Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 3893. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused tremendous devastation along the Gulf coast, and I appreciate the need to address the suffering and destruction that resulted. However, I am appalled at this effort by the Republican majority to exploit this national tragedy to weaken environmental, public health, and consumer protections under the guise of lower gasoline prices; and protect consumers from price-gouging on gasoline. Sadly, the bill will accomplish none of these things, while being loaded down with controversial unrelated provisions. This is why it was opposed by every Democrat on the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

While claiming to protect consumers, this bill actually weakens the Federal Trade Commission's authority to deal with price gouging, at a time when we have seen gasoline prices rise at astronomical rates. It focuses all price gouging efforts on mom-and-pop retailers, rather than the big oil companies and refiners who are actually reaping enormous profits. This bill limits the areas that can be investigated for price- gouging, and there is no real enforcement authority to prosecute bad behavior.

The bill gives new regulatory subsidies to the refining industry at a time when that industry's profits are breaking records. The Washington Post reported last month that over the past year, refinery profit margins on a gallon of gasoline have increased over 255 percent. Yet the bill could also put taxpayers on the hook for unlimited damages if a refinery is stalled in litigation or must meet new regulatory standards. The fact is that refineries are not being built in this country because the companies do not want to build them for economic reasons.

And this bill will undermine local control by forcing some communities with closed military bases to accept refineries without having any input in the process. These communities will not be able to develop sites for years even if the Federal Government does not ultimately build refineries on them.

I was at a roundtable with high tech leaders last weekend, and the one thing they talked most about was energy. They emphasized the need for new alternative energy supplies and highlighted the role that new technologies can play in using energy more efficiently and generating it in new ways. Sadly, the Republican bill will do nothing in this area. And one amendment that would have led to real strides in efficiency, the Boehlert-Markey amendment which would have increased fuel economy standards for cars and trucks to 33 miles per gallon by 2015, was not even allowed by the Rules Committee. I am incredulous as to how we could be considering a bill that is supposed to address high gasoline prices and not have a debate on increasing the efficiency with which vehicles use fuel. Even the President is now advocating conservation, which his own Vice President once claimed was a virtue but not a policy.

That is why I oppose H.R. 3893 and support the Democratic substitute, which will provide real enforcement against energy price gouging and establish a Strategic Refinery Reserve, patterned on the successful Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to protect against loss of refinery capacity.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the House rejected legislation naming a post office after longtime Berkeley Councilwoman Maudelle Shirek. I cosponsored this legislation, and I believe strongly that the Federal Government should honor Maudelle Shirek for her many civic contributions.

This vote became a news sensation. My colleague, Rep. Steve King, told one newspaper that ``if Barbara Lee would read the history of Joe McCarthy, she would realize that he was a hero for America.''

I could not disagree more, and I am alarmed that my colleague would exalt such a mean, vindictive, tyrant.

Senator McCarthy blindly accused his enemies of communism and homosexuality without any evidence or genuinely patriotic motive. This corrupt bully exploited the fears of the American people to boost his own political career.

Senator McCarthy's only achievement was inspiring an anti-communist hysteria that ruined the lives of thousands of innocent Americans.

As a Japanese American, I know the devastating effects of mass fear and hysteria. During World War II, my family and thousands of other Japanese American families were forced into camps--deprived of their dignity, liberty, and property.

At a time like this, I am reminded of the words of Special Counsel for the Army Joseph Welch, who in a 1954 hearing poignantly asked of Senator McCarthy, ``Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge those in Santa Clara County, California who have offered assistance to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Their efforts stand as a testament to the American spirit of generosity.

The local governments of Santa Clara County have responded with munificent offerings to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The San Jose City Council and Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors each authorized $500,000 for the Santa Clara Valley American Red Cross to provide services to hurricane victims who arrive in the area. The San Jose Fire Department deployed firefighters to assist in the region devastated by Hurricane Katrina and stand ready as needed.

Local universities opened their academies and housing to those displaced by the hurricane. In fact, Santa Clara University admitted 75 students from New Orleans-based institutions Loyola University and Tulane University

after the hurricane forced the campuses to close. The San Jose Recovery Center is providing interim shelter and services for evacuees at a former student housing complex at San Jose State University. So far, the Center has served sixty-six people.

