Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lance Corporal Aaron Boyles, a courageous young U.S. Marine from the East Bay, who was killed in action in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq on September 24, 2004.

Lance Corporal Boyles is a graduate of Newark Memorial High School. He enlisted in the Marine Corps where he served in the Headquarters and Service Company, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force.

Lance Corporal Boyles performed his duties with distinction and valor. He was awarded the Purple Heart, a second Purple Heart is being recommended. He was also awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon and the War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal.

Today, friends and family from our community are gathering in Hayward to warmly remember Lance Corporal Boyles, who will be laid to rest at Golden Gate National Cemetery. I join them in this remembrance.

I know all of my colleagues here in the United States Congress share in offering condolences to Lance Corporal Boyles' wife Prabha, who is expecting their first child this month, his mother Wanda Kealaiki, his father Robert Boyles and the rest of his family and loved ones. We mourn Aaron's loss with them today.

We are grateful to Lance Corporal Boyles for his selfless sacrifice and courageous service to our country. He no doubt served valiantly through circumstances we here can only imagine. I commend his bravery and am grateful for the contribution Lance Corporal Aaron Boyles has made to our nation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 10, the Republican's so-called 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act.

The 9/11 Commission has worked for months in a thoughtful, thorough and bipartisan manner to recommend concrete ways to reorganize and restructure Federal counterterrorism efforts to ensure we are better able to prevent future attacks. Congress should have immediately adopted those recommendations, but Republicans have blocked that effort today.

Americans should not be fooled by the House Republicans' cynical exercise today. They are circumventing real reform of our Nation's intelligence community. Republicans may say they have listened to the 9/11 Commission. But, make no mistake, the bill before us does not fully implement the Commission's recommendations--it doesn't even come close. Instead, it flies in the face of the Commission's sound and deliberative efforts.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. House Republicans are simply trying to score political points by passing a bill with the same title as the 9/11 Commission hoping no one reads the fine print. If the Republican leadership were serious about reform, they would have gotten their caucus in line and come forth with a bipartisan bill that mirrors the Commission recommendations like the bill the Senate has passed. Republicans chose not to do so.

Let's stand with the families of September 11 and pass real intelligence reform. Let's put the Republican's election politics aside and get on with the business of protecting the American people.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman and support his position.

Mr. Speaker, I am an original cosponsor of the Universal Service Act and rise in support of this bill.

That being said, this vote today is a cynical political ploy. The Republican Leadership did not bring this vitally important issue forward to have a meaningful debate. They did it to buy themselves political cover from accusations that President Bush's failed policy in Iraq will necessitate a new military draft.

I object to this cynical misappropriation of our democratic responsibilities by the Republicans. We are here to do the people's business, not dispose of it thoughtlessly for mere political gain.

I am a cosponsor of the Universal Service Act. I support reinstating the draft, not because it is popular, but because I believe it is right.

Many of us remember World War II. That was a war fought by Americans of every stripe and every background. It didn't matter if you were rich or poor or the color of your skin. All Americans sacrificed and shared the responsibility for winning that war. It was everyone's patriotic duty and our country was better for it.

Today armed forces ought to strive to meet that example. Reinstating a draft with no deferments and no exceptions is both fair and democratic. It will mean that Americans of every background will serve our country, not just the poor and disadvantaged as it is today. It will mean that our troops, reservists and members of the Guard won't be forced into extended deployments well after their tours are up.

Ultimately, I would hope that a draft will deter future wars of convenience like that in Iraq. I'm sure many parents--and Members of

Congress--will think twice about supporting a war if they know their children may be called to fight.

This, of course, is not being genuinely debated here today. Instead this is a political charade that demeans the importance of this issue.

Mr. Speaker, Ms. Tauscher and I rise today to pay tribute to the 30th Anniversary of the Tri-Valley Chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW). The Tri-Valley Chapter represents the cities of Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore, California.

Attendees at the Third National Conference of the Commission on the Status of Women established the National Organization for Women on June 30, 1966 in Washington, DC. The Commission on the Status of Women reported in 1963, that despite having won the right to vote, women in the United States were still discriminated against in virtually every aspect of life. In 1974, eight years following the Commission's report, Tri-Valley NOW was founded during a national surge in women's activism.

