Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following rollcall votes and would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall No. 609--``yea.''

Rollcall No. 610--``yea.''

Rollcall No. 611--``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in disgust at the level of cynicism that is represented by this resolution.

This exercise by the House Republican leadership is about as un- American and contemptuous as it gets.

I support Mr. Murtha's resolution to bring about an end to U.S. operations in Iraq in--and I quote--``at the earliest practicable date.''

The resolution before us is not about that.

This resolution is a blatant political effort to make it look like the President's Iraq policy has broad support in Congress and among the public--which it obviously does not.

Worse, it transforms the sacrifice of our brave troops into crass political exercise.

Mr. Speaker, I have opposed this war from the beginning.

I wasn't convinced of the need for it and deeply concerned about the potential fallout that it could precipitate.

Sadly, many of my concerns have been borne out, as nearly 2,100 brave Americans have lost their lives and many thousands more have been wounded.

Today, the insurgency continues unabated and now Iraq is a hotbed of terrorist activity.

We are less secure today than before we invaded.

As a result, America's position and influence in the world have suffered greatly in the process.

I believe it is long past time that the administration produce an exit strategy for Iraq and am deeply disappointed that all we have seen is more of the same arrogance and incompetence that got us here in the first place.

I am not surprised by Representative Murtha's statement yesterday.

Mr. Murtha's distinguished military career, and his decades of public service, have given him a level of expertise on defense issues virtually unparalleled in today's Congress.

He understands the troops and their leadership, and the challenges faced by the military in times of war and peace far better than most.

I am sure his announcement is the result of long and careful consideration and demands the attention of all thinking Americans.

I am shocked, but not surprised, by the shameful response of some of my Republican colleagues in Congress and by officials in the White House who have sought to besmirch Mr. Murtha's motivations and accumen.

Today's action by the House leadership is more of the same--an attempt to smear a man of honor who commits the unpardonable sin of disagreeing with them.

Fortunately, I know that as time goes on Mr. Murtha's call for a serious reassessment of our position in Iraq will be recognized as thoughtful analysis of a policy in deep trouble and need for change.

I only hope that President Bush and his administration will discover that truth before more lives are lost in this very tragic situation.

Speaker J. Dennis Hastert declared: ``Murtha and Democratic leaders have adopted a policy of cut and run. They would prefer that the United States surrender to the terrorists who would harm innocent Americans. To add insult to injury, this is done while the President is on foreign soil.''

Majority Leader Roy Blunt informed Murtha that his views ``only embolden our enemies'' and lamented that ``Democrats undermine our troops in Iraq from the security of their Washington, DC, offices.''

At a rival news conference called four hours after Murtha's appearance, Representative J.D. Hayworth, who like Hastert and Blunt does not have military service on his resume, alerted the 73-year-old Murtha that ``the American people are made of sterner stuff.'' And Representative John Carter said the likes of Murtha want to take ``the cowardly way out and say, `We're going to surrender.' ''

The White House accused a senior House Democrat--and a decorated Vietnam veteran--who called for a swift withdrawal from Iraq of advocating surrender, comparing him to anti-war filmmaker Michael Moore.

In a broadside issued Thursday night, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said that it is ``baffling that [Pennsylvania Representative John Murtha] is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party.''

Murtha, whose brand of hawkishness has never been qualified by the word ``chicken,'' was expecting the attacks. ``I like guys who've never been there to criticize us who've been there. I like that,'' the burly old marine said, hands in pocket. Referring to Vice President Cheney, he continued: ``I like guys who got five deferments and never been there, and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.''

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to MSgt Dean C. Temple upon his retirement. MSgt Dean C. Temple is a native of Hinckley, Ohio. He enlisted in the United States Air Force in January 1983, shortly after graduating from Poudre High School, in Fort Collins, Colorado. He completed Military Basic Training at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas on March 1, 1983 and was sent, by direct duty assignment, to Altus AFB, Oklahoma.

