Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend the Navy for having the best record for purchasing alternative-fuel vehicles of any agency in the Federal Government. Whereas the overall record for all agencies is just 26 percent of all new acquisitions being alternative-fuel vehicles, the Navy had a 62 percent of AFVs, which is 2,722 of the 4,338 vehicles they acquired.

I have been making these amendments on every appropriations bill because I feel so strongly that we ought to have the different agencies abide by the laws that Congress passes which would require them to purchase more alternative-fuel vehicles.

The Army is also to be commended because this one agency purchased 8,835 alternative-fuel vehicles, about 50 percent of the 17,703 vehicles the Army acquired last year. In fact, the Army acquired more AFVs than all the other civilian agencies combined.

Many of you may think that I am fast becoming a broken record coming to the floor and talking about alternative-fuel vehicles. I prefer a more apt metaphor: I feel like the squeaky wheel.

From the bottom of my heart, I believe that our Nation's addiction to oil has a direct threat to our national security. The Federal Government has to lead the way that will ease our dependence on unstable, undemocratic, oil-producing sheikdoms.

The bill before us today pays for the costs of our operations in Iraq, paid for with taxes from the American people. At the pump the American people pay for gasoline, and some of the profits are finding their way into the pockets of the terrorists that our brave men and women are fighting right now. So, in essence, we are paying for the war on terror twice, and we have to stop this insanity.

The way to do it is to look at alternative means of producing our energy. We have to take the fight to the terrorists before they come back here, and that is not the only part of the solution. What we do here at home is obviously just as important. So ending our dependence on oil must be a key to this.

Just yesterday Roll Call ran a special section called, ``Fueling Alternatives.'' There were editorials by myself, by Senator Burns, former Senators Dole and Daschle, and we all spoke of the importance of ethanol as an alternative fuel. Columns by Senator Bayh and Representative Kingston talked about providing incentives to consumers to purchase alternative-fuel vehicles. I am doing a bill with Representative Kingston that would do exactly that, wean us off of Middle Eastern oil.

We have a broad, bipartisan group of Members of Congress who see the benefits for our national security, our economy and our environment if we take these steps to end our addiction.

And so I find myself on the floor again, though this time I am pleased to be able to talk about the good work of two agencies of the Federal Government; two agencies that are in the forefront of our fight against terrorism; two agencies that are strained to the limit with incredible demands; two agencies that have, in the midst of numerous other missions, taken a small step to lead the way to our safety and security. So I commend the Navy and I commend the Army and for all that they do and for being the leaders as well in procuring alternative-fuel vehicles.

Mr. Chairman, I will cede the point of order, and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I believe in fighting the war on terror. I believe America must stay engaged in the world, but what we have in Iraq today is a quagmire, and what we have on the floor today is a resolution that essentially says stay the course.

You know, sometimes the American people are smarter than the politicians. This resolution would have us believe that everything is hunky-dory in Iraq and everything would be wonderful if we only stayed the course. The American people don't believe that; and, Mr. Speaker, neither do I any more.

We need a new strategy in Iraq, not an open-ended rubber stamp and more of the same. At what point do we reassess our strategy and come to the conclusion that it is not working? But what do we get here from our Republicans friends, a resolution that is a farce, a political document that by the majority leader's own admission was designed to embarrass Democrats and put Democrats in a box.

All of the problems we see in Iraq today, the daily deadly attacks by insurgents, the rise of ethnic militias, the shortage of gas and electricity, the weakness of the economy, can be tied to the complete lack of planning by the administration. It seems they didn't have a clue as to what they would get when they came into Iraq.

Our intelligence was faulty, but what really makes me mad was this war was mishandled from the get-go. First, we didn't send in enough troops. Secondly, we didn't secure the borders. We fired the Baath leaders and created all kinds of antagonisms and unemployed people. We fired the security forces so our people would have to do security, and we fired our own generals that disagreed with the administration.

A former commander of U.S. Central Command, General Zinni, said: ``10 years' worth of planning were thrown away; troop levels were dismissed out of hand. These were not tactical mistakes; these were strategic mistakes, mistakes of policy made back here.''

