Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me this time.

I am listening to my friend from Colorado saying that people back home may be confused when they listen to this debate. Well, I would suggest that they do not have to be confused at all. Listening to this debate and looking at the proposal that has been offered by the friends we have on the other side of the aisle reveals their true intentions and their true interest when it comes to tax justice in this country.

The alternative minimum tax is the major tax reform issue of this decade, not 20 years ago, not 30 years ago, but this decade, when because of the interaction of the proposals that you have brought forward and the relentless pace of inflation, it has drug millions of Americans into a tax that was never, never, never intended to apply to them. But what we have seen, the Republican majority chooses instead to focus their time, their energy, and tax resources on other issues. The inheritance tax, which affects a few thousand families a year, you have lavished attention and mortgaged our future in terms of the dollars that it would mean.

And what do you have to say about the alternative minimum tax? Well, every year you kick the can down the road, do it on the cheap, on the sly; not allowing, as my colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, had offered, for it to be brought forward, have a full debate, allow a clash of priorities and intentions.

I am convinced that the majority of people in Congress believe the rhetoric that you are saying about the pernicious nature of this tax that taxes people because they have families, because they take advantage of some of the tax preferences, because they pay their property and income tax. If we had a free and honest debate and a chance to offer meaningful alternatives, we would scale it down, if not repeal it.

But, unfortunately, our friends do not believe in their own rhetoric. They have other priorities. If they believed it, this would be the centerpiece; but instead they are extending taxes that do not even expire for years and benefit only a few.

I am sad to say that what we are doing here is going through the motions. We are going through the motions even if somehow the Senate buys into this for a 1-year extension. We are keeping people in limbo. We are skewing our fiscal and tax policies. And we are subjecting hard- working middle-class families who were never intended to be subjected to the minimum tax. They are going to suffer. I think it is shameful.

I will vote for the extension because that is the best the Republican leadership is willing to do. But it is a sad day for this House, and it is a sad day for American families.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the Special Order time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. Speaker, we have had a great deal of give and take on the floor this evening, important issues that we have discussed throughout the day. But I am pleased this evening to rise to recognize the outstanding accomplishments of the women's soccer team for the University of Portland, which this last weekend won their second national championship in the last 3 years. The Lady Pilots finished the season undefeated. They set a single-season attendance record, or rather their rabid fans did, over 40,000, the first time this has ever happened.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very solid program that was built by the late Clive Charles, the legendary soccer coach, a solid foundation that has made a tremendous difference for women's soccer in our State of Oregon and around the country.

It is my pleasure to extend congratulations to President Bill Beauchamp, Coach Garrett Smith, and the players: the 2005 College Cup MVP for the offense, Christine Sinclair; the defensive MVP, Cori Alexander; and College Cup all tournament team members, Stephanie Lopez, Angie Woznuk, Megan Rapinoe, and Lindsey Huie. They are truly a work of art to watch, the camaraderie, the spirit, the drive and determination of this team. It has performed at an outstanding level for over a dozen years now.

Somewhere in heaven I know the late Clive Charles is smiling, and in Portland the entire community is cheering.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill which contains critical funding for Oregon veterans and their health programs. In addition, this bill contains funding for the BRAC process and military construction and housing that are important for Department of Defense efficiency and quality of life. I am disappointed that this conference report cut funds from the BRAC 1990 Account which is used to clean up unexploded ordnance and other contamination on closed military bases from a House-passed $378 million to $255 million. I will continue to work with Congress to ensure the military cleans up after itself and returns sites to productive use.

Mr. Speaker, I support the Conference Committee Report on the Transportation, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary Appropriations Act 2006, which provides essential funding for important infrastructure projects in Oregon and the rest of the nation. The bill provides $18 million to complete the Interstate MAX light rail project, which has been an incredible success in North Portland. Additionally, $15 million for a commuter rail project between. Wilsonville and Beaverton will provide further transportation alternatives in the region and anchor important development projects in each of these suburban cities.

I was heartened to see the $1.3 billion set aside for Amtrak. I am concerned, however, that the bill separates Amtrak's operations funding from its capital funding, essentially allowing the Department of Transportation to serve as a steward for Amtrak's capital money, handing out grants for approved projects. I am wary of this being yet another attempt by the administration to dismantle America's passenger rail system.

