Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, let me first thank everyone who has worked on this bill and say the Senate passed this bill a little while ago unanimously. The most conservative Senators, Senators Enzi and Coburn, supported it, and I hope we can do the same.

Nine years ago, Madam Speaker, the heroes of 9/11 ran into the buildings, they rushed into the burning buildings, and they worked in a toxic environment for weeks and months. They have suffered for that. They have suffered for their service to this country by getting sick, by dying, by being sick. It is now up to us to see that the United States honors its heroes, that the United States does not turn its back on those who served us.

When we pass this bill, we will answer the question of whether the United States honors its heroes, and whether the United States honors itself. Let us pass this bill, let us redeem the honor of the United States after all these years, let us show the world that the United States looks after its own. That's what this bill is. I urge everyone to support it.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to oppose this bill, however the rule comes out, for several reasons. Number one, if this bill passes, we will extend the upper income tax cuts at a cost of increase in the deficit by $700 billion over 10 years.

We're told that in 2 years it will expire. Of course, we also know that our friends on the other side of the aisle will try to extend it in 2 years, and in 2 years, we'll have the same kind of coercion. We'll be told that if we don't extend the upper end tax cuts, the middle class tax cuts will also expire, and I don't see any reason to believe that we wouldn't succumb to that coercion 2 years from now in an election year as much as we're doing now in this bill.

So I believe that passing this bill, in effect, would make permanent the upper end tax cuts which, in effect, would generate a $700 billion increase in the deficit, which would make it almost impossible to fund housing, education, everything else we need. It would be the culmination of the 30-year Republican effort to starve the beast, to deliberately create huge deficits in order to provide the political cover for reducing expenditures in housing, education, Social Security, and Medicare.

Secondly, I hope that Mr. Pomeroy's amendment on the estate tax will pass, but if it doesn't, that's another problem.

Thirdly, Social Security. We are going, in this bill, to provide for a 1-year tax reduction of 2 percent in the Social Security tax. That will cost us $120 billion in 1 year, which will be replenished from the general fund, but we know perfectly well that, politically, once you make that tax cut, it will be impossible to restore it, which means it will be $120 billion a year forever taken away from Social Security but replaced by the general fund.

Now, the conservatives have always told us we have to reduce Social Security, increase the retirement age, reduce benefits, because it contributes to the deficit. We said, no, it doesn't contribute to the deficit. Social Security is walled off; it has nothing to do with the deficit. But now it will be put right in the middle of the deficit debate, and it will cost the general fund $120 billion a year, $1.2 trillion over 10 years, and we'll be told you've got to reduce Social Security benefits, increase the retirement age because of the deficit, and it will be in the middle of the deficit debate. We will be told a year or two or three from now, by the way, we'll only replace $100 billion of the $120 billion we have taken away from Social Security this year because we need the money for education and housing and something else, and we should not want to be in that position.

FDR decided in 1935 that Social Security would be supported by its own tax, by its own situation of people paying into it year after year so they take it back when they retired. Now we are going to take some of that money away, and we're going to say the general fund will support it. FDR knew that by setting up Social Security as self- financing, it would be difficult to abolish or to reduce. This undoes that genius by the New Deal and puts Social Security at great risk, and, accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, like many Members of the House, I have long considered Charlie Rangel a friend and a great public servant, but that is not before us now.

We must now consider a report from the Ethics Committee finding that Mr. Rangel violated the rules of the House and recommending that he be censured for that. I do not disagree that he violated the rules of the House in serious ways; but under our standards and precedents, his conduct merits a reprimand, not a censure.

In his actions, Mr. Rangel showed carelessness, poor judgment, and a severe disregard for the rules of the House. Some sanction is necessary and appropriate, but our precedents command a reprimand, not a censure.

Censure has been reserved for corruption, personal corruption, improper personal financial gain and intent to gain money, or sexual misconduct. None of that is present here. You heard the discussion of people who were censured for personal financial gain, for bribery, for lying to the committee, such as Messrs. Wilson and Diggs and people like Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Hansen who committed severe infractions but were reprimanded.

In this case, the staff director and chief counsel of the Ethics Committee said he saw ``no evidence of corruption.'' Further, he admitted he did not believe Mr. Rangel was trying to enrich himself.

What happened according to the chief counsel and the finding of the committee was that Mr. Rangel was overzealous in his advocacy for City College and sloppy in his financial dealings. Neither overzealousness nor sloppiness merits censure.

While not as severe as censure, reprimand is a very serious punishment. If passed in this case, it would reflect the collective judgment of the entire House that the conduct of Mr. Rangel was wrong and deserves a serious sanction.

The decision by the Ethics Committee to recommend censure was based, it said, on the ``cumulative nature of the violations'' and ``because the 11 violations committed by Representative Rangel on a continuous and prolonged basis were more serious in character, meriting a strong congressional response rebuking his behavior.''

What this ignores, however, is that eight of the 11 separate counts all stemmed from just one factor: Mr. Rangel's belief that certain advocacy for City College, an institution in his district, amounted to constituent service and therefore constituted official action.

Second, Mr. Rangel did not, as Mr. Bonner said, fail to pay taxes for 17 years. Of course he paid taxes, and filed every one of those years. He did fail to report some income from a villa he owned.

He did fail to report some income because he mistakenly believed that the income which was plowed back into the mortgages from which he never saw a check was not reportable. This was wrong. But it was one ongoing error, not cumulative and not a continuing error.

I ask my colleagues to consider all of this. A reprimand is a serious punishment that reflects our precedents and standards. That will reflect credibly on the House. A censure, a punishment never previously imposed for this level of violation of House rules with no adequate explanation for the sudden change in standards offends one's sense of fair play and therefore does not reflect credibly on the House.

Mr. Speaker, Steve Solarz served the people of Brooklyn in this House from 1975 to 1992. He served with distinction, boundless energy, great intellect, and a true passion to pursue justice.

