Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory of the civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks, who passed away on October 24, 2005, at the age of 92. Rosa Parks is one of our country's premier civil rights advocates, who worked in the Montgomery, Alabama office of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and is best known for refusing to relinquish her bus seat to a white man in December 1955.

Her quiet defiance lead to her arrest and sparked the movement that inspired the Civil Rights Act which banned racial discrimination in public accommodations, ending legal segregation in America. Her historic act of courage showed that it was long past time to roll back the Jim Crow era discrimination laws.

After taking her public stand for civil rights and the ensuing Montgomery bus boycott, Mrs. Parks was unable to obtain work in Alabama. In the midst of threats and harassment, she and her husband, Raymond Parks, moved to Detroit, MI in 1957. Mrs. Parks worked as an aide in Rep. John Conyers' Detroit office from 1965 until retiring September 30, 1988.

Upon her retirement, Mrs. Parks said she sought to dedicate more time to the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development, founded in 1987. The Institute is committed to developing leadership among Detroit's young people and initiating them into the struggle for civil rights. Mrs. Parks continued to be a leader within her community and a symbol of freedom for all Americans up to her death.

Mr. Speaker, Rosa Parks' lifetime work and fight for the civil rights for African-Americans has not gone unnoticed in the last decade. Mrs. Parks was awarded the prestigious Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bill Clinton and the Congressional Gold Medal. Rosa Parks not only stood up for herself but for generations of African-Americans. Mrs. Parks will and shall forever remain an inspiration to those who are fighting for freedom and her legacy will remain iconic for the civil rights movement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the ALS Registry Act of 2005 with my esteemed colleague, Lee Terry of Nebraska. We are proud to have the support of over 40 other bi-partisan members of Congress today as original co-sponsors of this important legislation.

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal, progressive neurodegenerative disease that affects motor nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord. While the great baseball player, Lou Gehrig, put a national face on ALS over 65 years ago, my own family was devastated by the death of my grandmother, Dora Engel, who passed away from ALS in her 50s. Unfortunately, families across the Nation face the challenges and experience the suffering associated with ALS every single day. 5,600 people in the U.S. are diagnosed with ALS each year, and it is estimated that as many as 30,000 Americans have the disease at any given time. The average life expectancy for a person with ALS is two to five years from the time of diagnosis. The causes of ALS are not well understood and there is no known cure. We must provide hope to change this tragedy today.

Surprisingly, a single national patient registry which collects and stores information on the prevalence and incidence of ALS does not currently exist in the United States today. The legislation I am introducing with Congressman Terry, would create an ALS registry at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and will aid in the search for a cure to this devastating disease. The registry will collect data concerning: the incidence and prevalence of ALS in the United States; the environmental and occupational factors that may contribute to the disease; the age, race or ethnicity, gender and family history of individuals diagnosed; and other information essential to the study of ALS. The registry will also provide a secure method to put patients in contact with scientists conducting clinical trials and scientists studying the environmental and genetic causes of ALS.

We need to provide our Nation's researchers and clinicians with the tools and information they need to make progress in the fight against ALS. The data made available by a national registry will potentially allow scientists to identify causes of the disease, and maybe even lead to the discovery of new treatment, a cure for ALS, or even a way to prevent the disease in the first place. This is good public policy.

The establishment of a registry will bring new hope to thousands of patients and their families that ALS will no longer be a death sentence. I strongly urge the swift consideration and passage of the ALS Registry Act of 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong opposition to this bill.

It is ironic that this bill is called the Gasoline for America's Security Act, or GAS Act, because this bill is certainly filled with a lot of hot air.

This bill will do nothing to bring down the cost of gasoline. My constituents and millions of Americans want to know why they are paying $3 and more for gasoline. Just today in the newspaper it reported that Americans can expect to spend 45 to 90 percent more on home heating fuel this year than they did last winter. This is absolutely unconscionable.

We saw during Hurricane Katrina looters in New Orleans, but the real looters are the big oil companies. They are looting the American people. They are making record profits. What does this bill do? It does nothing to bring down the price of gasoline. That is what Americans want. They do not want rhetoric. They do not want more SOP to the oil and gas industry. They do not want more of the same.

Since I am from the Bronx, I will quote Yogi Berra of the Yankees: It is deja vu all over again.

Once again, the majority has presented us with legislation that purports to respond to skyrocketing gas prices, but does nothing of the sort. Under the guise of responding to Hurricane Katrina, we are voting on a bill that guts environmental and public health protections and does nothing to reduce our Nation's devastating dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

Further, we are once again witnessing the majority undermining States' rights on the floor of the House. This bill includes provisions that preempt State and local government's authority to decide where refinery facilities are placed in individual communities.

What this country critically needs, but was neither in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was signed into law, nor in this bill, is a policy to reduce our addiction to oil through the promotion of alternatives and clean renewables, automotive fuel efficiency

and the reduction of greenhouse gases. We must create policies that achieve these goals, and we need not destroy the environment and the rights of our citizens in doing so.