I am relieved to see that the Conference Committee did not eliminate funding for valuable for HUD programs such as Community Development Block Grants and the HOPE VI program. I am concerned, however, that many of these programs continue to be underfunded. The many individuals and families displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will increase demand for these valuable programs.

Despite these faults, the bill will fund important infrastructure improvements, create jobs, and make our communities safer, healthier and more economically secure.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank certain organizations and individuals for their outstanding work on the important, but often overlooked, issue of pollinators. As you know, pollinators are vital to food and medicine production, and their irreplaceable ecosystem services and declining populations merit attention and protection.

I am happy to say that significant progress is being made. On October 21, the North American Pollinator Protection Campaign, NAPPC, signed a joint memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The agreement proposes protecting pollinators on the nearly 100 million acres of habitat over which the Fish and Wildlife Service has jurisdiction. These lands, combined with another 200 million acres protected by the U.S. Forest Service, attest to the growing momentum behind this issue.

The successes of these organizations are impressive and encouraging, as is the dedication of certain individuals. On October 20, four such individuals were awarded the First Annual NAPPC Pollinator Advocate Award.

Don Pedro Cahun Uh, of Mexico, was recognized for his outstanding efforts to preserve not only traditional Mayan culture, but also the declining populations of the Yucatan Peninsula's native stingless bees.

Dale Bosworth, chief of the USDA Forest Service, pioneered pollinator awareness among U.S. Government agencies and paved the way for the protection of native plants and their pollinators on almost 200 million acres of land.

Bruce Knight, chief of the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, exhibited exemplary leadership in the creation of a highly successful pollinator habitat program.

Ron Krystynak, of the Canadian Embassy, was recognized for taking a lead role in North American pollinator conservation, and for his holistic approach to sustainable agriculture and ecology.

These individuals represent a variety of perspectives and a singularly effective leadership on this issue. Their achievements will carry us closer to the goal of sustainable ecosystems and communities.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the most significant day in the war in Iraq since we first began our attack. As President Bush is learning that our few allies are withdrawing their troops, Congressman Jack Murtha has publicly concluded it is time to bring our troops home.

Despite attacks by some who never had a hint of his military service, whose own mismanagement, not just of the information that got us into this effort, but whose inept mismanagement of the war itself left us with few good options, Jack Murtha remains the single most knowledgeable and respected Member of this House dealing with military affairs.

I have not seen eye-to-eye with Jack from the beginning, when I opposed attacking Iraq, to a statement I just posted, after weeks of thought, for a more gradual withdrawal. But I and every Member who is thinking honestly about this sad episode will reconsider my conclusion because of Jack Murtha's courageous and heartfelt statement. He is the only Member of Congress who has earned the right to be listened to . . .

Mr. Speaker, I rise troubled, I must say, by this legislation. I appreciate the chairman's commitment to reform and also the ranking member. They have been steering, I think, a good course with Financial Services, and I am encouraged by their words that we are going to go ahead and attempt to continue the process of reforming the flood insurance program.

But today in signing off on $22 billion that cannot be supported simply by the premiums by the individuals that are covered right now, I personally think is a tremendous lost opportunity.

We heard a lot of rhetoric the last couple of days. People come to the floor talking about how to save taxpayer dollars, but we have not undertaken to make reforms that would protect taxpayers in the first place.

Our colleague from Mississippi has been focusing on the problem with flood insurance not being available to a whole range of people. No expectation they should have it. People behind levees are not required to have flood insurance. We have not dealt with subsidized insurance for areas that are vacation homes, second homes.

I am concerned that there is never really a good time to be able for us to seize this opportunity. While I say I am heartened by what I have heard from the ranking member and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), and certainly they steered a difficult course last time in being able to make some of these incremental achievements, but if there was ever a time that the attention of this Congress should be on the dangers of the way that the program works now and the people that are in harm's way, the opportunity to not just save money but save lives by these reforms.

Nonetheless, I look forward to working with the ranking member and the Chair, and I will do anything in my power, but I would hope the House does not ever again allow something like this to come forward and miss such an opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, three years ago, I argued against the Bush Administration's proposal to attack Iraq for the very reasons we have seen emerge from this troubled region. We were prepared to defeat Saddam Hussein's military but the administration and congressional leaders were never prepared to win the peace.

