Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and I rise in disapproval of the bill. I am very disappointed in this bill. America faces real problems with its energy needs. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But instead of pursuing the program of energy efficiency, we here have a bill that pursues the policy of political payback to Republican friends and corporate welfare.

The bill takes us back in time by weakening the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. Why would we do this? Why are we letting polluters make policy? Why, when we have made so much progress, would we go back to weaker standards? I think we all know the answer: Because oil and gas companies find it cheaper to pollute and push off the real cost of their activities to the real people of this country. The citizens will pay more for cleanups and, even more disturbing, will pay more for health care costs, for more asthma treatment, and more for cancer treatment, more for everything.

I must also say that the ethanol special interest subsides in this bill are shameful and talk about special interests subsidies, special interest industry tax breaks. This bill has ballooned from the President's $8 billion tax cut proposal, up from the House's $16 billion tax cut proposal, to a whopping $23.5 billion tax cut proposal of subsidies to the industry. Have we all forgotten the $400 billion deficit we have right now?

I am afraid my Republican colleagues can no longer call themselves fiscal conservatives. Let us increase the debt and push it off so our children and grandchildren can pay it because we are not going to.

I, for one, am sick and tired of coddling polluters. I am sick and tired of sticking the average Joe with the cost of fixing polluters' problems. We should be concerned with conservation, with the environment, with alternate sources of energy. We should try to lessen our dependence on Middle East oil. This bill does none of that and it should be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, Riverdale is a fortunate community in that not only do the people who live here care for it, but newcomers after they arrive also do their best to make it even better.

Hilary Kitasei came to our community a few short years ago and in that relatively brief time has made a lasting impression on her new neighborhood and on how the community looks. She first took on a rather desolate piece of wasteland at Fieldston Road at the Henry Hudson Parkway overpass and using her considerable abilities transformed it into a woodland glade that is a highlight of the neighborhood.

It was planted by the students from almost all of the local schools as well as neighbors and is now a part of the New York City Parks Department Greenstreets Program.

Setting her eyes on a larger project she is spearheading the development of the Hudson Scenic Byway Program to create New York State's first urban scenic byway.

Riverdale, and by extension all of New York City, is lucky to have such people as Hilary Kitasei. I join all of our community in thanking her for the wonderful things she has done.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman, my friend from Minnesota, for recognizing me, and I rise in support of the manager's amendment that will be offered later, and I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Oberstar), the gentleman from New Jersey (Subcommittee Chairman LoBiondo) and the gentleman from California (Ranking Member Filner) for their support of my amendment which they have included as part of the manager's amendment.

I also rise in support of the overall bill. The Coast Guard is a vital part of our national security. We must provide them with the tools they need and the funding to successfully execute their mission. I am especially pleased with the funding for the Integrated Deepwater Systems program.

Madam Chairman, I offer my amendment because I continue to have grave concerns about the safety of my constituents should the Indian Point nuclear power plant be attacked. I am concerned about the safety and security of the plant. I have even more concerns about the ability to evacuate people safely, but that is for another debate.

This amendment is simple. It requires that the Coast Guard conduct a vulnerability assessment of the facility. As of January 1, 2003, the Coast Guard had established a permanent safety and security zone around Indian Point. However, the Coast Guard's Hudson River cutter passes Indian Point about twice a week, and its copter only about three times a week.

Indian Point is located in Buchanan, New York, 35 miles north of midtown Manhattan and just a few miles northeast of my district. Almost all of my district is located within the 10-mile radius of the plant, and approximately 20 million people live within the 50-mile emergency planning zone or EPZ.

In addition, as we know, blueprints for American nuclear power plants were found in al Qaeda caves in Afghanistan, and that point bears repeating. Al Qaeda has the plans to some U.S. nuclear power plants.

A study conducted by the Marist Institute found that 82 percent of people living within a 50-mile radius of the plant are concerned about a potential terrorist attack on the facility, moreover, a majority of residents in the 50-mile radius do not feel that the plant is secure and protected against a terrorist attack.

I support closing Indian Point completely. Absent that solution, I am working with my colleagues to ensure that it is the most safe and secure nuclear power plant possible.

Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to support the manager's amendment and the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3166, legislation to name the United States Postal Facility at 57 Old Tappan Road in Tappan, New York after former Congressman John G. Dow. The House of Representatives lost a member of its family on March 11th of this year when John Dow passed on at the age of 97. After living a storied life dedicated to serving the propel of Rockland County and the State of New York, it is a privilege to honor this great man on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Born and bred in New York, John Dow earned a bachelor's degree from Harvard University and later a master's from Columbia University. In 1954 he began his career in public service holding the post of Civil Defense Director in Grandview, NY and later Chairman of the Grand View Zoning Board of Appeals. John Dow then stepped onto the national political scene, winning a seat in Congress in 1965 in the 22nd Congressional District, which encompassed Rockland County.