During his first assignment at Altus, then Amn Basic Temple was put to work as a new General Purpose Vehicle Maintenance Apprentice. After 2 years, he was rotated into the

Diagnostic and Quality Assurance section where he served as Non- Commissioned Officer In Charge (NCOIC). In 1988, SrA Temple was promoted to the rank of Buck Sergeant and transferred to Cosimo Air Station, Italy, on the island of Sicily. While at Cosimo, Sgt Temple served as NCOIC of the Base Operation Support, DQ&A section for the 487th Tactical Missile Maintenance Squadron. As part of his duties Sgt Temple directly supported the maintenance of Ground Launch Inter- Continental Ballistic Cruise Missile (GLCM), Launch Control Center (LCC), and Transporter Erector Launcher (TEL) equipment. During this assignment Sgt Temple was promoted to SSgt. In January of 1990 he was reassigned to the Air Training Command, Vehicle Maintenance Technical Training Center, Chanute AFB, Illinois. During this assignment SSgt Temple served as an Instructor, General Purpose Vehicle Maintenance Section and taught the GP Vehicle Maintenance Apprentice Course, Advanced Air Conditioning Course, and the Advanced Vehicle Diagnostic Test Equipment Course. While still at Chanute SSgt Temple attended the Airmen Leadership School and upon graduation was awarded the John Levitow award for leadership.

In 1993, due to Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) decisions, SSgt Temple moved along with the vehicle maintenance schoolhouse to Lackland AFB, Texas where he assumed the role of Instructor Supervisor for the GP VM section and continued teaching the new 20-day Advanced Diagnostic Test Equipment and Electrical Systems Course which he co-authored with SSgt Andreas Grom. In 1996 SSgt Temple was promoted to Technical Sergeant, this promotion also coincided with another big swing of the BRAC hammer and the schoolhouse shifted again to a new location. Now a veteran of Schoolhouse moves, TSgt Temple was to move again to the newly designated Port Hueneme Schoolhouse in Port Hueneme, California. TSgt Temple now was positioned as a Course Supervisor for the GP section and was qualified to teach six of eight courses to include two Mobile Training Team Courses. These two courses generated 32 Temporary Duty Assignments that sent TSgt Temple throughout the globe. After 5 years at Port Hueneme TSgt Temple was promoted to Master Sergeant. And along with the promotion came the accompanying orders. This time the assignment was to Kunsan AB Republic of Korea, where now MSgt Temple served as Superintendent, Readiness and Evaluations. His duties included Squadron Exercise Evaluation Team Chief, Flight Self- Inspection program manager, and First Sergeant. In June of 2002 MSgt Temple finished with and was reassigned back to Det1 345 TRS, Port Hueneme, CA. After his return he served as the new Vehicle and Equipment Course Supervisor and since mid-2004 is currently serving as Air Force Superintendent, Inter-service Vehicle Mechanic School.

I commend and thank MSgt Dean Temple for his leadership and dedication. He is truly a role model and deserves the many awards and commendations that he has received. I wish him a relaxing and happy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) leading this discussion of what is wrong with the Republican reconciliation bill, and I agree there is devastating harm from the cuts to Medicaid, student loans, and food stamps. Cutting these programs that assist low-income and middle-income families to help pay for the tax cuts for the very wealthiest is simply unconscionable. These are all good reasons to vote ``no'' for this bill.

I want to talk about something else that is contained in this bill that has not gotten as much attention. That is the Republican proposal to allow new offshore oil drilling around large parts of the country, the so-called OCS provisions that have come out of the Resources Committee.

I want to direct my remarks to my Republican colleagues from coastal States. I do so because coastal-State Republicans will either stop this provision or allow it to become law.

Let us be frank. Democrats are not going to vote for this bill, and that means that coastal Republicans will decide whether or not we have new drilling off our coasts. These are Republicans in Florida, Georgia, South and North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and New Hampshire on the East Coast. On the West Coast, Republicans from California, Oregon and Washington all need to stand up for their coastal communities.

All we need are 15 or 20 of them to tell their leadership that they are going to vote ``no'' on the bill unless the oil drilling provisions are removed. These provisions are not included in this Senate bill, and if they are taken out of the House bill, then we will not see them in the final conference report. It is really that simple.

I know that some Members are tempted to buy the argument made by proponents of lifting this ban. Governor Jeb Bush and others are saying that this gives States control over their coasts and that new drilling everywhere is inevitable, but those arguments just do not hold water. Here is the straight story.

Among its many provisions, the bill ends the annual congressional moratorium immediately, including the one we just passed and was so recently signed into law.

Section 6515 of the bill states: ``All provisions of existing Federal law prohibiting the spending of appropriated funds to conduct oil and natural gas leasing and preleasing activity for any area of the OCS shall have no force or effect.''

