Floor Statements

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

First of all, let me say what an honor and privilege it is to introduce this resolution today with our great chairwoman of our Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, my good friend and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). We have worked together so well and so closely on the Middle East and other things that it is an honor to do this with her again this afternoon.

I also want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), for introducing this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Fifty-seven years ago, the State of Israel was established as a sovereign and independent state. Rising from the ashes of the Holocaust, Israel represented not only a refuge for Jews of Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere, but the fulfillment of the age-old dream of the Jewish people for a homeland of their own once again after so many thousands of years.

As you may know, Mr. Speaker, the United States was one of the first nations to recognize Israel only 11 minutes after its creation. The home to many religious sites of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Israel provides fair and open access for people of all faiths to visit holy places. The people of Israel have established a unique pluralistic democracy. In fact, it is the only true democracy in the Middle East. This includes the rights and liberties cherished by the people of the United States, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of the press, and government by the consent of the governed.

Today, Israel continues to serve as a shining model of democratic values by regularly holding free and fair elections, promoting the free exchange of ideas, and vigorously exercising through its parliament, the Knesset, a democratic government that is fully representative of its citizens. Indeed, Israel and the United States have shared traditions and shared values, and democracy is certainly one of them.

Unfortunately, ever since its independence, Israel has repeatedly, time and time again, been forced to defend itself from attacks. Yet even in the face of this adversity, the government of Israel has successfully worked with the neighboring governments of Egypt and Jordan to establish peaceful bilateral relations.

During the summer of 2000, President Clinton tried to broker a permanent end to the conflict, where the Israelis signed and agreed to a very generous and deep concession. Yet Yasar Arafat rejected the deal, walked out and sparked his terror war. Despite the deaths of over 1,000 innocent Israelis at the hands of murderous suicide bombers and other terrorists since then, the people of Israel continue to seek peace with their Palestinian neighbors.

Regardless, the United States and Israel enjoy a strategic partnership based on shared democratic principles, friendship, and respect. President Bush has said this many, many times. And, indeed, all Presidents of the United States have worked closely with Israel.

Our people share a true affinity of values and view each other as strong and trusted allies. As an American of Jewish heritage myself, I am proud to speak in favor of H. Con. Res. 149, which recognizes the independence of the State of Israel as a significant event in providing refuge and a national homeland for the Jewish people.

The resolution also praises American and Israeli efforts to create the conditions for peace in the Middle East, commends the bipartisan commitment of all United States administrations and United States Congresses since 1948 to stand by Israel and work for its security and well-being, and extends

warm congratulations and best wishes to the people of Israel as they celebrate their 57th anniversary of Israel's independence.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who is now visiting the United States, and wish him a safe and productive visit. In fact, the APAC conference, which has been going on these past few days in Washington, as we speak, is a reminder of the work that needs to be done to continue to solidify and strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) for his leadership in commemorating the life and work of Sister Dorothy Stang.

Mr. Speaker, Sister Dorothy Stang stood firmly on the side of the weak and disposed in the Brazilian rainforest for over 40 years. Her willingness to defend the indigenous people ultimately led to her untimely and tragic death.

Dorothy Stang entered the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur community in 1948, and professed final vows in 1956. In 1966, she began her very important ministry in Brazil.

Sister Dorothy immediately encountered injustices which made her a lifelong crusader for the rights of indigenous minorities and a voice for the

voiceless before the powerful Pastoral Land Commission.

In her work, Sister Stang took on powerful land interests, and steadfastly defended small groups of families and their traditional ways of life. Sister Stang taught the local communities ways of sustainable development and peaceful community living.

Because she was a thorn in the side of those powerful interests, Sister Dorothy received numerous death threats, but she always shrugged them off. She did so not carelessly or lightheartedly, but with a deep sense of the importance of her work and the peaceful approach to conflicts she had always promoted.

With the brutal murder of Sister Stang in February, the indigenous communities of the rainforest have lost one of their most powerful voices. Indeed, Brazil has lost one of the most respected human rights leaders.

We call on the Brazilian Government to bring to justice not only the people who pulled the trigger, but also those who devised the evil plot to kill her for sheer financial greed.

Sister Dorothy Stang leaves a huge legacy which puts the burden on the Brazilian and U.S. Governments to protect those communities for whom Sister Stang gave her life.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the author of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of House Resolution 191.

I first want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his effort in bringing this resolution forward for action in the House today. I also want to acknowledge our colleagues who introduced this legislation: the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo). As our colleagues know, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) has had a longstanding interest and concern for Central Europe and these issues involving religious liberty.

Mr. Speaker, freedom of religion is one of the most important of the blessings of liberty that is assured to us in the United States by the first amendment to our Constitution. It is also a freedom that is explicitly guaranteed in the universal declaration of human rights. Article 18 states: ``Everyone has

the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.''

