Floor Statements

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

This is a critically important piece of legislation that everyone in the House should support without reservation. H.R. 4311, which amends the 1978 Ethics in Government Act, will make permanent an expiring provision which protects the safety of our Nation's judges as well as the integrity of our judicial system.

And I know that everyone here remembers, as Mr. Sensenbrenner just reminded us, the horrifying murders of a Chicago judge's family members this past summer. These crimes were committed by an individual, who was angered by a ruling on his case. He went to the judge's home to confront her and, while there, shot her husband and mother in cold blood.

The bill we have before us will allow judges who have been threatened to withhold certain personal information from public record, information, such as their home address, that has been used in the past for the most tragic of ends.

And I want to emphasize that I strongly support the bill and I commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for bringing it to the floor today. No one here wishes to avoid our responsibility to protect those men and women who form the bedrock of our legal system, nor do any of us desire to in any way detract from the significance of this bill.

However, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill does not go far enough. My conscience compels me to pause here and remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that we are discussing a reform to the Ethics in Government Act, which should be extended to really talk about ethics in government, a vitally important piece of legislation which, when it was passed, confirmed the national commitment to the creation and preservation of the government as good and as ethical as the people it serves.

I, therefore, cannot let this moment pass without speaking of what has become a standing source of shame for this body and for this Nation: the collapse of ethical conduct within our House. Mr. Speaker, I have no choice but to speak of the topic here and now because this is the last time the House will address the subject of ethics this year.

Ethics reform has not made the Republican leadership's December agenda, just like it has not made the cut all

year long. But the ethical conduct of Members of this body is on the minds of those in whose interest we claim to act, the American people. They are demanding that action be taken, and it is on their behalf that I speak now.

The bill we will hopefully approve today is an example of the kind of legislation we should be passing here. It puts the well-being of the American people first. But the majority ushered in the year by putting itself first, gutting the ethical standards imposed on Members of this body so that they could more easily take advantage of the people's trust and get away with it.

With a little time and distance, it is now painfully obvious why the leadership went to such great lengths to roll back the ethics rules of the conference and of this House. A prolonged and impassioned public outcry forced the majority to abandon this blatant assault on ethics several months later, but the battle was far from over.

Even though the Republicans were shamed into retreat on the ethical assault, we have not had a working Ethics Committee in this House all year and we still do not today. As Members may recall, the majority initially attempted to eliminate its power, and when it could not do that, it fired the qualified investigative staff and tried to deliberately politicize the committee, and we have not had a working ethics process since. Only recently have we been able to forge an agreement which could restart the ethics process next year. And for both his principled stand in defense of the rules of the body and for his patience and commitment to restoring the ethics process, I commend the ranking member of the committee.

But the real question still lingers: What was the majority hiding? Despite their best efforts, the truth has come forth, and every day brings a new revelation which demonstrates the extent to which power has been abused and corruption scandals have mounted. Indictments and resignations have dominated the headlines. And Member after Member of this body has been shown they have committed their votes not in the public interest, but to special interests, those who seek the benefit of the few at the expense of the many.

Critical decisions at Federal agencies are being unethically manipulated by White House political operatives, and the results of these decisions are having a direct impact on the people of this Nation.

Make no mistake about it. This White House and this leadership have placed America up for sale to the highest bidder, and it is the American people paying the price while corrupt politicians and special interests reap the profits.

Citizens of this Nation have watched it all, stunned, disillusioned, and increasingly angry. The majority leader of the House repeatedly admonished on ethical violations and is now indicted for money laundering. A Member resigned in shame and pled guilty to bribery. New investigations by the Justice Department threatening to embroil many more of our colleagues in the growing stench of corruption surrounding Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

And as the public trust is battered and broken and potential ethics investigations pile up, the Ethics Committee chairman, who fired an experienced staff and supported changing the rules, has announced he will not conduct additional investigations into serious allegations of corruption because we do not have the money. Apparently, we cannot afford an ethics process in this government, only more tax cuts.

From this majority leadership, there has been no leadership. And the startling truth is it has been almost 12 months since we have had a functioning ethics process in the House. We still have no working Ethics Committee. We have no ethics reform. And after 12 months, we have scandal and deception and only silence, and that has become a national shame.

The time for accountability is now. The time for real reform is now. And the time for change is certainly now. And surely, Mr. Speaker, America can do better than this.

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

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the speed with which the majority has sought to challenge the frank and honest appraisal of the war in Iraq offered yesterday by my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), proves that what he said resonated with the American people.

Over 60 percent of our Nation no longer believes that we are headed in the right direction in Iraq. When Mr. Murtha spoke yesterday, he spoke for the majority of our country. Concerns such as those voiced by Mr. Murtha are not a sign of weakness, nor are they the product of a failure of resolve or willingness to cower before adversity as many administration apologists have suggested.

Rather, they follow from a logical assessment of one of the most respected military affairs in international relations experts that we have in all of these United States, and that is exactly what has this congressional leadership and this White House so concerned.

That is why they have gone out of their way in the last 24 hours to attack the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). It amounts to nothing more than another swift boat attack on an American hero.

After all, attacking those who have the temerity to challenge this White House is what Republicans in Congress do best. But they have chosen a formidable target in Jack Murtha.

Unlike our President, our Vice President, our Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State or the vast, vast majority of the Members in this House, Jack Murtha knows combat. At the age of 34, he did not have to go and fight in Vietnam, but he did. He is a decorated veteran and an American hero at a time when many others were shirking any possibility of going to Vietnam.

He knows our troops and he cares for them deeply and he has regularly visited them in the hospitals. There he has seen their wounds. He has stood by them during their time of need and listened to their hopes and fears. He has been to Iraq and seen the state of the nation with his own eyes. He is a true patriot and wants only the success of the United States and the Iraqi people, and that is why he spoke with such passion yesterday.