Not only was the premise for the war flawed, but the administration has made the wrong military, political, and diplomatic choices at every turn. The members of our armed services make up the finest fighting force in the world and they have done their duty with great distinction and honor, yet the administration has failed them as well.

I take no satisfaction in my worst fears having been proven correct. The administration's spectacular failures in executing this war have set back our efforts against terrorism and left America with no good options in Iraq. But, as our military is being not just frayed but damaged and Iraq faces increasingly difficult prospects for democracy and stability, staying the course is simply not an option.

Until now, I have resisted advocating for an accelerated pullout because of my fear of the downward spiral that could occur in the aftermath. Yet this is a question that must be faced sooner rather than later, and it's hard to imagine a policy that would be more destabilizing than the administration's current mismanagement of the war effort and continued estrangement from reality.

There is no longer any basis for the hope that a sustained American military occupation will stabilize Iraq. Instead, we continue to lose credibility and influence in the region and with our allies, as well as strengthen the hands of those extremists who wish to do us harm. Even many of those who initially supported military action have come to admit that the administration's strategy has failed and that a large United States military presence inhibits the development of a stable and democratic Iraq. Iraqis in key positions are arguing for at least some withdrawal of US. forces. Most telling is a recent poll of Iraqis themselves, commissioned by the British Ministry of Defense, which showed that 82 percent of Iraqis were ``strongly opposed'' to the presence of foreign troops and less than 1 percent believe the their presence is helping to improve security.

Iraq's future depends on creating a secure space for politics and the rule of law to replace violence. This is a process at which only Iraqis themselves can succeed, with America and the international community playing a supporting role. Elections scheduled for December provide the perfect opportunity to begin the withdrawal of American troops, a refocused U.S. effort, and transfer of responsibility to Iraqis.

American forces should be redeployed out of Iraq in two phases. First, let's bring the 46,000 National Guard and Reserve forces home immediately. These elements in our total force have been most overburdened by

ever-increasing deployments and are most needed here in the United States.

Continued U.S. aid and military support must be tied to performance objectives for the Iraqi government and military. On that basis, the rest of the American forces should be withdrawn over the next one to two years, based on a detailed plan for the sector by sector transfer of security responsibility. The majority of these troops should be brought home. Others should be redeployed to Afghanistan to create a larger security footprint and help prevent the reemergence of the Taliban. A small rapid-reaction force should be left in Kuwait that can protect against any destabilizing coups.

The administration must reengage diplomatically by seeking a new United Nations resolution that supports international efforts to stabilize Iraq and by beginning a regional security dialogue with Iraq's neighbors. We should also work with the Arab League to facilitate a renewed effort towards a political solution within Iraq by engaging with nationalist faction leaders who might be a force for stability in that country if U.S. troops were withdrawn.

We must also change the nature of our economic assistance. By shifting reconstruction aid to Iraq away from large projects undertaken by foreign contractors towards small, locally oriented projects run by Iraqis, we create jobs, give Iraqis a greater investment in their success, and minimize corruption and price-gouging.

President Bush's model of ``go it alone, do it cheap, and put it on a credit card'' has not only led to grave instability in Iraq, it is crippling our ability to deal with the more serious strategic threats, from Iran and North Korea to a terrorist movement that we have inadvertently strengthened. We must now do our best to salvage what we still can of American credibility, military readiness, democratic ideals, and Iraqi stability through a change in strategy and the beginning of a responsible phase-down of American troops and the orderly transfer of authority to Iraqis.

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2006 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies appropriations is not just an underfunded bill but is harmful. A bill which should be a stepping stone towards providing good education, employment opportunities and access to affordable health care, instead takes away important safeguards upon which Oregonians and Americans depend. It is another example of how out of touch the Republican leadership is with the rest of the Nation.

This bill shortchanges education programs and imposes a burden on our college students. At a time when the global economy demands a highly trained, educated workforce, we are making it more difficult for our students to succeed by cutting financial aid programs, impacting over 90,000 Oregonians who are borrowing money to attend college. Oregonians have already been saddled with at least a $1,000 increase in college tuition over the last year. And while there are over 55 million children in public schools nationwide and State budgets are already stretched thin, No Child Left Behind funding is cut by $784 million.