The year 1974 was a time of upheaval and change. President Nixon resigned and Vice President Gerald Ford was sworn in as President. That year's number one television show, ``All in the Family,'' was a controversial reflection of the social struggles of the time. Title IX, the federal law aimed at providing equal educational opportunities, was in its infancy.

Local women in the Tri-Valley area, such as Dorris Lee, Denise Gordon and Jean Felton could not sit on the sidelines during this stage of change. They took action and, with encouragement from Contra Costa NOW, they planned the Tri-Valley NOW's first meeting in 1974, which featured guest speakers from East Bay NOW.

Since that first meeting of a handful of like-minded feminists in a Livermore, California office, NOW's Tri-Valley chapter has grown to more than 150 members, both women and men.

For 30 years, Tri-Valley NOW has taken action to achieve equality for women. Its members have actively supported women candidates for public office, battled for equal rights and opportunities in the workplace and classroom, written hundreds of letters to editors and legislators, endured the struggle to pass the Equal Rights Amendment and staged countless demonstrations for positive social change.

Tri-Valley NOW looks back on the last 30 years with great pride in their achievements and deep appreciation for their founding mothers. We agree with their statement that ``there is much work to be done and we will continue to strive for NOW's goal of equality for all women.'' NOW has our full support to help achieve this goal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 106, the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment, which proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex couples from getting married or receiving any of the rights of marriage. The right-wing political machine is churning out divisive legislation at a record pace as we get close to the election, but this is a new low. They would, for the first time ever, target a specific group of Americans in our most sacred document, and permanently ban them from having equal rights under the law. This proposed amendment not only bans marriage, but any of the ``legal incidents thereof,'' meaning that the supporter of this amendment think our founding document should keep gay and lesbian couples from filing a joint tax return, inheriting property, or visiting their partners in the hospital.

It's one thing for the Republicans to claim that banning flag burning will make us more patriotic or to propose a balanced budget amendment when they're running the highest deficits in history, but to play their political games with millions of Americans is beneath contempt. Apparently, there are a lot of things the supporters of this amendment don't understand about our government:

The Constitution has always defined the limitations of government and liberties of people, not the other way around.

Citizens of the United States are guaranteed equal treatment under the law, even if they aren't popular.

For people who choose a religion, there are two separate marriages: a civil contract and a religious ceremony. That religious ceremony has nothing to do with our laws. A church can marry whomever it wants and refuse to marry whomever it wants. For example, Churches in Massachusetts don't have to marry gay people even though the State does.

The civil contract part of marriage is enforced by a set of laws that affect property, children, health care and other responsibilities and rights. In the U.S. we are required by the Constitution to divorce these laws from any religious influence.

Passing this amendment would take us down a dangerous path of trying to make civil and religious marriage one in the same. If we're going to bring our civil marriage system in line with religious marriage, then we also need to pass an amendment banning Catholics from getting divorced.

The fact that Massachusetts is marrying same-sex couples doesn't mean that other States have to do the same. Already, 44 States have specifically banned gay marriage, and the Constitution guarantees their right to set their own policies on State issues.

Constitutional amendments have to be passed by two-thirds of both the House and Senate before being submitted to the States for ratification. This amendment has already failed in the Senate, so today's vote is all a cynical, hateful political game.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor two outstanding individuals, Larry and Marie Danner, for their outstanding civic contributions to Alameda County, California. They have been involved with their community work for over 35 years.

Larry Danner began his career in 1965 as a police officer with the Fremont Police Department where he worked for nine years before joining the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Police Department. He retired in 1994 as a Commander and second in command of the BART Police Department. Larry was instrumental in the growth of BART's security system. The system developed into a full-fledged Police Department that required 90 college credits for employment.

Marie Danner is a California State Certified Trial Court Interpreter and has been sole proprietor of Contreras Court Interpreters for over 35 years in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Marie and Larry have been involved in numerous projects. They have worked together as well as single-handedly to make a difference in the lives of others. Marie is most proud of her work as a board member of the Hispanic Community Affairs Council of Alameda County, an organization that raises $100,000 in scholarships yearly for Hispanic students. For over twenty years, Marie was a commissioner for the Fremont Sister Cities Commission. She was one of the first women to join the Rotary Club and was one of the first women to serve on the Board of Directors of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. She is the former chair of the National Women's Political Caucus and the Hispanic Community Affairs Council Scholarship Fund.