It is not enough, Mr. Speaker, for men and women to have freedom of conscience to believe what they choose. It is also essential that they have the right to join with others of like mind to practice and worship together as a religious community; and for this right to be meaningful, they must have the right to control property that they can use for religious, charitable, and educational purposes consistent with their beliefs.

The important resolution that we are considering today goes to the heart of this problem, and it raises serious questions about continuing difficulties of some religious communities in Romania. Romania, like many other countries in Central and Eastern Europe, faced 4\1/2\ decades of Communist rule, and Communist Party leaders feared that religion would undermine their authoritarian rule. As a result, most religious property in the country was seized by the Communist government.

Following the collapse of Communist rule, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe have all had to deal with the restitution of property to religious communities, and it has been a difficult and complex process everywhere. In Romania it has been more complex and much slower than elsewhere. For this reason, the resolution before us today urges the Romanian government to recognize its responsibilities to provide equitable, prompt, and fair restitution to all religious communities for property confiscated by the former Communist government in Romania.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution singles out the three categories of religious communities for whom restitution has been particularly slow and unsatisfactory in Romania. The Jewish community saw its properties confiscated beginning in September of 1940 under the Fascist government that preceded the Communist government, but the Communist government reaffirmed these confiscations after it came to power. Only a handful of Jewish communal properties have been restituted and over 1,000 communal properties are still under government control.

The religious communities of the Hungarian ethnic minority have also faced the same problem. Over 2,000 schools, hospitals, orphanages and other charitable and civic properties were seized from the Roman Catholic Church, which in Romania is primarily Hungarian; the Hungarian Reformed Church; the Evangelical Lutheran Church; and the Hungarian Unitarian Church.

The third community is the Greek Catholic Church, a community which is united with the Roman Catholic Church but which observes the Greek Orthodox liturgy. In 1948 the Greek Catholic Church was dissolved, and its members were forcibly merged with the Romanian Orthodox Church and its properties either seized by the government or given to the Romanian Orthodox Church. In 1990 the Romanian Government adopted legislation to recognize the Greek Catholic community and permit its members to worship openly. Unfortunately, the legal provisions to resolve property restitution have been singularly unsuccessful.

Mr. Speaker, the European Court of Human Rights and the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe have both criticized the succession of Romanian governments' failures to satisfactorily deal with the problems. House Resolution 191 urges the recently elected government to take the initiative and work to solve religious property restitution. The government has recently adopted legislation that attempts to deal with some of the issues, and we welcome that effort to put better legislation in place to solve these problems. It will require active and continuing efforts, however; and we urge the government to take those steps.

Members of all of these religious communities in Romania have immigrated to the United States over the past century and even before, and most of the Members of this Congress have constituents who have expressed concern to us about these issues. Mr. Speaker, this resolution reflects the legitimate interests and concerns of American citizens. Let me also add that since Romania is now a member of NATO, it has an urgent responsibility and an extra responsibility to perform its responsibilities. We in the United States are looking to Romania as a NATO member, a fellow NATO member, to now act accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this resolution, I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

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

I rise in strong support of this resolution. I would first like to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for their work on this important resolution.

And let me say that I quite agree with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), my dear friend; when we worked together on the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, we knew that we were doing the right thing. We absolutely made the Syrian withdrawal of Lebanon one of the four pillars of that act. But even in our wildest expectations and dreams, we could never have imagined the series of events since the passage of that act, which leads today to freedom for the Lebanese people. And I want to thank my colleagues for standing with us and passing the Act, giving it bipartisan support and enabling us to bring forward this resolution today.

It is an honor to stand on the floor of the House today, approximately 1 month after the Syrian armed forces ended their military occupation of Lebanon. Lebanon is at a crossroads, a place from which it can move forward towards democracy and freedom or take steps back toward the violence which tore it apart so many years ago.

The people of the Lebanese Republic have a rich, proud, and honorable history dating from ancient times to the present, and Lebanon has been a free and democratic nation for most of its modern history. Lebanon and the United States have enjoyed a history of friendship and cooperation which has been witnessed by the immigration of millions of Lebanese to the United States where they and their descendants have contributed greatly to the fabric of American life.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that in my years in Congress, I have had the honor and the pleasure to make many friends in the Lebanese American community, and I am proud of the contributions they have made to our country and American policy toward Lebanon. The Lebanese American community was a very important part of the Syria Accountability Act, and the Lebanese American community has played and is continuing to play a very important part in the freedom and democracy of Lebanon.

However, tragically, Syria dominated Lebanese politics and political leaders during its occupation, resulting in a deterioration of Lebanon's human rights situation, the engineering of Lebanese election results to Syria's liking and the imposition of curbs on Lebanon's media, once the freest in the Arab world.

