Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the Pentagon announced today that 2,000 American servicemen and women have been killed in Iraq. On this same day, Iraqi officials announced that Iraq's constitution was approved with nearly 80 percent of the vote.

This progress on the political front is in stark contrast with the failure to set clear benchmarks on the security front.

As the casualties continue to mount and rise, the Bush administration continues to refuse to lay out a strategy for a timeline for bringing our troops home.

On this day of mourning, my thoughts and prayers are with the families who have lost their loved ones and with all of our soldiers still serving in Iraq today.

On this day of mixed messages, I renew our call to the administration to outline their plans for bringing our troops home. The best way to honor our soldiers is to find a safe and responsible exit for them from a sovereign and independent Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, the gun industry would like to see this legislation passed today so that they can protect their profits. But I would like to talk about the real people who will be affected by this bill, people who have suffered enough.

I would like to talk about a 26-year-old father of two from my home State of Massachusetts whose death was a direct result of negligence by a gun maker. Five years ago, Danny Guzman was leaving a holiday party to go home to see his daughters, Tammy and Selena, but he never made it home. Standing on the street, Danny Guzman was struck down by a stray bullet fired from a 9 millimeter handgun. That gun that killed him made its way into criminal hands because a gun factory employee had stolen it from his workplace and sold it on the black market.

But this is no isolated incident. In that same year, over 25,000 guns hit America's streets after being stolen or lost under suspicious circumstances. And, according to court testimony in the case, stealing guns happened at the plant ``all the time,'' and it happened all the time because no system was in place to prevent theft. It happened all the time because the gun company was negligent. And, in this particular case, the employee got his job at the gun plant despite a criminal record that included a history of drug abuse, theft, and violence.

Mr. Speaker, when big tobacco lied about the dangers of smoking, we held them accountable. When the pharmaceutical industry markets dangerous drugs, we hold them accountable, too. But what do we do when gun makers and dealers ruin countless lives through their reckless behavior, through their negligence? This House considers legislation to provide them special protection and to deny gun victims and their families the justice they deserve.

If this bill becomes law, the Guzman family in Massachusetts, in addition to losing a husband, a son, and a father, will lose their right of legal recourse and justice. It would be an unspeakably cruel case of justice denied.

I strongly oppose this legislation and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Businesses in the firearms industry do not deserve special treatment under the law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor National Hispanic Heritage Month. Our nation's greatest strength is its heritage of diversity and this month is a tribute to the more than 35 million Americans who identify themselves as Hispanic or Latino and the many millions who came before them. We thank them for their contributions to America, from protecting the nation from its enemies, to representing it abroad and strengthening it from within.

Hispanic Americans have flourished in every field, from politics to business to academia to entertainment. From the first Hispanic U.S. Congressman in 1822 to David Farragut, the first four-star Navy Admiral and famed Civil War leader, Hispanic Americans have played an integral part of our nation's history at every turn.

That history of service and patriotism continues today with the more than 200,000 Hispanics currently in the Armed Services. We thank them, for every time they don the uniform they do it with honor. They have fought proudly and bravely and 41 men of Hispanic heritage have been honored with the Congressional Medal of Honor. There are countless more that go unthanked. They face danger every day in our streets and in our homes as first responders; as policemen, as firemen and as paramedics.

I was proud to join the Immigration Sub-Committee of the House Judiciary Committee earlier this year. I will continue to fight for the

rights of America's newest residents as they make the transition to citizens. America's immigrants become many of its most active participants in civic life and contributors to our vibrant culture.

Over the last decade, I have been privileged to work with the Latino community, particularly on immigration issues and voter registration with Isabel Melendez. Her hard work organizing the Latino community to register and to get out and vote exemplifies the political activism thriving in the community.

I am proud to say that Latinos in Lawrence are continually achieving a higher socioeconomic status and improving the quality of life for their families. As a natural result, more and more Latino candidates are running for, and being elected to, public office. In my own district, I am proud to honor Julia Silverio who became the first Dominican woman to win public office in New England when she was elected to the Lawrence City Council. She is a member of the Dominican American National Roundtable will receive its Leadership Award tomorrow on October 8th.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in celebrating National Hispanic Heritage Month. It honors a powerful and patriotic heritage that has made our nation stronger through its inclusion. Hispanic Americans have profoundly changed and improved this nation in every facet, from the international to the national to the local level. All Americans owe this group their gratitude and honor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to Mary Rita Downing Gendron. Mary passed away on Wednesday, September 14, 2005, at the age of 84. Mary was born in Lowell on December 24, 1920, the daughter of John and Rose Purcell Downing. For 60 years, she was the beloved wife of the late Arthur W. Gendron, a former Lowell firefighter.

Mrs. Gendron is survived by three daughters and two sons, Geraldine R. McSwiggin and her husband Jack of Dracut, William A. Gendron and his wife Paula Skrekas, Patricia A. Tobin and her husband Kevin, Christine G. Florence and her husband William, and Stephen J. Gendron and his wife Katherine Kijanka, all of Lowell, as well as a son-in-law Bruce G. Johnson, also of Lowell.

She is also survived by four sisters-in-law, and three brothers-in- law, Barbara McSweeney Downing, formerly of Lowell, Leo and Terry Gendron, Francis and Jane Gendron, both of Lowell, and Gerald and Terry Gendron of Salem, NH.

She was the mother of the late Mary R. Gendron Johnson, sister of the late John W. Downing, Harold Downing, Christine Downing Lisien, Gertrude and Madeline Downing, and the sister-in-law of the late Elizabeth Armstrong Downing, Walter Lisien, Gladys Gendron Lowell, Leighton, Leonard and Raymond Gendron.

