Floor Statements

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

I just want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for such hard work on this bill and for making the changes that they have made to it to make it a better bill. I also want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for his untiring work on this issue over so many years, and certainly we need something like this bill. We need to make sure that those who are innocent have their day in court, all they need in court.

I do have some concerns about this bill. I feel compelled to note them. There are still some problematic areas here.

For example, H.R. 5107 contains a provision permitting post- conviction DNA testing of convicts who have pleaded guilty. Even though those convicts may have not even requested DNA testing that was available at the time of their trial, this will permit defendants to reopen cases, to retraumatize victims and waste resources, even if there is no reason to think that testing will change the outcome of the case.

The bill also contains a 5-year limitation on the duration of its proposed post-conviction DNA testing remedy, but it also contains a large loophole. A convicted inmate may seek new testing more than 5 years after the conviction if they can prove that it is in the interest of justice. This is an opportunity to flout the time limits and will undoubtedly attract lawyers to do so. There is no reason to permit this testing past the 5-year mark. To do so simply invites abuse and retraumatizes victims.

A person who is actually innocent, think about it, they have every reason to seek relief promptly, to request an available test immediately. Those who seek to delay that are simply looking to hide something. They are looking to delay until it is impossible for the government to retry the case. Think about it. Years later, if we have a case where eyewitness and other testimony might conflict or actually supplement or add to DNA testing there, it is impossible to retry a case 20 years later because witnesses may be gone, other evidence may be gone. So we need to make sure

that the remedies are sought early, not later.

With that, I hope that these other concerns are addressed with the other body so that we can have a good bill on this subject.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment forward. It is important. We need to be fiscally conservative at long last here. We have got to make sure that we offset these programs. If we do not, we are simply adding to the burden of our kids and our grandkids. It is simply not right. So I welcome this amendment, and simply say that the notion that we cannot find savings elsewhere in the Federal Government is simply absurd.

We have seen the run-up of spending in each of the Federal agencies over the last several years. We know that savings can be had, and we simply need to find them. When we look at the debate that was just had on the farm programs, I distinctly remember, a couple of years ago when we were debating a rather large farm bill, it being said that we needed to do this because we cannot keep doing emergency supplementals and that this program will take care of them.

Well, guess what? Here we are again. We need to find real offsets, and that is what this amendment does, and I thank the gentleman for offering it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am not here to argue about the value of the Boys and Girls Clubs. In fact, they do very good work in my home State of Arizona, a lot of good work.

What I am here to raise a concern about is the increased level of authorization in this bill. Over the life of this authorization, 2006 to 2010, we will be authorizing $450 million for the Boys and Girls Clubs. Unless a vote is called here today, this will go through without any vote in the Senate or the House as to this increased authorization. In an era where we are facing increased deficits and a huge debt, I think we owe it to our constituents and others to vote on measures like this that spend so much money.

In the year 2010, there will be nearly $100 million authorized for this purpose. That is a fivefold increase over the original amount authorized in the 104th Congress. That is significant. If we were not increasing the authorization, I do not think we would have many people wanting to call a roll call vote on this or even raising a red flag, but we are here. I would urge defeat of this measure until we can come in with the same level of authorization and not an increase.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and I thank the gentleman from American Samoa for speaking so eloquently on this bill. I appreciate the opportunity to offer this bill today, and I want to thank Chairman Pombo for including it on our floor action. The Battle of Peleliu, as mentioned by the gentleman from American Samoa, was one of the bloodiest in the Pacific theater in World War II. It lasted more than 2 months during which the United States suffered over 10,000 casualties, including an estimated 1,250 Marines and 540 soldiers killed in action in an attempt to capture a vital airfield from the Imperial Japanese.

