Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, please be advised that on the Berkley motion to instruct on November 19, 2003, I inadvertently voted ``yea'' when my intent was to vote ``nay.''

Mr. Chairman, protecting and securing America's homeland remains a top priority within out national borders and abroad.

Global stability or instability directly affects the United States in all areas, rural or suburban.

Investing money now to defeat terrorists overseas where they plot evil schemes is unquestionably better than spending money later to rebuild New York City or Los Angeles, after thousands of innocent lives are potentially lost.

The war on terrorism is one America cannot afford to lose. Our way of life is at stake as we defend freedom, democracy and peace around the world. I support this approach.

One necessary campaign in the war against terror was in Iraq.

We went to war to dispose of a brutal dictator guilty of the most atrocious human rights violations in the modern world.

I voted to support the use of force against Iraq for many reasons: a litany of ruthless atrocities by Saddam Hussein against his own people; decades of deception and violation of United Nations resolutions; invading neighboring countries; and, links to al Qaeda and other terrorist training camps.

David Kay recently issued a statement that his team has indeed found substantial evidence that Iraq had many programs hidden from view to produce nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and had active illegal programs to deliver them using ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.

I believe this is 95 percent of a smoking gun.

I remain convinced these are solid justifications for war and asking our brave men and women in uniform to potentially sacrifice their lives so we can live in freedom.

The rebuilding of Iraq will take considerable time, effort and resources.

It requires the support and will of the American people.

The country is devastated after being neglected for years by an evil leader that spent money on palaces and weapons instead of infrastructure.

America has no desire to be an occupying power in Iraq but instead wants to transfer power and accountability to the Iraqi people as soon as realistically possible.

The $18.6 billion portion as part of the President's supplemental request for Iraq reconstruction funds is an important part of the overall effort to win the war on terrorism by helping to rebuild Iraq.

The President recently told the country that Iraq has become the central front in the war on terrorism.

Without this money, there is a real risk Iraq will become a breeding ground for terrorism.

This request will pay for essential needs, not Iraqi foreign debt or frivolous desires.

The President's request includes funding to enable this progress to continue.

It will help create and train the New Iraqi Army to enable Iraqi forces to work with Coalition forces to eliminate remaining remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime.

The request also include money to equip and train an Iraqi police service, civil defense force, and border patrols--all of which will increase the security of and reduce the need for U.S. troops performing these missions.

Finally, the supplemental request includes funds for U.S. force protection through additional body armor and quality of life funding for extended hazardous duty pay and travel assistance for military families.

After achieving military victory, we must now ensure a peaceful and prosperous Iraq emerges.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Joseph F. Alaskey, Jr. On October 21st, 2003, Mr. Alaskey will be honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Capital District Senior Issues Forum in Albany, New York. He is being honored for his heroics and bravery during his service to this great nation in World War II.

Mr. Speaker, on the night of December 8, 1944, the 2nd Platoon, Company A, 1276th Engineer Combat Battalion, with whom Mr. Alaskey was a Utility Repairman, attempted a patrol crossing of the Roer River in Flossdorf, Germany. While they were crossing, the enemies opened nearby dams, causing the river to flood.

Mr. Speaker, with a current rushing at 9 feet per second, Mr. Alaskey's assault boat capsized, slammed into a nearby bridge, and began to sink. As many of the men in Mr. Alaskey's battalion were drowning due to the weight of ammunition strapped to their backs, Mr. Alaskey was able to hold onto a beam and pull his battalion-mate J.C. Dyer from the raging river to safety.

Mr. Speaker, such an act of valor cannot go overlooked. Risking one's life for the sake of another is the greatest gift anyone can possibly give. I am proud to rise today in honor of Mr. Alaskey and his courage. I also extend congratulations to him for this truly distinguished Lifetime Achievement Award.