This provision permanently removes Congress from any future decisions about offshore oil drilling. Theoretically, the bill leaves the Presidential moratorium in place until 2012, but this President or whoever follows him could end that whenever he or she wants.

Section 6509 of the bill specifically gives the President the authority to partially or completely revoke the existing Presidential moratorium before 2012. I am not a betting person, but I would wager that if Congress ends this moratorium, President Bush would quickly follow suit. That would mean the immediate end to the ban now in place on new offshore drilling off Florida, New Jersey, and all the other coastal States.

In addition, after expiration or revocation of the Presidential moratorium, States lose all control over drilling conducted beyond 125 miles offshore. That is 75 miles closer than current law. To be fair, it does allow the States that support drilling to have some control, but this at the expense of their neighbor. For example, the bill completely rewrites the Coastal Zone Management Act's Federal consistency review authority.

Section 6503 of the bill replaces the definition of ``affected State'' under the OCS Lands Act with a new, weaker definition for adjacent States. That means if Virginia wants new oil drilling off its coast, North Carolina, Maryland or Delaware would have no say in the matter, even though drilling off Virginia would clearly affect those States. The same holds true if Alabama or Georgia wants to drill and Florida does not.

Supporters of the bill say that the bill helps States that oppose new drilling as well, but that is just wrong. If President Bush repeals the moratorium, a State can supposedly petition to extend the moratorium off its shores for 5 years, but that requires repeated action and complex steps. Even if a State makes the request, the Federal Government could simply say ``no'' and drilling would begin off Florida or New Jersey or any other of these States.

Under the current administration, I do not think it is hard to imagine that that would happen.

Even if the Feds grant the extension, the protection would only be temporary for 5 years, with one-time renewal. After that, no more moratorium on new drilling anywhere.

Under this bill, we would literally see the push for new drilling on the entire United States coastline almost immediately upon enactment.

So this is what we are left with if Republicans allow this bill to become law: No congressional moratorium on new drilling; a Presidential moratorium that can and would likely be withdrawn immediately; no limits on drilling in neighboring States that might want to drill; and a cumbersome process for States that do not want new drilling and one that could simply be ignored by the Federal Government. It does not sound like protection for coastal States to me.

Coastal State Republicans can stop this. I urge them to stand up for their

communities and tell their leadership to take these OCS provisions out; and if the new drilling provisions are included in the bill, I urge them, along with us, to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of the resolution to reject the recommendations of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission.

I support the BRAC process and believe that over the years it has led to the orderly reorganization of our Nation's defense infrastructure.

I believe the Pentagon and the BRAC Commission made a good-faith effort to carefully examine every base.

Nonetheless, I continue to believe the Commission made a terribly shortsighted decision when it voted to uphold some of the Pentagon's recommendations for Naval Base Ventura County.

I am particularly disappointed the Commission voted to move some of the RDT&E missions away from the base.

In my view, the Commission ignored a number of important factors.

First, the Commission's vote went against the recommendation of its professional staff.

The staff correctly recognized that Naval Base Ventura County has significant military value, and its missions contribute to the readiness of our war fighter.

Second, relocating the vital functions performed by the personnel at the base will have lasting consequences for our national security.

The activities conducted at this site for the Navy, Air Force, Missile Defense Agency, and others cannot be replicated anywhere else in the Nation.

Moreover, the base's sea range is linked with other inland ranges in California--providing an unmatched capability to the Defense Department.

The realignment will diminish these existing operational capabilities and efficiencies and negatively impact the ability of our fighting men and women to get their jobs done.

The effect of this would be immediately felt in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Finally, realigning the base's missions will waste, not save, taxpayer dollars.

We cannot afford to spend a lot of money to move missions and personnel when there's no long-term savings involved.

Especially now that we're looking at spending more than $200 billion to help rebuild the

Gulf Coast areas devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Mr. Chairman, the BRAC process must be logical and fair. I do not believe this round of closures met those criteria.

I continue to strongly believe the missions at Naval Base Ventura County are a critical element of our national security system and an important asset to our local community.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the resolution of disapproval.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize and honor 50 years of reference publishing and involvement with local community schools and libraries by the Santa Barbara publisher, ABC-CLIO. ABC-CLIO is a privately held company founded by the Boehm family and is now in its second generation of ownership. The company's corporate headquarters is located in Santa Barbara, California, with additional offices in Denver, Colorado, and Oxford, England.