This is a sop to the industry. It gives us more of the same. It does nothing to lower gas prices. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the mayor of the City of New York announced that there was a credible threat of a terrorist bombing attack against New York City's trains.

The FBI concurred, and then we heard that the Department of Homeland Security disagreed and said that the threats were not credible.

Madam Speaker, what is going on? We are spending billions and billions of dollars on homeland security, and our Federal officials cannot seem to get it straight. First we had these ridiculous color- coded alerts. Now our FBI and Department of Homeland Security cannot agree on credible threats.

Today, part of Pennsylvania Station in New York City had to be evacuated.

President Bush should summon Secretary Chertoff and ask some very hard questions. This Congress ought to investigate why our Federal officials cannot seem to get their act together with regard to homeland security.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Congress will stand by and allow the Ryan White CARE Act to expire. While this does not signify the end to the program, it does underscore our responsibility to conduct hearings and vote on its soon overdue reauthorization. We must act swiftly to ensure that this landmark program, which provides lifesaving treatment to more than half a million persons living with HIV/AIDS each year, be strengthened to meet the changing needs of their care.

New York City has always had a special respect for the opportunities the Ryan White CARE Act affords the city in serving the needs of our HIV/AIDS population. New York City comprises three percent of the nation's population, but more than 16 percent of the nation's AIDS cases. As of December 31, 2003, there were 142,085 cumulative AIDS cases in NYC, and 88,479 City residents diagnosed as Persons Living With HIV/AIDS. Although Ryan White CARE Act is widely considered the payer of last resort for people with HIV/AIDS, it fills much of the void in providing treatment and support services for those who either are uninsured or underinsured, without the necessary resources to access desperately needed care.

We must do better by CARE Act funding. This program has been virtually flat funded for years, and its AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAP) only received a ten million dollar increase in this year's House Labor-HHS bill. Many very low-income people continue to be shut-out from ADAP programs due to states' varying income eligibility levels, which can range from 125 percent to 500 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. Without early, aggressive treatment people living with HIV/AIDS can experience rapid and often irreversible disease progression. Additionally, if care is interrupted drug resistance can develop, which compromises their ability to properly control their health. Now, more than ever, the President should release emergency ADAP funding to help host states care for the estimated 8,000 victims of Hurricane Katrina, who have been displaced from their homes and networks of care.

The President's Principles for Ryan White CARE Act Authorization include some troubling provisions which could have devastating results for communities' ability to provide consistent, appropriate care for persons living with HIV/AIDs. The proposed Severity of Need for Core Services Index will change funding formulas to take into account the availability of other resources, like state and local funding streams. This is bad public policy as it punishes states that have taken responsibility for their local HIV care and creates a powerful disincentive for other states to prioritize funding for HIV funding in future years, if they think the federal government will just cover the gap. No state spends more than New York does to care for its residents with HIV and AIDS--over $3 billion last year. New York has always viewed this funding as a partnership between the state, cities and federal government and should not lose out on future federal funding for being at the forefront of providing progressive services and treatment.

Secondly the President's proposal for a minimum of 75 percent of Ryan White CARE Act funding to be spent on core medical services should be seriously revisited. While there is no question that appropriate funding should be directed towards medical care, localities that benefit from comprehensive state funding for medical care, might better serve patients with using the funding for transportation to medical visits, emergency housing assistance for homeless patients, and other key services. This hard number fails to reflect the different resources that cities like New York utilize to care for their patients, and the changing needs of the HIV/AIDS patient population.

As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I look forward to holding hearings on the reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act. We must work together with the Senate to strengthen and preserve the foundation of the Ryan White CARE Act program with the compassion and thoughtful consideration it deserves.

Mr. Chairman, there is an old saying ``The South will rise again!'' Well, the bill before us today is proof the ``Era of Big Government has come again!'' Let no mistake be made, those who support this bill cannot claim to be dedicated to fiscal responsibility and smaller government. This bill blows another hole in the Federal deficit.

I oppose this sham overhaul of the Endangered Species Act. Enacted in 1973, this landmark legislation has been hugely successful in saving many species from becoming extinct and has been an important conservation tool. The Endangered Species Act must be strengthened not decimated.

Of the more than 1,800 plants and animals protected by the act, only 9 percent have been declared extinct. Those species that have survived continue to grow and flourish. Newly named, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act ignores this success and carves out loopholes in the Act that will allow developers and others to avoid the law's protections. This legislation eliminates extremely critical habitat designations, giving many species no opportunity to survive.

It is a travesty that the leadership in this House, is yet again giving business the upper hand over sensible and effective environmental protection law. Private landowners will now have no incentive to protect their land. In fact, the Federal Government will now pay landowners for merely abiding the law!