John Dow served just six years in Congress but his imprint on this body was far greater than his tenure. He was one of the few Members of Congress that openly questioned and opposed the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Despite popular opinion, he spoke out against laws that would ban flag burning and fiercely defended the civil rights movements, even marching in the south to show his support for equal rights. He was an independent thinker that did not always take the popular stand but fought for what he felt was right for Rockland County, for New York, and for the United States.

John Dow upheld the great values of this country at a time when we most needed it. He was considered a voice of dissent in the Congress against the Vietnam War even though it was a President of the same party leading us into that war. John Dow's warnings and cautions would ring true in later years as the reality of the Vietnam War set in. His principled stance eventually cost him the opportunity to continue serving in Congress but that did not deter him. As the political winds shifted, John Dow was swept out of office in 1968. He would return for another term, winning election in 1970, but would lose his seat for good two years later. However, John Dow would continue serving the people of New York and Rockland County until his death.

Mr. Speaker, I am a life-long New Yorker and I am proud of that fact. I am proud to serve the people of my district and the Rocklanders that John Dow once represented. It is a tribute to his service and his memory that every Member of the New York delegation, Democrat and Republican alike cosponsored this legislation to honor one of our own. I want to thank Chairman Davis and Congressman Waxman for expediting this legislation so that we can honor Congressman Dow and his service to this great nation.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to announce that my former Administrative Assistant, John Calvelli, is turning 40. It is hard to believe that the lanky kid I met when 19 is now older than Jack Benny always claimed to be. I guess it makes me realize that I am that much older too, although I constantly remind John that he has more grey hair than me.

I won my first primary election for Congress on September 15, 1988, the day John turned 25. I told him that evening ``John, we're going to Washington together'' and indeed we did. During those first months in Washington, we would sometimes walk outside, gaze at the Capitol dome and say to each other, ``Do you believe we're really here?'' I think that at 25, John was the youngest AA on the hill, but he rapidly turned into one of the most effective and well-liked staffers in Washington. Everybody got to know John. Even as a young person, he had what we in New York call the best ``gift of gab'' I ever heard. He always had that little extra something. He served as my AA for more than 11 years, and our working relationship and friendship during that time could not have been better. In fact, I often refer to John as the kid brother I never had.

During the course of my Congressional terms, John and I would often develop strategy for legislation, committee assignments, and many other things essential to a successful congressional career. We traveled cross country and overseas many times. Our first trip was probably one of the most memorable. It came that first summer in 1989, when I visited the three ``I's'' of New York City politics, Israel, Italy and Ireland, as well as Egypt. We came back from that trip with a picture of the Pope, stories about Egyptian fruit, grape leaves and the ``Kinjedom'' down in Luxor. John's complete fluency in Italian made him a great person to travel with. In fact, whenever we met Italian- speaking tour groups, in the many different countries we visited, nobody would believe that John was from New York and not from Italy.

I want to tell John that now that he is 40, one of the age categories in my newsletter this year will read, age 40 to 56, and in honor of his birthday we will talk about ``Quattro formaggi'' in Italian, ``Political Party'' in English, and the 40-hour work week being sacrosanct. I know that John's family is as proud of him as I am. His wife Maria and son John Domenico, as well as his parents Rose and John, and brother and sister-in-law Louis and Angela all share in his happiness on this special day.

John continues to remain active with many Italian American organizations, including NIAF and FIERI, a group in which he was one of the founders. John and Maria were married ten years ago at Fordham University, John's alma mater. John is an attorney by trade but since leaving my office he has been a Senior Vice President at the Wildlife Conservation Society also known as the Bronx Zoo. To this day in Washington I get many people asking me, how is John doing?

It is a pleasure to honor John as he turns 40, and whether his future lies in politics or elsewhere I am sure that the phrase ``you ain't seen nothing yet'' applies to my ``kid brother'' John Calvelli.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Illinois for yielding time, as well as my friend from Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1591, legislation I have worked on with our Senator, Senator Schumer, to name the United States Postal Service facility at 48 South Broadway in Nyack, New York, in my district, after three heroes: Nyack Police Officers Edward O'Grady and Waverly Brown, and Brinks Guard Peter Paige.

I am proud to have introduced H.R. 3167, the House version of this bill, that has the support of the entire 29-member New York State delegation in the House. It is a true testament to those three brave men who helped prevent the deaths of countless others 22 years ago today when an armed gang attempted to rob a Brinks armored truck in the middle of the day at a crowded mall with no regard for the lives that would fall in their wake. The naming of this Federal building will serve as a living memorial to these fine men who made the ultimate sacrifice while serving their community.

Mr. Speaker, there are few events that rock a community such as this. To this day, the people of Rockland County can recount the events of October 20, 1981, as if it were yesterday. This wonderful, tranquil community was awakened by the stark gunfire of a gang of heavily armed murderers and thieves who struck at the heart of the community, the Nanuet Mall, where children and families shop, eat, and spend time throughout the year. This brazen act forever changed Rockland County and the families of those gunned down.