Lebanon, in effect, became a Syrian satellite state where none of its leaders would dare defy the Syrian regime in Damascus. Yet a series of events caused pressure on the Syrian regime to grow. Beginning with the passage of the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Act, Congress showed very strongly that we would not tolerate this continued Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

While Syria could have made smart choices at any point, it never did, and pressure continued to grow for its full withdrawal from Lebanon, again with the President's signing the Syria Accountability Act 1 year ago. Our law

ultimately led to the Security Council's adoption of Resolution 1559, which demanded Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon and the disarmament of Hezbollah and other armed groups.

Yet the most recent developments in the effort to press Syria to leave Lebanon were sparked by the terrorist murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Beirut. His assassination, which must still be thoroughly investigated by Lebanon and the international community, triggered a series of popular protests with hundreds of thousands of Lebanese taking to the streets. At one point in one of the demonstrations, literally one-quarter of the entire population of Lebanon took to the streets of Beirut to demand that the Syrian occupation end.

Yet, while Syria has today withdrawn its military forces from Lebanon, reports indicate that it has left behind a pro-Syrian intelligence structure within the Lebanese intelligence agencies. There are lots of spies, Syrian spies, still in Lebanon and lots of Syrian nationals still in Lebanon trying to control things. These people must leave, as well, and the sooner the better.

And it must be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that not all parts of Security Resolution 1559 have been implemented. Hezbollah, the terrorist organization which receives support from Iran and Syria, remains armed to the teeth and occupies much of southern Lebanon. As Hezbollah has not given up its weaponry and its intent to maintain a military answer to the political questions of the Middle East, Hezbollah must remain completely isolated by the international community.

Earlier this year, the House passed a resolution urging the European Union to put Hezbollah on its terrorist list. As we consider this resolution today, let us renew that call. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

Finally, all political prisoners and the ``disappeared'' must be released and returned to their families. They are still existing in Lebanon, and we must get to the bottom of the disappeared people as well.

Today, the United States must stand for the same basic values in Lebanon to which we adhere at home and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, Lebanon is scheduled to hold elections on May 29, this Saturday. As such, Congress stands with the Lebanese people as they proceed to restore democracy in their once again sovereign nation. It is our hope that the upcoming elections will be free, fair, transparent, and in accordance with all relevant international standards on elections.

However, I must express one note of concern about the elections. The electoral districts in which Lebanese candidates for parliament run later this week were drawn in accordance with the 2000 electoral law, which was written by the Syrian-dominated regime during the occupation. I am concerned that this has deprived many Lebanese from true representation as the districts were apparently drawn unfairly, packing certain groups of people into some districts while underrepresenting others. However, once these elections are completed, the United States should help the people of Lebanon in their efforts to restore the separation of powers, the rule of law, the changing of these districts, and the proper respect for fundamental freedoms of every citizen. As goes the rule of law in Lebanon and the respect for individuals, so goes the nation.

Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor, with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), of the Syria Accountability Act, it is an honor to be on the floor today in support of this important resolution, and I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in strong support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I, first, again would like to commend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), my good friend, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), the Chair and ranking member of the Middle East and Central Asia Subcommittee, for introducing this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, Afghanistan has made real progress toward becoming a stable, peaceful, and democratic state. The Taliban has been forced from power. The presidential election last October was an unqualified success with a massive turnout among men and women in defiance of Taliban threats, and progress has been made in restoring the basic human rights of Afghan women.

Before we even heard about the Taliban, Mr. Speaker, I was talking about them when they were in control when they were denying religious freedom to Hindus and others and talking about some of their despicable acts which, unfortunately, the world had then come to know.

But even today, Afghanistan is far from out of the woods. The Taliban and al Qaeda remnants have used recent events to further their agenda of undermining the peace and stability that President Karzai aims to bring to Afghanistan and its people. Progress in reconstruction and development, which is crucial to bringing economic opportunity and hope to millions, is painfully slow. But the biggest obstacle to democracy and development is the unprecedented scale of opium cultivation and narco-trafficking.

Mr. Speaker, in the face of these obstacles, President Karzai has remained steadfast and determined to bring democracy, prosperity, and security to the people of Afghanistan; and the United States must help President Karzai achieve this goal.

This resolution welcomes President Karzai upon his visit to the United States this week and recognizes that a democratic, stable, and prosperous Afghanistan is a vital national security interest of the United States. The resolution wisely states that a strong and enduring partnership between our two countries must remain a primary objective.

President Bush met today with President Karzai in the Oval Office. I am sure the President continued to offer the strong support of the American people to President Karzai. It is my hope that President Karzai offered his thoughts on how efforts against illegal drugs can and will be intensified.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow Afghanistan to lapse into chaos, war, and ruin once again. The United States must demonstrates its long-term commitment to a strong and enduring partnership with Afghanistan. President Karzai is Afghanistan's best chance at achieving peace, and we must do everything to help him realize this goal.