Mr. Chairman, this Act does not ``modernize'' or ``reform'' the Endangered Species Act, it guts it and should be called the landowner and developer welfare act.

Mr. Speaker, fifty-five years ago, the United States came to the aid of South Korea, when it was invaded by Communist forces from across its northern border. This month, South Korea has come to the aid of the United States, when a natural disaster struck from across our southern coastline.

With its generous pledge of $30 million in cash, services, and in- kind contributions, South Korea joins a list of more than 90 countries that have offered some form of assistance to our efforts of relief and recovery in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

What is noteworthy is that, among those nearly 100 countries, South Korea is providing the fourth-largest offer of assistance. According to a recent statement by the Korean Embassy, ``Seoul's commitment of $30 million will comprise of $5 million from the government budget with the remainder to be raised through a collection of contributions by the Korean National Red Cross, the religious community and Korean corporations with U.S. subsidiaries.'' In fact, just last week in New York, the Federation of Korean Industries (FKI) pledged $10 million to be collected from Korean conglomerates directly to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund.

It is not mentioned often enough that South Korea is one of America's most important and trusted allies. In the global war on terror, there are more South Korean troops stationed in Iraq than any other nation besides the United States and the United Kingdom. They have assisted our efforts there from almost the moment the Saddam Hussein regime was toppled and have done so at great personal peril to the soldiers deployed and at considerable political risk to the government in Seoul.

As I had the opportunity to travel to North Korea at the beginning of the year along with several of my colleagues, including Rep. Curt Weldon, the status of the Six-Party Talks to resolve North Korea's nuclear issue has been of great concern to me. That is why I was pleased to know that earlier this week, after lengthy deliberation, a joint statement was agreed to by all the parties involved.

I commend the U.S. Envoy to the Six-Party Talks, my good friend Ambassador Christopher Hill, for his skillful diplomatic leadership in helping to achieve the accord. I also commend South Korea for remaining a key partner throughout the difficult negotiations. It is my hope that the joint statement will provide the impetus for a denuclearized Korean peninsula and I encourage the six nations to work together to make it a reality.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my personal appreciation to the government and people of South Korea for all they have done to continually support the United States, at home and abroad. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to offer their own expressions of gratitude to the Korean people for their generosity, spirit of friendship and abiding commitment to an enduring alliance partnership with the United States.

Mr. Chairman, let me start by stating my sheer admiration for the men and women of the United States Coast Guard. Their performance during and after Katrina was phenomenal and they deserve our gratitude and praise.

I rise to thank the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Transportation Committee and its Coast Guard subcommittee. A year ago, they worked with me to add language to the Coast Guard authorization bill requiring the Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security to do a security assessment of the Indian Point nuclear power plant. As that bill moved through the process, this study was expanded to all nuclear power plants in the United States. I am pleased to report that DHS plans on releasing this report very soon--perhaps

even this week. While I am well aware that security for nuclear plants is a sensitive matter and fully understand that this might require that parts of this report be classified, it is my hope that the report would contain unclassified sections to permit those around the nuclear plants to gain a better understanding of how our government is protecting them.

We know for a fact that Al Qaeda has the plans of U.S. nuclear power plants. We know that these facilities are a target. We, the Congress and the rest of the federal government, have a responsibility to ensure the safety and security of these plants and our citizens. I am hopeful that the analysis in this report will help us as we make policy decisions about how best to safeguard these facilities.

There is no doubt about the awesome power of nuclear energy. It provides 20 percent of the Nation's electricity. However, if a terrorist group were successful in causing major damage to a plant or its cooling ponds, then the impact would be devastating on a scale we dare not imagine.

We know that on 9/11 one of the planes flew over Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York and that the terrorists had plans nuclear plants in their possession. While I will continue to call for Indian Point to be closed, until that day, I will work to ensure it is as safe and secure as is humanly possible. This report will be an important step toward protecting Indian Point and all nuclear power plants sitting on major waterways.

Again, I thank Chairman Young, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Oberstar and Ranking Member Filner for their assistance and support.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I want to say that I appreciate the fact that there will be a Special Order after this bill is debated where Members can say how we feel about it, but I really think it is inappropriate. I think that there should be substantial debate on this bill itself, not that we want to slow down any kind of funding, but frankly we fiddled and faddled for days and days, and now we are told that we can only have 5 minutes per side to debate this bill. I think it is wrong. I think Members of Congress who have rushed back here, who want to help, who want to make sure that the people of the Gulf are given their due and the moneys, we should have the right to debate this bill now. We watch TV and we see the looters and much has been made about the looters who are coming and looting in New Orleans. I think quite frankly with the prices of gas rising, the real looters are the big oil companies. They are looting the American people. It is unconscionable that we have had a spike of 30 to 50 cents in gasoline prices 2 days after this disaster happened. There is no way that that could have been reflected at the pump so quickly. So it is looting the American public, and I think these are the issues that Congress should debate. I am glad that our Energy and Commerce Committee is having a hearing on this on Wednesday, but the American people ought to hear Congress debating this. What are we going to do to bring relief to our people with these huge and unconscionable gas prices? We are doing nothing. We are fiddling while Rome is burning. So while I say that it is very important that we are passing this legislation quickly today and we should be doing this, I wish that we had had hours of debate on this, yesterday or today. It should not be where we have 10 minutes of debate because we quickly have to get the bill to the President. We need to get the bill to the President as quickly as possible but Congress needs to debate the issues of the day.