Committed to serving the history profession and its teachers, as well as students and scholars of history, ABC-CLIO annually publishes approximately 80 encyclopedias, guides, and handbooks. Since 1991, this acclaimed reference book-line has won over 60 best-reference awards from the American Library Association and Library Journal.

The best-known publications by ABC-CLIO are the abstracting and indexing services, Historical Abstracts and America: History and Life, which together represent the largest bibliographic history database in the world. Its award-winning social studies databases reach students in thousands of schools nationally.

I commend Eric H. Boehm, Inge P. Boehm, Fritz Fellner, and John A.S. Grenville for founding Historical Abstracts 50 years ago. This pioneering publication connects the international community of historians, making writings of the international history community known and accessible to historians and history students worldwide.

ABC-CLIO is also committed to serving our local community by actively participating in Partners in Education, United Way, and numerous other local programs. ABC-CLIO and CEO Ron Boehm have supported the nationally recognized Computers for Families, which is the flagship program for Partners in Education, since its inception eight years ago.

I commend ABC-CLIO on its 50th Anniversary and recognize them for the important role they play in our community and our world by ensuring that historical scholarship is accessible to historians and students across the globe.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this ill- conceived legislation.

This bill is a shameless attempt to use the tragedy of Katrina as an engine to drive bad policies into law. The purported reason behind the bill is the high cost of gas caused by Katrina, and this is the bill that is supposed to meet that challenge. But gas prices were at record highs before Katrina hit. Katrina merely ramped them up and provided an excuse to push more failed Republican energy ideas.

I guess the best thing we can say about the bill is what is not in it, namely, the repeal of the longstanding, bipartisan moratorium on new offshore drilling. But the bill, however, does gut public health and environmental laws. It does strip States and localities of the authority to protect their own citizens. And, bottom line, it fails to protect consumers from price gouging at the pump, which we have seen going on on a regular basis.

Mr. Speaker, the problem of high gas prices is a serious one. It affects businesses and families on a daily basis, and I should know because my gas prices in my district are usually among the highest in the Nation. Right now they hover around $3.50 a gallon. But this bill is not about trying to do something about that. It is about trying to distract the American people from a failed Republican energy strategy, a strategy that fails to realize that we have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves while we account for 25 percent of the world demand. This is a strategy that relies on increasing our supplies at all costs while conservation efforts are ridiculed by our Vice President as ``signs of personal virtue.'' This is a strategy that says if laws that protect public health or environment get in the way, we should just waive them. It is a strategy that dooms America to never-ending energy crises that consistently enrich energy companies at the expense of hard-working American families and businesses.

Over the past several years, we have had repeated chances to craft commonsense, efficient, and effective energy legislation that would set America on a more stable future; but this Republican Congress has failed to do that and this, failure is once again realized in this bill.

So I urge my colleagues to vote for the alternative and to vote down this awful legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following rollcall vote and would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 520--``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Grover Barnes on the occasion of his 98th birthday. Grover Barnes is the oldest living African American Man in Santa Barbara, and a most esteemed citizen of our fair city. He truly is a rare gem and a community treasure.

Grover Barnes, a Texas native, came to Santa Barbara over 62 years ago. In 1942 he was hired by the Miramar Hotel as a porter and one year later was the first African American promoted to Bell Captain where he served for thirty-five years. It has been said that Grover Barnes is an inimitable part of history of the city of Montecito. His level of service is remembered by generations of guests. He was known for his warm hospitality to the young and old, the rich and famous, and the not so rich and famous. In 2001, Grover Barnes was voted as a Local Hero of Santa Barbara and affectionately called ``The Ambassador of Hospitality.''

The generosity of spirit that marked Mr. Barnes' professional life is many times amplified in his lifelong dedication to his friends and family, to community service and to his church. It is his deep devotion to his community, his concern for those who have been left behind, his commitment to making sure the right thing is done for someone in need, that makes him a true community treasure. He has worked tirelessly to advance just causes and has always stayed focused on the right issues. To this day, Mr. Barnes contributes to our community life by writing letters to the Santa Barbara News Press editor which are thought provoking and historically significant.