Representative Murtha spoke for the American people when he said that the time has come for a change in direction, and everyone in this Chamber knows that because Jack Murtha is one of the most widely respected Members in this House. No matter the attack that this majority chooses to employ against those who would question them, the reality on the ground is obvious to all who wish to see it.

America's continued military occupation of that nation will not bring stability. Our forces are drawing fire, not suppressing it; and their presence on foreign soil is serving as a catalyst for all of those who wish to do us and Iraq harm. Insurgent attacks are on the rise, and more American and Iraqi lives are lost every single day. We can no longer continue on this failing path, unwavering with no end in sight.

We can no longer ask Americans and Iraqis to give up their lives for a goal which we are making less sustainable by the hour. We must chart a new course.

Mr. Murtha's redeployment plan comes from an experienced statesman and soldier who has and will continue to do whatever he thinks is best for this Nation.

I implore my colleagues across this aisle to realize that continued Republican attacks which seek to dismiss and to discredit the valuable critiques

of knowledgeable legislators, as well as the heartfelt will of the American people, will succeed in silencing neither. Nor will they change the reality on the ground in Iraq.

More Republican assaults will not hide the gross management and corruption which has plagued the administration's attempt to prosecute the war, and they will not mollify America's growing concerns over flawed intelligence, broken trust, subverted values, and shameful acts of torture, all forced by the hand of an administration that answers in half-truths and obfuscations.

These cynical and all-too-typical Republican attempts to silence dissension, stifle debate, and discredit those who would dare to hold them accountable will only serve to elevate the power of the message that Mr. Murtha is delivering to this government and to the American people and to our troops. The Republicans today by attacking him succeed only in betraying themselves.

The dramatic nature of their panicked response has clearly demonstrated how incredibly valued Mr. Murtha's judgement is to military experts at the Pentagon, to Members of Congress, and to the American intelligence community.

And the strangest thing that I shall ever see is the people who believed that they were rewriting Mr. Murtha's resolution. Mr. Murtha, with a reasoned withdrawal, had nothing even remotely like the resolution we are debating this evening, which is the Republican resolution written by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) which calls for the immediate withdrawal of the troops in Iraq.

I believe they have got some explaining to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the minority leader the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, due to an error, my vote for rollcall No. 580, on H.R. 2419, on agreeing to the conference report was not recorded. I voted ``yes'' on this rollcall.

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

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I once said that budgets are moral documents. They reflect our choices, our priorities and they most clearly define our values, as a government and as a Nation.

Today's 5-year budget reconciliation is no different, and that is exactly why the Republicans in the House are worried. They are worried that the American people will see that they have sold out our American values.

So it should come as no surprise that it has taken a week of intraparty fighting in the Republican Conference and one false start to get the bill to the floor. Why? Because they cannot muster the votes in their own party to get this budget passed.

One of my Republican colleagues captured it best in yesterday's CQ Daily when he said, ``If the Republican Party cannot stand for responsible spending, then we stand for nothing at all.''

I agree with him on that point; and as this Republican leadership continues to flail and flounder, there can be only one conclusion drawn from this budget reconciliation, that this majority has come to stand for nothing at all, except for making the rich richer while the rest of America pays the bill.

Because at its core, that is what this budget does, and it is what the budget was intentionally designed to do, cut vital programs and increase the national debt in order to create tax cuts for the rich and the superrich.

I and many of my colleagues in this body, both Republican and Democrat, see nothing at all responsible about this agenda, and neither will the majority of the American people.

This budget reconciliation is not worthy of the ideals of this Nation. If it gets out of the House tonight, this Congress should be ashamed.

Republicans call this the Deficit Reduction Act, when very shortly they will actually increase our already-obscene deficit by another $5 billion by passing the tax cut bill. Republicans will claim on the floor tonight that they are reducing the deficit, but it is a deception.

Do not be fooled by their Enron-style accounting. The majority deliberately chose to separate this bill from its planned package of $56 billion in tax cuts for the rich, more than half of which goes to the superrich, those with incomes over $1 million a year.

Without missing a beat, they are trying to finance the tax cut, as well as the skyrocketing debt, on the backs of the poor, the disabled, the elderly, and the middle class. As a result, working Americans will pay more and get less.

For instance, the budget will cut student aid programs by $14.3 billion, which will make college more expensive, or totally unaffordable, for you and your children and will ensure that literally millions of students will not have the means to achieve a higher education.

Until earlier this evening, they were even planning to cut the school lunch programs for poor children and food stamps for needy families. I would ask, whose values are these? They certainly are not mine, and they are not the values of the hard-working families that I represent, which leads me to a very important point that I need to make here today.

Three months ago, a stunned Nation watched as the national horror that was Hurricane Katrina unfolded on our television screens. No one could believe that this kind of widespread suffering could happen here in America. It was a sobering moment for this Nation. It was the moment that we understood that America had forgotten our moral responsibility to provide for the security and welfare of all our fellow Americans.

I would ask my friends in the majority, in the wake of that realization, how can we cut the very programs that the victims of Hurricane Katrina will depend on to rebuild their lives? So that the richest among us can be even richer?

Unfortunately, this majority sees fit to pull what little these victims have left right out from under their feet.

The result of this budget will be the denial of affordable medical service to those who have nowhere else to turn and the creation of unprecedented health care premiums for those who can least afford them.

Child support services are cut as well, making it harder for working parents to raise their children.

I would ask my fellow citizens, have we learned nothing? Is this the America that you believe in?

Last year alone, the salary of the major corporate CEOs increased by just an average of 30 percent. This year, the oil companies are making the highest profits in history. In fact, over the last 4 months alone, Exxon Mobil has earned just shy of $10 billion in profits, and middle- class Americans at this time can no longer afford to fill their cars with gas.

As the winter approaches, middle-class families in the Northeast are having to choose between paying their skyrocketing heating bills and buying food for their families, and it is only November. All the while, the majority is making it harder for your children to go to college and more expensive to get decent health care for your family. I cannot think of anything less American than this. I cannot think of anything more out of touch with the values of our families.