Mrs. Gendron leaves 20 grandchildren, Meredith Johnson Wall, Kirsten Johnson, Katie McSwiggin Cochran, Laurie McSwiggin Tirado, Maureen and John McSwiggin, Daniel, Tricia and Kristina Tobin, William, Maggie and Patrick Florence, Kathleen, Elena, William, Paul, Stephen, Matthew, Michael and Christopher Gendron, 3 great-grand-children, Julia and Hannah Cochran and Alex Tirado, and many nieces and nephews.

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Congressional Record the eloquent words that Steven Gendron, Mary's son, wrote and delivered at his Mother's funeral.

It is an honor for me to stand here today and share the

collective reflections of my brother and sisters, Gerry,

Billy, Patty, Chrissie and me, about the life of my Mom. I

have to tell you, that everyone of us wanted to do this, but,

I'm the baby, and I usually get my way.

I stopped into a photo store a couple days ago to get

copies of some pictures that we wanted to display at the wake

and funeral. I explained to the saleswoman what I wanted, and

I didn't notice an old acquaintance of mine standing at the

counter just a few feet away. When the sales lady stepped

away, the old friend surprised me by saying ``Are you having

a celebration Steve?'' ``Oh Hi,'' I replied, ``No, actually,

my Mom passed away yesterday and we just wanted to display

some pictures at the wake.'' Now the woman felt bad and said,

``oh, I'm sorry to hear that.'' The sales lady returned and I

finished my business, and as I walked out of the store, the

old friend said, ``Steve, you know, it will be a celebration

. . . a celebration of her life.'' I was touched by the

comment and I said, ``you're right, it will be a

celebration.''

So, we're happy to see all of you here today, to help us

celebrate the life of a woman we all loved.

And Mary loved to celebrate. She loved to dance, and she

loved to sing. We can all remember her singing around the

house all the time. I have a vivid memory of her when I was

about 6 years old, one of those memories that is so clear

it's like a little video clip in you're mind. She's walking

across the kitchen, while I'm eating breakfast, snapping her

fingers and singing, ``Nothing could be finer, than to be in

Carolina, in the morning''. I don't think she'd ever been to

Carolina, except maybe for a stopover on the drive down to

Florida, but she liked the song, singing it made her happy,

and it made us happy too.

And she loved to be with her friends. Back in the old days

there were the Bon Ton Girls, a group of high school friends

that would hang together and go to dances. I saw a few of the

Bon Ton Girls last night, and one of them told me how they

would run their own fundraisers, to rent a place at the beach

during the summer. Kay McCabe can give you more details on

that little group if you're interested.

And then there was the ``Club,'' the group of Gendron

sisters-in-law, and a few honorary sisters-in-law, that would

get together on Saturday evenings when the boys were off

playing cards. We can remember them meeting in the

``parlor'', or front room, of our house on A Street. They'd

bring their knitting, they'd sit, they'd chat and laugh up a

storm.

And then later in life there was the Clark Rd. knitting

group that would get together for much the same type of thing

on a regular basis.

Mom was completely, and totally dedicated to her family.

She could teach our politicians a few things about family

values. And she probably learned those from her own close

family growing up. Her brother Johnny was like a father to

her, and Uncle John and Aunt Sis were like grandparents to

us. She adored her sister Tina, and her brother Harold meant

the world to her.

In our family, she was our foundation; always in the

background--always there to support us. Growing up my brother

and sisters and I never really worried about anything. There

was no problem that seemed too big, no hurdle that seemed

too high, nothing we couldn't accomplish. Because our

foundation was strong--Mom was always there to support and

encourage us.

Mom taught us many things. She taught us about love and

commitment through her relationship with my father. For 60

years most everybody knew her as half of either Mary &

Arthur, Ma & Dad or Nana & Grampy. It was a true lifelong

love story. She waited for him while he fought the Nazis, and

when he returned there was no turning back. Oh, don't get me

wrong, they had trying moments like any couple, but in the

end they cared more about each other than they did

themselves. And there was never any question that they would

be together to the end.

Mary was truly a professional wife and mother. She had all

the qualifications:

Cooking: Mary would best be termed an Irish Cook. There was

never a recipe book in our house, yet there was always a stew

or spaghetti in the big silver pot on the stove, and if a few

extra people showed up, well a can of soup and a bottle of

ketchup could stretch it a long way.

And you know, Arthur was one of those guys who expected

dinner to be on the table and hot when he arrived home from

work. In the morning, coffee was to be percolated, never that

instant stuff. Well, Billy tells the story of how one morning

he caught Mom reaching deep into the cabinet for a bottle of

Taster's Choice. She gave him a wink and a ``Shhh'' as she

poured it into the coffee pot. That morning, and every

morning, Arthur thought the coffee was delicious. I wonder

how many times it really was fresh brewed.

Sewing: Mom's sewing machine was always humming, but her

sewing skills mirrored her cooking skills. She was no

seamstress but had functional sewing skills. She was good at

modifying what she had, Gerry remembers her hemming and

altering everything, and it wasn't uncommon for this year's

new dress to be an updated version of last year's.

Ironing: You haven't worn a shirt until you've worn one

ironed by Mary Gendron. Never a wrinkle. She even put starch

in your underwear. Except there was the time that she burned

an iron-sized hole into Chrissie's bridesmaid dress, 2 days

before Patty's wedding. Fortunately her functional sewing

skills kicked in and she patched it up, and nobody knew the

difference.

Home Decorating: With the change of seasons Mom would make

new curtains, rearrange the furniture or paint the room. It

used to drive my Father crazy because she'd usually end up

painting the windows shut.

Shopping: Mom was the ultimate bargain hunter. She loved

nothing more to spend the days with Mrs. Barrows or one of

her other ``chums'', as she would call them, out sifting

through the bins in search of a good deal. She was always

in search of something nice for her kids or grandkids at a

price that fit her budget.