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority responded as well by providing free bus passes to individuals and families, assuring mobility to access the medical services, education, and jobs.

United by the Santa Clara County CADRE (Collaborating Agencies Disaster Relief Efforts), many local community organizations have provided ongoing evacuee support. The Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley forwarded 900 housing offers while coordinating occupational opportunities for evacuees. Local businesses and individuals have also contributed generous cash, food, and supply donations to the recovery effort.

I commend the many individuals, organizations and agencies of Santa Clara County that contributed to the relief effort. I know that these donations and others from across the country have made a meaningful impact on the lives of the thousands of Gulf Coast residents still living in a state of uncertainty.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the citizens of Taiwan and to recognize their democratically elected President Chen Shui-bian who has made a stopover in the United States en route to Central America. I trust that President Chen has had a good visit in the U.S.

In the last five years, Taiwan has continued to impress the world as a prosperous island nation, free and democratic. Taiwan is truly committed to genuine democratization, as evidenced by the third direct presidential election of 2004.

By working together, Taiwan and China will have the potential to make significant contributions to peace, security and prosperity in the entire Pacific Rim. I sincerely hope that a framework will soon be established for peaceful interactions between the two sides. It is everyone's dream that rapprochement between Taiwan and China be possible within the shortest period of time and to all parties' satisfaction.

The people of the U.S. appreciate Taiwan's cooperation with the U.S. government in combating global terrorism and Taiwan's monetary contributions to the Twin Towers Fund and the Pentagon Memorial Fund. The relationship between Taiwan and the United States is strong and healthy. Ambassador David Tawei Lee is an effective bridge between the government of Taiwan and the government of the U.S.

Mr. Speaker, we must always remember Taiwan's important role in maintaining peace and stability in the Pacific Rim. To have permanent peace in the region, the U.S. must do its part in urging Taiwan and China to continue peaceful dialogue and exchanges.

Mr. Speaker, the Endangered Species Act is a safety net for wildlife, plants and fish that are on the brink of extinction. Over its 32-year history, the Endangered Species Act has been 99 percent successful in saving species from extinction, with only 7 out of over 1,200 species having gone extinct after being listed under the Act. The number of species that have fully recovered is not as high, however, and at this point there is a recognition that the current critical habitat arrangement doesn't work, for a whole host of reasons.

I believe that any legislation amending the Endangered Species Act should include a number of critical principles. It should not weaken existing law, nor should changes be adopted that would alter the original intent of the Endangered Species Act. The Act was written to protect all plants and animals in the United States from extinction and to restore them to stable populations. Limiting protections for imperiled species now would serve only to make protection and recovery much more difficult and expensive in the future.

I also believe that habitat protections for threatened and endangered species should not be weakened. The loss of habitat is widely considered by scientists to be the primary cause of species extinction and endangerment. Preservation of habitat is an essential element to any and all efforts to protect and recover endangered species. Additionally, any amendments should maintain the mandate for the Endangered Species Act to work towards recovery. The Endangered Species Act requires not only that we protect species from extinction but also that we recover species to the point where protection is no longer needed. Merely maintaining the survival of a species contradicts the spirit and letter of the law, which is why we need to hold federal actions to the standard of recovering species.

Citizen input and oversight are vital to good Endangered Species Act decisions and management, so any changes to the Act should avoid unnecessary hurdles to public participation. It is also important to uphold the scientific process behind Endangered Species Act decisions. The scientific review of matters relating to the Endangered Species Act is already sufficiently rigorous. Adding another layer of bureaucracy would serve only to slow the process, to the detriment of both the species in question and affected citizens. Finally, I believe that while vigilant Congressional oversight is critical to the success of any law, putting an arbitrary expiration date on the Endangered Species Act would place the protection of species at the mercy of the legislative calendar.