I have had the privilege of representing a large portion of Brooklyn that was once his district, and I can attest that he is still fondly remembered and admired by the people of Brooklyn. He was also a vigorous advocate for our communities close to home and for human dignity around the world.

Steve was a member of the historic Watergate class of 1974, and he very soon became one of the leading voices in Congress on foreign affairs. As chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, he was one of the architects of legislation imposing sanctions on the apartheid government of South Africa. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs, he led the investigation that exposed the corruption of the Marcos Government in the Philippines, where he is still revered for having steered U.S. policy away from support of that brutal and corrupt government and in support of true democratic change, which resulted in the election of Corazon Aquino.

Israel never had a better friend in the Congress than Steve Solarz. That commitment was more than just a personal one. He was one of the architects of the plan which was finally adopted by the United Nations to end the bloody war in Cambodia, which brought an end to the notorious killing fields.

Steve's dedication to religious liberty had a profound effect on our legal system. In response to the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith, he drafted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which restored the application of strict scrutiny to governmental burdens on the free exercise of religion.

On a more personal note, Steve Solarz was a mensch. He leaves behind friends and colleagues who will miss him very much. Our country is a better place because of his commitment to public service. The people of the world have lost a tireless advocate for freedom and democracy.

I want to extend the condolences of this House to Nina Solarz, to their children--Randy Glantz and Lisa Prickett--and to their families. The Nation shares in their loss and wishes them well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember an outstanding public servant, Congressman Stephen J. Solarz, who passed away last night. Steve served the people of Brooklyn in the House from 1975 to 1992, with distinction, boundless energy, great intellect, and a true passion to pursue justice.

I have had the privilege of representing a large portion of Brooklyn that was once in his district, and I can attest that he is still fondly remembered and admired by the people of Brooklyn. He was always a vigorous advocate for our communities close to home, and for human dignity around the world.

His passing is a great loss to the Nation, but also to people around the world who saw in him the best of what the United States has to offer; a country fully engaged with other nations in the effort to bring peace, human rights, and freedom to every corner of the globe.

Steve Solarz served in the New York State Assembly from 1968 until he was elected to the House of Representatives as part of the historic Watergate class in 1974. He very soon became one of the leading voices in Congress on foreign affairs. He was respected by his colleagues for his breadth of knowledge and his insight into some of the most vexing international issues.

As Chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, he was one of the architects of legislation imposing sanctions on the Apartheid government of South Africa. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs he led the investigation that exposed the corruption of the Marcos government in the Phillippines, where he is still revered for having steered U.S. policy away from support of that brutal and corrupt government, and in support of true democratic change which resulted in the election of Corazon Aquino.

Israel never had a better friend in the Congress than Steve Solarz. That commitment was more than just a personal one. He understood the importance of the U.S.-Israel alliance to our national interests in a way that few others did. When he spoke, it was both from the heart and from the head. I think that is why he was often so persuasive.

He was one of the architects of the plan, finally adopted by the United Nations, to end the bloody war in Cambodia, which brought an end to the notorious killing fields.

He also used his expertise to help people on a very personal level. He managed to negotiate with the Asad government of Syria the right of Syrian Jewish women to emigrate to the United States because there were no Jewish men in Syria for them to marry. The freedom he won for the ``Syrian Brides'' is still remembered fondly in New York's Syrian Jewish community which I now represent.

His dedication to religious liberty had a profound effect on our legal system. In response to the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith, he drafted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which restored the application of strict scrutiny to governmental burdens on the free exercise of religion. Although later gutted by the Supreme Court with respect to the states, it remains the law of the land at the federal level.

Less well known was the so-called ``Yarmulke Bill,'' which he introduced in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Goldman v. Weinberger, in which the Court held that Americans serving in uniform had no religious right to wear even non-obtrusive religious articles such as a yarmulke. The bill eventually passed over vocal opposition from the Reagan administration, and remains the law of the land.

In these endeavors, he managed to bring together a diverse coalition of religious and civil liberties organizations from across the spectrum; from the American Civil Liberties Union, to the National Association of Evangelicals.

As a son of Brooklyn, who never forgot where he came from, he was always active in the life of the neighborhoods he represented. Although not as well known as his more high profile accomplishments, he fought for Brooklyn's working waterfront as a member of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. He shepherded through the reconstruction of the historic beach at Coney Island. Whether people had concerns about local transportation issues, or the quality of their schools, Steve Solarz was always there fighting for his neighbors.

Even after leaving office, Steve Solarz was a respected voice in international affairs. His vast knowledge and experience were of great importance to decision makers when grappling with some of the most complex and sensitive global issues. We will miss his wise counsel as we face an increasingly complex future.

On a more personal note, Steve Solarz was a mensch. He leaves behind friends and colleagues who will miss him very much. Our country is a better place because of his commitment to public service. The people of the world have lost a tireless advocate for freedom and democracy.

I want to extend my personal condolences to Nina Solarz, their children, Randy Glantz and Lisa Prickett, and to their families. The Nation shares in their loss, and wishes them well.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1674, I call up the bill (H.R. 847) to amend the Public Health Service Act to extend and improve protections and services to individuals directly impacted by the terrorist attack in New York City on September 11, 2001, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

On September 11, 2001, al Qaeda orchestrated the deadliest terrorist attack in American history, killing almost 3,000 people and wounding thousands more. The attacks created an environmental nightmare as hundreds of tons of every contaminant known to man and woman came into the streets and the canyons of Manhattan and Brooklyn.

You can see pictures of this in front of us. Into this toxic crowd ran firefighters and police and other first responders. First responders came from all 50 States to aid in the rescue and cleanup of the subsequent days. The Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, despite ample evidence to the contrary, kept falsely proclaiming that the air was safe to breathe. It wasn't. The terrorists caused the environmental catastrophe, but the Federal Government compounded the damage by telling people that the environment was safe when it wasn't, and now thousands of people are sick and in need of special care.