Typing: My mother was actually an accomplished secretary.

She could type like the wind and she was an excellent

speller. She never obtained a college degree, but based on

the number of college papers she proofread and typed, we

figure she's earned at least six.

Mom was so proud of her kids and her grandkids. She'd beam

when she told you that we were all college educated and

successful in our careers. And her pride only increased as

our own families began to blossom. She treated her daughters

and sons-in-law as if they were her own, and she always made

time for each of her 20 grandchildren and 3 great-

grandchildren, making each one of them feel special.

As you all know, for the last 10 years or so, my mother has

been a victim of Alzheimer's Disease. It is a terrible

disease that my father once termed a ``living death''. At

first,

the symptoms she exhibited are those that most people are

familiar with, such as forgetfulness and disorientation. But

as the symptoms become more debilitating, she became harder

and harder to care for. Thank God for my Dad, who truly rose

to the occasion, keeping her at home much longer than would

normally have been possible. But ultimately, we were forced

to provide professional care for her.

This is when we found Life Care Center of the Merrimack

Valley. I have to tell you, our first impression of the place

was not good. In fact, it was horrible. Mom's transition was

painful. She fought every step of the way. There were many

tears. But slowly, Mom and the rest of us began to grow

accustomed to her new environment.

Slowly, we began to learn about the later stages of this

disease and how to cope with it. We learned that Mom and the

other residents of the unit, while trapped inside their own

bodies, could give you a glimpse of their personalities if

you worked at it. Slowly, all of us, children, spouses and

grandchildren, learned not to be afraid of these patients,

but instead to embrace them and try to make their lives just

a little more pleasant. In doing so, we all made new friends.

We can't say enough about the caregivers at Life Care. They

treat each resident with respect and dignity, while somehow

maintaining their sense of humor. They are truly doing God's

work on earth. Mom had found a new family there, and so had

we.

So, in the final years of her life, nearly helpless, and

unable to communicate, Mom still had something else to teach

us. This time she taught us about compassion.

And do you know, that even in her challenged condition, she

could spell almost any word you asked, she could recite the

Lord's Prayer in its entirety, and she could still sing. She

could sing When Irish Eyes are Smiling from beginning to end,

Let me call you Sweetheart and yes, ``Nothing could be Finer

than to be in Carolina in the Morning.'' I guess some

memories never fade.

In the end, Mary became as comfortable at Life Care as

anyone could in her condition. She became known around the

nursing home as Mary, the girl who liked to dance. The last

time I saw her, just a week ago, my son Mike and I walked her

up and down the halls of the nursing home. At least 15

employees stopped us along the way and gave her a big hello,

and some did a little dance with her. Mary gave them all a

smile, and it prompted Mike to say, ``Boy Dad, Nana's really

popular.'' In fact, one of the nurses told me last night that

Mary, was.

In closing, I have to say how proud I am to be a part of

this family. During both Mom and Dad's illness, everybody

stepped up to the plate. Thank God Chrissie chose to pursue

the medical profession, she was always the first phone call,

and always there to put the medical jargon in laymans terms.

We truly valued her advice. And Gerry is just always there.

Whatever you need, whatever you want, Gerry will get it for

you, even if it means great inconvenience to her own family.

Billy was the father-figure, always there for the heavy

lifting, and to take care of the business end of things. And

Patty was the principal, the peacemaker, always keeping the

communication lines open, and keeping us sane. As Chrissie

put it, everybody contributed, and nobody wimped out. I think

Mom and Dad are proud of us today.

When you leave today, if you should think about Ma, or

Mary, or Nana in the future, we hope you don't think about

the woman afflicted with Alzheimer's Disease. We hope you

think about the woman who enjoyed the simple things in life,

a woman content to be the quiet foundation of the family, a

woman who would sing while serving breakfast, and the woman

who may well have left us with words from the song that my

sisters chose for the back of the program today:

I hope you still feel small when you stand beside the ocean.

Whenever one door closes, I hope that one more opens.

Promise me that you'll give faith the fighting chance.

And if you get the chance to sit it out or dance.

I hope you dance.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the so-called ``Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act,'' (TESRA). The sponsors of TESRA claim that they want to ``reform'' the ESA because it's not helping enough threatened and endangered species recover. In reality, it is aimed at weakening, dismantling, and rendering unenforceable the Endangered Species Act, ESA.

The original Endangered Species Act was a bipartisan effort to protect our natural heritage. Yet today, as we consider how to update and modernize that legislation, we are presented not with a truly bipartisan bill, but a massive special interest giveaway that guts ESA despite a thirty year track record of success. A vote for the passage of TESRA is a vote to abdicate responsible environmental policy and to create a new form of corporate welfare.

Since the enactment of the Endangered Species Act in 1973, tens of millions of acres of land in the United States have been managed for conservation purposes. As a result, of the 1800 species protected under ESA, we have lost only 9 to extinction. That's a 99 percent success rate on extinction prevention.

TESRA's most fundamental change abandons the basic priority of the Endangered Species Act: the commitment to species recovery. The overarching goal of ESA is to bring species back from the brink of extinction to the point where they no longer need to be given special protection. TESRA alters that mission by effectively negating the goal of species recovery. TESRA specifically eliminates the requirement that the Federal Government attempt to restore species to healthy population levels.

Furthermore, under TESRA any species recovery plan the government might conceive would be non-binding. Had ESA had these guidelines in place since 1973, the recovery of many species, including the peregrine falcon and the American alligator, would have been almost inconceivable. In the case of the alligator, recovery was so successful that we are now even able to implement controlled farming of the restored population.