Larry was among the founders of Fremont Babe Ruth Baseball, Inc. and helped with fundraising to build the Fremont Senior Center. He is former vice-president and current treasurer of the American G.I. Forum, and was the project director and designer for the U.S. flag monument at Fremont's Veterans Park.

On October 1, 2004, Larry and Marie Danner will be honored by SAVE (Shelter Against Violent Environments) for their outstanding work to raise domestic violence awareness in the community. Larry served on SAVE's board of directors for six years. Larry and Marie continue to work tirelessly to support SAVE and many other organizations in their community. Their many years of advocacy and service are exemplary and I join all who admire their good works in expressing appreciation for Marie and Larry Danner's contributions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Marjorie Burns Sherratt for her dedicated service as an educator and advocate for students. Ms. Sherratt retired from her position as Principal of Alameda High School in Alameda, CA, on July 1, 2004, having served 4 years. Her retirement marks the culmination of an exemplary career in the field of education that spans 34 years.

Ms. Sherratt is a lifelong resident of Alameda, CA. She earned her B.A. from California State University, Chico, and a M.A. in School Counseling from the University of LaVerne.

During her three decades of commitment to education and prior to her tenure as Principal of Alameda High School, Ms. Sherratt was a teacher at Wood Middle School, Paden Elementary, Washington Elementary, Lincoln Middle School and Chipman Middle School. She was a counselor at Wood Middle School, a Head Counselor at Alameda High School, District Coordinator of Regional Occupational Programs and Principal of Alameda High School. In addition to her years in the classroom and administrative duties, Ms. Sherratt has also served on numerous committees for youth and educational advancement.

She has also served on boards of civic and professional organizations, including Children's Hospital, Xanthos, Alameda Civic Light Opera, where she was president and on the Board of Directors during the Opera's founding years. Ms. Sherratt was honored by the P.T.A. with two outstanding service awards. She is also a member of the Alameda Boys and Girls Club and the Alameda Girls Club.

Countless young people in the community of Alameda have been guided, inspired, and encouraged by the care and concern shown them by Marjorie Sherratt. I join Ms. Sherratt's friends and admirers in commending her for her illustrious record of accomplishments during her career in the field of education and applaud her for her dedicated efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in outraged opposition to H.R. 3193, the so-called District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. This bill strips away gun safety laws passed by the City Council here in our Nation's capital. It allows people in DC to buy assault weapons and use ``cop-killer'' bullets. It overturns laws that ban criminals from owning guns.

Mr. Speaker, the internal contradictions and extremism of this bill say a lot about the Republican majority's desperation to please the National Rifle Association shortly before the election. In order to chock up a vote for the NRA scorecard, Republicans play lip service to States' rights and local control while nullifying laws passed by the elected leaders of DC.

Do the people of Washington, DC want their gun laws repealed? Not on you life.

Residents of DC will be less safe, but who cares say the Republicans. They've got to reward the NRA for millions in campaign contributions dumped into their reelection coffers. They have no shame.

Consider the parents of the 16 DC children killed by guns this year. They have to relive their nightmare every day and now the tragedy of more children murdered by guns and more parents mourning as assault weapons again rule the streets. Their wishes are being dishonored and stripped away today. Their calls for safe streets ignored. Their hope for safer neighborhoods--gone. All capriciously taken away by Republicans and the NRA.

I bet these parents, like any other parent in any community across this Nation, wish they had the same grip over their local gun laws as the National Rifle Association.

The 230 cosponsors of this legislation work in a building where guns are banned. Every visitor has to pass through a metal detector. Millions have been spent on Homeland Security upgrades in and around the Capitol. Yet, they foolishly think the Global War on Terror stops at the banks of the Potomac. Or maybe they figure they're safe behind the barricades and armed police so why worry about gun laws that protect other people who life in this city?

If you're worried about your safety in some of the most dangerous neighborhoods just blocks from the Capitol, here's the Republicans' message to you: buy an AK-47 and pray that you're a better shot than the other guy. Never mind studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine that conclude that guns kept in the home for self- protection triple the risk of homicide, and are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than an intruder.

Any member of this body who feels safer because of the extensive gun control here in the Capitol Building has an obligation to vote against this bill so that the people of DC have the same right to control their personal safety. If you vote for a firearms free-for-all in Washington, DC, then you should have the decency to introduce legislation allowing assault weapons right here, in your own workplace, in this Capitol. Even Republicans know that would be wrong, but if that's really where you stand, then I stand with the citizens of DC who know what's best. Do what they'd do. Vote down this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Motion to Instruct Conferees on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. This motion would instruct conferees to include the hate crimes bill in the conference report, to stop the perpetration of violence against Americans merely because of who they are.