We have a moral obligation to treat those who became ill, and that is what this bill is all about. For 8 years, Representative Maloney and I, supported in a bipartisan basis by the New York delegation and others, have worked to bring this bill to the floor. Now it is finally time to pass it.

Time and again as we moved this bill through the legislative process, we have adjusted it, reduced its size and scope, limited its cost, and made concessions to broaden the coalition and lower the cost to the taxpayers. We worked with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reopen the Victim Compensation Fund in a responsible way in order to protect contractors from liability so they would not find they sacrificed their businesses to serve their country. We even agreed to cap attorney's fees.

On the Victim Compensation Fund, this House, indeed this Congress, passed the Victim Compensation Fund almost unanimously a week or two after 9/11. Unfortunately, people who should have been compensated by that fund could not be because their sicknesses did not become evident until after the fund closed.

Had we known that they would become ill, we certainly would have included them unanimously. That is why Ken Feinberg, testifying before the Judiciary Committee, urged us to reopen the fund, which is one-half of this bill.

Feinberg said in March of last year, ``It is truly ironic that many of these very individuals who have filed lawsuits seeking compensation are the same type of individuals who received payments from the 9/11 fund. Had these individuals manifested a physical injury before the 9/ 11 fund expired, they too would have received compensation without litigating.''

He went on to say, ``Reenacting the law establishing the Federal September 11th Victim Compensation Fund for an additional period of years in order to provide the same public compensation to eligible physical claimants could be justified on grounds of basic fairness.'' Now is our chance to right that wrong and provide that basic fairness of which he speaks.

I know that some Members are concerned about the cost of providing the Victim Compensation Fund assistance and the health care for the survivors and first responders. Let me emphasize: This bill is fiscally responsible and balances the needs of our 9/11 heroes with fiscal restraints.

It is completely paid for. We have achieved this by closing a tax loophole which allows foreign companies to evade U.S. taxes. Second, we have capped the funding level, capped the number of people who can participate, and capped the number of years the program can continue. We have consistently worked to reduce its cost, and in the month of July alone we brought the cost of this bill down an additional $3 billion.

Now let me appeal to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I understand that some may have a problem with the offset, even though it is not aimed at U.S. companies and is simply designed to improve withholding of taxes that are legally due. I understand.

But I have to ask this: Just consider for a moment what we are talking about. Balance that tax rate against the needs of our 9/11 heroes, needs that are so great, so raw, and so obvious, and let our moral obligation to the heroes of 9/11, our obligation, as Lincoln said, ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle,'' prevail. Let us do the honorable thing and vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the choice is simple. I will be voting today for the firefighters, for the police, for the first responders, for the survivors of the attacks. I urge every Member of the house to do the same.

I want to thank Congresswoman Maloney, Congressman King, the New York delegation, the Speaker, the majority leader, the chairmen of the various committees, subcommittee chairs Pallone and Lofgren, and all the organizations like the State AFL-CIO from New York, the International Association of Firefighters, and the National Association of Police Organizations for their invaluable support for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, do the right thing. Do the moral thing. Do the only moral thing. Vote for this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairperson of the House Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Speaker, I then yield the balance of my time to my partner for the last 6 years on this bill, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the CLEAR Act of 2010 to respond to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Mr. Chairman, one of the many important provisions of this bill requires the EPA to do a new rulemaking procedure to establish baseline levels of toxicity and effectiveness that takes into account a study of the acute and chronic risks posed by the use of toxic dispersants. Quite simply, the EPA must determine whether or not it's safe to use these dispersants. Not just which dispersant is the safest, but whether or not they're safe at all.

I offered an amendment in the Transportation Committee to ban the use of these toxic dispersants until the rulemaking and study in the bill determine they are safe. I am very pleased that my amendment is included in the final bill before us today and I thank Chairman Oberstar for his support.

The fact is that nobody today can guarantee that dispersants are safe.

The only thing dispersants seem to do is push the oil below the surface, making it harder to see the damage and determine liability and making it harder to boom and skim the oil off the surface. The only benefit seems to be for PR purposes.

Dispersants simply shift the oil to another part of the ecosystem while increasing the toxins in the gulf harming marine life and contaminating the water column. In fact, researchers have recently found evidence of dispersants in blue crab larvae from Louisiana to Florida, indicating the dispersants have already made their way into the food chain.

Let us never again perform a large uncontrolled experiment with a huge population of people and an entire ocean as the experimental test vehicle. Let us be sure that the dispersants are safe before we subject the marine life and the human population to them.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources (CLEAR) Act of 2010 to respond to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

There are many important provisions in this bill, such as the increased safety regulations for offshore oil rigs, the elimination of the liability cap and the inclusion of damages for human health in the Oil Pollution Act. In the interest of time, I want to focus my comments on the provisions dealing with the controversial use of toxic dispersants.

This bill requires the EPA to do a new rulemaking procedure to establish baseline levels of toxicity and effectiveness that takes into account a study of the acute and chronic risks posed by the use of dispersants. Quite simply, the EPA should determine whether or not it's safe to use these dispersants. And not just which one is the safest, but whether or not they're safe at all. This is what should have been done in the first place, and it is important that we make sure it is done moving forward.

I offered an amendment to the bill in the Transportation Committee to impose a moratorium on the use of these toxic dispersants until the rulemaking and study in the bill are complete. I am very pleased that my amendment is included in the final bill before us today, and I thank Chairman Oberstar for his support and willingness to advance this critical public health and environmental protection.