Students are not the only ones feeling the squeeze. Several health care programs are threatened or eliminated in the legislation. While over 600,000 Oregonians are without health insurance, this bill essentially eliminates many of the safety net clinics and community health centers on which uninsured people depend. We may end up seeing more people in emergency rooms with severe conditions that could have been prevented with regular access to health care.

With over 7 million Americans out of work and over 100,000 Oregonians unemployed, the bill cuts the Department of Labor by $430 million. Without assistance the gap between the wealthy and the less fortunate will continue to widen. Americans deserve better and it is irresponsible to say that these eliminated programs and funding cuts are the only way to solve our budgetary mess.

Mr. Speaker, Nancy Russell is a woman of great courage, vision, and determination who has made heroic efforts in protecting the Columbia River Gorge. Her singleness of purpose and determination was a driving force that led to the unique Gorge National Scenic Area legislation in 1986.

She and her late husband, Bruce Russell, made significant personal financial commitments securing the purchase of key properties and easements. Without Nancy and her efforts, this national treasure would undoubtedly have been spoiled by sprawling development, pollution, and traffic.

Nancy Russell and her efforts have earned much recognition and acclaim, but perhaps nothing is as meaningful as when hundreds of her friends, supporters, and admirers gathered this weekend to honor her in the 25th anniversary of the advocacy group she founded, the Friends of the Columbia River Gorge.

Notwithstanding her recognition, the true legacy of Nancy Russell is to be found every time anybody hikes, bikes, drives, or flies over the magnificent Columbia River Gorge, which she has protected for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Georgia's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill, and I rise in support of it. It is a very important initial step that we need to make.

I take modest exception with my friend, the primary sponsor of this legislation, because I do think the range of disasters actually were, in fact, foreseeable and foreseen. I have been talking about this precise situation on the floor of the House for several years. It is one of the reasons why I worked in the previous Congress to deal with the reform of the Flood Insurance Act that was signed by President Bush last summer.

As I mentioned the last time we had an extension on the floor to extend the borrowing authority, this is absolutely critical. We must do it, we should do it, but it is only part of an overall solution.

I deeply appreciate the leadership that has been displayed by Chairman Oxley, Ranking Member Frank and Mr. Ney and Ms. Waters in the hearing that was held today in Financial Services, looking at the long- term consequences of the flood insurance program and where it needs to go.

The simple fact is that what we saw in the gulf region from East Texas to the Florida Panhandle is not something that is unforeseen or something that is not going to occur again. In fact, science tells us that we are seeing coastal erosion. We have seen increases in storm events. Over 70 percent of the American population lives in areas where they are in harm's way to one or more natural disasters, of which flooding is the most frequent and the most damaging. We need to not just extend the borrowing authority. We need to look at the fundamentals of the program as Financial Services did today.

It is time to stop the fiction that somehow a levee protects people and they should not have flood insurance. People behind the levee in the 100-year flood plain absolutely should be mandated to have flood insurance, since we are at the point where the ``flood of the century'' is happening two times a decade. We need to change that definition, and in fact, the proposal to study or even extend flood insurance requirements for people in the 500-year flood plain is probably in order.

We need to be looking consistently at the big picture. We cannot afford to throw more and more taxpayer dollars at people who are going to repeatedly be in harm's way. Our hearts go out to the victims of Katrina and Rita, and I absolutely approve this legislation and extending the borrowing authority and not burying it in the flood insurance rates. That is not fair to everybody else.

However, we do need to make fundamental changes in that program, build on the reforms of last session. We need to make sure that people in repetitive flood loss situations are either moved out of harm's way or they flood proof their property. FEMA must get on the stick in implementing the reforms that we passed last session, and we need to expand the scope of the program itself.

This will make sure that people change their behaviors. It will put more money into the program by people who should be investing in it, and we will be able to have a more coordinated approach to make sure that we are not only fiscally responsible but we are helping people stay out of harm's way in the first place.

Last but by no means least, Mr. Speaker, our attention needs to go beyond the flood insurance program. We have people who are in danger for wind storms, mud slides, wildfires, forest fires. I have already mentioned coastal erosion. This is all part of a big picture, to sort out the limits of where the Federal Government provides relief as a last resort for an unforeseen natural disaster and where the private sector steps in to extend the principle of insurance.