The fact is that while there has been a significant drop in overall crime in this country, the number of hate crimes continues to grow. Hate crimes send a chilling message that some Americans are second- class citizens who should fear for their lives because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. These crimes target entire communities with the message that others in the community could be next.

The hate crimes bill would seriously address this oppression by expanding existing Federal law involving acts of violence motivated by bias against race, religion, or national origin. In addition, the bill would broaden Federal jurisdiction to include offenses that are motivated by bias against gender, sexual preference, or disability.

Mr. Speaker, we should be embarrassed that we're having this vote today, because in 2000, in response to several shocking hate crimes that received national attention, 232 Republicans and Democrats in the House and a bipartisan group of 57 Senators voted to pass the hate crimes law. It was later taken out of the defense bill at the insistence of the

Republican leadership in closed-door negotiations. So for 4 years, thousands of American hate crime victims have gone without the protection of their government because the will of the majority was subverted. I urge all of my colleagues to right this wrong and vote ``yes'' on the motion.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2028, the So- Called ``Pledge Protection Act.'' This potentially unconstitutional piece of legislation speaks volumes about the uncontrollable extremism of the Republican Party and its desperation to look ``conservative'' in the face of $400 billion deficits and nation-building in Iraq.

The fact that the Supreme Court already threw out the decision striking ``Under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance makes this bill irrelevant with regard to the Pledge, and all the more frightening with regard to the true intentions of the Republicans. In the interest of politics, they would unravel our system of checks and balances and close the courthouse doors to religious minorities. They would set a new, disastrous precedent of letting 50 different state courts be the final arbiters of our laws. They prefer that state judges, rather than federal judges confirmed by the Senate, make Constitutional law.

If the right wing had been in control of the Republican Party in the 1960s, we wouldn't have desegregation or Miranda warnings, as there were court-stripping proposals on those subjects, too.

Mr. Speaker, everyone here realizes that if Congress could just pass whatever laws it wanted and throw in a line to keep them from being held unconstitutional, our Constitution and Separation of Powers would be rendered meaningless. So let's just admit what this is really about: rallying the base and attacking defenseless Americans.

Shame on any Member of this body who will trample on our Constitution just to score a few political points. If the Oath we all took to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States'' means anything to you, you will vote ``no'' on this election-year ploy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not be sarcastic. I might be somewhat morally indignant. And I really think it is up to individual Members how they choose to vote on this bill. But I do think the bill clearly defines the Republican Party and it clearly defines the difference, and it defines compassion and conservatism as the Republicans understand it.

One might say there is some fascism in the bill and there is some socialism. That is okay too. But let us look at what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) talked about earlier.

4.3 million families in this bill, because of the Republican refusal to freeze the $10,000 cap on income, 4.3 million families below $10,750 a year will have a tax increase. That means 9.2 million children living in those families will have less money while their parents' income has stayed the same or gone up slightly. To fix that would cost $4.3 billion. There is not enough compassion on the Republican side of the aisle to find $4.3 billion over 5 years to help those 9 million of the poorest children in this country.

That is your Republican compassion. That is indecent, it is un- Christian and it is immoral.

Now, this same Republican Party has countenanced a Tax Code on the other side. Eighty-two of the Fortune 500 companies, the most profitable companies in the country, paid no taxes over 3 years, and those 82 companies received $12.6 billion in refunds. So the Republicans are willing to give 82 rich, biggest corporations $12.6 billion.

That is conservatism. But they do not have the compassion to let $4.3 billion be spent on the 9 million poorest children. There you have it. The Republicans will help 82 of the richest corporations with three times as much money as it would take to have helped the 9 million poorest children in this country.

So whatever you vote on this bill, it does not make any difference, but know the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.

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

I would just like to note, I have had this lesson in civics, and the gentleman is correct, the Congress does dispose. And in the tenure of the current chair of the Committee on Ways and Means, he has disposed of a $5.6 trillion surplus, and he now has us a $3 trillion deficit. He is throwing away $8 trillion, in his Republican leadership of the Committee on Ways and Means, and that is not so bad.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a gentleman who has seen the inside of a military uniform.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I guess that there are people in the hall who are hearing things. Maybe they have receptors in their teeth. I heard no chuckles, but there are people who do get messages that are from strange sources; and they are certainly not in this hall.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for whom the complexities of a tax credit for the military would not exceed his intellect, as it obviously does the leader at the White House and the leader of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to speak on behalf of the gentleman from New York (Ranking Member Rangel).