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

The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) said earlier that rhetoric as it relates to homeland security flies fast and furious, and indeed it does, and I guess that is just reflective of what this process is and system is, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who is a great friend of mine and serves on the Select Committee on Homeland Security, just made some statements that I think are great examples of that rhetoric flying fast and furious. And if the motivation is derived from frustration that we want to do more and we want to do it sooner, because indeed we do want to protect every American citizen, then I applaud him, and I think in large part that is true.

But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I think in large part it is not true. It is not true because it belies many of the facts that many of us have seen both on this important committee and on the Select Committee on Homeland Security as it relates to what we can do today, what technology indeed exists. And the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) makes the point that if every American passenger has to pass through a metal detector on their way to an airplane, that we ought to be sending cargo through that metal detector as a means of securing that some sort of explosive device does not exist, and that is not true.

That technology, those machines, the technology applied to current passengers is distinctly different than what is needed to ensure that cargo transportation is fully inspected. The best known package system being used now currently is the best process we have available.

This bill is an important bill to support because we put in it funding that specifically moves forward the process to develop the kinds of technology that will get us where we all want to be, and to say that we can simply do that today by spending more money is incorrect and misleading, and I do not think it is a service to what we really want to accomplish here.

If indeed we say those things to motivate DHS, the Federal Government and this government to get its priorities more focused, then that is a good thing, but let us not mislead the American people as we do that.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill in order to maintain the integrity of progress in developing a system of homeland security. The Homeland Security Appropriations Act particularly does so by ensuring that in the future, when our national capacities reach requisite levels, we will be able to meet national needs and secure the requisite funding.

It has been said fast and furious rhetoric surrounds homeland security issues. I agree. It has been further stated by some that actions do not match their words. Let me suggest the disagreement is not over whether or not we should do more. I think we all agree moving forward is important. We disagree in what is doable now.

Mr. Speaker, how do we best do this while ensuring that the credibility of those expenditures are such that, as we go forward, the American people can have confidence that we are meeting the needs of our Nation in a thoughtful, capable and complete manner; without simple rhetoric, and thus without increasing waste, fraud and miscalculation?

We need better planning and response. Some Democrats have said more money is needed for first responders. The fact is we do not know the right amount or the requisite need separated from normal expenses. Further, already over $20 billion has already been invested in homeland security. Before we invest more, I contend we first create a formula based on threat, vulnerability and consequences to allocate the funds properly.

The City of New York spends $13.5 million dollars a week, $700 million a year, on extra police protection during its current state of alert. That amounts to more than $1 billion since 9/11. I am talking about the net, additional amount that New York spends to protect against terrorist attacks. One of the principle reasons many of the terrorism prevention needs are not met by many cities is because of the outdated formula applied to the vast majority of first responder funds.

The President supports a threat-based distribution of first responder funds in his National Strategy for Homeland Security, and I know from conversations I had with Homeland Security Secretary Ridge, that he also supports this approach. I hope this Congress moves quickly to enact a new threat-based formula to apply to first responders. I introduced H.R. 2512, a bill to reform the first responder formula to reflect today's reality. H.R. 2512 would

lessen the impact of allocating funds based on geography in favor of a quantitative assessment of threat information, vulnerability, and consequences. We are dealing with serious people and we need a serious formula.

I know the war in Iraq is over and the threat level has decreased since then, but we must remain vigilant in our fight against terrorism, particularly in New York.

One hundred percent screening of cargo containers is also unattainable regardless of what we spend at this time.

Mr. Speaker, we are all frustrated and want to move forward. We have to do so in a reasonable manner, not just blindly throwing money at the problem. I would like to remind every one that the other body took over one year ago to approve the bill creating the Department of Homeland Security. I am confident this bill represents the next best step and urge everyone's support.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I want to thank him for participating in this colloquy with me today to address a significant issue which was raised during the committee consideration of this bill.

As the gentleman knows, when the committee marked up the Treasury- Transportation bill in July, we directed the General Services Administration to complete its review of MCI WorldCom's fitness to serve as a Federal contractor. This directive resulted from revelations that the company had overstated its profits by $11 billion and lacked adequate internal controls.

Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, the GSA announced the proposed debarment of MCI WorldCom on July 31. Although the process took longer than hoped and the committee was forced to take action to get GSA to do its job, the GSA has now prohibited MCI WorldCom from receiving any new Federal contracts. GSA has reached the only responsible conclusion possible.

Mr. Chairman, it is my strong belief that the Federal Government must condemn corporate malfeasance and provide strict oversight of Federal contracting. GSA's proposed action to debar MCI from Federal contracting is a step in the right direction, and I applaud their efforts.

With the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), this committee has ensured GSA performs its due diligence and has protected the American taxpayers from a fraudulent company. I would like to personally thank the gentleman for his support and assistance.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I thank the gentleman. As this process continues, GSA must remain responsive and should provide regular detailed reports to the committee on the status of the case.

Would the gentleman agree to work with me during the conference to clarify the report language, if necessary, so that the committee can continue its oversight of GSA actions on the MCI WorldCom debarment proceedings and further Federal contracting actions?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I will continue to monitor the GSA's actions in this area as the Treasury-Transportation measure moves to conference. If there is any backsliding by the agency, I am confident the committee will be able to respond.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I thank the chairman for recognizing me and want to rise in opposition to my good friend and classmate the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Tancredo) amendment and preemptively rise in support of my other good friend and State mate the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Quinn) amendment that he will offer later on restoring full funding to the Amtrak system.

In doing so, I want to point out that we have had this debate in Congress for a decade at least, that it is almost unreasonable to expect that this transportation appropriation bill is going to be the bill, the vehicle in which we are going to be able to solve the many problems that we have in Amtrak; but in doing so, I want to recognize the diligence of my chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) who worked and strove diligently throughout this process. As we marked up the bill in the subcommittee, the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), pointed out that a number of us voted to support this bill so we could push it along the process and get it into the full committee and now on to the floor to talk about the intricacies and the many problems facing Amtrak today.

I support the notion that we restored to $900 million a portion of the White House's recommended portion of the funding but recognize that we are woefully short and recognize that this is a vital national interest with which we must soon address its needs, and in failing to do so, we further put at risk the viability of a system that, as was pointed out by a speaker before, served us ably and importantly and critically at a time when the airline industry could not. It has served us in the past when other means of transportation could not.

I want to go to the core of the Amtrak question, and that is the northeast corridor, and say simply that it faces imminent threat in terms of its reliability and utility, because as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) points out, I believe this Congress has undertaken a methodology in which we simply ensure its failure rather than its success if we continue to defer investment, and we risk losing service between Boston and Washington, which is at the hub of that core of service, if any service disruptions in Amtrak are experienced.

The northeast corridor is critical to our Nation and it is the heaviest traveled railroad in North America. It is not a simple luxury for many people. In fact, 1,700 trains operate over some portion of the Washington-to-Boston route each day in this Nation, providing people the opportunity to work, providing people the opportunity to carry on the business of this Nation and go to the places they need to go.

As the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) pointed out, the northeast corridor carries more from New York to Washington each day than both airlines in providing their shuttle service, combined, do. Pretty critical service that it provides. It carries more than 35,000 people a day, the entire corridor, and the Northeast is the only area in which Amtrak runs trains and owns tracks and I think provides us the greatest opportunity to build from within that railroad's experience.

As it relates to the notion that this is somehow pork, I want to point out to my good friend and others that this Congress has not been hesitant to subsidize private entities like airlines, has not been hesitant, as the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) pointed out, to provide other infrastructure subsidies throughout the system, and that to decide arbitrarily or subjectively that while Amtrak may not serve portions of the Nation, it is therefore not in the national interest, is simply wrong.

I want to again thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), and involve my support for his amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I had no intention of coming to the floor and speaking on this rule. I am a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, and I assume there will be plenty of time this afternoon for me to give my appropriate comments. But I have to just say to my colleagues that I am quite frustrated. I am a New Yorker, I am an American, and I lost friends in the World Trade Center on September 11. What I would like to say to my friends on the other side is, let us move on. Let us not use any more distractions in this process.