It is reassuring to know that Peter Paige, Edward O'Grady, and Waverly Brown did not die in vain. After this horrific incident, Rockland County implemented new training measures and policies that have saved the lives of many officers over the last 22 years.

In addition to better coordination with State and Federal agencies, the Rockland County Police Department also began rigorous new training programs designed to deal with these types of crises. These new policies undoubtedly enhanced the Rockland PD's response to September 11 and the subsequent war on terror.

Also, every year on October 20, and as we are speaking now this is happening at this moment, the community gathers at a park on the Hudson River dedicated to their memory to honor their lives and their heroism. Today, the loved ones of these fine men are there remembering their son, their father, their friend. I am honored and humbled to inform them that the House of Representatives is recognizing them as well, and that the memory will be forever imprinted on Rockland County and, indeed, on our entire Nation.

This honor comes at a difficult time for the families of the victims as a participant in the robbery, Kathy Boudin, was recently paroled. Although she has regained her freedom, the lives of Edward O'Grady, Waverly Brown, and Peter Paige can never be replaced and the wounds their families and friends and the community still feel can never be healed. So, again, this is a fitting tribute to the memory of those lost and the lives of those still with us who grieved for their loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), for moving

this legislation quickly through the committee and to the floor so it can be considered today, the exact anniversary of that tragic day.

I also want to thank the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), for his help and cooperation in facilitating this process, and the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for her support today. In addition, today would not be possible without the tireless work of our Senator, Chuck Schumer, and the entire New York delegation, who have come together as New Yorkers do in a time of need and have unanimously supported this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1591, legislation I am working on together with Senator Schumer, to name the United States Postal Service facility at 48 South Broadway in Nyack after three heroes, Nyack Police Officers Edward O'Grady and Waverly Brown, and Brinks Guard Peter Paige. I am proud to have introduced H.R. 3167, the House version of this bill that has the support of the entire New York delegation. It is a true testament to these brave men who helped prevent the deaths of countless others 22 years ago when an armed gang attempted to rob a Brinks Armored Truck in the middle of the day at a crowded mall with no regard for the lives that would fall in their wake. The naming of this federal building will serve as a living memorial to these fine men who made the ultimate sacrifice while serving their community.

Mr. Speaker, there are few events that rock a community such as this. To this day, the people of Rockland County can recount the events of October 20, 1981, as if it were yesterday. This wonderful, tranquil community was awakened by the stark gunfire of a gang of heavily armed murderers and thieves who struck at the heart of the community, the Nanuet Mall, where children and families, shop, eat, and spend time throughout the year. This brazen act forever changed Rockland County and the families of those gunned down.

It is reassuring to know that Peter Paige, Edward O'Grady, and Waverly Brown did not die in vain. After this horrific incident, Rockland County implemented new training measures and policies that have saved the lives of many officers over the last 22 years. In addition to better coordination with state and federal agencies, the Rockland County Police Departments also began rigorous new training programs designed to deal with these types of crisis. These new policies undoubtedly enhanced the Rockland PD's response to September 11th and the subsequent war on terror. Also, every year on October 20th, the community gathers at a park on the Hudson River dedicated to their memory to honor their lives and their heroism. Today, the loved ones of these fine men are there--remembering their son, their father, their friend. I am honored and humbled to inform them that the House of Representatives is recognizing them as well, and that their memory will be forever imprinted on Rockland County, and our entire Nation.

This honor comes at a difficult time for the families of the victims as a participant in the robbery, Kathy Boudin, was recently paroled. Although she has regained her freedom, the lives of Edward O'Grady, Waverly Brown, and Peter Paige can never be replaced and the wounds their families and friends still feel can never be healed. So again, this is a fitting tribute to the memory of those lost and the lives of those still with us who grieve for their loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both Chairman Tom Davis and Ranking Member Henry Waxman for moving this legislation quickly through the Committee and to the floor so it could be considered today on the anniversary of that tragic day. I also want to thank Majority Leader Tom DeLay for his help and cooperation in facilitating this process and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for her support. In addition, today would not be possible without the tireless work of Senator Chuck Schumer, and the entire New York delegation who have come together as New Yorkers do in a time of need and have unanimously supported this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for yielding me this time and for his kind words.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of H.R. 1828, the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003. As the lead sponsor of the bill, I am very appreciative that this bipartisan bill, which I wrote in my office and introduced more than a year and a half ago, is today coming to the floor. I am pleased to have worked on this bill with our lead Republican sponsor, the chair of the Subcommittee on the Middle East, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen), and it has been a delight to work with her on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, since the war in Iraq, it has become plain to ordinary Americans, Members of Congress across party lines, and officials in the administration what has been plain to me for many years, that Syria is among the most dangerous, destabilizing countries in the Middle East. In 1979, our U.S. State Department put forth a list of countries which support terrorism. Syria was a charter member of that list. She has been on that list unabated for 24 years; and yet she is currently the only country on this list with which we have normal diplomatic relations. I have never understood that, and it is time to tell Syria that the game is over.