After all, no responsible parent in America would fail to provide their children food and clothes or an education just so they could afford to buy a boat or take a trip, but that is the moral equivalent of what this majority seeks to do here today; and it is a subversion of every value we hold dear, because as Americans we meet our responsibilities. We take care of our families. We pay our bills, and we should demand the same thing from this Republican government.

That is why I am asking my colleagues to oppose this rule and strongly oppose this bill, because the budget sells out America. I would ask, if we accept this, what will be next? If we say that it is acceptable to slash education, health care, trade protection, senior medical coverage, affordable housing, student loans, foster care and family planning, if we agree to abandon all fiscal responsibility and further increase the already record national debt, just so that we can orchestrate one of the biggest giveaways to the rich, then what will be next?

I know if we band together America can do better than this. We can do better than turning the American Dream into a privilege for the few, instead of a right for all. We must do better, and we need to start today by rejecting this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) to address the fantasyland of this Mickey Mouse budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), the head of the Blue Dogs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) who lost everything in Katrina.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed 3 rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 260, H.R. 1973, and H. Res. 444.

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

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, lately when Americans turn on the news at night, they do not see the government that they recognize. They hear about a war in the Middle East gone wrong, and they see suffering people left to fend for themselves in times of crisis. They learn more and more about a White House under siege, and they are forced to recognize the ugly truth that many of their congressional leaders are entangled in a web of corruption.

While the criticism is justified and the concerns are real, the failures do not define America. It is important to remember that in difficult times, especially in difficult times, we must always keep close, in spite of the challenges at home and abroad, and that no other nation has shined the light of freedom and liberty as brightly as we have here in our country. No nation in history has given so much and asked for so little in return.

That romantic and powerful notion of America as a force for good in a troubled world strikes at the very heart of what it means to be an American. It is that spirit which drives us as a Nation to create a government as good as its people, and today we take one step in helping to restore that feeling in America to embody the ideal of what we hold dear. It is a bill that will help Americans recognize their government once again.

The foreign operations bill funds a number of different foreign assistance agencies and international organizations and, as such, has become both a critical and effective tool for this democracy to spread democratic values and concern for human rights around the world. This is legislation that the American people can take great pride in.

After all, today you will generously give $2.82 billion to some of our noblest callings, such as easing the suffering of those around the world stricken by HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and particularly in Africa. $14 billion that Americans earned this year will be used to give foreign assistance.

These moneys will also help economic development in countries like Israel, Egypt, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Tibet, Colombia, and a number of other Eastern Bloc countries now struggling to become functioning democracies.

It further spends $1.6 billion to help fund many of the well- intentioned international financial institutions which the United States participates in, such as the World Bank, the African Development Fund, and the voluntary U.N. programs such as UNICEF and the U.N. Development Program. These American dollars will assist those struggling societies to build a better life for themselves and their families.

What we often fail to recognize is that foreign operations also help us here at home. The spending in the bill directly benefits our domestic economy. Through our many foreign assistance programs, we export American goods, American services and agricultural products all over the world. That means jobs for American families and a

brighter future for families across the world.

Of course, as with many complex pieces of legislation, I have some concerns with the conference report. Key among them is the Bush administration's insistence on maintaining a global gag rule which prevents critical family planning and health services aid from reaching the U.S. health clinics in underdeveloped and overpopulated countries where abortion counseling services are provided.

Clinics in overpopulated regions are not even allowed to take a public pro-choice position, and the United Nations fund for Population Assistance Program, which provides critical family planning services abroad, has been unfairly targeted by such administration policy.

The UNFPA does not provide abortion services, but the program has been repeatedly denied critical U.S. funding by the Bush administration under the gag rule. As a result, thousands of women in overpopulated developing nations are without the health care and family planning resources each of us takes for granted here in America.

Thankfully, this conference report provides $34 million in funding for this important program. But antichoice House and Senate conferees stripped the language which would protect the funding from the gag rule, and as a result that money will most likely never reach those it was intended to help.

Despite these attempts to politicize the considerable aid this Nation provides abroad, this legislation, on the whole, serves an unqualified good for the people all over the world.

I would submit, though, that through the money we spend here today on foreign ops, we do a better job of spreading universal values of democracy and liberty and freedom than with the hundreds of billions of dollars we have spent on the war in Iraq.

By helping to improve the quality of life for people all over the world, we export the seeds of our American Dream; and by investing in international organizations that open markets, create trade, foster economic development and promote democracy, we create a rising tide that truly lifts all boats.

This is the way America spreads its values most effectively. By serving the world community and investing as both a partner and leader in the global community, we exemplify what it truly means to be American; and as a result, we provide a living example that the America we have long known is still standing tall.

These programs effectively address global challenges at their root source and seek to overcome those challenges the right way, by fostering hope and opportunity, rather than fear and hostility. They are the best ambassadors of the American spirit that we could ever hope to export. After all, what better way is there for us to spread democracy, freedom, and social justice than through the methods that have proven time and time again to actually work.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to support the resolution.

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

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

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, there are two fundamental problems with the bill before us today: What it does and what it does not to do. The bill will not address the very real and very immediate problems millions of Americans are facing every day. People are struggling to be able to afford to drive to work in the morning, and families are wondering how they are going to pay to heat their homes this winter.

But the GAS Act we are considering today will not help them. This energy bill, written in the midst of what is threatening to become the worst energy crisis the country has ever experienced, does nothing to help reduce the price of gasoline.

That is not me talking, the chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), admitted this very fact in the Committee on Rules yesterday. He told us without taking command and control measures, this Congress cannot do anything in the short term to lower gas prices, even if the bill is passed, and he wrote the bill.

I hope every American pays attention to that fact because it is a very

important one. With this bill, the Republican leadership is telling you they know there is a problem, they know you are suffering, but there is nothing they can do about it; but it is not true that they cannot, it is just true that they will not.