I had the pleasure of meeting President Karzai when he was last in town and met with members of the Committee on International Relations, and I must also add on a personal note that a very good friend of mine is a first cousin of his, so he does have strong family ties to the United States as well.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform our colleagues about a very important bipartisan initiative to highlight the problem of Cuban political prisoners held by the totalitarian regime of Fidel Castro. To bring worldwide attention to this critical matter, many of my colleagues and I are adopting an individual Cuban political prisoner jailed by Castro.

Sadly, on this small island nation there are thousands of pro- democracy activists currently imprisoned in Cuba for exercising their most basic human rights. They have been jailed for speaking freely, worshiping freely, and assembling peacefully.

The Cuban prisoner I am adopting is Mr. Felix Navarro Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez is a 49-year-old member of the Partido por la Democracia Pedro Luis Boitel, the Pedro Luis Boitel Party for Democracy. On the evening of Tuesday, March 18, 2003 Felix was detained on his way home in the city of Perico in Matanzas. He was taken by more than a dozen State Security agents (Castro's political police) to his home where they subjected Mr. Rodriguez and his family to an exhaustive search that lasted late into the night. The agents seized a large amount of equipment, objects, and supplies. Everything from a computer to 12 plastic chairs including books, rope, videos, typewriters, blank paper, pencils and pens, and all the documents pertaining to the Party were taken. Felix was brought to the State Security compound in Matanzas where he was detained under charges of having ``received, among other things, leaflets and literature; the latter was proved by the confiscation of aggressive and corrosive writings and printed material from his house.''

The Cuban prosecution requested a 30-year prison sentence. On Thursday, April 4, 2003, Mr. Rodriguez--together with independent journalist and PDLB's secretary for International Relations Ivan Hernandez Carrillo--were subjected to an arbitrary and illegal summary trial, in the city of Matanzas and condemned to a 25-year prison sentence.

Felix Navarro Rodriguez was a Cuban educator for over twenty years. He taught both elementary and middle school. At the same time he was teaching he was also studying Physics and Astronomy. Because he refused to indoctrinate his students with communist rhetoric he was fired from his job. According to the official document released by the Municipal Board of Education, he was accused of ``treason against the revolution.'' As a result, he was detained and later sentenced to three years in prison for ``enemy propaganda'' of which he served 20 grueling months. As further punishment he was prohibited from completing his studies in Physics and Astronomy. Mr. Speaker, I too am a former teacher and believe that one of the most important jobs in my life, besides being a father, was teaching my students to think independently and express their views without fear of prosecution. I sympathize with Mr. Rodriguez's efforts to teach his students to think instead of teaching them the oppressive lessons of communism, and I commend him for his efforts.

Mr. Rodriguez's story is not uncommon in Cuba; in fact, political imprisonment has been a fact of life in Castro's Cuba for over four decades. Mr. Speaker, this has become a personal issue for me, as Fabio Freyre, the grandfather of a member of my staff, was imprisoned in solitary confinement for over one year for fighting against the revolution and the Castro Regime in the early 1960's. While this imprisonment took place over forty years ago, the conditions are the same as today. There are many Cubans fighting for their fundamental human rights who are being punished harshly on a daily basis. Like the others, it is clear that Felix Navarro Rodriguez does not belong in jail. He is a political prisoner being

held merely for trying to spread freedom and democracy to the Cuban people. I hope that he is one day freed from the shackles of oppression and that the Cuban people can have the opportunity to freely choose their leaders in a democratic system of political pluralism.

Mr. Speaker, what has made this Nation great is that since the signing of the Declaration of Independence, we have been a beacon of freedom and justice. American troops have shed blood confronting tyrants and dictators.

Our belief that there truly are inalienable rights does not end at our borders. We Americans believe that freedom and liberty are rights due all the people of Earth.

I hope to one day soon speak to Felix Navarro Rodriguez and congratulate him on his freedom and thank him for his commitment to justice and democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to, first of all, commend the Capitol Police and all the other personnel who did such a fantastic job when we had the evacuation earlier today.

It is never good, obviously, to have this kind of evacuation. But when we were kids in school, we had fire drills and things like that, and we wanted to see how well it was done. Today, it was done in a very professional way. And, thank God, it really was not a threat, but it is nice to know, when we need to leave, we can.

So I want to just take the time to thank the Capitol Police and to all the personnel who worked with us here in making sure the evacuation was smooth and nobody was hurt. Responding to the threat and the threat over the aerospace was swift. And I think all of us as people who work at the Capitol can sleep a little better tonight knowing that our very highly trained personnel really had things under hand. It again shows the American public why we all need to be prepared for terrorism and why this is a new world, and I think that we are meeting the task. Again, I want to thank all those concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, although I am disgusted with the anti-immigration provisions in it, particularly the things with the driver's licenses.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this supplemental appropriations bill, but not without very serious misgivings. I will vote for this legislation because it contains support for our troops in the field and important tsunami relief. With American soldiers in harm's way, I am very reluctant to vote against funding of military operations. And, having personally seen the devastation in the wake of the Tsunami in Indonesia, I feel that aid to the victims is critical.