We waited a year, a year, to create the Department of Homeland Security because the other body, in its leadership from the Democratic Party, decided a year ago that they would rather play politics than go to the business of the people and go to the business of creating this Department of Homeland Security.

I listened to the esteemed ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), on the floor a little while ago. And I have to say that I have great disagreement on policy, but I appreciate and respect the fact that he is coming to this floor and talking about the substance of this bill and the issue facing the American people on this most critical issue.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friends, and implore upon my friends to allow us to move on and let us do the business of the people. That is what leadership is about, and that is what they expect of us.

Mr. Chairman, I want to especially thank the chairman of the subcommittee for all his great work.

This is not just about the merging of 22 Federal agencies into one. This is not just about responding to the needs of first responders. This is not just about establishing a system that not only helps first responders but creates a system of first preventers. This has really been a monumental task undertaken to give direction to an entity, a notion, a thought about protecting the American people here at the homeland, something prior to September 11, 2001 we did not give a lot of time to and that goes well beyond anything this government has ever done. This is about first responders, this is about border security, this is about aviation and port security, it is about a BioShield program, and it is about the four corners of defense.

I want to take my 1 minute to especially tell the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), how thankful I am as a New Yorker, as an American citizen, as someone who lost friends and neighbors in the attack of September 11, for the commitment that he is honoring that we all made on September 11, 2001, for the great work that he has put into this, and for the fact that I feel greatly confident that as we go forward and need to make adjustments as this process evolves, that we have the right person in place at the subcommittee level.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I intend to do just that, and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy as well with the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security. The chairman, who I have had the pleasure of working with, has done a great job, as I said before on this bill, and I thank the gentleman for the inclusion of high threat funds in this particular bill and actually for having created the fund in the first instance. But I wish to highlight some concerns I have with the current distribution formula.

The City of New York spends $13.5 million a week, $700 million a year on extra police protection during its current state of alert. That amounts to more than $1 billion since September 11. And I am not talking about money that the city would spend anyway for police protection. I am talking about the net additional amount New York

spends to protect against terrorist attacks.

New York's needs were highlighted as recently as last week when news of an al-Qaeda operative was arrested for plotting to sever the cables on the Brooklyn Bridge. The operative said one of the main foils to his plan was the added security around the bridge which prevented him from acting.

One of the reasons terrorist prevention needs are not met by some cities is because of the formula the Department uses to distribute funds. I know this is an authorizing issue more than an appropriations issue, but no first responder discussion is complete without recognizing the current formulas, which do not provide enough emphasis on the threat information.

The President and the administration at times have said they support a threat-based distribution of first responder funds in this national strategy for homeland security, and it is my hope this Congress moves quickly to enact a new threat-based formula to apply to first responders.

I recently introduced a bill to reform the first responder formula to reflect today's realities, and that bill would lessen the impact of allocating funds based on geography in favor of a quantitative assessment of threat information, vulnerability and consequences. We are dealing with serious people and we need a serious formula.

I know the war in Iraq is over, to whatever degree, and the national threat level has decreased since then, but last week's news stories prove we must remain vigilant in our fight against terrorism, particularly in New York, and I cannot stress strongly enough the need for focusing first responder funds on high-threat areas. It is no secret where the terrorists are focusing their resources, and I would ask the gentleman from Kentucky how he can address the concerns I outlined if the gentlewoman from New York will yield time to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to probably not take the full 5 minutes because, in part, I am going to reiterate some things that have already been said here on the floor: in part, the colloquy that the chairman of the subcommittee engaged in and, in part, in reflection of the last two amendments in particular, which I think point out the real difficult task this subcommittee, this chairman, and the ranking member faced in the course of putting together this plan.