As President Bush said on June 24, 2002, ``Syria must choose the right side in the war on terror by closing terrorist camps and expelling terrorist organizations.'' In fact, terrorist groups that have thrived under Syrian protection have taken hundreds of American lives. In 1983, Hezbollah killed 241 U.S. Marines in a terrorist attack near Beirut and killed more in the bombing of the U.S. embassy annex the following year.

Syria also plays host to a number of terrorist groups in its capital, Damascus, and terrorist camps throughout Syria and Syrian-occupied Lebanon. In fact, the leader of the Palestine Islamic Jihad, which just murdered 21 innocent people in a homicide bombing in the Israeli city of Haifa, lives in Damascus. Israel was correct and justified in its recent attack on the Palestine-Islamic Jihad training camp in Syria.

The threat of collusion between terrorist groups and the Government of Syria must be addressed directly, especially because of Syria's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Under

Secretary of State John Bolton testified last month before the Subcommittee on the Middle East that ``since the 1970s, Syria has pursued what is now one of the most advanced Arab state chemical weapons capabilities and is continuing to develop an offensive biological weapons capability.''

For a country with Syria's history with weapons of mass destruction, this is a cause for serious concern.

Even with all this damming evidence about the threat that Damascus poses some have suggested that we should not hold Syria accountable. The reasons they give have varied, but the most common is that Syria has somewhat helped the U.S. in our war on terror. Absolutely nonsense. Syria is both the arsonist and the fireman. She continues to help terrorism and then throws us crumbs and says look, I am putting it out. That shell game has got to stop.

Syria is two-faced, throwing the few small bones of information to American sources while continuing to aid the most violent terrorist groups in the Middle East. This is not an acceptable deal in the post- September 11 world.

Under this bill, unless Syria meets four key criteria, it will face several sanctions, both economic and commercial and military. First and foremost, Syria must end its support for terrorism. It must close the offices and end the operations of the Palestinian terror groups and stop the supplies to Hezbollah. And it must come into full compliance with Security Council Resolution 1373 which directs all countries to fight terror.

Secondly, Syria must withdraw its armed forces from Lebanon. Nothing would do more for peace and the promotion of democracy in the Middle East than a free and sovereign Lebanon. The U.N. long ago certified Israel's withdrawal, but the Syrian military occupation remains. It is time to let the Lebanese run Lebanon.

Thirdly, Syria must halt development and procurement of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. The Syrian force of hundreds of Scud missiles topped with unconventional warheads poses a serious danger to the Middle East.

Finally, Syria must take immediate steps to stop guerrillas from traveling to Syria to Iraq to attack and kill American troops.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform you that this bipartisan legislation has gathered 297 cosponsors in the House including a majority of Democrats and Republicans, and the bill received an overwhelming 33 to 2 vote in the Committee on International Relations. The Senate version of our bill tells a similar story with 76 cosponsors led by Senators Boxer and Santorum.

Finally, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for moving the bill forward and for their support, as I mentioned before. I also thank the chair of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her hard work, and all 297 Members of the House who have cosponsored this important bill. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, for moving the bill forward quickly on the House floor, and the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and the majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), for their cosponsorship of the bill.

I urge the House to pass this important legislation and send a clear message to Syria to end its destabilizing policies. I am also grateful that the administration recently lifted its opposition to the bill, and President Bush has indicated that he will sign this bill. Again, in the war against terrorism this is a good place to continue. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.

As a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and as a cosponsor of this bill, I really want to thank the judge. We ought to have more court rulings like this, because I have never seen one that brings this Congress closer together the whole year. This has often been a contentious Congress that clashes on issues. Here everyone agrees. I want to thank the judge for making us all love each other.

We do it because 50 million Americans have signed up to not be bothered by telemarketers. That is a phenomenal amount of people in a very short time. So if there was ever an issue on which everyone agrees, this is the issue.

Everyone has been bothered at the dinner table with these annoying calls. This morning as I was leaving to come here to the Capitol, the phone rang. I picked it up, and there it was, another telemarketer asking kind of sneaky questions, intrusive questions, trying to get you to give them some information in a very sneaky way. People are just fed up with it.

There are no first amendment rights here. All of the things that have been said about why this law should be blocked are ridiculous. Again, in all my years in Congress, I have hardly ever seen anything with which everyone agrees.

So, again, I want to thank the judge for bringing us together. I rise in strong support of the legislation, and as a cosponsor, I commend the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). That is why this is such a great committee; we all agree on so many important things.

Mr. Speaker, I, like many of my colleagues here this morning, rise to talk about September 11 and what it means to all of us as Americans, what it means to me as a New Yorker in particular, and the fact that these brave people that lost their lives, more than 3,000 of them, our lives will never again be the same. America lost its innocence that day, and we have been thinking ever since about how we can best respond to ensure that we can

prevent these ugly acts of terrorism against our country.