In honor of that historic battle, myself, the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) and the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) introduced this bill to recognize the service and sacrifice of the brave men who fought to end Imperial Japanese control over the Palau islands chain and all American servicemen who fought in the Pacific theater. It is important to note that one of those present at the battle was President George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st President of the United States, who served as a torpedo bomber pilot in the Navy at that time. During the battle, then Navy Lieutenant Bush sank an armed Japanese trawler during operations to weaken Japanese defenses on Peleliu before United States Marines invaded the island. In addition, former Secretary of State George P. Shultz served as an officer in the Marine Corps detached to the 81st Infantry Division during the battle and participated in the seizure, occupation and defense of Angaur Island in the Palau islands chain.

In recognition of the battle's importance during the war, the Secretary of the Interior officially designated the Peleliu battlefield as the Peleliu Battlefield National Historic Landmark on February 4, 1985. The battlefield today has considerable evidence of the battle, including cave sites occupied by the defending Japanese troops as well as pillboxes, casemates and large military equipment.

This resolution urges the Secretary of the Interior to recognize the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Peleliu and work to protect the important sites of that battlefield. It is important to note that the battlefield is located in what is today the Republic of Palau. The Republic of Palau today is an independent, democratic nation with a strong ally in the United States. This is due in part to the sacrifices of the members of the United States Armed Forces who participated in the Battle of Peleliu 60 years ago. We honor them today.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) for bringing this forward. We had the opportunity earlier this year to go to Guam and visit the beautiful island and stand on the overlook overlooking Asan Beach where over 12,000 Americans died retaking that island. As the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) said, the people of Guam were extremely loyal during that period of occupation and have been ever since. It is a pleasure to work with her on these issues of importance to people of Guam, and I urge agreement of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

To hear the debate, like the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I wonder what amendment we are debating. It seems we are debating the Flake amendment all over again. I would like to be debating the Flake amendment. I decided last week that this is not the time to do so, just because of the political environment; that it would not be given a good hearing.

It seems that is what we are debating, the full-out travel for humanitarian, tourism, et cetera, whatever; just allowing Americans the freedom to travel. I wish we were debating that. I think that is the policy we should have. But we are not. This is a very narrow debate on a very specific issue.

The only difference I would have with the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is that many Republicans share this view. In fact, I think over 60, 2 years ago, or 50 or so Republicans voted for the Flake amendment to allow all travel, to allow freedom of all people to travel, and I assume the vote will be even larger among Republicans today.

I too am struck by this amendment and what is termed arrogance. I am called arrogant, I guess, because I assume that Cuban American families ought to decide for themselves whether they should travel. That is not arrogance. It is not arrogance to assume that I do not represent all Cuban Americans. I do not represent very many. There are some in my district; some who have contacted me; some who do want to travel. I think they ought to be given that choice for themselves. It would be arrogant of me to say otherwise.

I think it would be arrogant of me to say, no, I know what is better for you. I think you should not be able to travel to your mother's funeral or that you should have to decide whether to go to your mother or your father's funeral, or that you cannot decide for yourself whether or not you should travel to see another sick relative. That is not a choice we ought to be making for everyone.

I come from a small town in northern Arizona, the town is called Snowflake, named after my great-great grandfather. There are a lot of Flakes in Snowflake, by name, not reputation. I do not represent that area, but I assume I represent a lot of the feelings coming from that group. There are a lot of people who are not Flakes in Snowflake. I would not pretend to represent them. I would not pretend to know where they should travel or where they should not. That is not a decision I should make for them. That is a decision they should make for themselves.

So, for one Member of Congress in a different State than Florida to say he thinks that Cuban Americans in Florida or New Jersey or Indiana or Wisconsin or elsewhere should make that decision for themselves, that is not arrogance, that is simply embracing freedom and that they should have that choice by themselves; that we should not make that choice for them. That is what we are arguing today. That is what it is all about today.

