's capital said ``Setting a date would mean that the 221 soldiers I've lost this year, that their lives will have been lost in vain. Iraq's armed factions would likely take a cue from a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal to lie low, gathering their strength and laying plans for renewed conflict when the Americans leave.''

Gen. Webster went on to say ``They believe they're doing the right thing. The soldiers believe they're helping.''

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been saying that the war in Iraq has been a dismal failure and a mistake. Let me ask them, is it a sign failure that our troops have vaccinated over 3 million children under 5 to help these children fight polio. Or that we screened more than 1.3 million children under age 5 for malnutrition.

Was it a mistake to rehabilitate almost 3,000 schools? What about the 36,000 secondary school teachers and administrators, including 1000 master trainers, that have been trained by the Iraqis with the United States' help? These teachers are going to start teaching in a way that gives freedom to the children.

I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle once again, would you say accomplishing all of this constitutes failure? The millions of Iraqi men, women and children who no longer live under a brutal dictator would not think so.

We must continue to fight the terrorists and secure Iraq as a stable, secure democracy. We are making a great deal of progress on the democracy front as well. The approval of Iraq's constitution on October 15 was a historic day for Iraq and a bad day for terrorists. Millions of Iraqis turned out to vote, embracing the democratic process. Iraq now has a constitution.

On the day of the referendum, there were no suicide bombings, and attacks on polling stations were down from 108 in January to 19 in October. Sixty percent of registered voters took part in the referendum. Significantly higher turnout in Sunni a further indication that Sunnis are joining the political process.

Mr. Speaker, we are at a crossroads in Iraq. Do we cut and run or do we stay and finish the job? There is too much at stake to immediately pull out. All we would be doing is strengthening the terrorists. We must finish the job. We must stay the course and leave with honor. I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the Internet is a truly American invention. As such, it is imbued with the American values of openness, freedom and democracy. It enables information and commerce to flow freely across oceans and political boundaries. The freedom of expression it creates has made censorship and information control futile, forcing governments to sell their ideologies and policies in an open market of ideas.

Because of the freedom embodied by the Internet, it is no surprise that the world's dictatorial regimes would love to control and repress it. Therefore, it is no surprise that representatives from Iran, North Korea and China are conspiring to radically change the way the Internet is run. While they claim to be concerned about the level of control America has over the Internet, their real concern is their own lack of control!

That is why many of these nations had proposed to install a new international government bureaucracy to dictate Internet policy for the world. This new bureaucracy would not only have removed industry and civil society groups from decisions about Internet management, but also threatened the stability of the network and the future of Internet innovation.

But those are unimportant issues to nations that want to rein in dissidents and civil society groups that are using the Internet to spread democracy and freedom in their countries. They don't care about the stability of the Internet; they care about the stability of their morally bankrupt regimes.

Fortunately, our United States negotiators have successfully beat back this lunge for control by the United Nations. But let there be no doubt about it--the desires of these foreign nations and international organizations to control the Internet for their own purposes is still strong, and they will try again and again until they succeed. That is why we must pass H. Con. Res. 268, which reconfirms America's commitment to ensuring the stability and openness of the Internet. It is critically important that the world knows that the United

States Congress stands solidly behind its delegation debating this issue, and behind the freedom of the Internet. More than a billion people rely on the Internet, so we must not compromise on the values of democracy and freedom that have made this engine of information so successful throughout the world. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this important resolution.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 1065, the United States Boxing Commission Act.

This bill will establish for the first time the United States Boxing Commission within the Department of Commerce. The USBC will be charged with overseeing licensing and registration of boxers and boxing personnel nationally to improve the current inconsistent and lack of regulation of the sport at the State and also at the local levels.

The sport of boxing with its rich and glorious history is slowly being corroded by corruption and abuse in and outside the ring.

I am no fan of bigger and more intrusive government, but in this case the power and sweep of a Federal regulator can establish a uniform minimum standard for boxing on a national level and will hopefully salvage this great sport and reestablish it as a main

event, not some shady, corrupt business enterprise.