So while I will not object because we have to get the relief to the people of the Gulf, the fact is that Congress needs to debate the issue of high gas prices. Our constituents all across America are suffering. The oil companies are making record profits. Frankly, they ought to turn some of those profits back to the American people to try to keep the price of gasoline down. This is all tied in, and how dare they use this terrible disaster, this terrible tragedy to loot the American people and to spike the prices of gasoline higher and higher.

I hope this Congress can have a full and free debate on this. I do not object because I want to get the money there as quickly as possible, but this Congress needs to do and this President needs to do something about the high price of gasoline.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before when I reserved my right to object, I think that this debate should have been going on before we passed the bill, not after we passed the bill. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this, but this should have been part of the debate.

Mr. Speaker, there is looting going on. We know there is looting going on. You can turn on your television and see looting going on. But the real looting that is going on is the looting of the big oil companies, looting the American public, picking the pockets of the American public.

It is unconscionable that gasoline prices in a matter of days have been spiked 30 to 50 cents a gallon. This is price gouging on the part of the oil companies. There is no way that the disaster in the Gulf States could have been reflected so quickly with an upswing of prices at the pump. There is no way, except for greed and price gouging.

Big oil companies should stop the looting of the American people. When the price of a barrel of oil goes down, it takes a month or two to be reflected at the pump. Why, then, is it quite the opposite when disaster hits? Why is there an immediate increase in the price of gasoline?

How dare the oil companies use this disaster to line their pockets. How dare the oil companies use this tragedy to get richer and to stick it to the American people. The American people demand answers and want to know why they are being forced to pay so much for gasoline.

This Congress and the President should do everything possible to bring down the cost of gasoline. If it means releasing the strategic reserves, as I have been calling for for months and the President says he will do, we should do that, and then some; and we should call on the oil companies to put back some of their profits into helping the American people bring down the cost of gasoline.

Now, of course, I support this legislation. Of course, we must help the people of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. As a New Yorker, I am appreciative of how the country responded after September 11. We need that kind of response today.

Why were these things not in place before the hurricane happened? We knew the hurricane was going to happen. Why did we not have food and clothes and water and all kinds of things for the people? Why is it still, days and days later, taking time to evacuate people? Why are there dead bodies floating around? What is the administration doing about this? Government has dropped the ball and heads should roll, quite frankly, because it is unconscionable that we are standing by and not responding properly or effectively enough.

I flew over the tsunami. I flew over Indonesia and I saw the devastation there. It is one thing to have devastation in a Third World country, as terrible as it is; but in the United States of America in the 21st century, days later, for people to be there stranded without water and food and shelter, it is unconscionable.

Again, how dare the oil companies take advantage of this and raise the price of a gallon of gasoline so that the American people during Labor Day and after are suffering. It is shameful that they are using people's misery in three States to line their pockets and spike the price of gasoline for the entire American public.

Mr. Speaker, the other issue involves us weaning ourselves off foreign oil. Local gas stations in New York and elsewhere and in places outside of the Gulf Coast supply lines have gasoline. Their suppliers and shippers have gasoline. So why are prices going up so much?

Again, it is simply price gouging by the giant oil companies. I realize that gasoline is priced on a futures market and that gas prices today reflect what is expected in the future. But it is bad enough that this Congress passed an energy bill several weeks ago that did nothing to help the American people in terms of bringing down the price of gasoline. So now Congress has a challenge not only to help the victims of Katrina, but to help the American people with this spike in gasoline prices.

For years I have been talking about the need to wean ourselves off oil because we have to rely on the sheikdoms that are either unstable, unfriendly to the U.S. or even supporters of terrorism.

Now we have another reason to wean ourselves off foreign oil. So much of our economy is based on oil, and when Mother Nature gets grumpy, it sends us into a tailspin; and the oil companies use the tragedy of hundreds of thousands of hurricane survivors as cover to extract more profit from our constituents.

This cannot stand. We need to improve the fuel economy of passenger cars and SUVs to a level our advanced technology makes possible, not issue CAFE standards, as the administration did last week, which do nothing to improve fuel efficiency.

We need to make America the world's leader in energy technologies, not rely on the inefficiencies of the past. We can do this. I am currently forming a bipartisan Oil and National Security Caucus to highlight the danger of our over-reliance on oil.