A vote against this amendment puts us in the position of telling Cuban Americans that we know what is best for them, not the opposite. A vote for this amendment says that we make the choice ourselves; that we know whether it is best to travel to Cuba to visit a sick relative, to go to a mother's funeral or to not. That is what this amendment is all about.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for it, and I commend the gentleman from Florida for bringing this forward, and I commend those who have participated in the debate. Let us just remember what it is about. This is about freedom. This is about family values. It is about allowing families to travel and to make their own decisions.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I have stood to offer this same amendment, an amendment to restore the basic right of Americans to travel to Cuba. The Flake amendment has, for the past 3 years, enjoyed broad bipartisan support in Congress, and for good reason.

For the last 45 years, we have attempted to bring about regime change in Cuba, only to see Fidel Castro outlast nine U.S. Presidents, all the while his countrymen have been denied their most basic human rights. A compelling case could be made that our policy of isolating Cuba made sense during the Cold War. As a part of the Soviet Union, Cuba was actively exporting revolution with its troops around the world, but we are more than a decade removed from the Cold War. We now face new challenges, challenges that it can be safely said do not include the spread of Cuban-style communism.

Our challenge is to export freedom to Cuba, and for this cause our current policy is as outdated as the cars that ply the highways of Havana. How can we promote liberty in Cuba with a policy that denies our own citizens the right to travel to the island? How can we foster respect for basic human dignity when we tell Cuban Americans they can no longer send soap and toothpaste to their long-suffering relatives in Cuba? Have we failed to see the long-term consequences of our policy? In a word, yes.

I should note that this blindness does not only inflict the Republican Party; the Democratic leadership has not offered a vision that is much clearer. Unfortunately, neither party can see past Florida when trying to decide what to do about Cuba.

With this bill today, and in other bills this year, we will appropriate tens of millions of dollars relating to Cuba. It is fitting that we ask for what purpose. So the think tanks in Miami can churn out more reports telling the Congress, unsurprisingly, that we ought to continue the current policy which includes giving them more money; so that daily television programs can be produced in Miami that Cubans will never see; so that a Little League team in Arizona will not be able to play baseball with their peers in Cuba; so that faith-based groups in Indiana distributing Bibles in Cuba can be fined for their evangelical zeal; or so a grieving daughter in South Carolina will not be able to attend her mother's funeral in Cuba?

As a Republican, I fail to see anything conservative about these policies. There is a saying no man is an island, yet our policy assumes that Fidel Castro is Cuba's only resident. The people of Cuba have suffered decades under his rule. Our policies, particularly those enacted just months ago, which limit family charity, have only added to their burdens.

Unfortunately, the timing of this legislation this year does not lend itself to a reasoned and thoughtful debate about our policy toward Cuba. Our efforts in this area have always been bipartisan in nature, but with elections so close and politics so raw, this debate would not receive the thoughtful deliberation it deserves.

I would like to thank those Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who are working so hard for a more effective and reasonable Cuban policy, those who believe that promoting freedom in Cuba is best achieved by giving Americans more freedom. Our efforts will resume as soon as the electoral smoke clears.

It is my understanding that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) will offer an amendment to roll back the new restrictions on family travel by Cuban Americans to Cuba. My colleagues and I look forward to helping the gentleman with his worthy efforts.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, that is correct.

I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I have argued very vocally that the Federal Government should not accept matricula consular. That is a different issue altogether. But should we be telling banks what they can and cannot accept? It is their own risk. They ought to be able to accept this, and we ought to be able to track and have a better idea where the money is and where it is going. If this language stays in without the amendment, I fear that it will impact on that.

I come from Arizona where we face the impact of illegal immigration very strongly. We bear the brunt of the Federal Government's failure to enforce and to secure the border. But this does not fix the situation at all. It may seem something like a fix, but it is not. I commend those who have brought this amendment forward, and I urge its passage.

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

I am pleased that this bill that I introduced with the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) is being considered on the floor today.