In terms of fiscal impact, there has been a lot of misinformation about this bill, its budgetary impact. But let me be perfectly clear: this bill requires the United States Boxing Commission to be funded through receipts from licensed and registration fees, not from taxpayers' money. The USBC will also sunset in 12 years. Here we have a bill that will sunset. The USBC will not be a drain on government resources. Rather, it will function and operate from revenues derived from its oversight function of licensing and registration.

Later, I intend to offer an amendment to clarify this intent during our consideration. This is an important point to be made and needs to be made crystal clear.

In addition, as I mentioned, professional boxing is suffering today. Boxers are in danger of losing life and limb every day, and likewise, every day, we hear more and more stories about needless injuries and even deaths. We had two boxers die in Nevada just recently.

Boxing obviously is a great American sport, with a rich and glorious tradition, but it is in real danger of becoming marginalized into nothing more than a dangerous and corrupt sideshow. This would be a tragedy.

We have celebrated our Olympic heroes and cheered them when they later fought professionally. I believe that adding a backstop of Federal oversight over the various pockets of inconsistent regulation at the State level will help clean up boxing and honor its positive impact on the lives of young men and women who, despite sometimes difficult financial or social circumstances, achieve greatness through discipline, hard work and simply sheer determination.

One of those obscure fighters that rose to become one of America's most important symbols of athletic and human excellence obviously was Muhammad Ali. He testified at one of our hearings. Unfortunately, he could not testify, so his wife read the speech for him, and this is what he said: ``For all of its difficulties, boxing is still a wonderful sport. It still attracts men and women from all walks of life to reach glory in the ring. For many, it's their first experience with hard work, determination and discipline. For still others, it remains the only way up and out from a life filled with bad choices, failure and worse.''

He went on to say: ``Reform measures are unlikely to succeed unless a U.S. Boxing Commission is created with the authority to oversee a sport that still attracts a disproportionate number of unsavory elements that prey upon the hopes and dreams of young athletes.''

My bill, cosponsored with the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), my colleague and the ranking member of my subcommittee, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), my friend and colleague, will push reform and put the weight of uniform national oversight mechanism behind those reforms to ensure that the United States Boxing Commission is successful and those hopes and those dreams are protected.

Specifically, the manager's amendment I am offering will do the following:

First and foremost, it makes it clear that the United States Boxing Commission will be funded largely through revenues generated by licenses and registrations so that it is essentially self-funding. Specifically, section 5 of the bill has been amended to clarify that fees authorized and collected shall be available to fund the operation of the commission and the administration of the Act. Section 14 of the bill was amended to clarify that offsetting collections are available to the commission subject to appropriations.

The next thing, it empowers the United States Boxing Commission to promulgate uniform standards for professional boxing and oversee all professional boxing in the United States.

It ensures that Federal and State laws applicable to boxing are enforced and requires and issues licenses for all professional boxers and, importantly, boxing personnel.

It allows the United States Boxing Commission to suspend or revoke a license if it finds the holder has violated provisions of this Act.

It requires a study and report on health and safety aspects related to boxing, as well as on the definition of a promoter.

It requires the United States Boxing Commission to provide an annual report to Congress on its activities.

I think Mr. Bruce Spizler, chair of the Legal Committee of the Association of Boxing Commissioners and a former member of the National Association of Attorneys General Task Force on Boxing, in his testimony to our subcommittee, summed up the current situation best when he said: ``The regulation of the sport of professional boxing has been left to those individual States and, more recently, tribal organizations, which, legislatively, have provided for its own boxing commission to regulate the sport in its own particular jurisdiction. Thus, considering that the authority of each regulatory component is restricted by its territorial borders, the effective regulation of the sport of professional boxing in the United States is only as strong as its weakest link; leaving `venue shopping' as an effective tool for those seeking a lighter regulatory `punch.' The glaring absence of regulatory uniformity, together with the difficulty, and varying degrees, of effective enforcement, has lent itself to a perpetuation of the inequities, lack of integrity and, in some instances, non-adherence to health and safety measures for which the inherently dangerous sport of professional boxing, unfortunately,'' by its reputation ``has become known.''