But in the end we will never end our addiction to oil and never break the grip of the oil companies unless we act now. So I call on this Congress to come up with solutions which are already there to wean us off foreign oil, and I believe that this Congress needs to take action now.

Now, provisions and assistance should have been on the ready, as I mentioned before, so that as soon as this storm moved on, the food, water, medical supplies and personnel, military and civilian, would be on their way. We must not ignore the mistakes that have been made. We must fix them immediately and learn from them for the future. We must help the people immediately.

Let me finally say that the priority of this Congress and this administration has been tax cuts, tax cuts and tax cuts; and this is a result of it. We do not put the money where we need to put the money. We do not put the money into infrastructure. We do not do the kinds of things to prevent disasters from happening again.

Priorities cannot only be tax cuts and war; priorities must be helping the American people, first in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama, and then taking strong steps to wean us off foreign oil.

Mr. Speaker, some major news organizations have been reporting current developments in Russia, directed by the Kremlin, that clearly undermine democratic institutions in that country. The latest initiative, a measure just approved by the Upper House of Parliament, further consolidates political control in Vladimir Putin's party and reduces any opportunity for opposition parties in future elections. It also greatly limits outside groups from monitoring or observing vote tabulation and reporting in national elections.

This week, my colleagues heard directly from a prominent ``victim'' of Mr. Putin's effort to purge political opposition. In an appearance before the Helsinki Commission, Mr. Leonid Nevzlin, who is a major share holder in the YUKOS Oil Company, discussed his situation and the political deterioration in Russia. When he visited Washington three years ago, Mr. Nevzlin was Deputy Chairman of the Upper House International Relations Committee, and advisor to the government on Middle East Policy, and head of the Russia Jewish Congress. Today, Mr. Nevzlin is forced to live in exile in Israel because he, like his long time associate and friend, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, dared to oppose the forces within the Kremlin.

Mr. Speaker, Leonid Nevzlin's statement before the Helsinki Commission clearly states the current situation in Russia today. I ask that it be included in the Record at this point.

Statement to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

``Helsinki Commission''

(By Leonid Nevzlin, July 13, 2005)

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to appear before

the Helsinki Commission to discuss the current situation in

Russia and the concerns of all of us about the Putin

government and the future of Russia.

First, I wish to emphasize the value of the Commission's

mandate and stated criteria to promote compliance with the

fundamental standards of civil society in Russia and the

other former Soviet republics.

Second, those of us who have witnessed first-hand the

travesty of justice in Russia much appreciate the concerns

expressed by the co-chairmen about the improper handling of

the Yukos trial and the sentencing of Mikhail Khodorkovsky

and his colleagues by Russian authorities. Your formal

statement to the world's press that the ``case appears to the

world to be justice directed by politics'' and that the

``selective prosecution such as appears to be the case here

will wreak havoc on Russia's legal system'' reflects that the

chairmen of this commission have an accurate view of the

Khodorkovsky trial and the weakened state of the legal system

in Russia.

Third, it is vitally important that the Helsinki Commission

continue monitoring the implementation of the provisions of

the 1975 Helsinki Accords as they relate to Russia and report

its findings to the public. While the U.S. Administration and

Congressional leaders must necessarily balance many variables

in the bilateral relationship, the Helsinki Commission has a

clear mandate to insure that human rights and basic freedoms

are maintained in the countries under its jurisdiction.

Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that the rule of law is the

cornerstone of civil society because it serves to protect the

rights and freedoms of all citizens. What we have witnessed

this past year in Russia is a legal system that differs very

little from the Soviet days. The state prosecutor is an

instrument of the Kremlin and the judiciary is not truly

independent. When the finest lawyers in Russia cannot get a

fair and just trial for their clients when the whole world is

watching, no one in Russia can expect to obtain justice.

The lives of many hundreds or even thousands of people have

been harmed forever as a result of the abuses of the Russian

government, which has violated basic human rights and its own

laws again and again. Many of those cases do not receive wide

attention, but some do, and human rights groups have begun to

document them. They are worthy of your attention and your

future labors.

I am most familiar with the cases involving Yukos. Beyond

Mr. Khodorkovsky and myself, Alexei Pichugin, a mid-level

Yukos executive, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison in

a secret murder trial conducted entirely behind closed doors.

Mr. Pichugin has been drugged, interrogated without his

lawyers present, kept from his wife and denied independent

medical treatment--even after he lost nearly 70 pounds while

in the custody of the FSB. My colleague, Platon Lebedev, who

is suffering from liver ailments and who was arrested in his

hospital bed, has also subsequently been denied independent

medical care. He was tried in the same cage with Mr.

Khodorkovsky in a show trial in which Russian and

international legal norms were repeatedly violated. He, like

Mr. Khodorkovsky, has now been sentenced to 9 years in

prison.