Grover Barnes has received numerous honors for his greatest joy: a lifelong devotion to serving others and for making sure justice is done. He has been intensely involved in many community organizations including: the NAACP Santa Barbara Chapter, the Brotherhood of Santa Barbara, the Mason Lodge, the Eastside Study Group and the George Washington Carver Scholarship Society. As a man who has devoted his life to helping others, I today recognize Grover Barnes as a role model of the very best kind, a man who has been a friend to many and a teacher to all, a shining example of what makes this country and community great.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize suicide as a public health problem, and suicide prevention as a community responsibility. The State of California has recognized September as ``Suicide Prevention Month.'' This is in support and recognition of the National and International Suicide Prevention Week.

It remains essential to remember that suicide is the 11th leading cause of all deaths in the United States and the 3rd leading cause of death among people from the ages of 15 to 24. It is also the 10th leading cause of all deaths and the number one cause of all injury deaths in the State of California. Moreover, suicide remains the 9th leading cause of all deaths and the 2nd leading cause of all injury deaths in Santa Barbara County. Within the United States, one person completes suicide every 17 minutes; and it is estimated that 4.47 million people in the United States are survivors of suicide (those who have lost a loved one to suicide).

In addition, guns stored in the house are used for suicide 40 times more often than for self-protection and 54 percent of people who die by suicide use a firearm. Regarding mental illness, the stigma associated with mental illness works against suicide prevention by discouraging persons at risk for suicide from seeking life-saving help and further traumatizes survivors of suicide. Finally, we must remember that a great many suicides are preventable, and can be reduced through awareness, education and treatment.

I therefore commend The Glendon Association, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization based in Santa Barbara, California whose mission is to save lives and help people create more meaningful lives by addressing the social problems of suicide, violence, child abuse and troubled interpersonal relationships. The Glendon Association accomplishes this through community outreach, research, education and training within the local community, the State of California, nationally and internationally. I recognize the important work they do through their Annual Suicide Prevention Forums which in this, their 11th year, include three free community programs, open to the public, held in Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and San Luis Obispo, California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a great organization, Counterpart International, and a tireless advocate, Eva Haller.

For 40 years Counterpart International has done extraordinary work, first helping South Pacific countries move from colonialism to independence, and then expanding their efforts to assist the growth of democracy in Africa, Latin America, Eurasia, and around the Caribbean. This global organization's strategy is to engage people in their own communities through education and exchange programs that teach the skills necessary for citizens to strengthen their homeland's independence from within.

Counterpart also brings together and draws upon the support of governments, corporations, and individuals to accomplish this goal. Their approach relies on ``smart partnerships'' which engage all sectors and benefit all participants. These two principles increase the likelihood of success where other development programs fail.

Another key element in Counterpart's success is my dear friend and constituent Eva Haller. As a board member of Counterpart she has emphasized a focus on women, the environment, and preservation of cultures. She is a passionate and tenacious advocate for all people who need help, be they children, poverty stricken families, or the populations of far off land struggling to become free. With her international outlook she knows that those of us who live in the United States, the wealthiest country in the world, have a special duty to be generous with our time, money, and cares.

Eva is a tremendous example for us all to live up to and I am proud to recognize the incredible work that she does on her own and with Counterpart International. It is no accident that the organization will honor Eva, among others, at its 40th anniversary benefit reception in New York on September 21. In these trying times there is more and more need for the leadership that Eva and Counterpart International exemplify.

Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Katrina highlights the need for disaster preparedness. Across the country, everyone is asking: Are we prepared?

Every level of government is reexamining how we can make our communities more disaster resistant. In James Lee Witt's FEMA, we had a tool to make that happen: Project Impact. This proven program brought together local leaders, citizens, and businesses to prepare for and protect themselves against the worst that nature could throw at them; and at the Federal level funding worked to leverage support from private sources, multiplying their effectiveness.

Unfortunately, this administration unwisely tossed aside Project Impact and broke a model that had worked so well. Today, I will introduce legislation to bring Project Impact back to

life. The Disaster Plan Act will reauthorize FEMA's predisaster mitigation grant program. None of us can stop natural disasters from happening, but we can and we must be prepared for what happens when a disaster occurs. Project Impact was a program that worked in a FEMA that worked, and now we need to bring it back.