Mr. Speaker, terrorism is everyone's enemy and a civilized world needs to ban together to fight terrorism. Here in America, we have had September 11; but 6,000 miles away, the brave people of Israel every day have to cope with ongoing acts of terror. The other day two horrific suicide bombings killed nearly 20 people, and 2 weeks ago, when I was in Israel, a bus bombing killed 22 people, including 5 Americans, 3 of my constituents.

When I go back to New York every week and look at the New York skyline and do not see the World Trade Center, I feel our city is not yet whole and something is missing. It has been 2 years since September 11, 2001, but I feel like I have aged 20 years since then. In my office is a two-page spread from the New York Times. It has pictures of the 300-plus firefighters who died that day in New York. Most of the pictures are of young men who are the same age as my daughter. One of them is the picture of a friend's son, Christian Regenhard.

When I look at the faces of these brave people, I have often thought what can I, as a Congressman, do to ensure this never happens again, and I think we need to make sure that the funding is there so our first responders can respond, and we need to make sure that the brave people who protect us have all the resources they need. We need to also make sure that the people who lost their lives that day are never forgotten. In a few minutes, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and I are going to talk about the True American Heroes Act of 2003.

The bill posthumously awards Congressional Gold Medals to government workers and others who responded to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and who perished, and to people aboard United Airlines Flight 93. We owe it to ourselves and our families and our countrymen to ensure this never happens again.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time to me, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

I rise to offer my strong support for H.R. 1538, the True American Heroes Act of 2003. I also rise to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for their leadership on this bill and also my colleague and friend from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), who has been a stalwart ally in this effort. Finally, I want to thank the House majority and minority leadership for agreeing to bringing

this bill up under unanimous consent and today on September 11. It is very fitting that we do this on September 11.

Today is the second anniversary of the greatest attack on America since our Republic was founded. Since that day, Americans have stood together, united as we never have before. Thus, it is fitting and appropriate that the House takes up this legislation. It provides the heroes of that day with a Congressional Gold Medal. It awards these medals to government workers and others who responded to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and perished and to the people aboard United Airlines Flight 93 who helped resist the hijackers and caused the plane to crash. This bill is combined with a bill that I had that we had a majority of Members of this House cosponsoring which requires the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the spirit of America, recognizing the tragic events of September 11, 2001. I am delighted that we have combined these two bills into one really very special bill.

Mr. Speaker, on September 12, 2001, after coming down to Washington from New York, I was in New York City on September 11, I spoke on the House floor. I would like very much to read what I said that day, September 12, one day after the terrible attacks in 2001, because it is the way I feel now, and I think it is the way so many of us feel.

``Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak from the heart. I have had a very tough couple of days. I think America lost our innocence yesterday, and I just kept thinking that perhaps this was a bad dream and we would somehow wake up and it would not be true, but we all know it is.

``Mr. Speaker, I am a New Yorker, born and bred. I love our city. I was in New York when this tragedy occurred. I often say to my children when we come back to New York, look at the skyline, look at the World Trade Center. It is so invigorating. It makes me feel so wonderful just to be in this city, the city I love, the city in which I was born.

``Mr. Speaker, we New Yorkers are a tough breed; but I have to tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, this morning at 7 a.m. when I went over the George Washington Bridge to come back down here to Washington and I took a look at the New York skyline and saw the Twin Towers were not there and in its place I saw the smoke and the fire, I really lost it. I really lost it.

``Mr. Speaker, as much as I have lost it because I do not see the towers there, it pales by comparison when I think of the victims, the men, women and children who lost their lives; the firemen, the policemen who came there to save people's lives and lost their lives.

``People who go to work, like millions of people in this great country, go to work to earn a living to support their families, they go to work and they are killed by lunatics.

We have some questions to be asked, Mr. Speaker. We have to ask why our intelligence failed us, why our security failed us. Congress has to get to the bottom of this and ask these questions. Congress will find out.

Let me say to the terrorists and those people in the streets that we saw, the Palestinians and others who were dancing in the streets with glee, let me say to them and Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban and all the people that support terrorism, you have awakened a sleeping giant. The United States will not rest until we root out every one of you, until we root out the terror and the terrorist cells. We are going to rally around our President, as we always have, with bipartisanship. We are all one America. God bless this wonderful Nation. God bless America.''

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the vote on this bill today will be unanimous, because 2 years later, we in this Congress are just as resolute as we were 2 years ago to destroy the scourge of terrorism and to honor the brave men, women and children who lost their lives and to the people who responded who gave their lives so that others may live.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention of the House of Representatives an article in the Washington Post on July 10, 2003 entitled, ``The Big Shakedown on Russian Business.'' This article by Masha Lipman, editor of the Moscow Carnegie Center's Pro et Contra Journal, exposes a pattern of arrests and investigations of prominent business executives in Russia. Calling this behavior by Russian security agencies ``shakedown justice'', Masha Lipman makes a strong case that ``this mock justice compromises the credibility of the Russian President when he pledges that Russia is a lawful state.''