Nevertheless, I am disgusted by the process by which this legislation came to the floor and by the immigration-related provisions in the bill. This is an appropriations bill. It is not the place to write new immigration law or to include seriously flawed driver's license provisions. The Republicans are clamoring in the Senate about the lack of up or down votes on judges and, today, they denied the House not only an up or down vote on the so-called ``Real ID'' Act, but even a real debate on this issue.

The immigration sections are seriously flawed. They impose onerous restrictions on foreign nationals in the U.S., not to mention upon American citizens, and slap a massive unfunded mandate upon the states. Shortly after this legislation takes effect, I can only imagine that, instead of more licensed drivers on the roads, there will be less. Instead of safer roads, we will have more reckless drivers operating completely outside of our laws.

America is a nation of immigrants and our strength is in our diversity. We are founded upon the people who have come from all corners of the globe and are continually enriched by the unique strengths that they add to our national mosaic. We must not undermine the careful balance our nation has struck. I, therefore, strongly oppose these ID and immigration-related sections and pledge to fight hard in the future to remove the offensive provisions from the law.

in the end, as a legislator, I must vote on the bill in front of me, and in this instance I must vote for the vital funding contained in this bill. But, Mr. Speaker, please know that I will work hard in the day ahead to strike the dangerously flawed sections from the code.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my support for House Resolution 250, Supporting the Goals and Ideals of a National Hepatitis B Awareness Month. Chronic liver disease is the tenth leading cause of death in the United States, so it is imperative for the Congress and federal government to become more focused on Hepatitis viruses.

Viral hepatitis represents a disease entity caused by at least 5 unrelated viruses which attack the cells of the liver. The majority of viral hepatitis cases are due to the hepatitis A virus (HAV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), or hepatitis C virus (HCV). Infection with hepatitis B virus can produce a chronic infection which may lead to death from chronic liver disease.

Studies show that 4.9 percent of Americans have been infected with HBV, of whom 1.25 million are chronically infected. The expected direct medical costs associated with acute and chronic HBV infection for one U.S. birth cohort are estimated to be $81.9 million. The consequences of hepatitis-induced chronic liver disease may not become apparent until decades after infection.

Using the national data, it is estimated that more than 931,000 New Yorkers have been infected with HBV, with 46,550 of these persons chronically infected. An estimated 342,000 New Yorkers have been infected with HCV, with 237,500 of these persons chronically infected. Hepatitis B and hepatitis C are complex infections that have significant epidemiologic, social and medical impact.

In addition to the potential financial burden to the state and the Nation, viral hepatitis can have a tremendous impact on the lives of many New Yorkers. As a result, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) identified the need for a comprehensive, collaborative and organized approach by partners across New York to address the public health problems associated with viral hepatitis.

On June 3 and 4, 2003, the NYSDOH, along with partners and stakeholders from across the state, participated in the Viral Hepatitis Strategic Planning Summit. This summit was to be the beginning of the development of a statewide viral hepatitis strategic plan. The two-day meeting began with presentations by representatives from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NYSDOH. Then the participants were divided into four focus areas: (1) Prevention, (2) Education, (3) Surveillance and Research, and (4) Medical and Case Management. The focus areas served as the central elements of the strategic plan. By the end of the 2-day meeting, each focus area identified 3 to 5 priority issues, which were then developed into long- term goals, each with strategies and 5-year action plans for meeting the goals.

On Wednesday, May 11, at the Millennium Hilton, 55 Church St. in New York City, the Aim for the B campaign will conduct a media event to call greater awareness to hepatitis B. Speakers and panelists for the New York event include confirmed representatives from the Mayor's office, Hepatitis B Foundation, Weill Cornell Medical Center and Charles B. Wang Community Health Center. There will be other community events from coast-to-coast the week of May 9, and I salute those associated with this outreach and prevention effort.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the chance to convey my unity of support for House Resolution 250 and for the impressive awareness efforts being conducted nationwide to address hepatitis B.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay honor to Kenneth B. Clark, an educator and psychologist who spent his life working to improve the lives of African-American children, It is Clark's pioneering research on the detrimental effects of racial segregation in schools that was cited by the Supreme Court in the landmark 1954 ruling, Brown vs. Board of Education.

Clark was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1914 and, at age 5, moved with his family to a tenement in New York City to pursue the American Dream. Clark eventually earned his Masters degree from Howard University. Clark went on to become the first African-American to earn a doctorate in psychology at Columbia and also the first to hold a permanent professorship at the City College of New York. While teaching psychology at City College, Clark developed an interest in the effects of segregation on children and conducted his famous study on school segregation. This study demonstrated how racial segregation marred the development of black students and eventually influenced the landmark Supreme Court case.