Madam Speaker, in what currently poses a potential threat to self- governance in the territory of Guam, the Guam legislature and the Guam executive branch currently have the power to abolish the Supreme Court of Guam, thus infringing on the judiciary's independence. This unintentional unequal balance of power was created by the 1984 Omnibus Territories Act, which authorized the creation of an appellate court on Guam. Unfortunately, this statute left the newly created court subordinate to the powers of the legislature and the executive.

The possibility of removing judges if rulings are unpopular or abolishing the court and replacing it with one elected by the legislature would directly threaten the people of Guam's faith in their own courts and the democratic process. It is an unacceptable situation.

This legislation remedies the potential constitutional crisis by making the Supreme Court of Guam a court equal in stature with the other branches of government and providing the Guam judiciary the same protection as the other two branches have in their status under the Organic Act of Guam.

I had the unique opportunity to hear first hand many of Guam's political leaders express support for this legislation during our CODEL to the Pacific Islands earlier this year. I also have a constituent right around the corner from me who spends time on Guam, and he has educated me over the past couple of years to the potential problem here with this, and I am glad that we are moving through on it.

I want to thank the leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) for moving this ahead and for his leadership on all other areas and concerns of our territories. And I want to thank the gentlewoman from Guam also for working hard on this.

I urge adoption of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request the opportunity to record my position on rollcall votes 422 and 423. I was regrettably absent from the chamber on September 7th during the rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 422 and ``yea'' on rollcall 423.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request the opportunity to record my position on roll call votes 424, 425, 426, and 427. I was regrettably absent from the chamber on September 8th during the roll call votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye on roll call 424, and ``no'' on roll calls 425, 426 and 427.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I thank the gentleman for bringing this important amendment forward. Every once in a while you just have to stand back and say, hey, you have gone too far here, and studying dorm room walls to see if the paintings or the decorations on them say something about the health of the student or whatnot is just going too far.

I can look back at college and I can tell my colleagues my dorm room walls were pretty bare. It said one thing about me, that I was broke, and that is what most students are worried about in college, just getting through. To tell them that they are paying taxes and some of their taxes are going to study what they have put on their dorm room walls, as to what that tells about them, is simply absurd.

So I think every once in a while you have to step back and say we will have none of this; you have gone too far, the taxpayers deserve better.

I thank the gentleman for bringing it forward, and I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today I voted against S. 15, legislation to authorize permanent, indefinite funding authority intended to aid the procurement of certain biomedical countermeasures (drugs, devices, and biological products to treat, identify, and prevent the public health consequences of terrorism).

This legislation is another example of the federal government attempting to throw money at a project that is already underway. The Departments of Health and Human Services already administer the Strategic National Stockpile, which contains drugs, diagnostic devices, vaccines, and other biological products to combat the public health consequences of a terrorist attack or other public health emergencies. The Department of Homeland Security currently provides the financing for those efforts, which include the procurement of a new smallpox vaccine and stockpiling of that vaccine and older versions of the vaccine. About $400 million was appropriated in 2003 for stockpiling activities.

S. 15 takes the unprecedented step of writing a blank check to the Administration (both this Administration and future ones) to augment the Strategic National Stockpile. While the Congressional Budget Office estimates that S. 15 will cost the taxpayers about $5.6 billion over the 2004-2013 period, that is only an estimate and the cost could be significantly higher.

Experts have expressed concerns with the structure of Project BioShield, saying that it may be focusing on the wrong drugs, with much of the spending going to vaccines and drugs that are already fairly close to production. Project BioShield is designed to provide incentives to pharmaceutical companies to develop new drugs and vaccines, but will it actually achieve its intended results? BioShield would allow a company to spend several million dollars of its own money on developing a new drug or vaccine, only to see the government possibly award the contract for producing it to another company. It also excludes products that might have a commercial market outside the government bioterror stockpile. Concerns have also been raised that BioShield does not deal with some important issues like protecting companies from liability if products developed under government contract have side effects. This bill does not appear to recognize the way the free market functions.