One of the key factors in the development of a nascent democracy, like Russia, is the rule of law, as it underpins all aspects of the society. If Russia, or any other country for that matter, is to attract investment or create an environment conducive to business growth, it must be clear that investments and entrepreneurial activity will be protected under a system governed fairly and equitably according to the law.

The arrests and investigations described by Masha Lipman send precisely the wrong signals about Russian free-market economics, democracy, and the rule of law. Perceptions about a hostile business climate in Russia could have a chilling effect on foreign investment in Russia at a time when the country's economy is rapidly improving. I urge my colleagues to read this important article and join with me in urging the Russian government to take affirmative actions to support and uphold, and not to undermine, free market principles and democracy in Russia.

I submit the article by Masha Lipman into the Record at this point.

[From the Washington Post, July 10, 2003]

The Big Shakedown on Russian Business

(By Masha Lipman)

Moscow.--Mikhail Khodorkovsky is an oil magnate and, by

most accounts, Russia's wealthiest man. He is also having

some difficulty with law enforcement. Late last week he was

summoned to the chief prosecutor's office for interrogation

regarding the activities of some of his associates. Of

course, this kind of thing isn't unique to Russian business

executives; Westerners have seen many important people led

away in handcuffs over the years. But in the case of

Khodorkovsky's associates and other prominent business

executives here, it's not so much a matter of the rule of law

as it is of what might be called shakedown justice. This mock

justice compromises the credibility of the Russian president

when he pledges that Russia is a lawful state. It is also

detrimental to Russia's economic development. It threatens to

stultify the country's efforts to attract badly needed

foreign investment.

Several cases have been opened recently against people

associated with Khodorkovsky's big and successful oil

company, Yukos. The allegations include embezzlement, fraud

and murder. Two people are in jail, one of them being Platon

Lebedev, a billionaire and a co-holder of Yukos's controlling

stake. Yesterday the prosecutor's office was also reported to

be examining an alleged case of tax evasion by Yukos. (Also

yesterday, the U.S. Embassy in Moscow formally asked the

Russian government to explain its investigation of

Khodorkovsky, according to a senior U.S. diplomat.) Theories

abound as to what may be behind the shakedown, or nayezd, as

this action is being ' commonly referred to in the media and

among professional analysts. Nobody among them believes that

the case against Lebedev, or any of the other cases related

to Yukos, is a purely legal matter. In attacking Khodorkovsky

and his company, the prosecutor's office and the state

security agency, the FSB, appear to be acting on orders from

somebody with huge political clout.

Khodorkovsky believes that Yukos was picked as a target

because it's a world-class company and, especially after its

recent proposed merger with another Russian oil giant, a

tasty morsel attractive to a number of people in this

country. Ultimately, Khodorkovsky claims, this is a struggle

for power ``between different wings in the inner circle of

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.'' He offers no details to back

up this allegation, but there is no doubt that whoever is

attacking him would have to be very highly placed.

Early in his tenure as Russia's president, Putin announced

as his guiding principle the ``dictatorship of the law.'' But

at the same time, the prosecutor's office and the FSB were

used by the Kremlin to attack Putin's nemesis, media tycoon

Vladimir Gusinsky (for whose company, I should note here, I

worked for a time). The campaign against Gusinsky and his

associates lasted more than a year and included various

intimidating actions: raids by masked security agents,

searches, arrests and investigations. The cases mostly fell

apart, but the tactics worked: Gusinsky was forced to leave

Russia, and his media business was ruined. Similar methods

were used against another business tycoon, Boris Berezovsky,

who currently lives abroad. As a result, people who felt they

weren't getting their fair share of the goodies saw the

benefits of ``hiring'' law enforcers to improve their

position against a competitor, or just to extort money.

Igor Yurgens, vice president of the Russian Union of

Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, a group of business

tycoons, said in a recent interview that his organization

gets ``dozens

or hundreds'' of calls from provincial businessmen who

complain of similar--if much more small-time--shakedowns.

They tell stories of visitors calling on local businessmen

and informing them that their businesses had not been

properly registered some nine years before. The unfortunate

entrepreneur then has a choice of paying the extortionists

money or facing ``variants,'' which means, according to

Yurgens, ``the use of law enforcement bodies with the purpose

of redistributing property.'' In a similar fashion,

Khodorkovsky's attackers may hope to rectify what they

believe has been unfair distribution of the oil business or,

for that matter, of political power.

Khodorkovsky may still be able to defend himself and defeat

his attackers. He claims the president feels no hostility

toward him. Because Putin is sure to be reelected next year,

Khodorkovsky said, the current struggle is about ``who's

going to be in the second echelon of his team.'' If

Khodorkovsky's guess is right and it is indeed a faction in

the Kremlin--not the president himself--going after him, his

connections, money, reputation and skilled advisers may be

enough to repel the attack. But however this affair turns

out, it will have little if anything to do with proper

judicial procedure. The general understanding in Russia is

that in cases such as this, the ultimate decision is made not

in the courtroom but at the top level of the Kremlin.