There are things that this Congress can do to help our fellow Americans in this time of crisis. There are measures that can be taken that will help reduce the price of gasoline. I know because we debated many of those measures in the Committee on Rules just last night. Amendments that I and my colleagues have proposed, such as eliminating the zone pricing methods employed by gasoline suppliers, would help to mitigate the high gas prices not years down the road but now.

These amendments were rejected by the majority. In fact, of the 18 Democratic amendments offered only one was allowed. We are offering that amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) as a substitute for the bill, but it begs the question, what is the leadership doing with their time and energy if we cannot have a real debate on how to solve these very real problems?

If unconcerned with the present, does the bill at least offer a plan for the future? Does it call for our Nation to raise its energy efficiency standards or for us to aggressively explore alternatives fuels? Amendments that were not allowed to be considered called for those things, but the GAS Act is silent on them.

Since the GAS Act will not address the needs of the people either now or in the years ahead, what will it do? The answer is as simple as it is predictable: It is a give-away to the oil industry. To justify this action, the Republican leadership first invented a problem. America needs to expand its refinery capacity, they said. This premise is dubious at best.

Edward Murphy, a refinery specialist with the American Petroleum Institute, told The Washington Post just yesterday there is not a shortage of capacity in America because capacity is a global issue. His learned opinion was clearly ignored by the authors of the legislation, for having invented their problem, they have already come up with a solution to it: Throw the money at the oil companies, and that will induce them to build more refineries.

The simple truth of the matter is that for three decades, oil companies have not been building refineries because it has not been profitable for them to do so. In almost 30 years, no oil company has applied to build one. By intentionally limiting the supply of available gasoline on the market, they keep its price up. Numerous industry memos available to the public have advocated just such an approach to business.

Furthermore, it is impossible to seriously argue that throwing even more money at the oil companies would change their minds. The American oil industry is already flush with cash, just as the people of the Nation struggle to foot the bill. In fact, since 2001, 4 years ago, the top five oil companies in the United States have recorded combined profits. This is important, Mr. Speaker, they have reported combined profits of $254 billion. That is more money than we have spent on the war in Iraq, and it is split between just five companies.

If we were to open that figure out to the entire industry, it would be even more staggering. This is not the only way in which the Republicans are standing up today for the corporations who need help the least. Under this bill, if an oil company wins a suit against a local government over the right to build a new refinery within that government's jurisdiction, this bill will force the locality to pay for the court costs.

But conversely, if the locality wins the suit, the company under this law does not have to pay a dime. So if Exxon wants to build a refinery in your backyard or near your child's school, and you and the local community want to oppose it, it means you very well may have the pleasure of paying Exxon's legal fees for trying to protect your community. It is an official incentive for corporations to take communities for all they are worth and then some.

Next, what about price gouging? Rather than punish this outrageous, immoral and deeply damaging practice, the bill will place a limit on the maximum daily fine that can be given to an individual guilty of that practice.

Sadly, we are lucky this is all the GAS Act will do because until late last night, it was much worse. The legislation included an unjustified attack on the Clean Air Act and was intent on rolling back 30 years of progress on protecting the quality of air that we and our children breathe. It seems that being good corporate citizens and mandating that companies not pump their waste into the air we breathe and the water we drink was just too much for this leadership to ask of their energy industry. Apparently, they would rather have Americans pay for corporate profits with their health.

Thankfully, the majority was shamed into removing such a provision from the bill as its own rank and file objected to this basic assault on the health of our country.

But what we are left with is still deeply troubling. It is legislation that is not responsive to the welfare of the people and does not offer real solutions for the future. It is the kind of legislation produced by a Congress that has forgotten who it works for, a Congress more concerned with corporate lobbyists who write bills than concerned with the working people who struggle to deal with their consequences. It is the product of congressional leadership out of touch with the citizens of this country.

This bill is a living, breathing example of the culture of corruption which has plagued this body and ails this Nation, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, this bill, and to support the Democratic alternative.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for the purpose of asking a question to the previous speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I intend to withdraw this amendment and ask to engage the chairman in a colloquy.

My amendment would require law enforcement authorities to be able to file reports and collect evidence when a violent crime has been committed during an emergency, even if the crime occurred outside their jurisdiction.

It would also require the Office for Victims of Crime working with national, State, and local authorities and in collaboration with other Federal agencies to develop and implement a plan that allows law enforcement officials to gather evidence of a crime during times of emergency and inform victims and law enforcement officials about these available mechanisms.

The intent of the amendment is to put systems in place to assist victims and law enforcement officials to better respond to crimes committed against vulnerable people during times of national crisis.

The chaos following Hurricane Katrina produced an especially fertile breeding ground for violent crime. At evacuation centers such as the Superdome and convention center, and on the streets of New Orleans, there were unofficial reports of sexual assaults, armed robbery, murder, child molestation, and looting.

While the true number of crimes that took place is unclear, we do know that many will not be subject to criminal prosecution because the victims and witnesses had no place to report the crime.

The problem was compounded by the fact that once evacuated they were no longer located in the jurisdiction where the crimes occurred. And most local law enforcement officials do not have the authority to take the crime report if it occurred outside their jurisdiction.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I thank the chairman for this colloquy, and I look forward to working with him in conference.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would implement legislation that expands the current Federal criminal ban on fake police badges to include the uniforms, identification, and all other insignia of public officials while preserving language in the bill that cracks down on the growing problem of counterfeit police badges.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to introduce the Military Victims of Violence Confidentiality Act. This important piece of legislation will ensure greater protections for women in the military who are victims of violence by keeping their medical and counseling records confidential and allowing them to obtain valuable treatment services without further victimization.

The military should be at the forefront of prosecuting assailants and setting the highest standards for treatment of service women victimized by sexual assault and domestic violence. Yet, our Armed Forces have failed to enforce the most basic protections to ensure these victims can receive necessary counseling and treatment. Counseling and treatment is essential to begin the healing process, and service members should be able to seek access to these services without fear of exposure or public humiliation.