Along the way, we make some changes so that State and local governments are responsible for what happens in their communities. I must say, as I began working on issues related to Katrina recovery, I was stunned to find that there were three Louisiana parishes and seven Mississippi counties that do not even have building codes. I am not talking about comprehensive plans and zoning. I am talking about building codes. It is time that we coordinate what we do on the Federal Government to provide resources, carrots and sticks, to make sure that we have a balanced partnership to save people's lives, limit damage and, of course, be responsible with the taxpayers' money.

Madam Speaker, the Republican fiscal mismanagement is so bad, and their budget proposals so dreadful, that even the Republican Caucus is having difficulty swallowing it. Mainstream Republicans do not

agree with K Street Republicans, who do not agree with Wall Street Republicans; but they are hopelessly out of touch with the street where most Americans live.

The Republican Congress seeks to mask their fiscal irresponsibility with cuts for millions of poor, the sick, for students and their families, literally taking food from the mouths of poor children to pay for more tax cuts for people who need them the least.

There is much talk of scandal here in Washington D.C., but to have a proposal offered up that would actually increase the deficit more than if they just gave up and went home is a scandal. It is a scandal how tragically out of touch my Republican colleagues are from the needs and desires of the average American.

Mr. Speaker, the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina taught us again the importance of investing in our Nation's water infrastructure. While I believe that significant changes need to be made in the operations and management of the Army Corps of Engineers, I support this legislation which acknowledges the lack of prioritization process for Corps projects. I support language in the bill that directs the National Academy of Public Administration to study and recommend factors to be used in determining the allocation of the Corps' limited resources.

I also strongly support funding contained in the bill that will benefit my constituents and the Pacific Northwest environment. I appreciate the funding included for floodplain restoration on Johnson Creek, which will enable the Corps to undertake a cost-effective environmental improvement within an area slated for industrial development and will help leverage private development by proactively addressing important stream corridor needs. I am also pleased that the conferees chose to fund an energy conservation program at the Armory Theater in Portland and a Solar Photovoltaic Test Facility System at Portland State University. The conference report also contains important funding, although not nearly the amount necessary, for the St. Johns Landfill Dike Stabilization, which will help prevent municipal and industrial waste from contaminating sensitive wetlands. Finally, I appreciate the funding in the bill directed towards dredging, maintenance, and environmental restoration on the Williamette and Columbia Rivers.

However, I am strongly opposed to language in the conference report directing the Bonneville Power Administration, BPA, to cease funding of an important independent scientific research center based in Portland, OR, known as the Fish Passage Center, FPC. For over 20 years, the FPC has been vital in ensuring that State and tribal fishery managers are armed with the best available scientific information about the status of salmon populations. In this role, the FPC fulfills a legal obligation under the Federal Northwest Power Act and under tribal treaties.

Without the Fish Passage Center, the myriad of Federal, State, and tribal agencies responsible for Pacific salmon recovery could lack valuable data and information on what works and what doesn't to recover salmon. Federal efforts to recover Columbia and Snake River salmon are currently in flux after a recent Federal district judge overturned the most recent Salmon plan. With so much uncertainty surrounding future recovery efforts, now is not the time to reduce access to the best available scientific information.

Although the language in the conference report directs PBA and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council to transfer the functions of the FPC to ``existing and capable entities,'' I am concerned that it does not provide enough direction about how this should take place and does not ensure that State and tribal fish and wildlife agencies will have a say in how and where these functions will be transferred. I hope that BPA and the Council set up a process that actively engages and is fully responsive to the needs of the State fish and wildlife agencies and tribes for whom the FPC was originally created.

The Pacific Northwest is about to embark on a 1-year-long court- ordered process to correct the flaws in the Federal Columbia Basin Salmon Plan. It is my hope that the transfer of the FPC functions does occur seamlessly and in full collaboration with our State and tribal managers so they may fully participate in discussions and negotiations concerning the operations of the Federal Columbia River Power System.

Mr. Speaker, the deadliest plague in human history was the influenza pandemic of 1918 which killed up to 100 million people around the world. While annual flu strains tend to spare young healthy adults, every few decades a strain arises that can kill people in the prime of life. In 1918, more than a quarter of all Americans fell ill. What started for millions around the globe as a runny nose and a sore throat developed into a gruesome, deadly virus. No war, no plague, no famine ever killed so many.