Mr. Chairman, white I realize that the Endangered Species Act is not perfect, I believe that the version of the bill that is before us today will eliminate critical habitat without including other mechanisms to protect species' homes. Unless substantial amendments to address this and other shortcomings are passed on the floor today, I will not support H.R. 3824. I applaud the efforts of a bipartisan group of my colleagues, including Mr. Miller, Mr. Boehlert, and the original author of ESA, Representative Dingell, who have worked hard to develop an alternative bill that I am happy to support.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3402, a measure that reauthorizes most Justice Department programs through FY 2009, with some extended through FY 2010. I support this measure because it provides crucial funding for Justice Department programs. The bill authorizes $95 billion through FY 2010, including $5.8 billion for the FBI in FY 2006, and $5 billion for Federal prisons.

I am especially glad to see that this bill reauthorizes programs funded under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) which is designed to combat crimes often targeted toward women, such as stalking, domestic violence, and sexual assault. During the past decade, VAWA of 1994 and 2000 have provided tremendous protections and support for victims of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault. VAWA funding has provided law enforcement agencies, the judicial system, rape crisis centers, and domestic violence shelters with the expertise and services they need to do the work of prevention and protection of those affected by violence. The reauthorization of VAWA will allow us to continue to fund crucial and successful programs and expand on 10 years of progress to further provide safety and stability for survivors of gender-based violence.

I am disappointed that late last night, Judiciary Majority staff submitted a manager's amendment which strikes ``racial and ethnic minorities'' from the definition of underserved populations in the STOP grants section of VAWA. STOP grants are the heart of VAWA funding. Without this language, domestic violence prevention and treatment services specifically targeting women of color and immigrant victims of domestic violence will continue to be shortchanged. This language change is a major flaw in the Manager's Amendment and I oppose the amendment.

H.R. 3402 also merges the Byrne Grant Program and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program, and renames it the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. It authorizes $1.1 billion for this program in FY 2006 and such sums as are necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2009. Finally, the bill re-organizes the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program by consolidating all the different grant programs into a single block grant program. The bill authorizes $1 billion in each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 for this important crime fighting program.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very good bill overall and I am glad to see Republicans working with Democrats on such an important measure.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend thousands of Americans will congregate on the National Mall and in cities all across this country to protest the Bush Administration's elective war in Iraq. By raising their voices en masse, they hope to send a message to President Bush that he and his Administration, thus far, has been unwilling to hear: the American people don't support this war.

The war was always predicated on the false premise that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. This Congress was negligent in not demanding more proof of the President and then refusing to hold him accountable for his exaggerated and unfounded claims.

His war strategy was equally flawed. He has failed to provide the resources our men and women in uniform need to be successful, and American lives have been lost as a result. In 2002 and 2003, Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki warned that not enough boots on the ground would lead to a power vacuum that our enemies would exploit. Tragically, his premonitions have been born out.

To date, approximately 1,900 brave Americans have been killed in Iraq, and there appears to be no immediate end to the quagmire in Iraq.

The American people are rightly asking whether we are any closer to a stable and democratic Iraq today than when the President declared ``Mission Accomplished.'' If experience has taught us anything, it is that democracy cannot be forced upon a nation by gun point. Yet, military force seems to be Bush's preferable strategy.

A recent GAO report indicates that the Defense Department has no ability to account for billions of Federal dollars expended on the war in Iraq, and there are reports of widespread corruption within the Iraqi government. Iraq's own Finance Minister Ali Allawi admitted, ``Huge amounts of money have disappeared. In return, we got nothing but scraps of metal.''

Meanwhile, Congress continues to debate how the Federal Government will afford the recovery effort from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Some of my Republican colleagues have suggested that we cut spending on domestic programs for health care, education and transportation. The American people, by and large, reject this approach. A recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll revealed that a full 54 percent of the respondents felt that the relief effort should be financed by cutting funding for the war. Only 6 percent felt Congress should cut domestic spending.

In the debate over guns and butter, the American people have spoken clearly. Now all we need is a President that is willing to carry out the will of the people.

Mr. Chairman, as a former teacher and principal, I rise today to voice my support for H.R. 2123, the bipartisan Head Start bill.

Since 1965, Head Start has helped over 20 million children build the confidence and skills they need to succeed in school and to become the leaders and productive citizens of the future. Children cannot learn when they are hungry, sick, or too worried about their families to concentrate in school. That is precisely why we need Head Start.

Head Start is unique in its comprehensive approach to supporting children and families, offering early education, health care, social services, and nutrition services, while emphasizing parent involvement and support. This approach has represented a formula for success for nearly 40 years.