After his professorship, Clark continued his work for children and became the first African-American to join the New York State Board of Regents, and again the first African-American to serve as president of the American Psychological Association. He belonged to a number of other prestigious organizations including the New York Urban Development Corporation, the Society for Psychological Studies of Social Issues, and Phi Beta Kappa. He founded Harlem Youth Opportunities Unlimited and, with his wife Mamie Phillips, formed what became the North side Center for Child Development.

After retiring from the Board of Regents, Clark began his own consulting firm in my district, in Hastings-On-Hudson, New York. Kenneth B. Clark and Associates assists corporations with racial policies, affirmative action, and other minority hiring programs. Clark wrote many books, including ``Prejudice and Your Child'' and ``Dark Ghetto'' and was awarded many honors for his life's work.

Clark dedicated his life to improving racial equality and never abandoned his belief in the importance of equal access to education, regardless of race. His free thinking and steadfast commitment to this racial equality will sorely be missed.

Madam Speaker. I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 127.

Charles Ghankay Taylor is a ruthless war criminal who has been indicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) on 17 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Taylor, the former president of the Republic of Liberia, has supported atrocities including mass murder, rape, torture, mutilation, and the use of children as militants during Sierra Leone's brutal civil war.

Charles Taylor also supported the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), deemed a terrorist organization by the State Department. He therefore, should be held accountable for the inhumane barbarism the RUF committed within Sierra Leone's borders. Furthermore, this Special Court that indicted Taylor has contributed to the rule of law in Sierra Leone and deserves our support.

In August 2003, Charles Taylor was granted asylum in Nigeria and agreed to end involvement in Liberian politics. The Nigerian government also warned Taylor not to communicate with anyone involved in illegal or political activities in Liberia. However, the UN Secretary General has reported to the Security Council that Taylor has breached this agreement and maintains contacts in Liberia with those planning to undermine the peace process in Liberia.

Today, Charles Taylor remains in Nigeria. Taylor is a threat to peace and stability in West Africa and should not be granted any freedom in Nigeria. I call on the government of Nigeria to immediately turn over Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Only with the proceedings of a fair and open trial for the crimes against humanity, will justice be served, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the ninetieth anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. On the night of April 24, 1915, the Ottoman Empire arrested over 200 Armenian community leaders in Constantinople, thereby marking only the beginning of the horrendous Armenian Genocide to come.

On the eve of World War I, an estimated two million Armenians lived in the Ottoman Empire. Well over a million were deported and hundreds of thousands were simply killed. Between 1915 and 1918, the Ottoman Empire conducted other atrocities against Armenians which also included abduction, torture, massacre and starvation. Armenians living in Armenia and Anatolia were forcibly moved to Syria, where they were left in the desert to die of hunger and thirst. In addition, there were systematic murders; women and children were abducted from their homes and abused. It has been estimated that one and half million Armenians died as a result of this genocide from 1915 to 1923. By 1923 the entire landmass of Asia Minor and historic West Armenia had been expunged of its Armenian population.

On this important anniversary, it is a lasting lesson to people everywhere that genocide must not only be opposed by all nations, but that it must be universally recognized as a crime against humanity--no matter where it occurs or against whom it is carried out.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to offer a perfecting amendment to a good grant proposal offered in section 1512.

Under H.R. 6, the Secretary of Energy may provide grants to merchant producers of cellulosic biomass ethanol and waste-derived ethanol. My amendment would simply allow producers of other renewable fuels approved by the Department of Energy to also apply for these grants.

This amendment simply expands the types of renewable fuels eligible for funding under the grant program in H.R. 6. There is no change in cost to the grant program or H.R. 6 under my amendment.

Currently, there is no available technology that can convert much of the urban waste into ethanol; yet there is at least one such technology that can convert urban waste into components for another DOE-recognized alternative fuel called P-Series fuels.

P-Series is a family of renewable nonpetroleum liquid fuels that can substitute for gasoline. P-Series fuels were officially designated as an alternative fuel by the U.S. Department of Energy in 1999. Forty- five percent of P-Series fuels are made from ethanol; the rest is made up of MTHF, natural gas liquids and butane. Both the ethanol and MTHR are derived from renewable domestic feedstocks, such as corn, wastepaper, cellulosic biomass, agricultural waste, and wood waste from construction.

Since P-Series fuels are not derived from petroleum, the DOE concluded that P-Series fuels would efficiently and effectively help replace petroleum imports. DOE also found P-Series to have environmental benefits because of the reduction in hydrocarbon and CO emissions, toxics, and greenhouse gases. P-Series fuel addresses three problems: the need for nonpetroleum energy sources, solid waste management, and affordability.