I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Hyman Bookbinder, one of our nation's leading advocates for human rights and equality.

The terrible stories and photographs coming out of Louisiana and Mississippi remind us that, among other things, there still is a race divide in America. This is not to say that the response to the disaster was dictated by racial considerations. But it is to say that sadly no accident that the segment of the population that bore much of the brunt of the suffering was predominantly poor and black.

At the same time, we can say with some pride that our country has made significant progress toward a more just society. It's far from enough but giant strides have been made, particularly in the area of social equality.

An article in Sunday's Washington Post reminded us that these advances did not just happen. They happened because heroes among us made them happen. I have attached a copy of the article for my colleagues.

The article tells the story about the successful 1960 effort to integrate Glen Echo Park, an amusement park in Montgomery County, Maryland, just outside the District line. Glen Echo was a fabulous place of swimming pools, dance halls, carousels, a roller coaster and other summer time amusements. It was so popular that a DC trolley from the Capitol Hill area--and neighborhoods east--was constantly full with kids heading northwest and up MacArthur Boulevard to this delightful recreation spot.

But not African American kids. They were allowed on the trolleys but banned from the park. And the ban was enforced by the Montgomery County police.

In 1960, a group of courageous Howard University students--Dion Diamond, Michael Proctor, and Gwendolyn Britt (now a Maryland state senator)--decided to test the race policy by riding the merry-go-round. They were abused and kicked out.

So they turned to ask for help from the prosperous white Bannockbum community living near the park. And, almost immediately, a movement erupted. Hyman Bookbinder, an AFL-CIO official, and long-time lobbyist for civil rights and Jewish causes, used his organizing and public relations skills to force the owners of Glen Echo Park to back down. Bookie, as everyone calls him, was later an aide to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. Esther Delaplaine organized the mothers and Ida Leivick, a teacher at the local school, worked with her colleagues. Finally the Supreme Court stepped in and forced Glen Echo either to open up or shut down.

The Howard/Bannockbum coalition had prevailed.

This past Saturday, the people who made it happen gathered at Glen Echo to commemorate a moment in time when all things seemed possible in America.

They still are. We just need more people who are willing to stick their necks out the way these Howard University students and suburbanites did in 1960.

I particularly want to salute Hyman Bookbinder. He is now 89 and over the past sixty-five years, he has been at the forefront of the struggle for human rights, not just down the street in Montgomery County but throughout the world. I've been in the House of Representatives for eight years but I have heard about Bookie's years as a civil rights lobbyist when he was known as the 101st Senator. When people were suffering, he was here fighting, pushing, and cajoling to make things better.

He has helped change this country.

To put it simply, we need more people like Bookie. Thankfully he is still here, always fighting the good fight and living the Biblical injunction: ``Justice, justice, you shall pursue.''

[From washingtonpost.com, Sept. 11, 2005]

Marking a Park's Social Revolution

(by Ann E. Marimow)

The last time Dion Diamond walked through the gates of Glen

Echo Amusement Park, he was ushered out after two minutes.

The last time Michael Proctor tried to ride the merry-go-

round there, he was arrested.

That was in 1960, when blacks were not allowed to swim in

the park's famed Crystal Pool, with its slide and fountain,

and also could not ride on the roller coaster.

On Saturday, the two civil rights activists returned for

the first time to mark the anniversary of the picket lines

that led to the desegregation of the park and ultimately to a

U.S. Supreme Court case.

``I was never in here for more than a couple minutes,''

said Diamond, 64, laughing and shaking his head in disbelief

as he looked out at the same carousel, with its ornate

woodcarved horses and cheerful organ music.

Even though the park's private owners quietly opened the

gates to all in 1961, Proctor had never returned.

``I told my kids about it,'' the Hughesville doctor said.

``But way down deep, there were some negative feelings.''

The effort to integrate Glen Echo Park, in the summer of

1960, came after the first sit-ins at segregated lunch

counters in North Carolina and during student protests

throughout the region.

But Glen Echo Park was notable because of the support the

protesters, black Howard University students, received from

white residents of the nearby Bannockburn neighborhood, some

of whom were experienced labor leaders. They walked side by

side for five weeks that summer--and they came together again

yesterday.

Browsing a collage of black-and-white photos and yellowed

newspaper clippings, they recalled some of the most dramatic

moments when Proctor and four other members of the D.C. Non-

Violent Action Group were arrested for refusing to get off

the merry-go-round.