The fact is there is no scientific evidence that dispersants can be effective in an oil spill of this magnitude, and nobody can guarantee they are safe. I have heard experts and agency officials argue the contrary. Well, if these dispersants really are safe, then there should be no problem proving so under the terms of the bill. In the meantime, we should not presume these toxic dispersants are safe, and we should not use the Gulf or anywhere else that suffers an oil spill as an experimental laboratory.

The only thing dispersants seem to do is push the oil below the surface making it harder to see the damage and determine liability, and making it harder to boom and skim the oil off the surface. The only benefit seems to be for PR purposes.

Dispersants simply shift the oil to another part of the ecosystem, while increasing the toxins in the Gulf, harming marine life, and contaminating the water column. In fact, researchers from Tulane and the University of Southern Mississippi have found evidence of dispersants in blue crab larvae from Louisiana to Florida indicating that it has already made its way into the food chain.

So far, over 1.8 million gallons of dispersant have been used in the Gulf, and people are getting sick--from the dispersants, from the oil, or from some mixture of the two. There is already a name for the illness that plagues many of these people--toxicant-induced loss of tolerance, or TILT--in which you can no longer tolerate exposures to household chemical products, medication or even food. There are numerous reports of people being hospitalized, and several health experts are concerned that this is just the beginning. A group of fishermen has filed a class action lawsuit against BP and the dispersant manufacturer, and another personal injury lawsuit was just filed by Gulf Coast residents who have suffered adverse health effects from exposure to these toxins.

As many of you know, I have been greatly concerned that we are repeating the same mistakes of 9/11 where thousands of responders and area residents are now sick after the failure of the Federal Government to provide adequate oversight or enforcement to prevent exposure to toxic chemicals. Luckily, in the case of the Gulf Oil Spill, BP is the clearly responsible party. However, it is up to us to ensure that BP and the dispersant makers are not allowed to evade liability or shift the cost to the taxpayers for any potential health effects. But more importantly, we must do everything we can to prevent people from getting sick in the first place.

This bill makes significant progress to protect the safety and wellbeing of public health and the environment. I thank Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Rahall for their hard work and commitment to these issues. I urge all my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2011 Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act. As we all know, this is a very tight budget year, but Chairman Olver and the other Members of the Committee are to be commended for providing increased funding for critical transportation and housing programs.

Many of my colleagues joined me in requesting increases for Section 8 and the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program--also known as HOPWA. I am pleased that this bill increases funding for Section 8 programs by approximately $2 billion. The bill includes $9.4 billion for project based rental assistance, and $19.4 billion for tenant-based rental assistance, which should be enough to renew all existing vouchers covering more than 2 million families. The bill also has $350 million for HOPWA, which is $15 million more than last year and $10 million over the President's request. I thank the Chairman for his efforts to secure these badly needed resources.

Many Members also joined me in requesting an increase for federal transit programs so that we can maintain our public transportation systems in a state of good repair and accommodate increased ridership. I would like to thank the Chairman for including $11.3 billion for federal transit programs, which is an increase of over $500 million from last year. The bill includes increased funding for transit capital programs as well as $250 million for operating assistance. While I believe the operating assistance provision could be better, this is a step in the right direction.

I commend Chairman Olver for his leadership and I thank him for his continued support for these critical transportation and housing resources. I look forward to working with him and the rest of my colleagues to preserve and increase these funding levels as this bill moves through Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Zadroga 9/11 Compensation Act.

On September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden orchestrated the deadliest terrorist attack in American history, killing almost 3,000 people and wounding thousands more. The attacks created an environmental nightmare as hundreds of tons of every contaminant known to man and woman came out onto the streets and canyons of Manhattan and Brooklyn. Into this toxic crowd ran firefighters and police and other first responders. First responders came from all 50 States to aid in the rescue and clean up in the subsequent days.

The Environmental Protection Administration, the EPA, despite ample evidence to the contrary, kept falsely proclaiming that the air was safe to breathe. It wasn't. The terrorists caused environmental catastrophe, but the Federal Government compounded the damage by telling people the environment was safe when it wasn't, and

now thousands of people are sick and in need of special care.

We have a moral obligation to treat those who became ill, and that's what this bill is all about. For 8 years, Representative Maloney and I, supported on a bipartisan basis by the New York delegation and others, have worked to bring this bill to the floor. Now it's finally time to pass it.

Time and again, as we moved the bill through the legislative process, we have adjusted it, reduced its size and scope, limited its cost and made concessions to broaden the coalition and lower the cost. We worked with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reopen the Victims Compensation Fund in a responsible way in order to protect contractors from liability so they would not find they sacrificed their businesses to serve their country. We even agreed to cap attorneys' fees.

I know some Members are concerned about the cost of providing this assistance. Let me emphasize, this bill is fiscally responsible and balances the needs of our 9/11 heroes with fiscal constraints. It is completely paid for. We have achieved this by closing a tax loophole which allows foreign companies to evade U.S. taxes.

Second, we have capped the funding level, capped the number of people who can participate, and capped the number of years the program can continue. Just within the past month we have brought the cost of the bill down an additional $3 billion.

Now, let me appeal to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I understand that some of you may have a problem with the offset, even though it is not aimed at U.S. companies and is simply designed to improve withholding of taxes that are legally due. I understand that.

But I have to ask you this: just consider for a moment what we are talking about. Balance that tax break against the needs of our 9/11 heroes, needs that are so great, so raw and so obvious, and let our moral obligation to the heroes of 9/11, our obligation, as Lincoln said, ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle'' prevail. Let us do the honorable thing and vote for this bill.

To me, the choice is simple. I will be voting for the firefighters, for the police, for the first responders, for the survivors of the attacks. I urge every Member of the House to do the same.

And I want to thank Congresswoman Maloney, the New York delegation, the Speaker, the majority leader, the chairmen of the various committees, Frank Pallone, and all the organizations like the International Association of Fire Fighters, the National Association of Police Organizations for supporting this vital bill.