I cannot think of a more powerful argument in favor of a Federal commission, that is sunset, designed to oversee the sport of boxing and ensure uniform minimum standards, especially for those States that do not have programs or have inferior ones. States with mature programs, in my opinion, should be supportive because they are already leading and serving as benchmarks.

In addition to the support of the Association of Boxing Commissioners, this bill has been endorsed by the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Association of Professional Ringside Physicians.

In closing, this is an important opportunity to save a sport that has brought so much pride and glory to the United States. Boxing is suffering from problems that stretch far beyond the boundaries of State regulation. It is a sport worth saving that will need the power of our Federal Government oversight to clean up its act and ensure the safety of all its athletes. All the great champions that have paved the way for the sport should be able to count on us to provide a minimum amount of oversight in this situation.

I urge my colleagues to consider this bill, H.R. 1065, the United States Boxing Commission.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise just in reply to my colleague who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee who made some points in terms of jurisdiction and also made some points that the bill has minimum impact upon the budget.

I have here a copy of the amendment which is part of the manager's amendment that we have next in place, which takes care of the concerns he has by striking a portion of the bill and in place putting it that the bill is self-sufficient and the money that is appropriated comes from the licensure fees. So I would urge the gentleman to vote for the manager's amendment, which will be coming up shortly. That will take care of his main concern, which appears to be that he is concerned it was $5 million the first year and the GAO audit indicated more money thereafter. But with this manager's amendment, the GAO audit is nullified and we have a self-sufficient bill.

Another point I would like to make is the basic thrust of the bill is a 12-year supervision with three appointees

on the commission from the President of the United States with 3-year duration of tenure. At that point they can be reappointed, or they can continue at the President's request. We have in place something here that is very rare on the House floor, and that is something that is sunsetted. So when people talk about a new Federal bureaucracy, let me be perfectly clear. This is a very, very light, temporary government oversight committee to bring accountability and to bring justice to a great American sport. Everybody in the business who testified wants this type of temporary structure. So I think in a larger sense we have to say to ourselves now is the time to do this and, in so doing, in this way we will do the least amount of harm by making it temporary and at the same time asking them to pick up the ball and run with this as a voluntary organization much like other professional sports do.

So I am glad to rise to point out to my colleague that it is going to be amended so that it is budget neutral; and, two, to point out to him that this is not a new Federal bureaucracy, but instead an oversight board to help guide this sport to its ultimate success.

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

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

I would point out, as the gentleman from Nebraska did say he offered an amendment to abolish all of boxing, I think in his statement he also made an argument in favor of our bill. When he posed the question why should we care, think about that. Why should we care? That was his question that he asked in the hearing, and it simply came back to him that we should care about these fighters, these young fighters who are starting out, many from very difficult economic situations. We should care. And I think as Members of Congress, I hope they will keep that question in mind when they support the bill and realize that the gentleman from Nebraska really had an amendment to abolish boxing, which is almost in direct counterpoint to the question he posed, Why should we care?

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), the former head coach of the Nebraska Cornhuskers.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I am offering today a manager's amendment that will perfect the underlying bill to ensure that H.R. 1065 is a fiscally sound piece of legislation that uses a self-funding mechanism for the United States Boxing Commission established under the act.

Let me be crystal clear to my colleagues, taxpayers are not being forced to pay for the USBC. Boxers, boxing personnel and the sanctioning organization, such as the World Boxing Association, WBA, the International Boxing Federation, IBF, and so on, will provide the funds, through payment of license and other fees, which will be collected by the USBC.