Recently, the issue of protecting confidential communications was brought to light in the case of U.S. v Harding. Ms. Jessica Brakey was allegedly sexually assaulted in 2000 while serving as a cadet at the Air Force Academy. Following the assault, Ms. Brakey sought counseling by victim advocate, Ms. Jennifer Bier--a civilian who was contracted by the military. Under Colorado's rape shield law, the disclosure of a victim's counseling records is prohibited. However, the military court issued an extremely broad subpoena for Ms. Brakey's treatment records with Ms. Bier, as well as her complete 10-year medical history. When Ms. Bier refused to turn over these records to the military court, the judge suspended the case against the alleged assailant.

Unfortunately, this precedent setting case sent a clear message to the thousands of women in the military who are victims of sexual assault and domestic violence each year that the Armed Forces will not protect you. It is critical that we take appropriate action to ensure that victims of these crimes are able to seek treatment and counseling without repercussion.

Although this bill is supported by many organizations that work to prevent and respond to sexual assault and domestic violence, the need for this legislation is also recognized within the military. The Department of Defense's, DoD, own Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Academies issued a report in June 2005 which recommended that ``Congress should create a statutory privilege protecting communications made by victims of sexual assault to health care providers and victim advocates. This privilege should extend to both medical health care providers and to those victim advocates designated and trained to perform that duty in a manner prescribed by DoD regulation.''

This is exactly what my bill will do. The Military Victims of Violence Confidentiality Act will establish comprehensive confidentiality protocols to protect the rights of victims within military law. Under my bill, communications made to secure advice, counseling, treatment or assistance concerning a victim's mental, physical, or emotional state will remain confidential. Moreover, a victim will be able to refuse to disclose and prevent any other person from disclosing a confidential communication.

If a victim's doctor and advocate cannot protect the confidentiality of treatment sessions, sexual assault and domestic violence victims will be unlikely to seek essential care for fear of stigma, public embarrassment, or threats to their career. Consequently, the military will continue to lose valuable women soldiers. These women put themselves in harm's way to protect us and our Nation from threats at home and abroad. The military should work as hard to ensure they are protected when dealing with a horrible tragedy.

Do not allow our brave service members to be victimized twice, once by their perpetrator and then again by the lack of appropriate, compassionate, and confidential care. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to join me in cosponsoring the Military Victims of Violence Confidentiality Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, President Bush said that he took responsibility for the recent failure of the Federal Government to fulfill its ultimate duty of saving the lives of its own people within its own borders.

But what does responsibility mean? If it means anything, it means the sincere concern for what has happened under his watch. It means stopping at nothing to find out why a Nation led by officials who claim to care about keeping Americans safe presided over a recovery effort which left behind so many innocent men, women and children as they were crying out for help. It means caring about the truth, and it means putting people before politics.

Today, this Congress has to offer the American people its own definition of responsibility. The appalling aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, which swept over citizens from Louisiana to Alabama to Mississippi, was the product of a combination of failures: failures of planning, failures of execution, failures of accountability. It is the responsibility of this body to examine why our Federal Government was behind so many of those failures.

There is only one way to do this and only one path the public will respect, only one route to producing real answers to real questions which the American people will trust. We need a 9/11-type commission for Hurricane Katrina. The 9/11 Commission was our government's response to the tragedy of September 11, 2001; and after an exhaustive study, it produced a report that was trusted by the American people and by the members of our government.

This trust was earned. The 9/11 Commission was not beholden to any interests besides those of its own integrity and the good of the country.

This honorable response to the tragedy of September 11 puts to shame what has been proposed today in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. What was perhaps our Federal Government's greatest failure to date to defend life at home is being met with a failure of leadership and openness and honesty in this Chamber today.

The Republican leadership of the House and Senate has called for the creation of an overtly partisan congressional committee to investigate the government's pre- and post-Katrina actions. They have specified that it would be a committee appointed by Republicans, with a Republican majority. They would give Republicans control of every aspect of the proceedings, and they alone would control who would be subpoenaed. They alone would control which documents could be examined, and they alone would control the scope of the investigation. They would have the power to take the investigation in any direction they chose, with no checks, no balances and no incentives to get real answers. They have nominated the fox to guard the hen house.

Mr. Speaker, I do not object to such a plan because Republicans would be in control as opposed to Democrats. I object to it because it is the Republican Party which controls the levers of government and, as such, manages FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security and every other Federal institution which must be examined.

The conflicts of interest that are present are so obvious that it is incredible anyone would deny them, but the members of the majority do not only do this, but they put forth one justification after another for their plan, each one less convincing than the one before it. They tell us that the structure of the committee is based on precedent and cite the bipartisan commission which investigated the Iran-Contra affair as evidence of this. Never mind that in that situation a Republican President was being investigated by a Democratically controlled committee, eliminating the political pressure to sweep truths under the rug.

Last night, in the Committee on Rules, they told us, rather incredibly, that nobody is better to evaluate in this body than its own Members. But the American people do not believe that. After all, accountability has not exactly been the hallmark of this Republican leadership.

This majority did not investigate those who concealed the Department of Health and Human Services' real estimate of how much the 2003 Medicare legislation that we passed would cost. It did not investigate the role of top Bush campaign contributors in writing Vice President Cheney's energy plan. It did not investigate the Valerie Plame scandal. It did not investigate what led to our dehumanizing and shameful treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and Abu Ghraib in Iraq.

Why did these investigations not take place? The majority has no answer, except promising to us that this time things will be different.

Last night, the chairman did offer his personal assurances again and again that the commission would allow the Democrats to ask questions. It probably never occurred to us that we would not have been able to do that, but this is ultimately a promise that he cannot keep.