The scope of the attack on those associated with Yukos has

been broad in scope and terrible in its tactics. For example,

Svetlana Bahkmina, a young Yukos lawyer, was arrested in

December. She has been interrogated by FSB or other Russian

officials to the point where her lawyers report that she has

lost consciousness. She has been isolated from her children,

ages 3 and 7. In the meantime, Russian government officials

have said that Ms. Bahkmina will be released when her boss,

Yukos' chief in-house lawyer, returns to Russia from England,

where he is effectively a political refugee.

Other Yukos employees have had to flee Russia, too, and

have found refuge in the democracies of the world. In a stark

example of how the world now recognizes Russian ``justice''

for what it is, the Bow Street Magistrate's Court in London

rejected a Russian extradition request for two such Yukos

employees charged in the anti-Yukos campaign. Having heard

all of the evidence, and noting President Putin's personal

involvement in the cases, the judge concluded that no Russian

court could be expected to withstand the Kremlin's political

pressure such that it could provide a fair trial to these

men. Subsequently, the British Home Office has given

political asylum to a half dozen additional Yukos

``refugees.''

Beyond Yukos, just recently, it was reported that Russian

prosecutors have opened a criminal case against former

Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov. Mr. Kasyanov was

dismissed by Mr. Putin last year and has been critical of the

administration since then. He has specifically criticized the

handling of the Yukos case and has expressed his own higher

political aspirations. The Kasyanov case has all the earmarks

of another Yukos-style campaign, in which the powers of the

FSB and Russian federal prosecutors are misused by the

Kremlin to destroy a political opponent.

The West, and particularly America, is rightfully concerned

by the Kremlin's co-opting of Russia's criminal justice

system as a tool to crush political opposition. The West is

further properly concerned because, in the Yukos case, the

Kremlin's campaign attacked what had become a model for

corporate governance and transparency.

No one should doubt for a minute President Putin's motive

in the dismemberment of the Yukos Oil Company and the state

take-over of its major production unit. Energy is both very

profitable and, given that major industrial companies depend

on imports for their energy needs, inherently political. It

is the Kremlin's aim to control Russia's energy sector to

insure its dominant role in the world energy market. This

will most certainly enhance President Putin's standing

given that Europe and other countries become more

dependent on Russia as a major supplier. The respected

Count Lambsdorff of Germany warned last week that his

country was on a perilous course by increasing its

dependence on natural gas imports from Russia.

On civil society, whatever progress was made in developing

democratic institutions during the Yeltsin years have all but

disappeared under the current regime. The major tenets of

democracy, as we know them, barely exist in Russia today.

While there may be a degree of freedom and liberty, the

institutions that protect those rights have been usurped by

forces within the Kremlin. The government now owns or

controls all media outlets, the courts are not truly

independent, there is no viable political opposition, and the

list goes on. It is increasingly apparent that former KGB and

FSB officers are now dominant in the Kremlin and whatever

transparency existed a few years ago is not in evidence

today. The result is an emerging form of corruption at the

highest levels in the Russian government. This corruption

threatens to corrode the foundation of the Russian government

to a degree that could put at risk Russian security and

stability as well as the long-term economic well-being of the

Russian people. I fear this will be Vladimir Putin's legacy.

This current view of Russian authorities is not confined to

me or to opponents of the Kremlin. Valentin Gefter, the

Director of the Human Rights Institute in Moscow said to your

committee just a few short weeks ago that ``very often,

political, corporate and even personal reasons prevail over

the rule of law [in Russia].'' I absolutely agree. Michael

McFaul, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations

and executive director of the Council's Task Force on Russian

American Relations, headed by former U.S. Vice Presidential

nominees Jack Kemp and John Edwards, said that ``Four or five

years ago, there was a debate about whether Putin was a

democrat. The debate is now over. The question today concerns

the nature and extent of Putin's authoritarianism.'' Finally,

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the Russian

government's handling of the Yukos case ``shook people's

confidence,'' and that Russian officials must demonstrate

that laws and regulations are fair and applied ``consistently

over time, applied over various cases.''

It is not just Yukos that is under persecution by Russian

authorities. As reported by Irina Yasina, the head of the

Open Russia Foundation, a non-profit organization established

by Mr. Khodorkovsky, myself and our colleagues to promote a

democratic Russia, non-governmental organizations have been

under ``direct pressure and threats from the Ministry of

Interior Affairs, Public Prosecutor's Office and Federal

Security Services.'' This year, the Ministry of Justice has

suspended the activity of the Nijny Novgorod Society of Human

Rights and frozen the accounts of the Society of Russian-

Chechen

Friendship. The Kremlin has also thought to dismantle and put

pressure a number on of international civil society

organizations, including the Soros Foundation, the National

Democratic Institute & British Council.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that Russia is moving in a direction

that is contrary to Western values and traditions. This must

be troubling to America as well. The question is what can

America and other Western democracies do about it. Obviously,

what does not work are casual refrains and diplomatic

overtures. Given that the hardened and cynical forces in the

Kremlin understand and respond only to sanctions that

threaten their own interests, I offer two thoughts:

I applaud Senators McCain and Lieberman and Congressmen

Lantos and Cox for their sponsorship of the G-8 Resolution.