I am pleased that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not pursued their strategy of last year and have worked with Members from this side of the aisle to produce a bill that does not include the block grant proposal that was advanced in the last Congress.

I am also pleased that the bill will align Head Start curricula with K-12 education while preserving the comprehensive nature of the Head Start program. This will support effective transitions for children's learning and development and ensure that children will enter school ready to learn. At the same time, the proposal will provide continuity for children by retaining

the essential parental involvement, nutrition, and other non-academic features of Head Start.

I am glad that H.R. 2123 has a strong focus on early childhood educator professional development. Improving teacher quality in Head Start is critical to increasing overall program quality and helping more children reach kindergarten better prepared to succeed. I am concerned, however, that while the bill requires teachers to have higher academic degrees, it provides no funding to support the implementation of its important teacher quality provisions. Improving teacher quality is very important, but without providing the means to support the provision, the initiative is severely undercut. I hope that this problem is addressed in conference.

Despite my support for the bill, I will vote against it if the divisive amendment being offered by Mr. Boustany passes. I strongly oppose this amendment, which would allow faith based-sponsored Head Start programs to use Federal taxpayer dollars to discriminate against qualified teachers and other employees solely because of their religion or personal religious views.

Head Start began as a civil rights platform--ensuring that all children, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion--get a head start in life. This amendment would roll back civil rights for Head Start teachers and parent volunteers by allowing religious discrimination. This is an outright assault on religious liberty and civil rights in federally funded programs. To trample on this now will turn back the clock on the progress we have made in protecting the civil rights of the people we entrust to give our children a head start.

Allowing discrimination based on religion would significantly impede the important goals of Head Start as well as sending a damaging message to students. Religious institutions have been providing invaluable Head Start services for years and do not need this misguided amendment to continue their good work.

As chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I recognize how important Head Start is to APA communities. Nationwide, over 25,000 APA children are served by Head Start. In California alone, over 6,000 APA children are enrolled in Head Start, with over half of them coming from homes where English is not the primary language.

I want to support the improvements in Head Start that this bill will make in order to provide the children in these communities with the opportunities they richly deserve. But these communities, which have had to fight so hard to protect their own civil rights, do not want a Head Start program that discriminates and do not want Congress to act for the first time to specifically repeal civil rights protections against discrimination.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to put the needs of children first, vote against the Boustany amendment which is a poison pill that will kill this bill, and make a real commitment to improve the Head Start program.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus in strong support of H. Res. 429, introduced by my colleagues from Hawaii, Representatives Abercrombie and Case, to congratulate this year's Little League World Series Champions.

On Sunday, August 28, 2005, the West Oahu Little League Baseball team was thrust into the international spotlight by winning the Little League Baseball World Series. This victory brought enormous pride to the United States as well as the Asian and Pacific Islander American (APIA) community. In one of the most exciting championship game in Little League history, athletes and coaches from Eva Beach, Hawaii, primarily of APIA decent, exemplified the American ``can-do-spirit'' with a come from behind victory over the equally talented Little League team from Curacao.

For many of the international participants in the Little League World Series Championships, this tournament held in Williamsport, Pennsylvania is their first trip to the continental United States. This was also true for the team from West Oahu. Their dramatic victory is a testament to their determination, courage and perseverance.

Although the championship was ultimately delivered with one dramatic swing of the bat, getting to that position results from tremendous work, commitment and sacrifices made by players, coaches, volunteers, municipal park employees, teachers and most importantly the families of the players.

Mr. Speaker, let us encourage our young champions from Eva Beach to keep swinging for the fence, on and off the field and let them be role models for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule for consideration of H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act.

I oppose this rule because it does not make in order a very reasonable amendment which would have added a 1-year authorization for the Advanced Technology Program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

There is no real logical reason for not allowing me to offer the amendment, and I think the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) has proven that over and over again when we provide opportunities for the other side to respond to the question. I think I have the answer.

In our subcommittee meeting, we had a conversation when we were dealing with ATP, my amendment; and when I asked the question, why has this not been supported, the chairman said a little bit hesitantly, and I think he was a little embarrassed, he said that the President does not want to see this in the bill, and I will be just straightforward; that is what he said.