This year, brilliant medical detective work pieced together the genetic makeup of the 1918 virus. The origin was found to be avian influenza, the so-called bird flu.

The new mutant strain of bird flu spreading across Europe and Asia may turn out to be even deadlier than the 1918 virus. As we scramble to assemble plans and get vaccine, more birds infected and more human contact means more opportunity for the virus to mutate, perhaps triggering this next human pandemic.

Both the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization consider another pandemic inevitable, whether triggered by this bird flu virus or the next.

The current proposed spending plan does finally address some measures to mediate the impact of future pandemics, but it overlooks the critical policy initiatives that could directly impact the threat at its source.

For example, avian influenza is not limited to Asia or Europe. There have been over a dozen outbreaks of low-grade avian influenza viruses in the United States just within the last 5 years. An outbreak of a high grade H5 virus in Pennsylvania in the eighties led to the death of more than 17 million birds. Nationwide surveys tracked the strains of that virus back to at least 48 live bird markets across five States. Each year more than 20 million birds of various species pass through at least 150 known storefront slaughter facilities in the northeast metropolitan areas alone, increasing the risk of human exposure and the persistence of these viruses. Most of these operations are not subjected to USDA food safety regulations. These live animal markets should be either eliminated or at a minimum brought within the USDA's existing food safety regulatory scheme.

The United Nations food and agriculture organization has implicated live animal transport as another prime culprit for the rapid spread of the virus across Southeast Asia. Yet transportation of birds reared for human consumption remains unregulated in much of the world and in the United States.

The cockfighting trade is another area under increasing scrutiny as a prime vehicle to spread the disease. We need a stronger Federal law against the transport of cockfighting birds across State and national borders. Gamecocks are not part of any testing program and there is a thriving trade in birds for use in this barbaric industry. The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2005 would increase penalties for violations of Federal animal fighting laws to help prevent illegal cockfighting. The Senate passed this bill unanimously in April, but the identical House bill has not yet been acted upon in the Judiciary Committee. The House and the Senate passed an identically worded felony cockfighting provision in the 2002 farm bill, but inexplicably this provision was gutted in conference. It is unconscionable that we would wait on enacting this felony provision. The House needs to act immediately to strengthen the law to diminish the risk of fighting birds as vectors for avian influenza.

The bird flu virus could also be imported to our shores via the trade in wild birds for pets. More than 400,000 live exotic birds are imported every year to the United States. The stress of confinement and long-distance transport critically weakens their immune

system and makes them susceptible to respiratory viruses. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has already implemented a ban on the import of all birds and bird products from 13 predominantly Asian countries, but this ban should be extended to all nations as a precaution.

This is not the first time that animal diseases have crossed the species barrier to infect humans. The director of the Centers for Disease Control has noted that 11 of the last 12 emerging infectious diseases have likely arisen from animal sources, from SARS to AIDS. With a potentially even more virulent virus waiting in the wings, we must not only act now to soften the blow when a pandemic strikes, but we must attack the problem at its source, the human-animal interface.

We must end unsustainable agricultural practices, intensive confinement of birds raised for food, the cockfighting trade, live poultry markets, the importation of live birds as pets, and the unregulated transportation of birds in general. Millions of lives are at stake. Safe, simple, cost-effective solutions are within our power.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my friend from Texas to support this concurrent resolution. The document marked a historic milestone in the effort of the Roman Catholic Church to improve its relations with Jews and non-Christian religions and to launch a new, progressive, positive dialogue among them.

Mr. Speaker, in a world that is increasingly drawn together through economic, cultural and ties of all kinds, there simply is no place for bigotry, racism, religious hatred, intolerance, or prejudice. The document whose 40th anniversary we are recognizing makes that abundantly clear. And it is appropriate for us to reflect upon that at this time, recognizing also the important role of the Holy See in the fight against religious intolerance and discrimination, and I have appreciated the leadership that we have seen coming from the Vatican of late in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the author of today's resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this point. I would just conclude by welcoming also the resolution's expression of support for the United States to continue to lead the fight against anti-Semitism and other forms of religious and racial prejudice and discrimination, and that people of all faiths have a critical role to play in that matter.

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