In stating the obvious, I will agree with the ranking member of the overall committee. It is quite clear that there apparently has been a change at the administration; that the current plan or the current structure of the plan that was sent forward has changed significantly, certainly overnight, and it is somewhat reflective in the fact that my colleagues in the New York delegation have come to the floor and have argued vehemently. But they are not new to that argument. We have all been making the case that we are not quite sure whether there is enough money in high-risk, high-density funding in this particular program. But I can tell my colleagues that not anyone, Mr. Chairman, in this Chamber, in this House, and in this Nation can tell us whether we have appropriated enough at this point in time. That is exactly the point, exactly the point that I think the chairman of the subcommittee has been making.

Given the information we have now, given the money that has been appropriated and flowed out, given what we know in terms of the expenses, and we talked about it in that colloquy earlier, we are trying to meet those needs, that this House has recognized that needs exist in specific areas that rise to a certain level above what the rest of the community is, and that it is somewhat grossly unfair for us to have to make those determinations on where exactly all of this goes, taking possibly from one area unequally and giving to another area.

But it is absurd to make the point or argue that there is not enough money there. We have appropriated billions and billions of dollars, and what we see here in place is a work in progress.

I would say to my friends from New York especially, but to those from other parts of the country who have introduced the last couple of amendments who would like to see us take from one fund to the other, that that is not the appropriate course at this time, given the information that we have. I actually trust the notion that when we go to conference, the very people who created the high-risk, high-density fund, the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers), this subcommittee, are in the best place to determine what that appropriate funding is going to be; and I have every bit of confidence that we are going to be able to meet that need.

There has been an acknowledgment on this floor by the chairman, by this committee, that the work is incomplete; that there are needs that are going to be met. It is not just here in high-risk; it is in a lot of other places. But given the opportunity to examine that, I hear the call from the chairman, and I have every bit of confidence that we are going to be able to do that, equally covering the needs of the rest of the communities in our Nation to ensure the safety of the American people.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to actually speak on the underlying bill and the rule in support of both of those, and, as well, if I could take the opportunity to speak against one of the amendments.

I am from New York's 20th Congressional District, the home of Saratoga, New York. We like to say it is the home of horse racing. It certainly is the home of the oldest flat track in the Nation, the proud home of Funny Cide, the winner of the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness.

While we are a little less jubilant today than we were, maybe, a couple of days ago, we are still very bullish on the whole idea and the whole horse racing industry.

I am also the cochairman of the Congressional Horse Caucus. I want to talk a little bit about how important this rule is and this underlying bill is to horse racing and the horse racing industry. U.S. horse racing is regulated

by Federal and State laws. It is in fact the most highly regulated form of entertainment sports initiative in this Nation.

The specific concerns expressed by many in this Congress about offshore international wagering, the integrity of operators, the identity of the participants, consumer fraud, and money laundering are not an issue as it relates to horse racing. Horse racing is a $34 billion domestic industry, along with the agribusinesses that it supports. It is critically important not just to the economy of my district but through vast regions throughout the Nation.

The underlying bill respects existing Federal and State gambling law. It does not make any unlawful gambling lawful; it does not make any lawful gambling unlawful. It does not override any State prohibitions or requirements. It does not expand or contract wagering. It simply maintains the status quo with respect to the underlying substantive law on gaming.

There will be an amendment later today brought forward sponsored by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Conyers) that would prohibit State license activities and represents a broad overuse and abuse of Federal power.

I want to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for bringing this rule forward. I want to congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), for recognizing the importance of this underlying legislation and how important, critically important, it is to vast areas throughout the Nation.

I want to ask my colleagues to support both this rule and to support the underlying legislation and oppose the so-called Sensenbrenner- Cannon-Conyers amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how excited I am that we are finally going to have the chance to pass this amendment that will restore the American flag to its rightful position of honor. I share much of the feelings of my predecessor in this seat: the Honorable Gerald Solomon. It has been a long time coming since that tragic day in 1989 when five Supreme Court justices decided it was OK to burn the flag and thereby hurt so many feelings around this country. That is why I am so proud to cosponsor this amendment on behalf of the American people. Today, we are going to hear the same arguments against this amendment that we have heard for years now. I respect the opinions of those opponents. That is their first amendment right.