Specifically, my amendment will do the following: Section 5 of the bill will be amended to clarify that fees authorized and collected shall be available to fund the operation of the United States Boxing Commission and administration of this act.

Section 14 of the bill will be amended to clarify that offsetting collections are available to the USBC subject to appropriation. This is a very good amendment. It is bipartisan. The bill itself will save lives, protect vulnerable athletes and help get the sport of boxing back in fighting shape.

First and foremost, it will end the corruption and abuse that has plagued the sport for so long so America will regain its pride in boxing and all of its wonderful champions. Moreover, it will be done in a fiscally responsible way. I urge my colleagues to support this perfecting amendment and support H.R. 1065.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague's amendment, and I think I would accept it. Both our staffs have looked at this. We think it is a good improvement on the bill, and so I commend the gentlewoman for her extra work here on the amendment and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) who has also been involved with it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding. I do not rise in opposition. I think this amendment is good. We accept it. I would point out, during the hearing, we had a boxer who died of natural causes and as a result of that he rose in the ranking because of the lack of standards that are set. And so I think, in this case, her amendment would be worthwhile, so that this sort

of anomaly does not occur again in which a boxer dies naturally and he rises in rank in the standing in the overall professional standing. So I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment, I think, improves the bill quite a bit, addresses the fee language to ensure that the fees collected pursuant to the act are credited, as the gentleman mentioned, as offsetting collections only for the purpose of funding the commission. It is important to ensure that any fee collected is used expressly for the purpose intended, namely, the funding of this commission.

User fees are common throughout most industries and are often used to fund activities that, other than the purpose of the fee that is collected. We know that. We see that oftentimes in Congress. But this amendment will ensure that this does not happen. So I think it is very good. And I compliment the gentleman for it. It is a good policy. The insurance commission is the only entity that receives the industry fees that it is collecting from. It has bipartisan support, and I appreciate the gentleman working with me and my staff, and I commend my colleagues to vote and support it.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, this Friday, Americans will observe Veterans Day, a special day of national observance that we have set aside to remember our veterans and their sacrifices.

The 50 million Americans who have served our country since the American Revolution have done more than just protect our national security. They fought for our freedom, and in so doing, our veterans have provided a shining example for the millions of Americans who followed in their footsteps.

In my own family, my father served in the Navy during World War II in the Pacific theater. He was in the Iwo Jima campaign and was awarded the Bronze Star.

Nearly 2 million veterans live in my home State of Florida. Thousands of my fellow Floridians have served or are on active duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some of these soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice and many have suffered grievous wounds. I salute these brave men and women.

Madam Speaker, may God bless our veterans, their families, and this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, President Bush addressed a Virginia audience, vowing no letup in the war on terror. He acknowledged we have rocky roads ahead but we will not falter. The President said, ``Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision and they end up alienating decent people across the globe.'' And he said, ``And tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent, until the day that free men and women defeat them.''

Mr. Speaker, why did he say this? For what exactly are we fighting is the question. On Saturday, October 29, 2005, in India, explosions rocked two New Delhi markets, killing almost 60 people. Although Indian officials appeared hesitant to immediately place blame, Pakistan-based Islamic militants have been suspected in these bombings. Possibly, as some Indian analysts and newspapers have suggested, these are Pakistani-based groups fighting to wrest Kashmir from India.

Meanwhile, in Jakarta, Indonesia, that same day, seven assailants attacked a group of high school girls walking through a cocoa plantation on their way to class in Indonesia's tense province of Central Sulawesi, beheading three and seriously wounding a fourth. The girls were from a private Christian high school. Indonesia is the world's most populous Muslim nation. But Central Sulawesi has a roughly equal number of Muslims and Christians, and sectarian violence. The province witnessed such a bloodly war in 2001-2002 that killed around 1,000 people from both communities. At the time, beheadings, burnings and other atrocities were common.