Do the right thing. Do the moral thing. Do the only moral thing. Vote for this bill.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I now have the distinct privilege of yielding 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

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

Mr. Speaker, over 13,000 responders are sick and receiving treatment today. Nearly 53,000 are enrolled in medical monitoring; 71,000 are enrolled in the World Trade Center Health Registry.

We have created Centers of Excellence across the country as part of this program so that people who were at the World Trade Center and have gotten sick can go to someplace with the expertise and a diagnosis without coming to New York or New Jersey. All of this is dependent on its continuation on passing this bill.

Yes, we can do it through continued appropriations. We have had too many times where the hospitals had to send out notices to the people being treated that your treatment comes to an end June 30 because the appropriation hasn't come through. We cannot leave this to the vicissitudes of annual appropriations.

On the Victim Compensation Fund, this House, indeed this Congress, passed it almost unanimously a week or two after 9/11. Unfortunately, people who should have been compensated by that fund could not be because their sicknesses did not become evident till the fund closed. That's why Ken Feinberg, testifying before the Judiciary Committee, urged us to reopen the fund, which is one half of this bill.

This bill is necessary so that people in the future will know that you go and help people in a time of emergency. This is not a New York bill.

This was an attack on the United States and is a special moral urgency because many of the people wouldn't be sick today if the Federal Government, in the person of the EPA, had not lied, had not told them the air was safe to breathe when we knew perfectly well that it wasn't safe to breathe.

I remember telling people don't go back to school, don't go to work there. Don't go back to work in the Federal office building because the air was not safe to breathe. But the EPA was saying go to work. People went to work. They are sick. We owe them this bill. We owe them their health. We owe them treatment if we are going to get support in the future when we have another emergency.

I urge the passage of this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 1504, recognizing and honoring the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Heralded at its signing in 1990 as an ``emancipation proclamation for people with disabilities,'' the goals of the ADA are lofty and embody core principles that have made this nation great--equality of opportunity, independence, and integration.

Through broad non-discrimination directives aimed at employers, government entities, and places of public accommodation--and requirements of reasonable accommodation and modification that are designed to dismantle architectural and societal barriers--the ADA has transformed our world.

Some of those changes are visible--lifts on buses, elevators in subway stations, power-assisted and wider doors, designated parking spots, curb cuts, and closed-captioning. Others are not so visible, but are powerfully important nonetheless.

These less-visible changes--the slow breakdown of disabling stereotypes, myths, prejudice, and stigma--are also happening because of the increased access and opportunity made possible by the ADA. As we witness and benefit from the contributions of family members, colleagues, and neighbors with disabilities, outdated and misguided beliefs are challenged and changed.

While we still have a long way to go, our passage of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 is yet another mark of our progress on this front. Through the ADA Amendments Act, we responded to the Supreme Court's unduly narrow interpretation of the definition of ``disability'' and reaffirmed our commitment to focusing on abilities-- the ability to do a job, to participate in programs, services, or activities, or to thrive in a community-based setting--rather than the severity of our limitations.

Our collaboration on the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which was passed by an overwhelming majority of the House, illustrates an enduring bipartisan commitment to achieving the full civil rights for Americans with disabilities.

Thus, as House Resolution 1504 recognizes, we have much to celebrate on this twentieth anniversary of the ADA's enactment. Yet as it also reminds us, we have not reached the finish line, and much work remains.

We must continue working to end the unnecessary institutionalization of people with disabilities. Just last week, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, which I chair, heard testimony from Casandra Cox as part of our hearing to commemorate the ADA's twentieth anniversary. Ms. Cox was placed in an adult home following a short hospitalization. Despite her requests for assistance in finding an appropriate community-based placement, Ms. Cox remained in that home for nearly three years until she was able-- through persistence and good luck in being selected for a state pilot program--to find a community-based placement where she has thrived.

The ADA's promise of integration and independence should not depend on persistence or on luck.

More than 10 years ago, in Olmstead v. L. C., the Supreme Court declared that unnecessary institutionalization violates the ADA and that the states must ensure that individuals receive services in the least restrictive setting possible. Yet thousands of individuals who can and should receive services in community-based settings remain warehoused in large institutions.

This remains true despite the fact that former residents are thriving in supportive settings at costs that are lower than, or equal to, the costs of institutional care.

Work to make public transit systems and brick and mortar structures accessible also remains unfinished. Twenty years after the ADA required readily achievable changes to existing structures and set out standards for new buildings, many brick and mortar facilities remain inaccessible. And while we have made great strides in our public transit systems, significant gaps and ongoing problems remain. Continued non-compliance with Titles II and III of the ADA is inexcusable. While we should continue to pursue proposals that promote voluntary compliance, like the Department of Justice's Project Civic Access, we should rightly reject measures--like the ADA Notification Act--that threaten the ADA's promise of access and integration.

Even as we press forward to ensure greater access to physical places, and programs and services, we cannot lose sight of the need to ensure that evolving technologies are also accessible. In the twenty years since the ADA's passage, technology has revolutionized the way we work, learn, shop, and socialize. While these advances ultimately may offer individuals with disabilities unprecedented access and opportunities, we have yet to see that full potential realized.

During a hearing in April focusing on access to emerging technology as a civil rights issue under the ADA held by my Subcommittee, we urged the Department of Justice to issue regulations and additional guidance to achieve greater compliance with the ADA's equal access obligations with regard to the internet and other evolving technologies. Immediately following the Constitution Subcommittee's ADA Anniversary hearing last week, where we once again pressed the Department of Justice to issue clarifying regulations, the Department issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking regarding website accessibility. This is welcome news and will ensure that individuals with disabilities are not left behind as greater numbers of businesses, schools, and public entities rely upon this technology to communicate and to provide goods and services to the public.