There are two areas of the bill which I found particularly problematic and sought to address through amendments. My first amendment would strike language from TESRA that would turn back the clock on the scientific determination of an endangered species. My second amendment would strike language from TESRA that creates a very dangerous precedent: setting up a system where the government pays people for obeying the law.

Rather than offer these separately on the floor, I am pleased to see their substance included in the bipartisan Miller-Boehlert substitute that we will be considering today.

The use of science is of special importance in the implementation of the species protection program. Rather than using the best available science for species protection, TESRA explicitly prohibits the government from using advanced, modern scientific tools like statistical modeling that we have at our disposal today and that assist us in the implementation of ESA.

By taking away these cutting edge tools, TESRA would make it exceedingly difficult to make determinations on the status of any species whose populations are small, isolated, and scattered. The result will be a weakened and limited scientific process in decisions made under the act, more obstacles and less protection. The substitute bill restores ESA's original approach to science, which is to use the best science available to help save and recover endangered species.

My second proposed amendment addresses a trouble area in TESRA introducing a requirement that the Federal Government actually pay developers and polluters to comply with the law. This provision would have serious and widespread implications: it sets a dangerous precedent in environmental protection. This amounts to a new entitlement program that would result in a windfall for land developers and speculators--at the expense of the taxpayers and the species we seek to protect under

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 208 and commend the gentlemen from Wisconsin and Michigan for bringing this concurrent resolution to the floor today.

Fifty years ago this coming December, Rosa Louise Parks inspired a town, a movement, and a Nation to hold true to the ideals and principles upon which our Nation was founded. By refusing to give up her seat after a long day of work because she felt she was being treated unfairly, Rosa Parks demonstrated the quiet strength that typified her life.

Her arrest led to the 381-day Montgomery bus boycott and to the eventual repeal of the segregation laws of the South. Her individual act of defiance is considered by many to be the beginning of the civil rights movement.

Ten years later, on August 6, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Voting Rights Act, which in later years was strengthened with amendments to affirm the rights of non-Whites to vote and to be represented fairly in government. This fall, parts of the Voting Rights Act will come before Congress to be reauthorized. We must not only renew our commitment to the voting rights protected under that legislation, but look to strengthen voter rights and to improve our electoral systems. And we must forever link our current state of freedom with the sacrifice of exceptional individuals like Rosa Parks who stood up to oppression and changed history.

Let us celebrate the lifetime achievements of a truly remarkable woman. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 208.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Guam for yielding me this time. I also thank the gentleman from Arizona for his comments on this legislation. This legislation begins the process of further protecting an important part of American history.

Colonel James Barrett's farm, located in the town of Concord, Massachusetts, is already listed on the National Register for Historic Places for its significance. My legislation calls for a boundary study to evaluate adding Barrett's Farm to the Minute Man National Historic Park, which would forever protect it from development.

As the gentlewoman from Guam has indicated, a brief history of Barrett's Farm explains why its addition to the Minute Man National Historic Park would be appropriate.

Colonel James Barrett was the commander of the militia in Middlesex during the Revolutionary War. His farm was a central depot where the American revolutionaries stored cannons, gunpowder, and other munitions.

On April 19, 1775, General Thomas Gage, the commander of all British forces in North America, ordered 700 of his troops to march to Barrett's Farm to destroy the supplies stored there. We all know the story of what happened next.

The colonists learned of the British plot ahead of time and sent a Boston silversmith, Paul Revere, into the night to call his countrymen to arms. Immediately, the citizens of Concord started hiding the town's supplies. Colonel Barrett's sons plowed his fields and hid munitions in the furrows. By the time the British reached the farm, the colonial militia had taken up position, ready to strike at the British Army.

Ultimately, the colonists and the British came to blows at the North Bridge in Concord, where ``the shot heard around the world'' was fired, launching our war for independence.

The citizens of Concord knew the area, had the manpower and weapons, and sent the Redcoats running, dealing a harsh blow to the British Army.

Thirty years ago, Barrett's Farm was listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Even in Massachusetts, where most places can be called historic, Barrett's Farm stands out as an icon of American history.

Minute Man National Historic Park encompasses 967 acres, including the North Bridge, Lexington Green, and the Battle Road Trail, where the British traveled and advanced and retreated.

Including Barrett's Farm within the boundaries of Minute Man Park would add an integral part of this storied battle. Barrett's Farm was the impetus for the British advance and vigorous work of Colonel Barrett, and his militia was a reason why the British retreated.

This battle has become iconic of American history and every piece of that story should be preserved. By adding the farm to the Minute Man National Historic Park and placing it in the able oversight of the National Park Service, we can ensure that this important piece of our history will be enjoyed for generations to come.

Passing today's legislation, which authorizes a study to this end, is the first step towards reaching the goal.

We would not have the opportunity to pass the bill today if it were not for the hard work of many people who have ensured the story of Colonel James Barrett be told. First and foremost is Anna Winter, the director of Save Our Heritage, a nonprofit group dedicated to preserving the grand history of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Anna and her colleagues are the driving force behind the effort to protect places like Walden Pond and Barrett's Farm.

I would also like to recognize the efforts of Nancy Nelson, the superintendent of Minute Man National Park. Nancy's tireless efforts to maximize the impact of the park have created not only a spot of extraordinary beauty, but also have preserved the land in which our freedom was won. Because of Nancy and her colleagues at the National Park Service, our children can learn the history of our Nation while walking the same steps as those patriots did centuries ago.

I would also like to thank the staff of the Trust for Public Land, a hardworking group of people that highly values the conservation of all lands for historical sites and community parks to wilderness areas. For over 30 years, the Trust has helped more than 2,700 conservation projects come to fruition, each project representing a community like Concord, trying to beautify and protect its natural history.

Finally I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Ranking Member Rahall) for bringing this important bill to the floor, and I deeply appreciate the effort of my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, for those of us not on the Gulf Coast, it is impossible to comprehend the experience of those whose lives have been upended by the brute force of Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans and much of the Gulf Coast are a disaster area--bodies float in floodwaters that still rise unchecked, power is out, looters steal without fear, and violence is widespread. Our Nation grieves with the residents and survivors and we will stand with them during the long road to recovery.

Hurricane Katrina appears to be headed for the history books as one of the worst national disasters ever to hit the United States. Yet the deeper tragedy is not just how large a toll this storm will eventually take, but how avoidable it all could have been.

The devastation wrought on the Gulf tonight is the result of two terrible disasters. The first was the fury of nature. The other is the unnecessary consequence of this government's inexcusable failure to prepare for the inevitable.

The primary function of a government is to ensure the safety of its citizens. This Congress and this Administration have failed to do so in the most incompetent and willfully negligent way imaginable.

This hurricane was not a surprise. For decades meteorologists, State and local officials, Army engineers, academics, and, yes, FEMA have warned that a Category Four or Five hurricane hitting New Orleans was among the top three most likely major disasters to affect the United States and that we must be prepared. The most recent analysis was conducted just last year, where a computer simulation of the fictional ``Hurricane Pam'' pounded New Orleans much as Katrina did, pushing the waters of Lake Pontchartrain through the levees flooding the city and stranding 300,000 poor and African-American New Orleanians.

The day before Katrina reached land, FEMA's own director, Michael Brown, raised the possibility of the levees being breached. On August 28th, Brown told CNN that ``we knew from experience, based back in the '40s and even in the late 1800s, if a Category Four or Five hurricane were to strike New Orleans just right, the flooding would be devastating. It could be catastrophic.'' And yet the President said just yesterday that ``I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.''

Plans to prepare for this catastrophe had been developed at FEMA as early as the 1990s when President Clinton's FEMA Director, James Lee Witt, laid out a plan for coping with a nightmare scenario in New Orleans that included pre-positioning hospital ships and pumps to handle the catastrophe. Why this was not done is just the beginning of the laundry list of problems with the response to this disaster. Command and control has still not been established. There are FEMA personnel on site and they can do nothing as they await instructions from the bureaucracy in Washington. When will someone take control? The Gulf Coast desperately needs a leader to emerge at FEMA who can direct its operation. Why has this taken so long?

Lurking just below the surface is another set of troubling questions: What if this had been a terrorist attack? Is our emergency response capability so weak that a levee breach, or power outages, or debris can incapacitate an entire region? President Bush has pledged repeatedly since 9/11, now over 4 years ago, that he would keep our country safe. Is this the best this Administration can do? Do our citizens not deserve all the protection and support this government can provide?

The reality is that this country is woefully unprepared to respond to a major domestic disaster in this country because FEMA has been systematically dismantled over the past 5 years by incompetent leaders, anti-government ideology, budget cuts, and bureaucratic red tape.

FEMA's current problems essentially began with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which demoted FEMA from cabinet-level status and reduced it to one of 22 organizations under the umbrella of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Next, its mission was reprioritized and its budget cut, taking the emphasis off of responding to natural disasters while the upper ranks of management were filled by patronage hires, five out of eight having had no emergency preparedness experience. At the same time, FEMA's professional staff was becoming increasingly demoralized. By this week, nine out of ten regional director positions were vacant, as were three out of five disaster response director positions. This brain drain left an agency without the proper leadership, resources, or influence in government to cope with a major catastrophe.

Responsibility, however, does not rest solely with the Bush Administration. This Congress has been a willing co-conspirator in the degradation of FEMA's capabilities.

Since 2001, many Federal disaster mitigation programs have fallen to budgetary pressures. FEMA's Project Impact, a model mitigation program, has been canceled outright. Federal funding of post-disaster mitigation efforts designed to protect people and property from the next disaster has been cut in half, and now communities across the country must compete for pre-disaster mitigation dollars.

In 2003, Congress approved a White House proposal to cut FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program in half. Previously, the Federal government was committed to investing 15 percent of the recovery costs of a disaster toward mitigating future problems. Under the Bush formula, only 7.5 percent are given. Experts say that such post- disaster mitigation efforts are the best way to minimize future losses.

In 2004 alone, Congress cut FEMA's budget by $170 million.

And FEMA is not the only agency to feel the effects of budget cuts. Bush's 2005 budget proposal called for a 13 percent reduction in the Army Corps of Engineers' budget, down to $4 billion from $4.6 billion in fiscal 2004 and the New Orleans Corp of Engineers was to lose $71.2 million out of its budget, the largest cut in its history. This is the very agency responsible for the New Orleans levee system. Assistant Secretary of the Army Michael Parker was even fired for accusing the Bush Administration of failing to adequately fund the Corp of Engineers before Katrina struck.

Natural disasters are a fact of life in this country. Hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes are just some of the eventualities that will inevitably occur and need to be dealt with. Over the past decade, FEMA has responded to more than 500 such disasters with varying degrees of effectiveness. But Katrina has provided its first major test since September 11. The repercussions of the failure of that test are staggering.

Going forward, I believe we need to create a bipartisan, national commission, similar to the 9/11 Commission, to provide an objective look at what went wrong and to make recommendations to repair what is clearly a broken system. Doing so is essential to restoring the confidence of the American people in our government's ability to respond to a crisis on American soil and to keep them safe. The people of the Gulf Coast have demanded answers to their questions and we owe them that.

There is also much more to be said about what this catastrophe has to reveal about the problems of race and class in America. It is in some way illustrative of this Administration's neglect of the less fortunate that those in the worst situations after this storm are the poorest and most disenfranchised populations--precisely the people this Administration's policies have, at best, callously ignored.