I think somebody on the majority side misinterpreted the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel) position. I am aware that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) intends to vote for this bill. He is unhappy with the fact that it is not paid for and that it mistreats our military and our very lowest income people, but he does intend to vote for it. I think to suggest that he is opposing the bill is a misstatement of his position, and he has asked me to set the record straight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

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

It was the gentleman from Arizona, not the gentleman from California, who suggested that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) opposed the bill, and that was the misunderstanding that I wanted to correct. The chairman is correct, he did not suggest that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) was not in favor of the bill, and that was my point, to set that part of it straight.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman ready to close?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear, or at least I might respond, that the Presidential candidate that I am going to support never ducked out of his military duty or had his daddy buy him a soft berth to avoid combat.

We are talking now about a tax bill that I suspect will pass comfortably in the next few minutes, but I think it is important again to remember that the most vulnerable of our citizens are being disadvantaged. And I am talking about those in the military.

I might add that when President Clinton did the tax credit for the military change, we had no military in Iraq.

We also are disadvantaged, hurting, raising the taxes, if you will, on 9 million of the poorest children. On the one hand, we are giving $14 billion worth of tax breaks to corporations, when it would have only taken $4 billion of that to help the 9 million poorest children.

I do not see how any Christian or anybody with any compassion can square their conscience, can go home to dinner tonight and tell their family or their children, I just voted to harm 9 million of the poorest children in this country and I gave away $14 billion to the richest corporations in this country. That does not wash with compassion. That is underhanded and immoral and obscene, and it is part of this bill, written by the Republican chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. And that is a fact.

There is no excuse for continuing to raise the deficit, which has been done under the leadership of the current Committee on Ways and Means, so that we have gone from a $5 trillion surplus to a $3 trillion debt. That is $8 trillion thrown away by the Republican leadership of the Committee on Ways and Means and this House, and countenanced and supported by the White House.

It is a shame that our leadership in the White House is so intellectually challenged that it cannot understand a tax credit. That in itself ought to be reason enough to change that leadership. Because by lacking the intellectual capability of understanding the Tax Code, they are harming our military.

Vote as you will, but understand the difference, Mr. Speaker, between Republican compassion and conservative giveaways to the very rich.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Diane Rehm, who today enters her 25th year of hosting her WAMU radio show, The Diane Rehm Show. Her show is a true public service and she deserves our thanks and recognition for her efforts.

In this era of 30-second soundbites, style over substance, and reporters interviewing other reporters, The Diane Rehm Show offers two hours per day of thoughtful, balanced examination of the issues. In fact, 1.4 million listeners on NPR and Sirius satellite radio enjoy Ms. Rehm's refuge from the typical talking head radio hosts who don't listen.

While she has hosted the biggest names in public life, some of Ms. Rehm's most fascinating conversations are with callers or guests who are being interviewed for the first time. As she says, ``It's crucial we hear not only the voices of policymakers and experts, but that everyone has a chance to offer their opinions and ask questions.'' Topics on the show range from the war in Iraq to the art of landscape design.

Ms. Rehm is also part of a tradition of public figures who turn adversity into a public service. In 1998, her career nearly came to a halt because of a mysterious speech problem. She took a leave of absence from the show until she was diagnosed and treated for spasmodic dysphonia, a neurological disorder. Not one to be defeated, she returned to the show and made a point of bringing attention to the condition by writing a book and speaking out about her disease. Shortly after her return to radio in 2000, she interviewed President Clinton and became the first radio talk show host to interview a sitting President in the Oval Office.

I'm sure I join many of my colleagues and the American public in thanking Ms. Rehm for 25 thought-provoking years. Again, we congratulate her and we look forward to many more years of The Diane Rehm Show to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jerry Raber, a resident of Newark, California. The city of Newark will pay tribute to Jerry on September 16, 2004 at the dedication of Jerry Raber Ash Street Park.

All who know her describe Jerry as a truly special woman. For over thirty years, Jerry has been a tireless advocate fighting to meet the needs of children in her community.