As we continue working on these and other challenges that lie ahead, I urge you to join me in celebrating the progress that we have achieved--and in affirming our enduring and bipartisan commitment to achieving the ADA's full promise--by voting for passage of House Resolution 1504.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support, and I want to congratulate my colleague from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the incredible amount of work she has put in over the years, with me and with others, on trying to improve the lives of those who survived September 11. And hopefully, one of the main products of that work will be on the floor next week on the health care legislation.

But today I rise in support of H.R. 4684, the National September 11 Memorial & Museum Commemorative Medal Act. Next year our Nation will mark the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks. It will have been 10 years since the most lethal terrorist attack ever committed on U.S. soil, when thousands lost their lives as planes were turned into missiles in the skies over New York, Pennsylvania, and right here in Washington, D.C.

In the years that have followed, that day's events have been transformed from searing headlines to indelible history. To pay tribute to those who lost their lives and to those still suffering because of the attacks of 9/11, I have introduced this bill, the National September 11 Memorial & Museum Commemorative Medal Act.

This bill will authorize the U.S. Mint to strike up to 2 million silver medals commemorating the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The medals will be inscribed with the phrase ``Always Remember'' with the final design to be selected by the Treasury Secretary, in consultation with the National September 11 Memorial & Museum.

A surcharge of $10 on the sale of each medal will go directly to support the operations and maintenance of the National September 11 Memorial & Museum at the World Trade Center following the completion of the construction of the museum. These funds will help to preserve the history of 9/11 so that posterity will long remember the bravery and sacrifices of that day.

Issuing a 9/11 commemorative medal is a simple but poignant way to mark the 10th anniversary of the attacks on our Nation, while simultaneously supporting the World Trade Center Memorial.

I want to thank the more than 300 Members of the House from both parties who have signed onto this bill as cosponsors. I want to extend my special appreciation for the support given by Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus as this bill passed through the Financial Services Committee. I also want to thank the leadership of the House for bringing this bill to the floor.

This medal will be a tribute to the terrible loss that we experienced on 9/11. And to truly honor those still suffering from the 9/11 attacks, we must finally provide them with the health care and compensation that their courage and sacrifice deserves.

After the towers fell on 9/11, thousands of firefighters, police officers, paramedics and volunteers from all across the country came to Ground Zero to search for survivors and to begin the rebuilding process. Once there, they, along with thousands of community members, students and area workers, were exposed to toxic dust from the collapsed towers that filled their lungs and, in many cases, caused lasting health problems.

It is our moral obligation to care for those who still bear the physical scars from this national tragedy. And, along with Mrs. Maloney, we are working with the leadership to bring the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act to the floor, hopefully, next week. That bill is essential because the best way to truly pay our respect to the victims and heroes of 9/11 is with the proper health care and compensation for their 9/11-related injuries.

But today, let us honor those whose lives were lost in the attacks of 2001, and commit to preserving the memory of 9/11 for future generations. With this bill, let us reaffirm that no matter the passage of time, we will never forget.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5503, the Securing Protections for the Injured from Limitations on Liability (SPILL) Act.

Two months ago, the Deepwater Horizon oil platform exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. That tragedy cost the lives of eleven people and injured at least seventeen others, dealing a horrific blow to the lives of their loved ones, family members, and friends. The explosion and subsequent oil spill devastated the entire Gulf area and continues each day to wreak havoc on the way of life and environment of the region. Congress must act to address this disaster and in the coming weeks, we will.

Today, the House is considering H.R. 5503. This legislation, which I worked on in the Judiciary Committee, addresses problems that have come to light as a result of the explosion in the Gulf of Mexico.

The bill would provide long-overdue rights to the survivors of those killed off our shores, including allowing recovery for non-economic damages. It also would repeal an antiquated law which could have shielded Transocean from its true liability in this disaster. The big corporations like Transocean and BP, whose malfeasance caused this disaster, must not be able to elude their true responsibility.

I want to thank Chairman Conyers for his work on the bankruptcy provisions of this bill as well. The rights of individuals, small businesses, and communities injured by this catastrophic act of corporate wrongdoing must be protected, and this bill reflects that concern. We also must make sure that we protect those rights in a way that does not destroy the rights of other parties, including employees, retirees, and small businesses who are also owed money by the polluter, that preserves going concern value, and that does not shelter entrenched management. The modified language reflects the ongoing effort to address these important concerns, and I look forward to working with the Chairman to perfect these protections.

I do want to say, however, that I am disappointed with a few changes that have been made since the bill passed the Judiciary Committee. A provision to deny the enforceability of ``gag orders'' that reportedly were being used by BP has been removed. Such secrecy agreements only serve to deny the public access to necessary information. And, a common sense change to the Class Action Fairness Act to ensure states could pursue actions on behalf of their own citizens in state court was stripped as well.

Despite these changes, this bill represents needed reforms to compensate, as much as possible, those injured and the families of those killed in this disaster and similar events in the future. I want to applaud Chairman Conyers for his leadership in pushing H.R. 5503 forward. I urge all Members to support it.

Mr. Speaker, every dollar we spend in Afghanistan, every life we sacrifice there is a tragic waste that does not enhance the security of the United States.

We were attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had bases in Afghanistan. It made sense to go in and destroy those bases, and we did. But those bases are no longer there. They are in Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia, and we are not invading those countries. Why do we undertake to invent the corrupt government and try to impose it on the country?

Afghanistan is in the middle of a 35-year civil war. We have no business intervening in that civil war. We have no ability and no necessity to win it for one side or the other.

This whole idea of counterinsurgency, that we are going to persuade the people left alive after our firepower is applied to love the government that we like, is absurd. At this point we must recognize that rebuilding Afghanistan is both beyond our ability and irrelevant to our purpose of preventing terrorist attacks on the United States.

We should support this amendment. We should support our troops. We should bring them home now.