In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that the Montgomery County

deputies had improperly enforced private segregation.

Outside the park gates in 1960, the students brought a

sense of fearlessness and enthusiasm. Stay-at-home mothers

from Bannockburn were the reliable foot soldiers on the

picket line, and the labor leaders brought political

connections and organizing strategies.

Esther Delaplaine, who lived five blocks from the park,

mobilized fellow mothers. She recalled the intense pain and

frustration of the time. ``We could ride the merry-go-round,

but [black students] got arrested,'' said Delaplaine, 81.

Her daughter Rocky led yesterday's gathering of 300 people

in an emotional rendition of ``O Freedom,'' a song that was

sung on the picket line,

Hyman Bookbinder, then an AFL-CIO lobbyist for civil

rights, was joined yesterday by his daughter and

granddaughter. ``The movement wasn't only for us old-timers.

It was for our families,'' said Bookbinder, 89. ``This event

is a reminder.''

For some involved in the sit-ins and picket lines, it was

too painful to return. Those who attended said it was as if

they were transported in time.

Seeing the trolley car parked in front of the gates, Tina

Clarke said she felt like a teenager again, as she was when

she protested with the county chapter of the NAACP. She said

she still could feel the spit on her cheek from a white male

heckler that stained the white collar of her blouse.

``There is no time frame on when pain and suffering should

end,'' said Clarke, 67, African American liaison for

Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan (D).

Clarke said she had to explain to friends and relatives who

questioned her decision to return to the park that it is now

an arts and cultural center operated by a nonprofit

partnership with lands managed by the National Park Service.

``It's not just my history; it's our history,'' she said.

``It's part of what helped us get to where we are today. If

none of these things happened, where would we be?''

But the park is a troubling memory for some who were

children at the time. When Vernon Ricks drives past the park

from his home in Potomac, he remembers riding the trolley car

to the entrance on Sundays. From the windows, he could see

the neon lights, the merry-go-round and the wooden roller

coaster, but he could not enter. He attended the gathering

because his wife, Janet, wanted to ``start the healing of a

scar,'' she said.

``To me, it is still a symbol of segregation,'' said Ricks,

66. ``I'm still not happy to be here.''

Later, he added, ``Don't say I'm coming back.''

Taking her husband's hand, Janet Ricks said, ``Yes, you

are. Yes, you are.''

Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following rollcall vote and would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall No. 453--``yea.''

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

With great respect to our leaders, the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Ranking Member Dingell), Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition to the bill.

This bill is a missed opportunity to provide a secure energy future for America. It is a bill packed with taxpayer-subsidized goodies for energy companies. It is a bill that will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased about one part of the bill: it no longer contains the liability waiver to the MTBE industry. Now, perhaps, communities with MTBE-polluted groundwater will have a fighting chance to get it cleaned up by the people who made the mess. I call on the MTBE industry to do the right thing now, stop fighting in court and in Congress, own up to your responsibility by sitting down and working out cleanup plans with these affected communities.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the rest of the bill is mostly bad news. At a time of record-high energy prices, the bill hands out tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for the oil and gas, coal and nuclear power industries already making record profits.

The bill also cuts States out of LNG siting decisions, giving power to the Federal Government, which, of course, always knows what is best.

In addition, the bill does precious little to make America more energy efficient or to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. There is no effort to make our cars more energy efficient. Seventy-five percent of the oil we use every day goes right into our gas tanks. This bill acts like it is okay that mileage on our autos has gone down in recent years, there is no connection between that and today's record gas prices.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill calls for new offshore drilling under the guise of conducting a so-called inventory.

My friends on the other side will argue that this is just a study so we know what is out there. MMS already conducts surveys every 5 years on offshore resources. We already know where the offshore oil and gas is: in the central and western gulf where drilling is currently allowed and is under way, so why the inventory?

Putting it simply, this is just a first step in opening up offshore areas now off limits to new drilling. This means new drilling off States like Florida, North Carolina, and California. Make no mistake: this inventory is the oil companies' attempt to begin dismantling the long-standing, bipartisan moratorium on new drilling in these areas.

Voting for this bill means you support drilling off Florida, California, North Carolina, and other States. I urge my colleagues to vote down this bill.