But, Mr. Speaker, supporters of this amendment come to the floor today with the overwhelming support of nearly 80 percent of the American people. They are people from all walks of life: from religious organizations like the Knights of Columbus and the Masonic Orders, from civic organizations like the Polish and Hungarian and Ukrainian federations, from fraternal organizations like the Benevolent Order of Elks, Moose International, and the Federation of Police, and from other groups like the National Grange and Future Farmers of America.

Perhaps most impressive is the resounding support from the States around this country. All 50 States support this Flag Protection Amendment. After all, when have all 50 States agreed on anything?

Some opponents of this amendment claim it is an infringement of their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, and they claim if the American people knew it, they would be against this amendment. Well, there is a Gallup poll taken of people outside the Beltway--that is real people, you know, real down-to-earth people. Seventy-six percent of the people in that poll say ``No,'' a constitutional amendment to protect our flag would not jeopardize their right of free speech. In other words, the American people do not view flag burning as a protected right, and they still want this constitutional amendment passed, no matter what.

Mr. Speaker, we should never stifle speech, and that is not what we are seeking to do here today. People can state their disapproval for this amendment. They can state their disapproval for this country, if they want to. That is their protected right. However, it is also the right of the people to redress their grievances and amend the Constitution as they see fit. They are asking for this amendment. Therefore, I am asking you to send this amendment to the States and let the American people decide. That is really what America is all about.

And speaking of America, what is more important than Old Glory. It is what makes us Americans--and not something else. Over the past two centuries and especially in recent years, immigrants from all over this world have flocked to America, knowing little about our culture and our heritage. But they know a lot about our flag and respect it! Salute it--pledge allegiance to it. Mr. Speaker, it is the flag, which has brought this diverse group together, and made them Americans. No matter what our ethnic differences; no matter where we come from, whether it is up in the Adirondack Mountains of New York where I come from or Los Angeles, California; no matter what our ideology point of view, be it liberal or conservative, we are all bound together by those uniquely American qualities represented by our flag.

It is that common bond which brings us to this point, where we can elevate the Stars and Stripes above the political fray, and carry out the will of the vast majority of the American people. It is only appropriate, that the Constitution, our most sacred document, include within its terms, a protection of Old Glory, our most sacred and beloved national symbol. All that is required now, is for each of us to draw upon our patriotic fire, and do all we can to effect this demanded change to our Constitution. Please vote for this constitutional amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as a co-chair of the Correctional Officers Caucus, to honor the men and women working in our correctional facilities. On a daily basis, correctional personnel perform a wide range of jobs, from the routine to the extraordinary. Their work often goes unnoticed, but the efforts of correctional officers and employees were never more apparent than on September 11, 2001.

Following the horrific terrorist attacks, the New York Correction Department immediately sent personnel to assist in rescue operations. Department staff controlled traffic congestion enabling emergency vehicles to reach Ground Zero and assisted firefighters by delivering fuel to needy fire trucks. They built a small ``tent city'' equipped with heat, electricity, telephone and fax lines to provide additional support services for the temporary morgue at Bellevue Hospital. The Department also conducted security clearances and issued thousands of photo ID cards to secure access to Ground Zero and other restricted areas.

Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, correctional officers and employees were deployed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to assist in various rescue and recovery efforts.

We have introduced H. Con. Res. 180 to recognize National Correctional Officers and Employees Week, in gratitude for the courage and professionalism of the New York City Correction Department in the face of tragedy, as well as the daily work of all correctional officers and employees who perform their jobs with dedication and resolve.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to honor our Nation's correctional officers and employees. I urge my colleagues to recognize these men and women by supporting this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to offer my congratulations to the 2003 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball National Champions, the Orangemen of Syracuse University.

These young men started the season unranked and became the number one team in the nation--marking the first time in college basketball history this impressive feat has been accomplished.