Every dollar we spend in Afghanistan, every life we sacrifice there, is a tragic waste that does not enhance the security of the United States. We were attacked on 9/11 by Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had bases in Afghanistan; it made sense to go in and destroy those bases, and we did. But the CIA tells us that there are fewer than one hundred Al Qaeda personnel now in all of Afghanistan--their bases are in Pakistan, but we are not invading Pakistan. They have bases in Somalia and Yemen, but we are not invading Somalia and Yemen.

An intelligent policy might be to attack the bases from which mayhem is being plotted against us, wherever they are--not to try to remake a country that nobody since Genghis Khan has managed to conquer. What makes us think, what arrogance gives us the right to assume, that we can succeed where the Moguls, the British, the Soviets, failed. No government in Afghanistan, no government in Kabul, has ever been able to make its writ run and rule the country.

Why have we undertaken to invent a government that is not supported by the majority of the people, that is corrupt, and try to impose it on the country? Afghanistan is in the middle of what is, at this point, a 53-year-civil war. We have no business intervening in that civil war, we have no ability and no necessity to win it for one side or the other. This whole idea of counter-insurgency, that we are going to persuade the people left alive after our firepower is applied, to love the government that we like is absurd.

It will take tens of years, hundred of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of American lives, if it can be done at all, and we don't need to do it. It's their country. If they want to have a civil war, we can't stop them. We can't choose the rulers that they have, we don't have to like the rulers that they have, we don't have to like their choices. It's not up to us.

Aside from assuring that specific bases are not being used against us--we should not spend a nickel, we should not waste a life, in pursuit of an unintelligent, unthought-through, unachievable, and unnecessary goal.

At this point, we must recognize that rebuilding Afghanistan is both beyond our ability, and irrelevant to our purpose of preventing terrorist attacks on the United States.

We should support this amendment.

We should support our troops.

We should bring them home.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DISCLOSE Act.

Earlier this year, a majority of the Supreme Court reversed decades of precedent and struck down a whole series of reform laws limiting the influence of corporate money in elections. The court ruled that corporations are people, just like you and me, and have a corresponding absolute constitutional right to pump as much money as they want into our elections. It revived the fears of concentrated corporate powers, distorting our democratic process, fears that have been held by believers in a republican form of government from the days of Jefferson and Madison and Jackson.

The very real danger now is that corporations will be able to use vast sums of concentrated money to further corrupt our political process and drown out the voices of everyone else. Without action, as a result of this latest activist Supreme Court decision, our electoral system will once again be at the mercy of large moneyed interests.

This bill takes several critical steps to reclaim our elections. The most important one is that it would require disclosure by corporations and labor unions of donors providing money for political purposes in certain circumstances, and would mandate that corporate CEOs appear in company political ads to say that they ``approve this message,'' just as candidates would do.

With these and several other provisions, the DISCLOSE Act will constitutionally set some limits on the role of big money in politics, not by limiting the corporate money, unfortunately, but by requiring disclosure of the sources of the corporate money, and thus providing voters with valuable information on which wealthy interests are behind which political advertising so voters can better evaluate that advertising.

I know many people on the other side of the aisle who opposed contribution limits previously, in the McCain-Feingold Act, for instance, always said, Don't limit political expenditures. The solution is disclosure. Let people know who is sponsoring the ads, that will safeguard the integrity of our elections. Well, I don't think disclosure is enough, but it is all the Supreme Court will allow us to do. And to hear all of the people on the other side of the aisle now, people who argued for disclosure for years, now suddenly claim that requiring disclosure is a limit on free speech is very disturbing, to put it mildly.

It is important that voters know whether the ad sponsored by Citizens for a Clean Environment are really bank-rolled by British Petroleum, or perhaps by the Sierra Club, in order to judge the ad's credibility.

Now, I know there is a great deal of concern by some people about one part of the legislation which would exempt the category of organizations from the obligation to disclose their contributors, not from other obligations of the bill, but from the obligation to disclose their contributors. By limiting the exemption of this one requirement to include only those organizations which have been in existence for at least a decade, have 500,000 dues-paying members, have dues-paying members in each of the 50 States, and receive no more than 15 percent of their funding from corporations and unions, the bill would still require disclosure from the kind of corporations who seek to buy elections secretly and with unlimited cash. We cannot allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. The DISCLOSE Act would make a vast and substantial difference in protecting the integrity of our elections, and I cannot think of a more important bill if this country is going to remain a democracy with a small ``d'' and not a captive of large corporations.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill despite its imperfections.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 2194, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010.

There is perhaps no greater threat to the peace and security of the world today than Iran. It supports terrorism and funds terrorist groups. And, it is bent on increasing its power and influence in the strategically important region of the Middle East.

In particular, Iran presents an existential threat to Israel, one of our closest allies. Its leader, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a holocaust denier who has threatened to wipe Israel off of the map.

As such, the consequences of Iran developing or otherwise obtaining nuclear weapons would be dire. It instantly would further destabilize the Middle East and potentially lead to a nuclear arms race there.

Moreover, unlike with other countries where nuclear deterrence has worked, it may not with Iran. Its leaders have proven themselves to hold views that are extreme, irrational, and fundamentalist, and who knows for what crazy reasons they would hold the world hostage and risk their own annihilation. These leaders also could share nuclear materials or weapons with terrorists bent on killing innocent people here and around the world, like Al Qaeda. We cannot let Iran have that power.

This threat from Iran has been building for years, but, unfortunately, during the previous Administration, very little was done about it. While the rhetoric of former President George W. Bush was tough on Iran, the reality was much different. For 8 years, they dithered while Iran built its nuclear capacity.