It seems to me that the President proposes, as the saying goes, and Congress disposes. It is our job to put things into the bill. It is his job to either sign the bill or not sign the bill. If he does not like this, he should veto it; but at least we should have the opportunity to debate this on the floor, because we did not have that opportunity in subcommittee.

It seems to me that if we understand that small business is 70 percent of the economic machine of this country, and if the President himself has said that he adores and he embraces small business in this country, his words seem to ring very hollow if he is not willing to fund ATP.

There are no problems with ATP. It is a program that has been going for years, since the first Bush administration. It has been supported bipartisanly. What is happening is the funding is being cut slowly over and over and over again, so that what we do is end up starving the beast.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that we allow this to be heard. It is an egregious abuse of power.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, in its current form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit with instructions would amend the bill by adding an authorization of the Advanced Technology Program within the National Institute of Standards and Technology at a level of $140 million for fiscal year 2006.

The Advanced Technology Program partners with industry by providing funds for early-stage technologies that are viewed to be too technically risky or too nascent by private funding sources.

It is one of the Federal Government's best means of promoting risk- taking and promoting the pursuit of new technology that go well beyond the limits of conventional practices.

Experts agree that these are key elements for maintaining American manufacturing competitiveness in the future. The opponents of this motion have claimed that ATP does not belong in a manufacturing bill, but the evidence shows that it does. In 43 peer reviewed ATP competitions, 39 percent of the awards have involved development of advanced manufacturing technologies.

At a June 2003 Committee on Science hearing on manufacturing R&D, the witnesses were unanimous in their belief that ATP was an important element to improving the U.S. manufacturing infrastructure and competitiveness. Supporters of H.R. 250 have mentioned that the bill is supported by the National Association of Manufacturers. But you should be aware that NAM also supports ATP, as most recently expressed in a letter to Senator Shelby, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science.

Other industry groups that support ATP funding include the Electronics Industries Alliance, the Alliance for Science and Technology Research in America, and the Council on Competitiveness. The Senate Committee on Science's own views and estimates on the fiscal year 2006 budget request state: ``The committee continues to support the Advanced Technology Program and is disappointed that the administration has again included no funds for the program in the budget request.''

It is the job of the Congress, not the President, to make these spending decisions. Year after year we provide funding for ATP in appropriations bills, but we fail to provide the certainty in the program that an authorization will bring. Today we have a chance to do so.

ATP has been targeted for termination because it has been tagged as corporate welfare, but this is a mischaracterization. ATP conducts peer-reviewed competitions open to all technology areas with demanding standards for awardees. Awardees receive relatively small amounts of funding that they must match with their own contributions.

Contrast this with the energy bill signed into law earlier this year that provides billions of dollars in direct spending, subsidies, loan guarantees, and tax breaks to an industry that is reaping record high profits.

While we engage in a philosophical debate about whether to fund ATP, other nations are taking even bigger steps to improve their manufacturing capabilities, and as a result advanced manufacturing work is now being done outside of the U.S.

It is essential that we do something to help American manufacturers stay at the cutting edge, ahead of foreign competitors, and keeping ATP alive is a good start.

I merely seek to authorize funding for ATP for fiscal year 2006 at the same funding level that is included in the Senate's CJS bill for fiscal year 2006, a level that was supported just last week by a vote of 68 to 29. Given this level of Senate support, the conference report on that bill is almost certain to include funding for ATP, so we might as well pass this motion and authorize that spending.

Now, I have heard claims that we cannot include ATP in this bill because the administration opposes it. Well, the administration opposed full funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, but this bill contains full funding for MEP. Congress overrode the administration when it was the right thing to do. Including ATP is the right thing to do, too. If the President has such a problem with it, he can make this bill his first veto.

In April, President Bush told the National Small Business Conference that he ``appreciates the fact that the small business entrepreneurs are some of the great innovators of our Nation'' and that he ``appreciates the fact that our small business owners are taking risks and pursuing dreams.''