But social justice is a conversation for a later time. For now, we must focus on the immediate task at hand. Our duty is to do everything we can for the victims of this disaster and to rebuild the Gulf Coast. We begin tonight with this modest appropriation of $10.5 billion. Hundreds of billions more are certain to follow. The money will pay for the finest clean up possible, but, in the end, it will not change the reality that things did not have to happen this way.

Mr. Speaker, I have long believed that as a matter of principle we should try to take down barriers that divide economies and people. Under the right conditions, trade between countries can create American jobs and raise standards of living both at home and abroad. But globalization is a developing issue and our policies need to reflect developments in our economy and the economies of our trading partners.

When seeking new markets for our products and services, we need to ensure that we are competing on a level playing field. We must work to ensure that our trade agreements are not only free, but also fair.

Tonight I will cast my vote against the Central American Free Trade Agreement because it is not free and fair trade.

When this Administration cuts the job retraining and education assistance necessary for our workers to compete in the global economy, we should reject trade agreements like CAFTA that fail to protect workers on both sides of the agreement.

The United States has a half-trillion dollar trade deficit. American businesses are choosing not to invest at home and our economy is no longer attracting private foreign capital.

The minimum wage is at its lowest level in 50 years, and nearly 7.5 million Americans are unemployed. The Republican Congress has enacted legislation that actually creates incentives for companies to move jobs overseas.

The CAFTA agreement President Bush has submitted to Congress would open U.S. markets to products from Latin American countries with poverty-level wage scales and poor environmental conditions. In return, we get access to six countries whose combined economic output is smaller than that of the city of Boston. Under this agreement, hard- working Americans will be forced to compete with nations that don't enforce international human rights standards in wage and hour rules and child labor laws.

Rather than foster sustained economic growth, CAFTA would freeze Central America's substandard labor laws in place. CAFTA is as bad a deal for Central American workers as it is for workers in the United States.

Time and time again, the Bush Administration has failed to take the necessary steps to help American workers succeed in the changing global economy. When the Senate Finance Committee made a bipartisan recommendation to include aid for displaced American workers in CAFTA, the Bush Administration simply ignored the request.

This indifference to the needs and concerns of the people most likely to be hurt by this agreement is typical of the Bush Administration's handling of economic policy. Instead of strengthening job training programs, the Administration has cut funding for these programs by over $750 million over the last five years. Instead of strengthening education, the Administration has cut these programs by over $500 million. Instead of addressing the health

care crisis in this country, the Administration has brought us legislation to protect the profits of HMOs and insurance companies.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to send the Central American Free Trade Agreement back to the White House with a clear message that we will not approve this agreement unless it reflects our priorities and values.

Mr. Chairman, September 11 made it clear that the world had changed, that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies needed to change accordingly.

Democrats and Republicans agreed on the need to update the tools necessary for law enforcement to address the threat of terrorism on American soil. What started as an effort to protect our country from terror has become a virtually uncontrolled vehicle for government to invade the privacy of every American.

It was with that possibility in mind that the Congress included in the PATRIOT Act a provision requiring a review after a few years to determine which parts should be retained, which parts should be modified, and which should be repealed. It is evident to me and to many Americans that the PATRIOT Act is inadequate in its protection of civil liberties.

Section 206's blanket, roving wiretaps, section 213's sneak-and-peek searches, and section 215's expansive power allowing the government to obtain any piece of information on any American are just three examples of how the PATRIOT Act is out of control.

Last week, the Committee on the Judiciary met to address these and other issues in an attempt to bring back some balance to the law enforcement power and civil liberties. Democrats on the committee offered dozens of amendments in an attempt to control this bill and bring balance to it. Virtually every single one of these amendments was rejected on a party-line vote. Most troubling was the extension of sunsetted provisions that should have been allowed to expire or at least require reauthorization in the next 4 years.

Periodically revisiting the PATRIOT Act is a good thing. To preserve our commitment to making the best and most up-to-date assessment of our law enforcement and intelligence policies, we should include more, not fewer, sunsets and make them shorter, not longer.

The PATRIOT Act was an effort to answer the most difficult question our democracy faces: How much freedom are we willing to give up to feel safe? Too much freedom, giving up too much power given to the Justice Department.

Today we are asking not to hinder the pursuit of terrorists, but to return some sanity and balance to the law.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and rise today in opposition to the Ros-Lehtinen amendment because it essentially supports prolonging the deployment of the United States military personnel in Iraq.

Our troops deserve clear, concrete measures and milestones for defeating the insurgency, for building up Iraqi

security forces. General Petraeus is doing a great job. Why can we not have a timetable for how long it is going to take to get the 130,000 Iraqi security forces trained and hand it over to the Iraqi people? I have called repeatedly for the Department of Defense to do just that.

As a matter of fact, this Congress passed a supplemental appropriations bill that required the Department of Defense to report by July 11 the status of training the Iraqi forces. The Pentagon has refused, or has not yet provided that information.

When is this Congress going to exercise its responsibility? Our troops have done everything that we have asked of them in Iraq. They have acted heroically. They have done their job. Now is the time for Washington to do its job and develop a strategy for successful completion of this mission.

I do not know where it came, that coming up with an exit strategy somehow is something that is not in the United States' interest. I know when George Bush was Governor and we were in Kosovo, George Bush said, ``Victory means exit strategy, and it is important for the President to explain to us what that exit strategy is.''

Having an exit strategy and a strategy for success is just as important if not more important today in Iraq than it was in Kosovo. We have made mistakes in Iraq. The Pentagon did not listen to General Shinseki. We know that in Iraq the occupation is fueling the insurgency.

We have a timetable in effect that was just articulated from the gentleman from Texas. We are going to have elections, and in January we are going to have a new government.

How long should the United States stay? This Congress ought to exercise its responsibility, its constitutional responsibility of oversight, and demand the administration present their strategy.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend many of us learned that the Bush Administration may have a plan for a phased drawdown of coalition forces in Iraq in the next 12 to 18 months.

Unfortunately, we did not learn about these plans from the Administration's legally mandated yet unfulfilled reporting requirements to Congress. We learned about it from news reports of a leaked memo circulating in the British government.

The memo outlines the Administration's plan to cut the size of our force in Iraq from 140,000 down to 66,000 by the middle of next year, and describes a ``strong U.S. military desire'' to hand over control to the Iraqi security forces in most of Iraq.

In January I released a white paper in which I proposed a timetable for a phased drawdown of the majority of American troops by the end of 2006. If the information in the British memo is true, then the Administration may be planning similar plans, despite its public claims to the contrary.

Ironically, the British memo, reportedly written at least a month ago, broke in the American press at exactly the same moment that the Administration missed a very important deadline to share precisely this sort of information with this Congress.

There is something wrong when we are learning about the Administration's plans for our troops, not from the President, not from the Pentagon, but from leaked foreign memos. Yesterday the Pentagon should have released to Congress an essential report on the benchmarks and guidelines for measuring progress in Iraq.

The report for ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq'' was a provision of the Supplemental Defense Appropriations Bill passed by this Congress and signed into law by President Bush on May 11, 2005. This law required the Administration to outline a comprehensive approach to Iraq by July 11, yesterday, with follow-up reports every 90 days thereafter.

This report presents an invaluable opportunity for the administration to explain to Congress and to the American people their plans and intentions in Iraq. Providing Congress with a more comprehensive set of performance indicators will undoubtedly lead to a more informed debate over U.S. policy in Iraq.

The congressionally mandated report calls on the Administration to outline key measures of stability and security in Iraq. This includes measurements of political stability, the training of Iraqi forces. Specifically, the report mandates that the Administration provide information on the operational readiness status of the Iraqi military forces, including the type, number, size and organizational structure of Iraqi battalions, as well as their ability to conduct counterinsurgency operations.

The report requirement also calls for estimates of the strength of the Iraqi insurgency and details on the training of the Iraqi police force.

I urge the Administration to take this responsibility seriously and to take this legal obligation seriously by providing this information to Congress as quickly and as comprehensively as possible.

The information contained in this report is a critical step towards bringing our troops home. To that end, I am a cosponsor of House Resolution 55, the Homeward Bound Act. This bipartisan legislation requires the President to announce a plan by December 31 of this year for the eventual return of all elements of the Armed Forces. This plan would be a natural extension of the report due to this body yesterday.

The bill also requires the President to begin a drawdown of our troops on or before October 1, 2006. Beyond that date, it provides the President with the flexibility for an orderly drawdown.

Finally, the legislation requires the President to accelerate the training of Iraqi forces and to ensure that they are adequate to take the leading role in fighting the insurgency.

Our troops have done everything we have asked of them in Iraq. They have acted heroically. They have done their job. Now is the time for Washington to do its job.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lance Corporal Ryan S. McCabe of the United States Marine Corps for his extraordinary courage and heroism while serving our nation in Afghanistan. On March, 10, 2005, Lance Corporal McCabe was presented with the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal.

Lance Corporal McCabe put himself at grave personal risk to protect the lives of the Marines in his unit. He used a bayonet to navigate his unit through a minefield in Afghanistan. Due to his bravery, Lance Corporal McCabe's patrol leader--who had been wounded by a detonated landmine--received the urgent medical care he needed to survive and recover.

Lance Corporal McCabe has brought great pride to his parents, Stephen and Kathleen, and his hometown of Lowell, Massachusetts. I would like to congratulate Lance Corporal McCabe, and enter into the record a news article titled `` `V' for valor'' by reporter Robert Mills which ran in the May 30, 2005 edition of The Lowell Sun.

His patrol leader had already been wounded by a landmine explosion when Lance Cpl. Ryan McCabe, of Lowell, was handed a bayonet and told by his sergeant to start digging his way through the minefield.

McCabe, 22, took his orders without hesitation.

Just minutes before, McCabe and the rest of the six-man patrol he was part of on that mid-August day had started up a hill where they saw a bunker. The patrol leader took the lead, walking up a trail even though the troops saw landmines on the hillside.

Nevertheless, the patrol leader soon detonated an anti-personnel mine, which blew off part of his leg.

The rest of the patrol retreated from the immediate area to avoid setting off any other mines, and began to organize a rescue mission.

That's when McCabe received his orders.

McCabe, who comes from a long line of veterans and Lowell firefighters, got on his hands and knees, and began probing through the minefield, plunging the bayonet into the dirt, searching for mines.

``You feel through the dirt with the bayonet at an angle so if you find a mine you hit it on the side, which won't set it off,'' he said.

The anti-personnel mines are triggered when they are stepped on, so only direct pressure on top of the mines will cause an explosion.

McCabe was too excited at the time to remember about how far he had to crawl through the minefield, but he eventually got to the lieutenant and secured the area around him which allowed the rest of the patrol, and the medic that was traveling with it, to rescue and treat the group's leader.

In recognition of his efforts, McCabe was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, with a combat V--for valor--earlier this month.

Despite his heroism in Afghanistan, which he returned from in December, McCabe and his unit, Lima Company of the Third Battalion Sixth Marines, will now ship out for duty in Iraq starting in August or September.

He will leave for urban and desert warfare training in California next week, before spending an estimated six to nine months in Iraq.

He said having another deployment so soon is ``stressful,'' but nothing he can't handle.