A pilot plan for this technology is operating in South Glens Falls, New York. It was constructed with funds invested by the U.S. Department of Energy. Associated Technology was developed at the U.S. Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. This conversion process is well regarded and is deserving of the same level of assistance that are intended for ethanol conversion technologies. It won the President's Green Chemistry Challenge, a competition sponsored by the U.S. EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

The U.S. Government spent considerable time and effort to develop this technology. Expanding the renewable fuels eligible under the grant program will be a win for all. Mr. Chairman, I know of no opposition to this amendment. I urge my colleagues to approve this simple amendment to H.R. 6.

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

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

Let me say I am disappointed that the majority does not agree that we ought to really look at renewable fuels. This, to me, is part of the reason why the bill is so problematic. I do not believe there is a commitment on the majority side to look at renewable fuels.

This does not strike anything. This does not add any more money. This just allows companies to apply for these grants from the Secretary of Energy. If the Secretary of Energy feels it is not worthy or it is one company, they can reject it. This does not add anything. This just would show that we are serious in looking at other renewable fuels. Why would we want to restrict the amount of the different kinds of renewable fuels that we can look at?

This is technology into the future. We should be expanding these things. Here we are just saying, Open it up and let other groups apply. They can be rejected if it is not meritorious. We believe P-series fuels are very important and can help us in the future to look at alternative sources of energy other than gasoline.

I am deeply disappointed, and I think this again shows the problems with the underlying bill. The majority is not really serious in my opinion, with all due respect, in trying to find alternative ways that Americans can get their energy from other than gasoline. That is why this bill is a big sock to the oil-producing companies and to the special interest industries, because whenever we want to expand it to help the American people, we are told, no, no, it is no good.

Again, this does not add any money. This just says let other people apply. If a Secretary of Energy deems these applications are not good, they can reject them. I can see no reason why there is opposition.

I am very disappointed, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, serious problems deserve respectful consideration. The intense polarization of the energy debate has been compounded by the leadership's insistence on repeatedly forcing Congress to consider essentially the same bill. Congress had a great opportunity to produce a balanced energy policy that is diversified, reduces our dependence on oil and invests in alternative energy, but our leadership chose to essentially recycle an old bill that favors special interests over consumers.

This is not the way to make policy. American energy policy is at the crossroads and our national security is being compromised daily by our dependence on foreign energy supplies. Today, oil is at over $50 per barrel and we still haven't passed reliability standards to address the electricity blackout that assaulted the Northeast and Midwest in 2003. Blackouts cost consumers $80 billion, and yet this bill caps the necessary spending to do an acceptable job of providing reliability. Partisan politics have paralyzed this Congress into deadlock and our Nation's energy has suffered the consequences.

Although I appreciate Chairman Barton's willingness to extend hearings on energy this year prior to the 109th Congress's consideration of the Energy Policy Act, I was very disappointed that a letter that 14 of my colleagues and I sent to Chairman Barton at the beginning of February requesting that our committee invite the National Commission on Energy Policy to testify went unanswered. In February, Secretary Bodman testified of his familiarity with the NCEP's report and of his willingness to work with Congress to produce a bill in a bipartisan fashion. If the NCEP was able to bridge the differences between Republicans and Democrats, industry and labor, perhaps we could have too.

And yet, here we are again, with a bill strikingly similar to the one we considered over two years ago. There is a laundry list of problems in this bill. There is nothing in this bill that reduces our consumption of oil or reduces the price of oil. The Energy Information Agency has stated in a 2004 report that under policies proposed by the Energy Policy Act, by 2025, U.S. 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.

The bill's provision protecting manufacturers of MTBE from liability for contaminating water supplies means that taxpayers will bear billions of dollars in cleanup costs, while at the same time paying MTBE manufacturers $2 billion in subsidies. In a much anticipated ruling yesterday in the Southern District of New York, a Federal judge who had consolidated over 80 MTBE lawsuits brought by local governments and State Attorney Generals, ruled that all of the cases can proceed against the oil industry. Including the MTBE liability waiver in the bill would essentially undermine this ruling, while at the same time cutting off the most effective tool that States and local governments have utilized to clean up their drinking water.

New York, which banned MTBE on January 1, 2004, will long be dealing with the repercussions of MTBE contamination. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation says there are about 10,000 MTBE spills throughout the state. The average cost per clean up is about $1 million which translates to a cost of about $10 billion statewide.

In and around Jamaica, Queens, where more than a million NYC residents and businesses rely on groundwater instead of surface

water from the upstate reservoirs, MTBE has contaminated much of the groundwater supply in the aquifer. Gasoline refiners choose less expensive MTBE from among a number of oxygenate options and knew at the time of the contamination risk that MTBE posed to groundwater. The refiners should therefore pay for MTBE remediation efforts.