When a fire devastated the original Ash Street Youth Center in March 1969, Jerry pushed and pursued the city to replace the building. Through her leadership and perseverance, she garnered support from volunteers and local contractors to help rebuild the center. Service clubs, such as Kiwanis and Rotary donated funds for play equipment while local contractors contributed roofing, concrete and other building materials. Area businesses and restaurants joined forces and placed donation jars in their establishments to collect funds that helped to complete the softball field.

Along with city funding, federal grants, generous grassroots donations and hard work, the Ash Street Youth Center was rebuilt. The Center was ready to serve the community with programs such as ballet, cake decorating, adult education, secretarial courses, storybook hours, book exchanges, arts and crafts, a game lending library and a horse clinic.

In June 1971, Ash Street Park joined the Ash Street Youth Center and services to the community were expanded. A wide variety of recreational activities included picnicking, softball, flag football, Easter egg hunts, supervised overnight camping and even a pet parade.

Jerry Raber continued to push for further services for the community and assisted in the expansion of Ash Street Park. In 1992, Jerry, along with area residents, school officials and PTA members, formed a non- profit organization, Friends for Ash Street Community Enrichment, better known as FACE. FACE, with the city of Newark, started a new balanced lunch and recreation program.

Children enrolled in the program received free hot lunches and the opportunity to participate in arts and crafts, sports games, lessons on public safety awareness and teambuilding.

Jerry Raber's drive and persistence to make Newark a better place for children has been recognized and appreciated through the years. She has many markers of success she can point to with pride. Her accomplishments have earned her the honorary title ``Mayor of Old Town''. I join in thanking Jerry for her tireless efforts and investment in the community to make a difference in the lives of others.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act, and Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act. The Republicans are now so desperate to run against trial lawyers in this election that they have turned against our judicial system, student athletes, and countless other Americans.

Almost all volunteers, including coaches, are already protected from frivolous lawsuits by the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, but the Republicans want to go beyond the better judgment and bipartisan consensus of 1997 in order to create an election-year issue.

Under the athletic organization act, an organization like the NCAA could violate title IX by failing to provide equal opportunities for female athletes, or court violate civil rights, anti-trust, or labor laws, and not be held accountable in court.

The 1997 Volunteer Protection Act rightly excluded volunteers who operate ``a motor vehicle, vessel [or] aircraft'' from legal immunity for negligence because volunteerism has to be encouraged without sacrificing the rights of injured parties. The pilot organization protection act destroys this balance by holding most pilots to one standard but allowing volunteer pilots to escape liability for negligence.

The Lawsuit Abuse Protection Act hurts all Americans by exposing them and their attorneys to motions intended to harass them and slow down the legal process, a tactic often used by wealthy defendants in civil rights trials. This is one of many reasons why the U.S. Judicial Conference, headed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, opposes this bill. H.R. 4571 is also unconstitutional, because it forces every state court to implement new court rules and procedures, even though Congress has no jurisdiction over state courts.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand up for our Constitution, judicial system, athletes, and all Americans by voting ``no'' on these three bills. If that makes me a friend of the trial lawyers, then I proudly stand with Thurgood Marshall, William Jennings Bryan, and Abraham Lincoln over Tom DeLay and George W. Bush.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of the victims of September 11th and their families. We remember these Americans today and commend the bravery and courage of all those who came to their aid that day--many of whom selflessly gave their lives. We

will never forget their sacrifice and heroism. As a Nation, we are unified in our commitment to each other.

We ought to stand together now just as we stood together on September 11, 2001, and the days after in solemn remembrance. That is why I am disappointed to see Republicans politicizing this horrific day with this partisan resolution, which I cannot in good conscience support.

I fully support our troops. I am committed to defending our Nation against terrorism. I will not, however, endorse the Administration's foreign policy, which I strongly oppose. The effort to use the attacks of September 11th to legitimize the war against Iraq or the future, indiscriminate use of military force at any cost is wrong.

We must see September 11th as a reminder of what our Nation stands for--as was eloquently demonstrated by so many Americans on that horrible day. We must rededicate our Nation to compassionately fulfilling our ideals while recognizing our responsibility to lead the world by example, rather than by force.

It is from this dark day that America must resolve to pursue peace, cooperation and understanding throughout the world. We must be committed to upholding democracy and human rights while working to improve the material conditions of people around the globe. Working for a safer, more humane world is our best defense against terrorists and our best hope for a more secure America.