Certainly one would think that Putin would be concerned if

indeed his top aides are using law enforcers to engage in

self-seeking pursuit of power and wealth. But there is an

even more important reason why he should worry about this

sort of thing. Putin has for some time emphasized the need to

lure foreign capital to Russia. He has not had much success.

During his grand visit to Britain recently, the Russian

president did his best to tout his country's ``favorable

conditions for investors.'' The question is: How interested

are foreign investors going to be when they see that even a

world-class business cannot feel secure in Russia or expect

to get justice in a court of law?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to call to the attention of the House of Representatives an article by Girma Asmerom, Ambassador of Eritrea to the United States. His article celebrates July 4th, American Independence Day, and discusses the challenges of the young independent nation of Eritrea. Highlighting Eritrea's developing democratic system and successful campaign to stamp out corruption, Ambassador Asmerom states that his people seek ``trade and investment, not handouts from our partners and taxpayers.'' I thank Ambassador Asmerom for his kind words during July, the month we celebrate America's independence, and wish the people of Eritrea well in the days ahead.

I submit the article by Ambassador Asmerom into the Record at this point.

[From the Metro Herald, July 4, 2003]

A Tale of Two Independence Days

(By Girma Asmerom)

When Americans celebrate their Independence Day on July 4,

they commemorate 227 years of struggle to create a free and

prosperous society. The fruits of that struggle are here

around us, to observe and to enjoy.

America did not emerge from British colonial rule fully

formed as a complete, liberal, democratic state. The outcome

of the American Revolution was not a foregone conclusion on

July 4, 1776, and even after the peace treaty with Britain

was signed in 1783, it was unclear whether the 13 colonies

along the eastern seaboard would continue to exist in

harmony.

The American Constitution (1789) and the Bill of Rights

(1791) laid the foundations for a free society. But bumps

along the road were sure to come, and they did. The Alien and

Sedition Acts of 1798 threatened the freedoms guaranteed by

the First Amendment (freedoms not fully clarified through the

judicial process until after World War I!). The War of 1812

threatened a loss of independence through invasion by the

former colonial power, Great Britain. And although the

Declaration of Independence clearly stated that ``all men are

created equal,'' slavery did not end until the U.S. Civil War

was fought and half a million Americans died in it.

Every American, no doubt, can relate a favorite story from

American history that shows how, through trial and error, the

United States has evolved--through blood, sweat, toil, and

tears, as Winston Churchill put it in another context--making

Independence Day celebrations that much more precious.

Imagine, then, what it must be like to live in a country

that has been independent of foreign domination for only a

few years--to be precise, twelve years.

That is what it is like for my country, Eritrea. After

successive colonization by Turkey (1557-1865), Egypt (1865-

1884), Italy (1890-1941), Britain (1942-1952), and Ethiopia

(1952-1991), we commemorated 12 years of independence just a

few weeks ago, on May 24.

Tor three relentless decades, the Eritrean people fought

for independence against Ethiopian occupation and incredible

odds without any assistance from governments or outside

forces. We achieved self-determination through a U.S.-

supervised referendum in 1993. We are developing a democratic

system in keeping with the values of our people and with

their full support. We have indeed taken measures to protect

our national security, as is our right--indeed, our

obligation to our people. We are proud of the achievements of

our country over a little more than a decade.

In that time, Eritrea has challenged the scourge of

developing countries, government corruption, which is,

admittedly, endemic in much of Africa. I am happy to report

that the U.S. Department of State pointed out in 1998:

``Corruption is not a significant barrier or hindrance to

investment or trade in Eritrea.'' The distinguished Canadian

journalist, Peter Worthington, added: ``. . . while [Eritrea

is] the world's newest independent state (1993) and one of

Africa's poorest countries, it's also the safest, least

corrupt, most self-reliant.''

Like the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Eritrea

has spent the past dozen years emerging from the

strangulation of Soviet-backed Ethiopian occupation. Like the

United States in its formative years, six years after its

independence, under the pretext of border conflict, Eritrea

suffered invasion by its former colonial overlord (Ethiopia),

leading to the death of 120,000 Ethiopians and 19,000

Eritreans, as well as displacement of countless families.

This war also brought massive economic destruction to both

countries.

One of our major challenges is the current unprecedented

famine. This is a temporary situation brought about as a

consequence of a complete failure of rains last year, in

addition to the dislocation resulting from Ethiopia's

invasion. To overcome these circumstances, the Government of

Eritrea and its people, with the assistance of the

international community, are exerting relentless efforts.

More can be done, of course, but we are doing the best we can

with limited resources.

Success will come. We have as our model Eritrea's

achievements in public health. The U.S. Agency for

International Development notes: ``Despite Eritrea's rank as

one of the poorest countries in the world, it ranks 31st in

healthy life expectancy.'' Eritrea has one of Africa's lowest

rates of HIV/AIDS infection, only 2 to 2.5 percent; it has

eradicated polio; and in 2002, it reduced malaria in children

under five by half.

Eritreans, dedicated to their tested vision, as a matter of

policy refuse to look for foreign economic assistance to

bring economic development. We seek trade and investment, not

handouts from our partners and taxpayers. Eritrean-Americans

living in communities across the United States are natural

lines of communication between our two countries and peoples,

encouraging further engagement and future U.S.-Eritrean

commercial ties.

Americans have much to celebrate on the Fourth of July. We

Eritreans take this opportunity to salute and congratulate

the American people on their Independence Day.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I absolutely agree with everything the gentleman from Vermont said. I support what he is trying to do about the PATRIOT Act.

I do not very often get up to complain about procedure here, but I want to just express my frustration in being a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the authorizing committee. I had an amendment that I was going to introduce. As of 8 p.m. last night, we did not see a bill, so there was no way we could draft the amendment. And then this morning, with the UC agreed to, it effectively cut out members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce that had a bill that deals with our committee that had an amendment.

I just find it very, very frustrating that this UC was done, and had I been on the floor I would have objected.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from New York (Mr. Serrano) for yielding to me and at least giving me the opportunity to air my amendment and some of the grievances.

As I said before, I have no desire to frustrate colleagues; but a lot of us here are very frustrated over the quick change that was made with the unanimous consent and our inability now even to ask to strike the last word. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) is one of my best friends. We have served together. We come from the same town.

I just want to say that my frustration is that last night at 8 p.m. this bill had not been introduced. A copy was not available to start the process of review or drafting of amendments. This morning we had the text of the bill on line, but not the accompanying report. And now we have a unanimous consent to limit amendments to ones that were preprinted in the Record, which for Members not on Appropriations is impossible, unless it is a simple limitation or ``to strike'' amendment.

I have an amendment which would move money from the National Telecommunication and Information Administration to the Public Telecommunication Facilities, Planning and Construction Program, which is called TFPC. Both of these are under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, on which I sit. As a courtesy to the authorizing committee members, I believe we should have an opportunity to review the bill and offer amendments.

Even more troubling is that the Committee on Appropriations has provided $1.3 million more for NTIA than the President requested, while cutting PFTP by $40 million.

My amendment would simply move $1,310,000 to the PFTP from the NTIA. And I think the whole House should have an opportunity to vote on what the priorities for funding in this bill are.

I feel very strongly about public television. That is what my amendment would have done. I would like to have had the opportunity to be able to voice that and to have a vote. That is not going to happen; and in a desire for expediency, we have thwarted the democratic process. I share the frustration of my colleague from Vermont and other colleagues who do not have the opportunity.

Again, as a member of the authorizing committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I believe that what went on here was wrong and should not happen again.

I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for giving me the ability to voice these problems on the House floor, and I would hope that as we negotiate this bill and continue to negotiate with the other House and the bill comes back that we will increase money for public television, we will increase money for the PFTP. And I would hope that on both sides of the aisle they look at that and can find more money for the very worthwhile programs of public television. I thank my colleague.

I thank my friend for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. This bill is a cruel hoax perpetrated on America's seniors. This bill is not about helping seniors. It is all about privatizing Medicare. This is not the Senate bill. This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It purports to help seniors. All it does is create a goal that many people on the other side of the aisle have wanted for years, the privatization of Medicare. This bill drains the lifeblood out of the Medicare program and breaks the promise we made to seniors 38 years ago when Medicare was created.

I wish this Congress could have come together for an historic moment that would finally provide seniors with the type of prescription drug coverage they need and deserve. Unfortunately, we are doing a disservice to our seniors by shortchanging them with a woefully inadequate drug benefit. Why is it inadequate? Let us face it, there is not enough money in this bill because my friends on the other side of the aisle have bankrupted this government with huge tax cuts, huge tax cuts to benefit the rich, huge tax cuts which make it impossible to help entitlement programs like Medicare. When the leaders over there said they wanted Medicare to wither on the vine, they were speaking the truth and that is what is happening today. With the enactment of this bill, Medicare is withering on the vine.

When I came to Congress 15 years ago, my goal was to provide meaningful prescription drug benefits. My bill and others, 1045, would keep the promise of Medicare, which was created to prevent seniors from having their life savings ravaged by health care costs. Today we are considering no such thing. The legislation before us is not a promise kept to seniors, it is a promise kept to HMOs and insurance companies. This is not the Senate bill. The Senate bill was a starting point to improve upon. This bill bankrupts Medicare, privatizes it by the year 2010. American seniors will not have Medicare as they know it by 2010. Again, when you have tax cuts for the rich and you do it to help your rich friends and you want to strangle social programs and entitlement programs, you do not have an adequate bill.

This bill should be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. Israel's fight against terrorism is our fight. As President Bush said, there are no good terrorists or bad terrorists, only bad terrorists.

I very strongly support this resolution standing with the people of Israel.