Perhaps most insulting to the taxpayers is the billions to be spent to prop up the ailing nuclear power industry. I have long supported shutting down Indian Point nuclear power plant because of safety concerns for New Yorkers. Yet, the Republicans in Congress have ignored these safety issues and instead provided tax dollars to subsidize building new power plants. While I am not opposed to nuclear power, these tax dollars would be better used to insulate homes and assist renewable energy production methods in being brought to market.

The fact of the matter is that this bill has some bad provisions that are simply anticonsumer and anti-environment. H.R. 6 weakens laws such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program that protect the environment and the public health. This bill will allow oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, even though the oil won't be available for a decade and even then at levels that would not significantly affect oil prices or imports.

I am proud that two of my amendments were accepted into the Energy Policy Act. The first, which I introduced during the House Energy and Commerce Committee consideration of H.R. 6, expresses the sense of Congress that energy cooperation between the United States of America and Israel is mutually beneficial, acknowledges the cooperative agreement between the U.S. and Israel and states the Department of Energy should report on past and future cooperative energy projects between the U.S. and Israel.

My second amendment expanded opportunities for producers of renewable fuels, such as P-Series fuels, to get grant funding. Currently, there is no available technology that can convert much of the urban biomass waste into ethanol. Yet there is at least one such technology that can convert urban biomass waste into components for another DOE recognized alternative fuel, called P-series fuels.

Since P-Series fuels are not derived from petroleum, the DOE concluded that P-Series fuels would effectively help replace petroleum imports. DOE also found P-Series to have environmental benefits because of the reductions in hydrocarbon and CO emissions, toxics, and greenhouse gases.

By virtue of my amendment, producers of alternative fuels like P- Series fuels will be able to responsibly address three problems: the need for non-petroleum energy sources, solid waste management, and affordability. This is good energy policy.

Our energy policy is intricately tied to our national security and our economic well-being. As the co-chair of the Congressional Oil and National Security Caucus, I know we need to ensure that our energy policy is diversified, reduce our dependence on oil, and create skilled jobs while reducing energy costs. We must ensure that we create policies that will protect the environment and our consumers. Unfortunately, this simply cannot be achieved under this Energy Policy Act, and so I must vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time and I rise in strong support of the Bishop-Markey substitute.

This amendment contains a number of provisions designed to reduce dependence on nonrenewable energy sources. It is ridiculous that H.R. 6 really offers no relief to the soaring prices of gasoline. I think that is what our constituents really want to see.

The administration's own Energy Information Administration analyzed last year's H.R. 6 and said, changes to production, consumption, imports and prices in it are negligible. It even found that gasoline prices under the bill would actually increase more than if a bill was not enacted.

The Bishop-Markey amendment offers clear measures to lower the price of gas. We should not be filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while oil prices are so high. We should urge OPEC to increase oil production. We should instruct the FTC to protect the American people from price gouging at the gas pump. These are reasonable steps. This is what this substitute does. And it will provide reasonable relief from high gas prices.

I cannot support H.R. 6 as it is written today despite my great affection for our chairman, who was more than fair when we had the markup in the Committee on Energy and Commerce; but this Bishop-Markey amendment would provide critical improvements to it.

Support this amendment today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member and my good friend for yielding me time;

and I rise, of course, in support of this resolution, as have all my colleagues.

Pope John Paul was an exceptional person. While one would expect all kinds of accolades to come at this time, the accolades that come for him are truly heartfelt and truly deserved.

I had the occasion to meet him my very first year in Congress in 1989 in the Vatican. There is a picture that was taken of us talking. It looks like we are in very serious talk, and I am opening my mouth and speaking with him. People have always said to me when they see that picture, My goodness, what were you saying to the Pope?

The truth is that those of us that were in the first row, the Pope is moving along shaking our hands. He shook my hand. I said to him, I am Congressman Elliot Engel from New York. He looked at me and smiled and said, God bless America, and moved on to the next person. That is the remembrance I have of him.

He certainly was a compassionate man, someone who really cared about the people. Of course, he was the first non-Italian Pope in nearly 500 years. I had the occasion just a couple of weeks ago to visit Krakow, Poland, where he came from and where he did his ministry in his early years; and the people there, of course, have special, warm feelings for him.

I want to mention, as so many of my colleagues have, the Pope's tremendous gestures of reconciliation with the Jewish community, both in terms of anti-Semitism and going to Israel and having the Vatican and Israel establish diplomatic relations. He was a person that not only spoke his mind, but he put into play practical steps; and certainly the Church was on record as opposing, actively opposing, anti-Semitism under his watch.

So on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of the people of New York and on behalf of the American people, I just want to extend, first of all, my heartfelt condolences to everyone who is mourning, and all of us are mourning the Pope, and say that his life has truly touched all of us, Catholic and non-Catholic alike. He is a man that we will always remember and one who we will certainly always miss.

I also take my hat off to this great tribute that this House is now giving by passing this resolution to honor Pope John Paul II.