``It's stressful, but once you get over there it's not too bad'' he said. ``The first few months are depressing, but you get used to it real quick. ``

McCabe, who lived in Lowell all his life before joining the Marine Corps, ran cross-country and track while he was a student at Lowell High School.

When his duty with the Marine Corps is finished in about two years, he hopes to return to Lowell to become a firefighter, just as his father, two uncles and grandfather were before him.

McCabe's father, Steve McCabe, of Lowell, is a lieutenant with the Lowell Fire Department's Ladder 4. McCabe's uncle, Patrick McCabe, is one of the department's eight deputy chiefs. His uncle, Bob McCabe, is also a Lowell firefighter, as was his grandfather, Patrick McCabe, who was a deputy chief when he retired from the department in 1984.

He followed in his father's footsteps when he joined the Marines in 2001. His father had served from 1974 to 1976, just missing being sent to Vietnam.

Speaking from his Lowell home last week, Steve McCabe said he is proud of his son, though he naturally worries about him being in such dangerous situations.

``Like any parent that has a son or daughter serving I'm extremely proud, but at the same time I have mixed emotions because like any parent I worry,'' Steve McCabe said. ``I'm nervous about him going to Iraq. ``

Steve McCabe said that just as he did when his son was in Afghanistan, he will be following closely any reports he can find while his son is in Iraq.

Though his rescue mission in Afghanistan was perilous, McCabe said he didn't realize what he had done until after the lieutenant was saved.

``At the time, the adrenaline was going so much I just wasn't thinking of what was going on,'' he said from Fort Lejeune, in North Carolina, last week. ``It happened so quickly I didn't have time to get nervous.''

``Afterward, I realized `wow, what did I just do?' '' McCabe said.

Mr. Speaker, we're blessed to have brave men and women like Lance Corporal Class Ryan S. McCabe serving our nation. We should never forget the risks they take to preserve our liberty.

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

Our strategy to win the peace in Iraq is failing. We have been killing or eliminating 1,000 to 3,000 Iraqi insurgents a month for 17 months, and in that same period of time, the insurgency has quadrupled. If we talk to people in the theater in Iraq today, they would tell us that that insurgency is anywhere from 150- to 200,000 people.

So what do we want to do? The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) wants to have an amendment asking the President to come up with a success strategy. We do that to support our men and women in uniform and to support the administration's coming up with an exit strategy, because it has been 25 months and 1,700 American fatalities since the President declared ``mission accomplished'' in Iraq. For over 2 years we have stayed the course, and it has brought us only casualties and less stability.

After returning to the United States from Iraq, I suggested 5 months ago that we needed to think of an exit strategy. Five months later the case for an exit strategy has only grown stronger. And having an exit strategy does not mean cut and run. It means having a blueprint for achieving our goal of leaving the Iraqi people sovereign and truly independent. And it is not a novel idea. All we are asking is for this President to have the same principle he had when he was Governor of Texas, when he said, ``Victory means exit strategy.'' It is important for the

President to explain to us what that exit strategy is, and that is what Governor George W. Bush said relative to our campaign in Kosovo, and it is more relevant today in Iraq than it was even then.

Any successful strategy in Iraq has to address the fundamental factors that are continuing to fuel the insurgency. One of those factors, Mr. Speaker, is the suspicion that the United States is going to occupy Iraq indefinitely. And until we lay out a framework with the Iraqi Government to bring our troops home, the Iraqi people will never feel that they have control of their own destiny.

A fundamental problem with our failed strategy has been the failure to counter the suspicion among the Iraqis that the United States intends permanent occupation. We are pouring concrete all over that country, and in order to build credibility for the new government and make clear that our forces in Iraq are only temporary peacekeepers, we need to renounce any intention of a long-term presence in Iraq. There are difficult and fundamental questions about Iraq's future, the structure of government, the degree of influence and religious and political minorities. All of these things have to be worked out. But this process must be fully inclusive. It is our obligation to press the process and pulling Iraqis out of the insurgency, pulling them into the political process. A clear exit strategy would help splinter insurgent groups and help them set aside their own differences. The only reason they have united is to unite against us in our occupation. We should support this strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Rabbi Robert S. Goldstein. Rabbi Goldstein is a community leader, spiritual advisor, and dear friend. For 15 years, Rabbi Goldstein has led the congregation at Temple Emanuel in Andover, Massachusetts.

Rabbi Robert Goldstein was born in Springfield, Massachusetts in 1953. He was raised in a large ad compassionate family. His mother taught in an inner-city elementary school, and volunteers her free time at Jewish charities and other groups serving the community. His late father was deeply involved in the Jewish Nursing Home of Western Massachusetts.

Since coming to Temple Emanuel in 1990, Rabbi Goldstein has grown his congregation, and endeavored to make Judaism more accessible to all who come to it with an open ear and an open mind. He has led his flock to explore the meaning of the Jewish faith to find purpose and spiritual enrichment. Under Rabbi Goldstein's leadership, Temple Emanuel has expanded its membership to over 600 families with more than 400 children in its religious school.

In addition to his work at Temple Emanuel, Rabbi Goldstein serves on the Board of the Lawrence General Hospital, and he is a trustee of the Edgewood Retirement Community. Rabbi Goldstein continues to foster dialogue between Catholics and Jews at the Center for the Study of Jewish/Christian Relations at Merrimack College.

On June 17, 2005 Rabbi Goldstein's congregation, friends, neighbors and loved ones will recognize him for the wisdom and compassion he has shown to all, and for dedicating his life to sharing the virtues of the Jewish faith and heritage.

The people of the Merrimack Valley, of all faiths, are truly blessed to have Rabbi Goldstein as a friend, neighbor, counselor and spiritual leader.