This success would not have been possible if not for the coaching abilities of Jim Boeheim. For twenty-seven seasons, Coach Boeheim has been a constant in college basketball. From the inaugural Big East Conference season, through two heart-breaking losses in the championship games of 1987 and 1996, and even through prostate cancer surgery last season; Coach Boeheim has remained dedicated to his players. Over the years, Coach Boeheim and his staff have turned upstate New York from a blanket of white snow into a sea of orange and blue the whole state has embraced.

A perfect example of the state-wide support directed towards the Orangemen was embodied at the East Regional Finals held in Albany, NY, where thousands of Syracuse fans from around the state and country flocked to the Capitol Region. Albany gladly allowed them to make the Pepsi Arena their ``Dome away from home.''

I would like to recognize the individual members of the Syracuse team. The 2003 Orangemen team included: Gerry McNamara, Keuth Duany, Hakim Warrick, Billy Edelin, Jeremy McNeil, Josh Pace, Tyrone Albright, Josh Brooks, Xzavier Gaines, Matt Gorman, Gary Hall, Ronneil Herron, and Andrew Kouwe.

There are two members of the team deserving special acknowledgement. The first is Craig Forth, the starting center of the team, who was born and raised in the 20th Congressional District, in East Greenbush, NY. In addition to having one of his best games in the National Championship against Kansas, Craig is also an outstanding student, maintaining a 3.86 GPA and being named a Big East Conference Academic All-Star.

Finally, I would like to recognize the Big East Freshman of the Year, the National Freshman of the Year, and the Final Four MVP, Carmelo Anthony. Carmelo has been one of the most exciting freshmen players in years. I am sure all Syracuse fans, including my colleagues from the NY delegation, would join me in asking Carmelo to consider ``One More Year!''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support of AMBER alert bill, the Child Abduction Prevention Act. One of the provisions in this comprehensive legislation is my own bill, H.R. 220--known as Suzanne's law. The inclusion of Suzanne's Law will aid in the abduction investigations of college-aged children.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation was inspired by Suzanne Lyall--an ambitious young woman from the 20th Congressional District of New York. Suzanne abruptly vanished on March 2, 1998 from her life as a University of Albany college student. Although only 19 years old at the time of her disappearance, police did not immediately act after her parents reported her missing. The common practice of state and local law enforcement agencies is to impose a 24-hour waiting period before accepting missing persons reports for individuals over the age of 18. It is often assumed that college aged youth, as legal adults, disappear from their own free will. Although this assumption may have some anecdotal credibility, Suzanne's case proves it is not a responsible assumption. Time is of the essence when someone disappears.

Mr. Speaker, Suzanne's Law would amend the Crime Control Act of 1990 to require each Federal, State, and local law enforcement agency to immediately report missing children under the age of 21 to the Department of Justice's National Crime Information Center. The current requirement is only for those individuals under 18 years of age. Such a change would eliminate costly delays. It is certainly prudent to offer college-age youth, away from home and independent for the first time, the additional resources and protections that come with the designation of ``missing child.'' This designation will also help open doors with organizations that sponsor ``missing children'' lists, but do not include individuals over 17 years old.

Suzanne's parents, Doug and Mary Lyall, understand all too clearly the pain and confusion experienced by the families and friends of missing children. They have courageously used their own loss to help others struggling with the disappearance of a loved one.

As a result of their tireless activism, I first introduced Suzanne's Law during the 106th Congress. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased this legislation, along with the other valuable provisions of the AMBER alert bill, will be voted on today. I urge my colleagues to honor the Lyalls and support Suzanne's Law. Perhaps with its passage, potential breakdowns in investigations will be avoided and future college-age disappearances will be taken seriously.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for recognizing me; but more particularly, I would like to thank the chairman for his persistence in pursuing this matter.

As he mentioned, several years ago, I introduced the original of H.R. 205, the National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act, passed it through the Committee on Small Business, passed it through the floor here; and unfortunately, we were not able to get the bill passed through the Senate and get our work completed.