Only allowing a hand-picked group of witnesses to be questioned prejudices the investigation before it has even begun. If a true interest in a fair, open, thorough and independent investigation runs that deep with my Republican colleagues, why not just create the independent panel?

That is the central question I have for my colleagues today. Why will you not support the creation of an independent commission? What are you afraid of? The American people clearly had faith in the 9/11 Commission model. Why do you not?

A commission controlled by the politicians of one party charged with investigating itself will face tremendous internal political pressure to eliminate embarrassing truths from the public eye, to defer blame and to hide facts. That is the fundamental truth, because we all know how politics works.

Politics, by the way, is exactly why those recent scandals I just mentioned were never investigated.

Is the creation of an independent commission an abdication of our responsibility? Absolutely not. In fact, exactly the opposite is the case. If we intentionally create a partisan, political investigation, that, Mr. Speaker, would be an abdication of our responsibilities.

The American people need answers, they need true accountability, and the only way that we can live up to our responsibility and give them answers they can trust is through an independent commission.

The public already overwhelmingly supports the creation of such an independent commission by 76 percent, and over 160 Members of this body, representing more than 100 million of our Nation's people, have already supported the creation of such a commission through a substitute resolution by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my colleague. Its findings would not just help us to prevent another terrible disaster from taking place, they would also help our government to regain its credibility in the eyes of the public.

A Newsweek poll from earlier this week found that fully 57 percent of the general population has doubts that government officials will respond well the next time a disaster strikes. Those doubts would not be reduced until people believe that a real, independent investigation of Katrina has taken place. But the findings of the congressional commission being proposed by the Republican leadership will be forever tainted by the pervasive public belief that details were overlooked or truths hidden for political reasons. We have plenty of evidence to believe that.

Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, our government missed an opportunity to rise to the occasion when it was sorely needed. The consequences were worse than we could have imagined. We cannot afford to miss another opportunity here today, and we object to the fact

that this resolution is titled ``bipartisan commission'' because, truly, there will not be one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, if an independent commission is an abdication of our authority, why did we all vote unanimously to establish the 9/11 Commission?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member on the Committee on Homeland Security.

(Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

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

I ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so I can amend the rule and allow the House, instead of H. Res. 437, to consider H.R. 3764, which creates an independent 9/11-like commission to investigate the events involving Hurricane Katrina. I offered this amendment in the Committee on Rules last night, but, sadly, it was rejected.

I want to reiterate that 76 percent of Americans in a recent ABC/ Washington Post poll preferred that a commission of outside experts, similar in nature to the 9/11 Commission, and, in fact, I wish for the same people, to investigate the devastating events surrounding Hurricane Katrina, and that is not just Democrats that were asked. Sixty-four percent of Republicans in that same poll said they, too, supported an independent commission to investigate the government's preparedness and response effort.

Please vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can authorize an independent commission that will not be influenced by partisan politics instead of a Republican-controlled committee investigating the failings of a Republican-controlled administration. Too many people's lives were turned upside down because of the failure of governmental officials to adequately prepare for and respond to the impact of Hurricane Katrina. Let us not fail them a second time.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Madam Speaker, high talk from the majority follows the abysmally low performance of the Federal organizations that they oversee and that our people trusted to protect them in their hour of need. And today we are told it is our constitutional duty to find out why the government was so unable to protect life here at home during and after Hurricane Katrina.

I would like to remind our friends on the other side that one of our constitutional duties as representatives of the will of the people is actually to represent the will of the people of the United States. So let the record show that as of today, according to the Republican leadership, the will of the American people no longer matters.

The fact that 76 percent of the citizens of our Nation want an independent commission to investigate the Katrina disaster does not mean a thing. The fact that over 60 percent of Republicans want an independent commission does not register with them either. Apparently, the people of the United States are to be patted on the head and told, Do not worry. We will find out what happened here.

The fact that thousands of men, women, and children are dead; the fact that hundreds of thousands more have become evacuees in the richest country in the world shows that we do not have everything under control. The fact that we cut corners and underfunded those responsible for maintaining the levees that protected New Orleans by tens of millions of dollars only so that later thousands of lives would be needlessly lost, tens of billions of dollars would have to be spent cleaning up the mess left behind shows that we do not have anything under control. That is really a case of being penny wise and pound foolish.

And now, to show how seriously it takes its constitutional responsibility to get the government back on track, to show that it is not interested solely in rhetoric but also in results, the majority has seen fit to create a partisan political body, which we all know will care more about the political survival of the leadership than the actual survival of the people.

How do we know this? Because the committee put forth by the majority is intentionally designed to be partisan. It has a Republican majority. It includes subpoena power controlled by the majority. And the scope of the investigation will be the whim of the

leadership of the majority. The idea of having a truly bipartisan commission to investigate the tragedy was never seriously entertained. If it was, joint subpoena power would exist in this bill, as would joint control of the committee's operation, scope, and direction.

Instead of this, platitudes promising cooperation and shared power have filled this hall, leaving no room for a resolution calling for either a truly bipartisan committee or, what would be infinitely better, the creation of an independent commission which will actually eliminate politics from what will otherwise be an incredibly politicized investigation.

All of this is obvious to nearly every observer, and yet the leadership tells the Democrats if we are objecting to their Republican- first agenda, we, the Members of the minority, are being partisan. Apparently, in the wake of disaster comes hypocrisy.

Along with its assurances of a fair and honest investigation of the failures of the Federal response to Katrina, assurances which are the product of wishful thinking as opposed to a sincere review of recent history, the majority puts forth empty arguments in favor of this bill.

We created the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA, so only we can investigate it, they argue. That means that this leadership also helped to create the systemic problems which caused DHS and FEMA to fail. What exactly is their incentive to publicize their lack of vision and errors in judgment?

As the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) said earlier today, it would be like nominating Enron to investigate stock fraud because they helped to perfect it, and it would not make much sense.