President Obama recognized the danger from Iran and immediately adopted a sensible policy of big sticks and big carrots. We began by engaging with the Iranian regime, a necessary part of any sensible strategy. Not only are discussions a worthy first step, they are necessary if for no other reason than to explain to your adversary the severe consequences of their continuing to be a threat to peace. We also need to start with negotiations to show that we tried and thus lay the foundation for strong efforts down the road, should they be needed. Unfortunately, Iran rejected these diplomatic overtures and continues to loudly defy the international community.

Therefore, we must ratchet up our economic pressure. That is exactly what we are doing. Thanks to the leadership of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States was able to convince other nations to adopt new sanctions on Iran. These sanctions, adopted by the United Nations Security Council, will further isolate Iran from the world economy and, as they are multilateral, represent the optimum mechanism for economic pressure.

Of course, we also can bring the economic might of the United States to bear, and that is what we are doing today with H.R. 2194. This conference report contains a vast array of provisions which will put a significant squeeze on Iran. For example, it imposes sanctions on companies that sell refined petroleum products to Iran, targeting a key weakness of the Iranian regime. It punishes foreign banks that support Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, cutting off its funding. It authorizes state and local governments to divest investments from firms supporting Iran's energy sector and better enables other investment managers from similarly divesting funds.

Implementing these and the other sanctions in the conference report on H.R. 2194 is a critical next step in stopping Iran from becoming a nuclear power. While military options always remain on the table, we do not want to reach a situation where the choice is between having to engage militarily and allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons. Either of those two options is racked with problems, and so we must do all we can to see that it does not come to that.

I want to thank Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman and all other Members who worked so hard on putting this legislation together. Like Chairman Berman and others in Congress, I have endeavored to make sure that the threat from Iran is recognized and dealt with. Those of us who care deeply about this issue know that for the safety of Israel, the United States, and the entire world, we must act and we must act now.

I encourage all Members to support this conference report.

Thank you, and I thank you for organizing this Special Order.

It has been absolutely galling to watch the hypocrisy and the fury, the underserved fury directed at Israel for taking a step in its own self-defense. The so-called ``Freedom flotilla,'' which went to break the blockade of Gaza, had to be intercepted. Israel and Egypt have been blockading Gaza. They've been blockading it not as humanitarian materials. Thousands and thousands of tons of humanitarian materials and food and supplies go through the checkpoints into Gaza every month by truck. But ships can carry anything.

Israel has stopped ships on the high seas carrying rockets to Gaza. When they were challenged and the Israeli government urged the Turks not to allow this flotilla to sail the way it was--and the Chinese by the way had this right. The Chinese press a day or two before the flotilla was intercepted printed the headline: ``Turkey Challenges Israel.'' Not Israel challenges Turkey. Turkey Challenges Israel by sending these ships knowing that the goal was to break the blockade, not to deliver humanitarian aid.

When the Israelis made clear to the people on board the ships that if you land in Ashdod we will send all the materials straight through to Gaza except for any weapons we find, Greta Berlin, the head of the organization sponsoring it, said, no, we're not interested in delivering humanitarian aid.

They were in armed rocket range.

Twelve miles, to be precise. Greta Berlin said, no, the aim is to break the blockade.

Now, a lot of people, a lot of countries were saying, the President of

France, ``How dare they intercept ships on the high seas.'' ``This is piracy,'' said Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey.

Well, the law is very clear. If you are fighting someone--and Israel is fighting Hamas; Hamas controls the territory and has declared war on Israel and said that war will not stop until Israel is destroyed, maybe a ceasefire from time to time, but this war must continue until Israel is destroyed, as far as Hamas is concerned--then you are subject to blockade. That is a tactic of war.

And in a blockade, you can board the ship, you can, in fact, sink the ship if that's the only way to enforce the blockade, in international waters as long as it's clear that it's going to a blockaded area. And that's from the U.S. Naval Commander's Handbook.

But why was this being done? Because, we are told, they have to break the blockade. Why do they have to break the blockade? Because the overall issue is that we must end the Israeli occupation. This is the real sin. This is why so many people think that Israel is wrong: Because it must end the occupation.

People forget how the occupation started. The occupation of Gaza and the West Bank started when Israel resisted a war of aggression aimed at its extermination in 1967. But we are ignorant of history. History started 5 years ago.

Israel wants to end the occupation. Israel has offered to end the occupation, but there is a problem: Who do you give the land to?

And Israel has experience here. Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2006, and the U.N. said, ``We will send peacekeeping troops, and they will enforce Resolution 1701 to prevent the importation of rockets and arms.'' And what happened? There are 40,000 missiles in the possession of Hezbollah in Lebanon today because the U.N. peacekeepers stand aside. And Israel has learned that she cannot depend on the U.N. or the international community or anybody else to defend her.

Gaza Israel withdrew from in 2005 and left behind agricultural establishments and other things. What happened? Hamas took over and turned it into a rocket launching pad against Israel. Over 10,000 rockets have been launched against Israel.

But Israel still wants to end the occupation. Israel wants to be left in peace. Israel offered in 2000 at Camp David, in 2001 at Taba.

And what was their offer? Israel said, ``We will withdraw from the entire Gaza Strip. We will withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank. We will give land swaps to the Palestinians to make it equivalent to 100 percent of the acreage. And we will share Jerusalem. But, in return, they have to agree that the war is over.'' They wouldn't agree, and they started the first intifada.

Prime Minister Olmert renewed the offer in 2008, but they will not agree to end of claims or to demilitarization. That's the real issue. If they would agree to that, if the Palestinians would agree that the West Bank cannot be used--if they gave it back, that the West Bank would not be used as a rocket launching pad, that Gaza would not be used as a rocket launching pad, that Israel could live in peace if she withdrew, that deal could be made. And it could be made; it's been offered.

And until the Palestinians are willing to live in peace and are willing to talk about it--the Palestinians, even Abbas, won't even talk to the Israelis now, only to the Americans. Until they are willing to talk and make that agreement, the occupation will continue, and it will be the fault of the Palestinians, not the Israelis.