The Chairman has stayed with us on this issue, and through his diligence we have been able to get it back on the floor, and I want to thank my friend and ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), because I know she, too, has been very committed and very persistent in pursuing this matter; and I am very, very thankful.

Madam Speaker, we strive in this era, in this time to find different ways to help the American economy as we travel down the road to recovery. We try to find ways that we can instill public confidence in our economy; and I think it is imperative that we in Congress, despite all of the other activity going on around us, continue to work in small ways and large ways and in any way we can to help the American economy.

And I think this bill really is an effort on the part of this House to make a concerted effort to aid the cornerstone of the American economy, and

that is the small business. The spirit of entrepreneurship is really a characteristic specifically unique to America. Recognized in that spirit is really the heroism and the important role that small business entrepreneurs and proprietors provide for the American economy in terms of jobs, opportunity, and even technology.

As Members of Congress, we receive the Federal Register daily in our offices. Though these documents are filed for safekeeping and reference, they are rarely poured over for specific details. However, for the average small business owner to understand his or her legal obligations as entrepreneurs trying to create these jobs, they have to be carefully analyzed, the Federal Registry, that is, to understand the ever-changing regulations to which the businesses are subjected.

I believe additional measures need to be taken to better assist small business owners in their compliance with Federal guidelines and statutes. H.R. 205 relieves the burden shouldered by the average small business owner throughout America.

In the 106th Congress, Mr. Speaker, this body passed the National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act as a pilot program. In the 107th Congress, both the House and the Senate adopted versions of this bill, though they are nonconforming, and as I said before, no final action was taken before Congress adjourned. I was encouraged by the bipartisan enthusiasm for this program and have conferred with our colleagues in the Senate to work out technical disagreements with prior language, so it is my hope that H.R. 205 will receive the approval of both the House and the Senate in the near future so as to move forward in our efforts to increase the lifespan of American small businesses.

In the 108th Congress, the National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act will function as a permanent project, not a pilot program. This legislation will establish small business compliance centers in 20 American States and territories. These facilities will provide assistance to small business owners, allowing them to better comply with regulatory guidelines and ease the burden of critical yet overworked small business development centers. It is important to note that H.R. 205 will not replace current regulatory compliance programs but complement them.

Mr. Speaker, the Small Business Administration does an exceptional job promoting the development of enterprise in our country. However, the current structure can only do so much. We need to better serve the small business community once they are given a leg to stand on. The Federal Government has invested a great deal in America's courageous entrepreneurs. By providing small business owners the necessary assistance to comply with ever-changing regulations, Congress will solidify the very foundation of the American economy.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I urge all my colleagues to support and pass H.R. 205, this bill, and I want to once again recognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for their great work and their persistence in staying with this bill and this idea.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn anyone who feels it is proper to slander the great young men and women who are risking their lives for our great nation. It is tragic enough that doubts abound about the integrity and motivations of many of our military actions in the eyes of the people of this country, but to advocate the killing of our military personnel is outrageous.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, this is a very grim and unfortunate situation which has raised the ire of myself and countless others from all walks of life. I am speaking about an assistant professor at Columbia University, Nicholas De Genova, who stated that he hoped ``there would be a million Mogadishus,'' which means he hopes millions of young American soldiers are shot, mutilated, and paraded through the streets; all of which are war crimes. He then went on to say, ``The only true heroes are those who find ways to help defeat the U.S. military.''

It is this type of outlandish anti-American sentiment I stand to condemn. It is my belief that anyone who states such absurdities is speaking in support of terrorism and is going against everything for which the United States stands.

As the War in Iraq continues, it is more important to support our troops. In an all voluntary military, it is imperative we demonstrate a commitment to supporting our military personnel at every turn by reinforcing the values they hold, not by attacking them and questioning their character and certainly not by advocating killing them. We must fight anyone who attacks those who stand side by side as one to fight and die if necessary to secure our most sacred virtue, our freedom!

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 857.