But the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) told us this morning that none of this matters. It would be absurd, he says, to think that any Member of this body would not want to get to the bottom of the failures. Madam Speaker, more absurd things happen in this House all the time. For example, some might say that appointing a man with absolutely no experience in emergency management to head the Federal Emergency Management Association was absurd, and yet nobody challenged that appointment until it was far too late.

Madam Speaker, I do not mean to say that the chairman and his colleagues do not care about improving our national preparedness for a future emergency, because I know that they do; but the fact that political pressures have in the past and will again in the future distort and in some cases destroy investigations of government failings when the investigations are carried out by us, this is so obvious that it should be beyond question.

The only real question left before us today is why does the majority find an independent commission to investigate the tragedy so objectionable? Would any of them like to claim here that the 9/11 Commission was a mistake? They all voted for it. Should we reject the findings of that body? Should we here and now state that because it was not run by those managing the government on September 11, 2001, for that reason, what it discovered was illegitimate? Is there anyone here who would like to state for the record that the creation of the 9/11 Commission was an abdication and denial of our constitutional responsibility as Members of the House of Representatives?

Not one Member of this body would make such a claim, and yet the majority makes this claim about the creation of a similar body to investigate what happened on the gulf coast.

There is only one explanation for it. Dare I say this absurd stance is control. The majority wants to keep the investigation under its control so it can make sure that the answers that the committee produces toe the party line. Thinking about crass political considerations when Americans are dying and are homeless, that, and only that, is an abdication of our constitutional responsibilities as Members of this Congress.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), a man who knows of what he speaks.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a member of the Homeland Security Committee and ranking member of the First Responder's Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to celebrate the accomplishments of our foremothers by introducing the National Women's Rights History Project Act.

In contemporary American society, women enjoy rights to education, wages, and property ownership. However, it was only 85 years ago that women were finally granted the right to vote. Yet few Americans have any real knowledge of the long struggle to obtain the rights that we take for granted today. The National Women's Rights History Project Act will provide Americans with the opportunity to learn more about the female heroes that fought tirelessly to secure these rights.

On July 19, 1848, a group of activists including Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and Mary Ann M'Clintock convened the first Women's Rights Convention at Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls, New York. The Women's Rights Convention heralded the beginning of a 72-year struggle for suffrage. During the Convention, 68 women and 32 men signed the Declaration of Sentiments, which was drafted to mirror the Declaration of Independence and set out such radical notions like women's freedom to own property, receive an education, and file for divorce.

In 1851, a second women's rights convention was held in Akron, Ohio. It was at this convention that Sojourner Truth delivered the famous ``Ain't I A Woman?'' speech. The woman's suffrage movement, however, was not solely limited to organized conventions. Under the leadership of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony the National American Women Suffrage Association (NAWSA) was formed.

Susan B. Anthony also established the Equal Rights Association to refute ideas that women were inferior to men and fight for a woman's right to vote. In 1872, Susan B. Anthony and other women voted in the presidential election, and were arrested and fined for illegal voting. At her trial, which attracted nationwide attention, Susan B. Anthony made a speech that ended with the slogan ``Resistance to Tyranny Is Obedience to God''. She also campaigned for the rights of women to own property, to keep their own earnings, and to have custody of their children. I am especially proud that it was in Rochester, New York that Susan B. Anthony fought so hard for the rights that women throughout this country rely on today. In fact, in 1900, she persuaded the University of Rochester, in my Congressional District, to admit women.

In the early 1900s, a new generation of leaders joined the women's suffrage movement, including Carrie Chapman Catt, Maud Wood Park, Lucy Burns, Alice Paul, and Harriot E. Blatch. During this era, the Women's Rights movement increased its momentum by organizing marches, pickets and other protests. Suffragette Alice Paul and other activists began chaining themselves to the White House fence and participating in hunger strikes to gain the attention of Congress.

The struggle for women's suffrage was not easy, and oftentimes it was made more difficult as a consequence of public misinformation and fear. Consider these remarks which, in 1912, appeared in the New York Times under the title, ``The Uprising of Women'':

``The vote will secure to woman no new privilege that she either deserves or requires . . . Women will get the vote and play havoc with it for themselves and society, if men are not wise and firm enough and it may as well be said, masculine enough, to prevent them.''

If by playing havoc, the New York Times meant becoming the single most sought after voting block in the country that often determines the outcome of elections, I guess they were right.

Because of the persistent dedication of Susan B. Anthony and other remarkable leaders, women persevered. Although Susan B. Anthony was not alive to see it, the efforts of the women's rights struggle came to fruition when the Nineteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, giving women the right to vote, was finally passed by Congress on June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920.

We have clearly come a long way in 85 years--and we still have a long way to go. We must work to continue the momentum that started in Seneca Falls, by not only ensuring that all women vote, but that they do so with an understanding of the long fight to obtain this right and with a sense of responsibility to do their part in the struggle for women's equality.

To honor these important women, the National Women's Rights History Project Act will establish a trail route linking sites significant to the struggle for women's suffrage and civil rights. It also will expand the current National Register travel itinerary website, ``Places Where Women Made History,'' to include additional historic sites. Finally, this bill will require the Department of Interior to establish a partnership-based network to offer financial and technical assistance for interpretive and educational program development of national women's rights history.

The women of this country have fought tirelessly to achieve equitable rights for our grandmothers, our mothers, ourselves, and our daughters. It is my hope that this bill will provide Americans with the opportunity to learn more about the female leaders who struggled to secure these rights.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to join me in celebrating their accomplishments by National Women's Rights History Project Act today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the vitally important bill before us today will help to begin the process of rebuilding one of our Nation's greatest regions and the lives of the people within it. It comes to us in the wake of what was last week nothing short of a catastrophic failure of responsible and competent governance. And not surprisingly, the way in which we are going about passing this bill is itself a tremendous failure, the most recent in a seemingly endless line.