Last week, a grateful Nation paid respects and laid to rest a woman who had the courage to practice her convictions, Rosa Parks. In great part, thanks to her understated fight for freedom, we can take for granted in this country our civil liberties. One of the most fundamental of these, of course, is the simple freedom to worship. However, the irony of our Nation being touched by such a peacefully resolute woman being an agent of change with nothing more than the word ``no'' the same weekend we witness these alternative, violent ways of objecting to our fellow man by these Islamic fundamentalist terrorist practices is not lost on me.

As did Rosa Parks, thousands of individuals today around the world want to practice their civil rights in the name of freedom of worship, perhaps in a faith not held by their nation's leaders. We want to practice Christianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism, or observe no religion at all, yet there are some people who just cannot stand this, who absolutely refuse to allow us this opportunity. The Web site www.persecution.org, a Web site that tracks human rights and persecution of people for choosing to simply practice their Christian faith, reported on October 6 that 53-year-old Pamilton Tadoa, a member of the Tabernakel Pentecostal Church in Indonesia, was shot in the head and killed in the area of Poso while he road his motorbike to school where he served as a treasurer. His death raised fears of a new Islamic crackdown on evangelicals in Indonesia, where 10,000 Christians died between 1998 and 2003 at the hands of extreme Islamic jihad warriors, according to human rights group Open Doors. About 1,000 churches were burned down by Islamic mobs, Open Door said in that report.

Some ask why are we at war? Why are we fighting this war on terror? Because this is how some people in the world continue to settle their differences. Our Nation faces angrily squabbling, fighting mad, groups and individuals who are diametrically opposed to one another, but it seldom

rises to the level of bloodshed. We settle our differences at the ballot box, here in Congress, not with car bombs; through media exposure, not machete swipes. If one cannot see that continued civilization itself is in danger, I don't know what else can persuade you.

Twenty-six years ago last Friday, November 4, 1979, Islamic terrorists took hostages in Tehran. This is how some people in the world address disputes: They take hostages. They push old men in wheelchairs over ship rails into the sea, the Achille Lauro example. They behead little girls. They strap dynamite to their children and send these innocent children to detonate clusters of fellow innocent citizens. They bomb nightclubs, subways, pillars of commerce and symbols of freedom. As long as people reign who cannot live peacefully, the war on terror must press on for the safety of all of us.

Mr. Speaker, back in June, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling in Kelo versus City of New London that states that the Government can seize personal property for the purpose of economic development. Mr. Speaker, this ruling embodies everything for which our Founding Fathers did not want this country to stand.

Mr. Speaker, the Kelo ruling is a gross misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment allows for the government to obtain private property for public use, meaning this property can be obtained for the government to build something such as a school or a road. However, the Kelo ruling allows the government to take property owners' farms, private businesses, or even our homes so that big-time investors and businessman can come in to our towns and cities and build shopping malls and supermarkets on the property that is rightfully owned by our constituents.

I support H.R. 4128, The Private Property Rights Protection Act, and urge all members to do so. This piece of legislation will allow us as Members of Congress to protect our constituents against the loophole created in Kelo by the Supreme Court, and will allow us to punish those state and localities that take advantage of their citizens and of this ruling.

Mr. Speaker, the recent release of a report from the Independent Inquiry Committee into the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program, also known as the Volcker Committee, has once again brought the issue of U.N. mismanagement to the forefront.

According to the Volcker Committee, $1.8 billion in kickbacks and elicit surcharges were paid to Saddam Hussein's government by nearly 2,200 different companies in widespread abuse of the Oil-for-Food Program. As we can see, the Oil-for-Food Program lacked proper accountability and oversight, and thus caused massive fraud and abuse.

Unfortunately, this lack of accountability and oversight is nothing new at the United Nations. As the largest U.N. donor, the U.S. has the responsibility to ensure that the dollars of the American taxpayers are not being wasted. Until such accounting reforms are made, no United States money should be sent to the U.N. Only after such reforms are enacted will the United Nations begin its return to relevancy.