On a larger scale, public-health experts also contend that the focus on bioterrorism's threat to the public health is misguided, especially when considering the lessons of history. The number of deaths attributable to willfully produced epidemics, ever, pales by comparison with the toll taken by natural ones. In 1918-19, an influenza pandemic killed more people in just 16 months than World War I had killed in six years. Smallpox killed 10 times as many people in the first half of the 20th century, as did both world wars combined. Even today, malaria kills 2 million people each year; so does tuberculosis. By contrast, deliberate epidemics in the past 100 years, mostly through the actions of armies at war, have been responsible for a few thousand deaths.

In short, Mr. Speaker, this legislation signifies an expenditure of extraordinary proportions that may be little more than a public relations campaign designed to reassure U.S. citizens that the government cares about bioterrorism. I worry about the program's effectiveness when it so blatantly ignores the way the market works, and I am not comfortable supporting such an expensive bill when too many questions about it have gone unanswered.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

The Flake-Van Hollen-Platts-Waxman-Bartlett-Doggett amendment prohibits the expenditure of funds for salaries to implement a taxpayer-funded tobacco bailout in this program. This amendment would still permit the Department of Agriculture to implement a program using industry as opposed to taxpayer funds.

The tobacco buyout is simply a bad deal for taxpayers. There is never a good time to spend $10 billion bailing out tobacco farmers; but in the midst of a war, a deficit, and an economic recovery, now is the worst time.

Unfortunately, Members of this body were not given the opportunity to debate this provision during the recent consideration of H.R. 4520, the corporate tax bill. An amendment I offered with the gentleman from Texas

(Mr. Doggett) would have stripped the bailout provision from the bill. However, this amendment was not accepted by the Committee on Rules. As a result, I and a number of my colleagues have no option other than opposing final passage of that legislation. There were a lot of provisions that I liked in that bill. The tax cuts were particularly good, but I voted against it because of this egregious provision, the tobacco bailout.

Today, the House finally has the opportunity to debate the merits of the $9.6 billion bailout for the tobacco industry.

The Federal tobacco quota system was established as a temporary program during the Depression era and has gone relatively unchanged since then. It was created to control the supply and, in turn, market prices for U.S.-grown tobacco. The quota system has long outlived any usefulness it might have had. Tobacco production in the U.S. has been declining steadily because, among other things, lower-price foreign tobacco is reducing demand for artificially high-priced U.S. product.

Interestingly, current law requires that tobacco growers choose by referendum every 3 years whether or not to continue Federal support of the industry. While the quota system is resulting in the decline of the industry, growers have chosen to carry on with the program. Now we are offering to buy the growers out of the program that they have chosen to be with for the last 3 years, that they have chosen to continue at a cost of $9.6 billion in taxpayer money. Much of the buyout payments would land in the accounts of the big tobacco companies.

I am also concerned that this proposed buyout would set a bad precedent and that future efforts to end agricultural quota or subsidy programs will come at too high a price for taxpayers. This $9.6 billion buyout is being touted as a free market solution to the problems resulting from Federal support. Conservative estimates put the value of the Federal buyout at two to three times the market value of the quotas. This is no free market program. The Federal purchase of federally created quotas at two or three times the market price is simply not a free market solution.

For the sake of the taxpayers that we represent, I urge passage of the Flake-Van Hollen-Platts-Waxman-Bartlett-Doggett amendment. I want to say thanks in particular to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) for working so hard on this amendment with others.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

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

Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from Texas, I would just point out that if there is no money, why bother opposing this? This is an amendment that seeks to prohibit the expenditure of money. If no money is being expended, we need not worry in any other bills or here.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

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

Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), I would like to point out the comments of the gentleman from Tennessee about this not being about smoking. That is exactly how I feel. This is about the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. This would still allow the expenditure of industry-funded bailouts, simply not taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that it has been pointed out again and again here, this does not prevent a buyout. Perhaps a buyout is proper, but it should happen not with taxpayer funds, but with industry funds. So this simply protects the taxpayer.