It is a failure, Mr. Speaker, because almost no time has been provided for discussion of this bill and because no amendments have been permitted to be introduced. This body is about to spend more than $50 billion and all the minority wants is to spend it wisely. All we want is to give the Members a chance to know where the appropriations are going and to actually give Representatives from the affected States a chance to make suggestions to the legislation before it becomes law. We want to ensure that that this body will address as quickly as possible the tremendous errors which have been made by our Federal Government in its response to Hurricane Katrina.

Last night in the Rules Committee we implored the majority to allow even a mere 2 hours of debate and to allow Members to offer amendments which would make this a better, more effective bill. Their response? Sorry, America, we don't have time for that. We don't have time? After 5 weeks of recess in the Chamber, 40 minutes is all the time the United States Congress has to give? It took our government 5 days to even respond to the crisis, and we cannot give more than 40 minutes here today to craft a bill that will provide relief and help rebuild an entire region of our country? We tried to break through, but they simply would not hear us.

They would not hear us because they do not want to be challenged or blamed or to deal with alternative solutions. It simply wants us to accept its leadership, once again quietly and without comment. But what the American people want is reform. They want change. They want us to work hard here in the House and try to fix this mess. And so we will not keep quiet because our Nation is demanding that we speak out.

This government failed the people of Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama. This government, one so willing to tell other nations and peoples how they should live their lives and organize their states, has revealed itself to be unable to save the lives of its own citizens and to protect its own States when they are in need. Indeed, that neglect has cost lives. It was unable to meet its most basic responsibility and the ultimate reason for its very existence, the defense of life within its own borders.

It is obvious that the current administration and departments in its care did not have a plan sufficient to handle the kind of crisis they were confronted with. Disturbingly, however, they were armed with a plan to shift blame away from themselves. And so a few days ago, Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff tried to blame local government officials for what had happened. Such an argument is embarrassing and shameful because this Federal Government has not been adequately supporting those State and local officials in the years that led up to last week, and it did not give them what they needed after the hurricane struck. Instead, it neglected them and then kicked them when they were down.

This kind of situation is exactly why FEMA exists. That is why it is called Federal emergency management. That is exactly why it was part of the Homeland Security Department. The $90 billion that has been spent on the Homeland Security agency has left us more vulnerable than ever. If there is an American that feels safer after the expenditure of that $90 billion, I would like to meet them. Do they feel safer? Absolutely not.

There was a tremendous outpouring of help coming from locations around America and the world during the first days of this crisis, but FEMA and Homeland Security were unable to use it constructively. One thousand firefighters sent from Utah and nearby areas were asked to do community relations work, handing out leaflets, instead of putting out blazes and rescuing children. Aid and rescue technology offered by more than 90 countries has often been unable to penetrate FEMA's bureaucracy and has yet to be used. Wal-Mart sent three trailer trucks of water to New Orleans early last week but were turned back by FEMA officials. They said they did not need it. To people who had no water.

FEMA would not let a nearby Coast Guard ship distribute 1,000 gallons of fuel to people on land. And while that particular ship was able to take on patients and treat them and give them medical care, they were awaiting the orders that never came. FEMA cut the emergency communication lines that authorities in Jefferson Parish were using, for who knows what reason. The president of Jefferson Parish had the sheriff's department replace those lines and put them under armed guards to protect them from? FEMA.

Mr. Speaker, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The tales of failure go on and on and on. Failure before Katrina, failure during Katrina and failure after Katrina.

Ours is a government which has spent much of the last 4 years focused on national security. Ours is government which has spent tens of billions of dollars theoretically preparing our country for impending disasters. Ours is a government which has justified its hold on power by warning us that only this administration's leaders could keep America safe. But the administration was not up to the task. Nor was FEMA. Nor was the Department of Homeland Security. Our government failed. Until every aspect of our emergency response system is analyzed and reevaluated, this government will have a hard time finding its credibility in the debris.

I suggest that we should start trying to regain that credibility right here, today. This administration and this Congress and the agencies of this Federal bureaucracy concerned with emergencies like Katrina have a great debt to pay back to the American people. This Congress owes them more than a mere 40 minutes of consideration of the Nation's response to what is quickly becoming the worst national disaster in American history. We owe them more than to silence the voice of the American people on this floor. We owe America more than to intentionally prevent this body from crafting the very best hurricane recovery legislation that it can by refusing to allow any amendments to even be considered and by shutting out almost half of this House from any consideration of this bill.

And because this leadership does not want to lose a vote or have their ideas challenged or suffer the indignity of disagreement in the people's House, we will not be able to do a thorough discussion today. It is the very mentality, the arrogance of this government, its unwillingness to allow accountability to be brought into the process which they have reduced to a game. They call it the blame game. It is not a game, Mr. Speaker; it is a tragedy. We cannot afford to go on like this, not even for one more day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Rules Committee.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security and a victim himself.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that we would be happy to come together if the Republicans will just tell the Democrats where the meeting is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If it is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider an amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to the emergency supplemental bill to reestablish the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a freestanding independent agency.

An amendment would do a number of important things to fix the problems with FEMA. It will reestablish it as an independent agency, allow the director to report directly to the President, require the director to have emergency response experience, limit the director's term to 5 years, and establish a deputy director for disaster relief.

Mr. Speaker, I know all of us in the House were truly stunned and horrified by the terrible and heartbreaking scenes from New Orleans and the other Gulf Coast States that unfolded last week. And to make matters even worse was the failure on the part of the White House and the lead Federal agency on disaster relief to take immediate action that might have saved hundreds of lives and alleviated the immense and immeasurable suffering that was inflicted on so many of our fellow Americans.

Members should be aware that a ``no'' vote will not in any way prevent the House from considering and approving the desperately needed supplemental for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. We all agree hurricane relief must happen immediately and it will happen today, but a ``no'' vote will let us debate the serious and urgent matter regarding FEMA's future ability to respond immediately and responsibly to any disaster that occurs on our soil so that we may never see such a thing again as we have witnessed with FEMA's work.

I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.