But what do we have here from our Republican friends? A resolution that is not bipartisan. We could have had a resolution that all of us could have supported. We treasure our troops. I want us to succeed in Iraq, but what do we have: partisan, political drivel. Democrats had no input. Democrats were not allowed a substitute. Democrats were not consulted so our men and women serving in the military are being reduced to pawns in the Republican's election game.

Shame on this resolution. I wish we could have a resolution that I could vote for, but we do not have one on the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Once again I am here to offer an amendment to push the Federal agencies to follow the law and purchase alternative fuel vehicles. I hope it will be accepted again as it has been accepted under other appropriations bills.

I believe I am, at the very least, getting the attention from our colleagues. My office has received more calls about my amendment to this bill than any other appropriations bill so far. So let me clear up one concern.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Thank you.

Reclaiming my time, let me just say that this is common sense. We all in a bipartisan fashion would like to see alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles on the road.

Once again I am here to offer an amendment to push the federal agencies to follow the law and purchase alternative fuel vehicles. I hope it will be accepted again.

I believe I am at the very least getting the attention of our colleagues. My office received more calls about my amendment to this bill than any other bill.

So let me clear up one concern--this amendment does not affect the purchase of buses or cars or ferries by States and localities or mass transit agencies.

It does seek to have the federal government provide leadership in finally ending our nation's addiction to oil by promoting the purchase of AFVs.

If federal agencies were in compliance with the 1992 Energy Policy Act, last year the federal government would have put more than 25,000 more AFVs on the road.

For the major agencies funded by this bill, DOT and HUD are failing to provide the leadership we need. In FY05 almost 75 percent of its cars were gasoline only. The Department of the Treasury has a sad record of 96 percent of their purchases being gasoline only.

Mr. Chairman, there is no one solution to our addiction to oil. It will take steps and efforts from all levels of government, industry and the public. We know though that small efforts can lead to big changes. The federal government can provide leadership in this effort--in fact we must.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the COPE Act. Fundamentally, it is all about promoting greater competition in the video service industry, what we often call cable, but is no longer limited to that delivery system.

We have all heard the complaints from our constituents about the rising cost of cable. For part of my district, the fact is there is no competitor to cable. Satellite TV signals can't magically go around tall buildings nor pass through them to reach someone on the other side. The COPE Act will speed competition into the video service industry and drive down prices.

I am also pleased with the VoIP provisions of the bill. I was an early proponent to require emergency 911 services for VoIP providers. I am also pleased that we cleaned up the rules for VoIP providers to interconnect, thus providing the same level playing field that C-LECs enjoyed. Finally, I was pleased to offer language requiring disabilities access with my colleague from Washington (Mr. Inslee). With the support of Chairman Upton, we have ensured that disabled Americans will be a full part of this broadband resolution.

We will consider a number of amendments today, some I will support because I believe that they will make this a better bill. I would have voted for the Baldwin and Solis amendments if they had been allowed to be put forth. Nevertheless, we start with a good base bill, and it will have my support on final passage regardless of which amendments pass. We have before us a bill that seeks to update our laws to keep pace with new technologies and new market realities.

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that on September 11, 2001, nearly 3,000 New Yorkers were killed in the attack on the World Trade Center and, of course, several hundred as well here in Washington at the Pentagon. Yet the Department of Homeland Security has chosen to cut both New York and Washington by 40 percent of Homeland security funds for this year. It is absolutely mind-boggling and unbelievable and outrageous that New York and Washington would face these cuts. New York's money is scheduled to go down from $207.6 million in 2005 to $124.5 million in 2006.

Now, to add insult to injury, we hear that the Department of Homeland Security is cutting New York's bioterrorism money 15 percent as well, so that in New York, per capita New York would receive $2.99 per resident to fight bioterrorism, while the good people of Wyoming would receive $9.72 cents per person to fight bioterrorism, and the good people of North Dakota would receive $8.09 per person to fight terrorism.