In examining the criteria for membership, it is clear Russia

meets neither the economic nor democratic requirements for a

seat at the

G-8 table. Making clear that Russia's continued membership

depends on its adherence to democratic principles and the

rule of law will gain the attention of a leader who clearly

relishes his position in the G-8 Club. At least America and

other G-8 members should not allow Vladimir Putin to head the

group given the circumstances in Russia today.

Russia aspires to be in the World Trade Organization for

understandable reasons. But is it possible that a major

country that uses extralegal means to seize control of

private assets, selective prosecution, businessmen,

renationalizes private enterprises, harasses companies with

bogus tax charges and fails to erect a legal system that

protects investments, shareholders and commercial contracts,

deserves membership in the WTO? Capital outflows and the

decline in investments are clearly due to perceptions inside

and outside Russia that it is not safe for investment. If

responsible nations ignore these trends and do not take

effective action to combat them, it will only encourage

Russian authorities to continue down the path of

authoritarianism.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I wish to make it clear I want to

see an open, uncorrupted, prosperous and free Russia. On my

last visit to Washington in June 2002, I was Deputy Chairman

of the Russia Federation's International Relations Committee,

president of the Russia Jewish Congress, a major shareholder

in Group Menatep, the holding company of YUKOS oil, and

heavily involved in education and philanthropic causes.

Today I am a proud citizen of Israel, the country whose

democracy protects me from false accusations of undocumented

crimes by a prosecutor who is on a political witch hunt. My

sins, as viewed by the Kremlin, were to work with Mikhail

Khodorkovsky and Yukos to promote greater freedom, an open

civil society, business transparency and democratic values in

Russia to help the Russian people. This is a dark time for

those of us who cherish freedom and embrace democracy. If the

Russian people had a greater faith in democracy and

recognition of their power to demand it, there would be an

uprising in the country. But their experience is too limited.

Our only hope is that America, the author and inspiration of

democracy, will use its prestige to convince Mr. Putin to

change his ways.

Again, I thank the Helsinki Commission for maintaining its

commitment to democratic values and willingness to confront

Russia and other nations whenever those values are put into

jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the commemoration of the 16th annual National Recovery Month this September. National Recovery Month serves as an important reminder of the benefits of treating alcohol and drug use. It promotes the message that recovery from alcohol and drug use disorder in all its forms is possible and lauds the collective effort that goes into achieving such recovery.

Substance abuse and substance dependence create substantial health risks not only to the individual, but also to other community members in that individual's life. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as many as 63 percent of Americans admit that addiction to alcohol or illicit drugs has had an impact on them at some point in their lives. This may include either their own personal addiction or that of a friend or family member. In 2003, an estimated 22.2 million Americans age 12 or older were considered in need of treatment for an alcohol or drug use disorder. Substance abuse is not only linked to chronic health problems, but also with other problems such as unemployment, crime, homelessness, and the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

These disorders can be treated, and the treatments leading to recovery are as successful as treatments to other medical conditions such as high blood pressure or asthma. Recovery, or the process of initiating and maintaining abstinence from drug use, requires persistent and often multiple courses of treatment, including behavior based therapies and for some, medication. Unfortunately, many people who are in need of treatment do not receive it.

National Recovery Month 2005 heightens awareness of the need to improve the process of assessing abuse problems and referring people to appropriate treatment. It is imperative that families are provided with the support services they need, that appropriate treatment is affordable, and that access to treatment options are more readily available.

Addiction is a real and complex disease, one which impacts the individual, family, and community. Our esteemed former colleague, Congressman Michael Forbes, was directly impacted by the substance abuse of a beloved family member, one of my constituents. Carrick Forbes of Hastings-on-Hudson is a courageous young woman who overcame her addiction problems and successfully rebuilt her life. Her recovery serves as an example of the importance of treatment and the need to support more programs and initiatives to help our friends, family, and members of our community.

Mr. Speaker, the Washington Post today noted that the nicest thing that it could say about the comprehensive energy bill is that it could've been a lot worse. That's the sentiment that many of my colleagues and I feel today--that while clear improvements have been made in conference--a tribute to Chairman Barton's leadership--that H.R. 6 essentially preserves the status quo.

There is no doubt that the underlying bill is a vast improvement on the bill we marked up this spring in committee and on the floor. Two of the most egregious provisions, liability protection for MTBE polluters and drilling in the pristine Arctic wilderness are out. We are also finally enacting electricity reliability standards and I was pleased to have worked with my colleagues Mr. Towns and Mr. Fossella to preserve New York's high reliability standards strengthening the underlying electricity title. New York has unique needs that necessitate this provision including having a high concentration of load in a small geographic area. Additionally, nearly 40 percent of the State population lives in NYC and close to three-fourths work there and 3 million New Yorkers use the underground subway system every day. Finally, New York is home to the NYSE and other critical financial institutions. Although, we should have done this years ago in response to the rolling blackouts of 2003, I am proud to be a part of the inclusion of such an important policy development.

However, I am deeply disappointed that this bill neither reduces our dependence on oil nor addresses climate change. The Energy Information Agency has stated that under the Energy Policy Act, by 2025, U.S. oil consumption is projected to increase to 28.3 million barrels per day and our country would increase its imports of foreign oil by 85 percent. It even found that gasoline prices under the bill would increase more than if the bill was not enacted. What this country critically needs, but is not in this bill, is a policy to reduce our addiction to oil through the promotion of alternatives and clean renewables, improve automotive fuel efficiency, and reduce greenhouse gasses.

Further, it is a travesty that this bill will open up our coastlines and wildlands to destructive oil and gas activities and evade environmental and consumer protections. I wish the conferees had included more funding for smarter, cleaner, safer, and cheaper energy policy in this bill that puts innovation and technology to work. While I am pleased that the Energy Policy Act includes $5 billion in tax breaks and incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, the number pales in comparison with the $9 billion earmarked for oil, gas, electricity and coal. Even our esteemed U.S. Energy Secretary, Sam Bodman, opposed the inclusion of such measures, stating, ``these industries don't need incentives with oil and gas prices being what they are today.'' We must target scarce Federal dollars wisely.

Our energy policy is intricately tied to our national security and our economic well-being. We must be vigilant in opening dialogues between diverse groups of policy experts like the Set America Free Coalition and National Commission on Energy Policy as we continue to build and improve on current energy policies. As the co-chair of the Congressional Oil and National Security Caucus, I know we need to diversify our energy sources, reduce our dependence on unstable oil sheikdoms, and create skilled jobs while reducing energy costs. We must create policies that will protect the environment and our consumers. While there is improvement in this conference report, on balance, our goals cannot be achieved under this Energy Policy Act, and so regretfully I must vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, which will hurt workers and cost jobs.

I am opposed to the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), because if enacted, it would have severe economic and social consequences.

CAFTA virtually turns back the clock on labor and environmental standards.

Many factory workers in Central America are underpaid and overworked, and CAFTA's weak labor provisions will not effectively force the Central American governments to enforce their labor laws.

If CAFTA is enacted, goods produced by industries that overwork their labor force and abuse the environment will have an unfair advantage over products manufactured in the United States.

Additionally, CAFTA threatens the livelihood of U.S. sugar producers and refineries, including Domino Sugar in my district in Yonkers. CAFTA would open the U.S. market to sugar from CAFTA countries which need not comply with the robust U.S. labor and environmental protections.

Thousands of people in Central America have protested against CAFTA. These people worry about their jobs, their health, and their families. They deserve an agreement which would improve their livelihoods and promote economic stability.

I would prefer to see reasonable, fair trade agreements which contain adequate labor and environmental protections with our Latin American neighbors.

Mr. Speaker, I have supported free trade agreements in the past when there have been adequate labor and environmental standards. But CAFTA does not measure up.

I believe CAFTA would not serve the best interests of the nation, and I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. Speaker, the so-called Small Business Health Fairness Act is anything but fair. Congress should not be in the business of promoting the reduction of healthcare benefits and coverage and that is exactly what this bill does.

Proponents of H.R. 525 argue that health insurance will be cheaper under this bill, but the devil is in the details. Healthy people would enjoy low premiums under association health plans because the plans are exempt from State consumer protections and minimum quality requirements, and therefore meaningful coverage. Without consumer safeguards, association health plans would be largely unregulated and unlikely to cover such benefits as mammography screening, cervical cancer screening, well-child visits, mental health services and diabetic supplies. While this might appeal to healthy people, it will be devastating to those who actually need medical care. Those who are sicker would remain in non-association health plans and would have to pay higher premiums to compensate for those individuals who are siphoned off into the association health plans.

It is also troublesome that this legislation exempts association health plans from State solvency standards. Many States have strict solvency laws that protect workers from insurance fraud and abuse. Any meaningful insurance company should have to adhere to adequate standards of protection.

We should reject this anti-consumer proposal in favor of the Kind/ Andrews substitute. This measure would create a Small Employer Health Benefits Plan, SEHB, similar to the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan and would offer coverage to all small businesses with fewer than 100 workers. Significantly, this legislation works with existing State laws and does not preempt State mandates regarding health care coverage. This substitute very clearly commits Federal funds to aid small businesses in offering insurance to employees.

True health insurance coverage offers meaningful benefits with appropriate solvency safeguards. Our constituents deserve no less. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 525 and pass the Kind/Andrews substitute today.