But his actions show that he fails to appreciate that some of the most important advances are extremely risky, and to take those risks, businesses need a little help from the government. That is what ATP does. The most risky ventures are the ones with the greatest potential. If we fail to provide that help to American businesses, other countries are going to do it. They are already doing it, and that is why jobs are going overseas.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on my motion to recommit with instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize and honor the more than 3,000 lives that were lost on one of the most tragic days in our history, September 11, 2001. Four years after this dreadful day, our Nation continues to mourn the loss of so many friends and family members, whose lives were cut short by previously unthinkable acts of terror.

In remembrance of the bravery of the passengers and crew on United Airlines Flight 93, I strongly supported Senate Concurrent Resolution 26, which pays tribute to their heroic efforts. Their decisive and brave decision to overtake the September 11 terrorists likely saved the lives of countless Congressional Members and staffers, as well as the U.S. Capitol or White House from almost certain destruction.

The San Jose community I represent was especially saddened by the loss of Captain Jason Matthew Dahl, the pilot of Flight 93 and a true American hero. Jason grew up in San Jose, and his parents used to deliver milk to Hillsdale Elementary School, where I served as principal. His courage and the courage of the passengers and crew of Flight 93 was reflective of the spirit displayed in abundance by so many Americans that day. Establishing a memorial as called for in Senate Concurrent Resolution 26 will be a permanent tribute to the 40 selfless individuals of Flight 93 who overcame fear and mobilized into action to defend their fellow Americans.

I hope that Congress will show that same kind of strength and focus in defense of our homeland. The campaign against terrorism will be a long-term engagement, but we owe it to the families of the victims of 9/11 to use all appropriate tools to ensure that such a tragedy will never happen again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Resolution 437, legislation that proposes to establish a partisan committee to investigate the Bush Administration's clumsy response to Hurricane Katrina. This Congress has a proven history of lax oversight of the Administration, and I do not believe it can be trusted in this case to undertake a truly independent and probing inquiry.

Like most Americans, I welcomed the resignation of FEMA director Michael Brown. He proved himself grossly under-qualified for the important job of FEMA chief, the key position for coordinating governmental response to domestic catastrophes. His previous professional experience with the Arabian Horse Association proved inadequate training for the awesome challenges any FEMA chief can expect to face. Mr. Brown's appointment to this critical position, when compared to his woeful qualifications, reveals a disturbing willingness to place cronyism over competence.

Mr. Brown's unjustifiable appointment to FEMA is not the only outrage in the Katrina tragedy. President Bush himself has acknowledged his own failure and that of the entire Bush Administration. As the floodwaters rose and the cries went out from stranded victims, George Bush seemed not to notice. Only when his handlers realized the gravity of the situation--days after federal action could have pre-empted untold numbers of deaths--did the President rouse himself from the vigors of ranch life and deign to respond. This he did by cutting his five-week vacation short by two days, and dipping the wing of Air Force One as he jetted by.

The American people witnessed the Bush Administration negligent response to Hurricane Katrina, and they want a full account of the political and systemic shortfalls that contributed to the inept and late federal response. That is why so many Americans oppose a partisan committee like the one proposed in this legislation. In fact, 71 percent of the public said that the proposed congressional investigation would ``get bogged down in politics'' rather than ``focusing on the facts.''

Such skepticism is well-founded. The Republican majority of this Congress consistently refuses to ask tough questions of the Administration or hold it responsible for its misguided policies and outright dishonesty. The Congress, for example, did not probe the Administration's faulty rationale for war with Iraq, unlawful disclosure of a CIA agent's identity, deceptive cost estimates for its prescription drug proposal, and unethical dealings with energy lobbyists. Having turned a collective blind eye to these wrongdoings, there is no reason to believe that Congress will suddenly reverse course and put national interests above their political loyalty to President Bush.

A recent poll revealed that 76 percent of Americans support the creation of an independent commission akin to the one formed by Congress after the September 11 terrorist attacks. My Democratic colleagues and I have proposed just such a commission to examine the conduct of the Federal Government, including the Congress, before, during, and immediately after Hurricane Katrina swept through the Gulf Coast region.