We all know the threat in North Dakota and Wyoming is not nearly as great as New York. What is Secretary Chertoff thinking? What are they thinking over there? Their policies and their thoughts need to change.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding to me, and I am proud to rise in strong support of this legislation and proud to be the lead Democrat on the bill. All too often we hear and experience the partisan divide in Washington, but this bill and the process that so quickly got this bill to the floor has been truly bipartisan.

I must start with thanking my friend and chairman, Mr. Barton, for his leadership on this bill; and I must also note the invaluable assistance of our subcommittee Chairman Upton, and I thank him for his kind words. I also would like to thank our ranking Democrats, Mr. Markey and Mr. Dingell as well.

When someone looks at caller ID, they have the right to expect that the

person or phone number listed is truly that person. The average citizen has no idea that caller ID can be manipulated so that the person or number appearing is totally false.

I first learned of caller ID spoofing when I read news articles about our colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) becoming a victim of it. His own constituents thought they were receiving calls from his district office, and these calls were far from appropriate.

I then learned that this technology is being used across the country to allow unscrupulous people to trick unsuspecting people to release personal information. It is so easy for someone to pretend to be Chase Manhattan or Citibank or even a person's doctor. These services even provide technology to change the sound of a person's voice. I could set it to sound like a 25-year-old woman or an 80-year-old man.

Mr. Speaker, I quickly became convinced we needed to address this issue quickly, because obviously what these people are doing is legal and we are playing catch-up to catch up with them. Having thought about this issue in great depth, I became convinced what happened to our colleague from Pennsylvania was just a harbinger of what is to come.

I believe that right now there are people in our country who plan to use this technology to interfere with our elections. Just imagine, the day before an election, a group of people using this technology make hundreds of calls pretending to be leaving a message from the office of a candidate. That message could be rude, insulting, crude, slanderous, sexist, or racist, and it would look like the candidate or the candidate's organization made the calls. The damage would be done, and these people who will do anything to destroy our democracy will have won. But today, the House takes a bold step toward protecting our Nation from these insidious criminals.

Finally, I would like to thank my staff and the committee's staff who worked on this legislation. Pete Leon of my staff, Kelly Cole and Will Norwind from the majority, and Johanna Shelton, Pete Filon, and Colin Crowell from the minority.

I hope we can pass this without any opposition.

Madam Speaker, we have all seen the polls. We know that Americans are unhappy by what they have seen here in Washington. They are looking for real leadership on the important issues of the day and where is the leadership from this Republican Congress?

Madam Speaker, the Republicans control the House. Where are their new ideas to help reduce prices at the pump? Where are their new ideas to help seniors with the new prescription drug disaster plan? Where are their new ideas on how to help college students afford better college? Where are their ideas on how to help everyday Americans struggling to make ends meet or how to get 45 million Americans that lack health coverage, health

coverage? Where are their new ideas to reduce the huge national deficit which happened on their watch leaving our children and grandchildren with debt as far as the eye can see?

Madam Speaker, Democrats have new ideas and are ready to lead this House.

Offered By: Mr. Engel

Amendment No. 18: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Engel

Amendment No. 18: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I will be brief and submit most of my statement for the record, but essentially this is the same language that was adopted yesterday on the agriculture appropriations bill.

Basically, it is a reminder to the agencies that Congress has created and that Congress continues to fund that they need to follow the laws that Congress enacts. A law was enacted in 1992 which stated that, by 1999, 75 percent of the new vehicles acquired must be alternative-fuel vehicles. We aren't even close to 75 percent.

So this is something that I believe that all Departments should do. The Department of Energy purchased 1,724 cars last year, of which 927 were gasoline powered, meaning that 47 percent were alternative. That is nowhere near the 75 percent.

Again, I will submit most of this for the Record, but my amendment would mandate they essentially follow congressional law and get the purchase of alternative-fuel vehicles up to 75 percent.

Mr. Chairman, President Bush was right to say we are addicted to oil. But now we in Congress need to take action. We need to take this action because it is in the interest of our national security.

We need bold action to end this addiction. We need ethanol--not as an additive but as a full fledged alternative.

I believe we need to get a more flexible fuel vehicle on the road. And, I believe we should use the purchasing power of the Federal Government to pursue this.

Now some may not like the Federal Government interfering in markets. To this I would respond, this is about national security and that

is the Federal Government's responsibility. And with the war on terror, we must look at all options--not just putting our military overseas but what we can do right here at home.

Some might not like the Federal Government interfering with consumer's choices. To this I would respond that the U.S. Government is the largest consumer of goods and services on the planet. And to meet our responsibility to protect the American people, we have to take this step toward weaning ourselves from foreign oil.

Furthermore, Congress has already spoken on this issue, however the Administrations--both Democratic and Republican Administrations--have failed to comply.

Let's take this first step and use the Federal Government's purchasing power to make alternative fuels a reality.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I certainly will, and I will submit my statement for the Record.

Let me say that what we are trying to do here is to move America off its addiction to foreign oil by requiring USDA to abide by the law and at least three-quarters of the fleets that they purchase will have to be fuel-flexible cars, and I am delighted that you will go along with this.

We rarely have an opportunity to meet the needs of our farmers while also directly meeting the needs of our national security. But we do today.

President Bush was right to say we are addicted to oil. But now we in Congress need to take action. We need bold action to end this addiction. We need ethanol--not as an additive but as a full fledged alternative.

And though I am loath to use this metaphor during the debate on the Agriculture bill, we have a chicken and the egg problem with ethanol. Should we put more ethanol on the market and hope people buy cars that can use it or have more cars on the market and hope people will turn to ethanol?

I believe we need to get more flexible fuel vehicle on the road. And, I believe we should use the purchasing power of the federal government to pursue this.

Now some may not like the federal government interfering in markets. To this I would respond, this is about national security and that is the federal government's responsibility. And with the war on terror, we must look at all options--not just putting our military overseas but what we can do right here at home.

Some might not like the federal government interfering with consumer's choices. To this I would respond that the U.S. government is the largest consumer of goods and services on the planet. And to meet our responsibility to protect the American people, we have to take this step toward weaning ourselves from foreign oil.

Furthermore, Congress has already spoken on this issue--however the Administration--both Democratic and Republicans Administrations--have failed to comply.

In 1992 the Congress passed the Energy Policy Act and in section 303 of that law, Congress set out targets for the fleet of federal motor vehicles to be alternative fuel vehicles. By 1999, 75 percent of vehicles purchased or leased were supposed to be Alternative Fuel. We aren't even close.

According the GSA's Federal Fleet Report for FY2005 only 26 percent of new vehicles acquired were AFV.

And only 15 percent of the whole existing federal fleet is AFV.

In 2005, the Department of Agriculture had 41,154 cars--and only 3,267 were E-85 capable. In fact, 85 percent of the Ag Department's fleet is still gasoline only. Of the 4,108 vehicles purchased by the Department of Agriculture in FY2005 77 percent were gasoline only.

The number of flex fuel cars on the road today is less than 8 million out of more than 130 million on the road today.

We must do better than that if we are going to get the gas stations to start providing E-85 as an alternative fuel.

Of the 175,000 ``fuel stations;'' nation wide, only about 700 have E85 available.

And though there are more than 150,000 flex fuel cars in New York there is not one station that sells E85 in New York.

Let's take this first step and use the federal government's purchasing power to make alternative fuels a reality.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me, and I would say that all the compliments that have been heaped upon him and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen during this debate are certainly well-deserved.

Madam Speaker, some of our colleagues here who say they are voting ``no'' also tell us that they are good friends of Israel. Well, to Israel, I would say that with friends like that, she certainly doesn't need any enemies.

Israel and the civilized world and the United States do have enemies. The enemy is called terrorism. And in the Middle East, terrorism has another name. It is called Hamas.

We have to deal with things, Madam Speaker, as they are, not as what we wish them to be. The Palestinians elected a terrorist organization, Hamas, to run their government and be their leaders. We are told by people who oppose this bill, oh, the poor Palestinian people. This legislation hurts the poor Palestinian people.

Well, let me tell you what hurts the poor Palestinian people: The government they elected, Hamas. That is what hurts the Palestinian people.

This bill has been called inflexible and stringent and other such nonsense. Not true at all. And I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. This bill is flexible. Humanitarian aid is allowed. Some of us have some questions about that, quite frankly, because money is fungible and can be moved around, and we don't want money that is being given under the guise of humanitarian aid to be transferred and used for other things, and we know Hamas is capable of doing that.

We are told by some of the opponents that the bill has consequences. Sure it does. Elections have consequences. Nobody denies that the Palestinian people went to the polls and voted for Hamas. But when you vote for someone, there are consequences, and this is the consequence of electing a terrorist organization as your leadership.

Now we are asking Hamas to do three things, it has been said many times here before. I want to repeat them. Three things. They have to say that they are opposed to terror, that they are ending their support for terror.

They have to recognize Israel's right to exist. They have to recognize previous agreements that were signed by previous Palestinian governments. What is so difficult about that? How can we ask Israel to sit and negotiate with a group that does not recognize their right to exist, with a group that wants to destroy them and kill them, and have another Holocaust? This is nonsense.

All this bill does is simply say that we will be cutting off aid to Hamas. And for my colleagues who say that the administration does not want it now, we should not do it because the administration does not want it, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and I were sponsors of the Syria Accountability Act.

The administration at first opposed it. Do you know why? Administrations always oppose bills like that because administrations do not think that Congress should play any role in the conducting of foreign policy.

Well, we do. We are here. We have a right to pass laws that express the desires of this Congress and the desires of the American people. So it is nonsense to say that the administration opposes it and therefore we should go along. The administration opposed the Syria Accountability Act, and ultimately we persuaded it to go along and support the bill.

This bill passed, as was pointed out, in the International Relations Committee 36-2. I was proud to be one of those 36 people. And I think that tomorrow this bill will pass overwhelmingly. This Congress has got to send a strong message that it opposes terror. It opposes terror whether it is Hamas, it opposes terror whether it is al-Qaeda, it opposes terror whether it is Hezbollah. All terrorist groups must be opposed. That is what this legislation does. That is what this legislation says.

The United States and Israel are strong allies in the fight against terror, and this legislation will go a long way in saying to Hamas, we will not do anything with you or help you in any way as long as you do not renounce terror.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 740 which calls on the government of the United Kingdom to immediately establish a full, independent, public judicial inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane. I would also like to commend Chris Smith, the Chair of the Human Rights Subcommittee and the sponsor of this resolution, for his consistent attention to this tragic case.

On February 12, 1989, human rights defense attorney and solicitor Patrick Finucane was brutally murdered in front of his wife and children at his home in Belfast on February 12, 1989. There have been serious allegations of collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and British security forces in the murder of Mr. Finucane.

In July 2001, the Irish and British Governments made new commitments in the Weston Park Agreement to hold public inquiries into high profile murders if so recommended by former Canadian Supreme Court Judge Peter Cory. Indeed, Judge Cory found sufficient evidence of collusion to warrant a public inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane.

It was clearly understood that such an inquiry would be held under the United Kingdom Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, which would provide a fair procedure for the discovery of evidence and other matters. Yet, despite widespread criticism, the British government is attempting to set up a restricted inquiry under the controversial 2005 Inquiries Act, which gives control to a government minister rather than an independent tribunal. This would give the minister the power to decide what information is kept secret or excluded, to end the inquiry at any time, and to edit the inquiry's final report.

The Inquiries Act has been rejected as inadequate by Judge Cory, the Finucane family, the Irish Government and human rights groups. In fact, last year, Judge Cory submitted written testimony to the House International Relations Committee stating that the new legislation is ``unfortunate to say the least'' and ``would make a meaningful inquiry impossible'' .

Mr. Speaker, I have met several times with the Finucane family and human rights groups dedicated to a just inquiry into Patrick's murder. I stand with them today as the House of Representatives takes up this important resolution. Let their courage and determination be a symbol to all those fighting to uncover the truth of such horrors.

I would also like to commend Mitchell Reiss, the special envoy for the Northern Ireland Peace Process, who is continuing to push for full implementation of the Weston Park Agreement and the establishment of an appropriate investigation into Patrick Finucane's murder.

It is my hope that in the days ahead, after seeing this resolution, the United Kingdom will reconsider its position on the Finucane case and will immediately establish a full, independent, public judicial inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane, as recommended by Judge Cory. Such an inquiry will have the support of the Finucane family and the confidence of all who follow this case.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding to me; and as both a co-sponsor of this resolution and as ranking member of the House International Relations Subcommittee for the Western Hemisphere, I rise in strong support of this important resolution.

I want to thank and commend my colleague, Congresswoman Solis, for her leadership in raising attention to the dire problem in Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua, Mexico. I also want to thank my friend, Congressman Reyes, for highlighting this important issue as well.

In a congressional hearing last week, Mr. Speaker, on U.S.-Mexico relations, I directly called on senior U.S. Department of State officials to continue to press Mexican authorities on the approximately 400 women who had been brutally murdered in the Mexican cities of Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua since 1993 and to provide U.S. assistance; and I remain deeply concerned over the killings of these young women. It is time that a serious effort was made to solve these terrible murders that are plaguing the towns in Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua, and I hope that the U.S. State Department will take appropriate action to help Mexico address these heinous crimes, not only the crimes that have been committed but obviously we want to prevent any further crimes from being committed.

I continue to urge the American government to work with Mexican authorities to halt this brutal violence against Mexican women and to investigate these horrible crimes. How can we just sit by as hundreds of women are killed and sexually assaulted just across the Texas border? I condemn the ongoing abductions and murders of women in Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua City and express my heartfelt condolences to the victims' families. We will continue to press this issue until it is resolved.

I thank the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Indiana, and I am happy to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I want to compliment Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen and Congressman Lantos for this bill. I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I condemn the actions and statements of the Iranian Government.

I believe this is one of the greatest crises since the end of the Cold War, and we have to be up to the challenge. Under the guise of saying it needs to meet its own energy needs, Iran has, for years, been engaged in secret efforts to develop nuclear technology that has weapons capability.

Let us be very clear. Iran is lying when she says she wants to use this for peaceful purposes. Iran is a major oil exporter and doesn't need nuclear power for peaceful purposes. She is doing this for one reason and one reason only: to be hostile; defying and misleading the international community.

Iran's President Ahmadinejad has gone to extremes to stir up anti- American and anti-Israel sentiment in Iran and throughout the Arab world. Not only, as was stated before, has he publicly declared his hope for ``a world without America,'' he has also stated his desire ``to wipe Israel off the map.''

These remarks demonstrate a gross disregard for the rule of law, human life, and the core principles of the United Nations. I wholeheartedly support the United Nations Security Council's looking into taking swift and strong action to counter Iran's growing threat, and I urge prompt adoption of H.R. 282.

This is a commonsense resolution. This has nothing to do with Iraq, to my colleagues who were talking about Iraq. There is no analogy here. This is another threat, and we have to stand up to the threat. If the world had stood up to Hitler in the 1930s, maybe the Holocaust wouldn't have happened. Maybe World War II wouldn't have happened. Every time there is a chance, society and the world has to stand up to prevent worse things from happening in the future. I don't want to be around if Iran detonates a nuclear weapon and say I stood here in Washington and was afraid to act.

As Ms. Berkley pointed out, this resolution doesn't say anything about any kind of military action. We hope this can be resolved diplomatically, but, frankly, I believe that all options should be on the table. The military should be an absolute, absolute, ultimate last resort, but we have to tell these thugs in Iran that we are not going to stand idly by and allow them to be destructive, allow them to make threats, allow them to kill people, or allow them to have another Holocaust.