Many in Washington, DC prefer a partisan inquiry into the Federal Government's response to the worst disaster in a Nation's history, but my constituents have been clear: the government's response was appalling and

they want a full and independent investigation. They want to know the truth, so that in the future, such tragedies are minimized and responded to with speed, skill, and experience.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 26, which pays tribute to the heroic efforts of the passengers and crew of United Airlines Flight 93. Their decisive and brave decision to overtake the September 11 terrorists likely saved the lives of countless Congressional Members and staffers, as well as the U.S. Capitol or White House from almost certain destruction.

The San Jose community I represent was especially saddened by the loss of Captain Jason Matthew Dahl, the pilot of Flight 93 and a true American hero. Jason grew up in San Jose, and his parents, who were the proprietors of Dahl's Dairy Delivery, used to deliver milk to Hillsdale Elementary School, where I served as principal.

From his childhood years, Jason had a strong desire to fly. He first manifested his affinity for flight during his years at Sylvandale, where he started building radio-controlled airplanes. He then joined the Civil Air Patrol, and was soon taking flying lessons from Amelia Reid at Reid Hillview Airport. He was a quick study, and was flying solo by the youthful age of 16. During this early period, Jason gave his father a photograph, depicting the two of them standing in front of a Cessna, on which Jason had written: ``Maybe someday this will be a 747.''

Jason attended my alma mater, San Jose State University, from 1975 to 1980, and graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Aeronautical Operations. Jason was soon hired by Ron Nelson Construction as a corporate pilot. A few years later, he applied to the commercial airlines, and he realized his dream when he got the call from United Airlines in June 1985, where he steadily moved up the ranks.

His passionate devotion to this endeavor was only matched during his lifetime by his devotion to his family. Balancing the demands of career and family is a daunting challenge, especially for a pilot, but family was greatly important to Jason. No matter how busy his flight schedule, he always made the time for his wife, Sandy, and his children, Matt and Jennifer.

Captain Dahl was an emblem of the American dream. He was doing what he loved to do when he lost his life along with thousands of others in the horrible assault on our Nation that occurred on September 11. His courage and the courage of the passengers and crew of Flight 93 was reflective of the spirit displayed in abundance by so many Americans that day.

It is fitting that we honor those who gave their lives on Flight 93 through passage of Senate Concurrent Resolution 26, which acknowledges the great debt we owe them and extends condolences to their family and friends. The resolution also establishes a bipartisan, bicameral congressional panel to select an appropriate memorial honoring the passengers and crew of Flight 93. The memorial--to be placed in the Capitol--will be a permanent tribute to the forty selfless individuals who overcame fear and mobilized into action to defend their fellow Americans.

I join my colleagues in their strong support for Senate Concurrent Resolution 26.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for H.R. 3673, the Second Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricane Katrina Response. This measure provides an additional $51.8 billion for hurricane relief, with $50 billion of that for relief and cleanup activities by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, $1.4 billion for hurricane-related activities by the military, and $400 million for the Army Corps of Engineers for restoration work on navigation locks and for channel dredging.

We have all been moved by the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina, and we must now all pull together to help those who are facing the greatest challenges in their attempts to recover and respond to Katrina's wake. In times of hardship, Americans come together to help each other. Time is of the essence, and each of us must do what we can to respond to this natural catastrophe.

Once the deadly threat posed by Hurricane Katrina became apparent, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi publicly called for a special session of Congress to get to work and send relief to the victims struggling in the Gulf Coast. I was pleased that Republican leadership finally answered Leader Pelosi's call and convened the U.S. Congress to pass a $10.5 billion emergency supplemental spending bill for the people suffering in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

Today we will pass an additional $51.8 billion in the Second Emergency Supplemental for Hurricane Katrina. While these funds are much needed they are coming before us today on the suspension calendar which does not allow us adequate time for debate or an opportunity to add important amendments. Hurricane Katrina is clearly the worst natural disaster in U.S. history, and we are missing the opportunity to address some critical issues, such as creating a commission to investigate the federal response to this disaster and making FEMA an independent agency.

Mr. Speaker, the Congress must provide leadership in helping those displaced by the hurricane to rebuild their lives and communities out of the wreckage left in Katrina's wake. In the weeks and months ahead, Congress will consider additional spending measures to aid victims of the hurricane. As Americans, we have pulled together through tragedies in the past, and I know that we will demonstrate that same unity in overcoming the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina.