Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. And I commend the chairman, Mr. Ehlers, and Ranking Democrat Congresswoman Millender-McDonald for bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that the money contained in this bill, the severance pay, is 100 percent for the Republican staffers who will be losing their jobs. When the Democrats lost the Congress in 1994, there was so much unrest and uncertainty among those who served on committee staffs. Every one of us who is elected to Congress and our staffs know that we have a 2-year term and the period from the election day and the swearing in of the new Congress is our severance pay. We have a 2-year term; that is it.

But the professional staff of the committees serve from term to term, and in losing the majority, the Republicans have to dismiss many of their professional and other employees. So it is just a sense of fairness, I believe, that we in the soon-to-be-majority, but the minority, recognize the need for these families to have a severance pay. If they get employed between now and before the 2 months expire, they don't get the full amount. But this isn't about leadership and committee. It is about the Republican leadership and the Republican committee staff. And as Democratic leader, I think that the fair thing to do is to treat those families with the respect they deserve for the service that these people have given to our country.

It is hard. People don't know if they are going to make their mortgage payment or if they are going to pay the tuition installment or what, and this at least gives them 2 months of certainty if they do not find employment in the meantime.

So I want the record to be clear. This is about the Republicans. It is the appropriate thing to do for the Republican staff, and I urge our colleagues to support this act of fairness in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is probably one of the last opportunities I will have to enjoy the back and forth of debate on the floor of the House. And I can't resist coming to the defense of the Republican Members' committee staff people who will lose their jobs because of the results of the election.

But I want to make this point, standing up again, seeking recognition again: first I hear the distinguished gentlemen from various States stand up and say we shouldn't be spending this money, it is $10 million-plus, to give severance pay to families who have lost their jobs.

One hundred percent of those jobs will be lost by Republicans, so as the Democratic leader, I want to support the Republican employees getting the severance pay. Then I hear the gentlemen stand up and various ones say that we oppose the expenditure because it's not a good use of the taxpayers' money and why aren't you spending more to cover the personal offices? And the point is clear. All Members of Congress are elected for 2 years, our staffs understand it is a 2-year job and our opportunity to find employment is between November and January.

But all of this reminds me of a story that was told about Yogi Berra, which may or may not be a Yogi Berra story, because many stories are attributed to him. When asked about a particular restaurant, he said, ``I don't like to go there. The food's lousy. Besides, the servings are too small.''

That is really what this reminds me of. I am opposed to this spending of money because we shouldn't be spending money to help these families, and why aren't we spending more to help the other families?

This is really the fair thing to do. Again, I urge my colleagues to very forcefully support this act of fairness for the Republican committee staffers.

Mr. Speaker, with deep admiration and affection I pay my final respects to a great San Franciscan and global citizen, Sally Lilienthal, who died on Oct. 24 at the age of 87. I join my constituents in honoring her vision, her courage, her leadership and her immense contributions to building a safer and more peaceful world. A magnificent role model, she lived her conscience and practiced her ideals each and every day.

In 1981, at the height of the Cold War--as superpowers stockpiled nuclear weapons, the international arms trade boomed and intercontinental ballistic missiles grew more lethal--Sally Lilienthal founded the Ploughshares Fund. Based in her living room with few resources and her determination to inform the public about the issues and the danger, it became an enormously influential foundation dedicated to the prevention of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of war.

She supported researchers, policy activists, and scientists in the United States and overseas who were trying to change government policies and was a vital figure in shaping the anti-proliferation agenda during the Cold War. As of now, the fund has given away more than $50 million, mostly for startup research and is the largest grant- making foundation in the United States focused exclusively on peace and security issues.

Sally Ann Lowengart was 12 when her family moved to San Francisco. She graduated from Sarah Lawrence College and returned to San Francisco in 1940. During the 1950s, she studied sculpture at the San Francisco Art Institute. Elegant and artistic, she could have spent her life comfortably moving in San Francisco's art and social circles. Instead, she turned her attention and her might to the issues of war, peace, and social justice.

Together with her husband Philip Lilienthal she founded the Northern California Committee of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund in 1970. She served on the regional ACLU board. She cofounded Amnesty International Western Region and was an early supporter of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines that, while she was vice chair, resulted in a global treaty and a Nobel Peace Prize in 1977. In 1990, the United Nations Association bestowed to her its Eleanor Roosevelt Humanitarian Award.

In addition to her work for peace, for social justice, and the arts, Sally Lilienthal was an active member of our community supporting progressive policies and politicians. For 30 years I was blessed with her support, her advice, and her friendship.

I extend my deepest sympathy to her children; Laurie Cohen, Liza Pike, Thomas Cohen, Matthew Royce, Sukey Lilienthal, Andrea Lilienthal, and her 11 grandchildren. I hope it is a comfort to her family that so many people mourn her passing and will hold Sally in their hearts forever.

Mr. Speaker, with deep admiration and affection I pay my respects to a great San Franciscan and global citizen, Sally Lilienthal, who died on Oct. 24 at the age of 87. I join my constituents in honoring her vision, her courage, her leadership and her immense contributions to building a safer and more peaceful world. A magnificent role model, she lived her conscience and practiced her ideals each and every day.

In 1981, at the height of the Cold War--as superpowers stockpiled nuclear weapons, the international arms trade boomed and intercontinental ballistic missiles grew more lethal--Sally Lilienthal founded the Ploughshares Fund. Based in her living room and driven by her determination to inform the public about the issues and the danger, it became an enormously influential foundation dedicated to the prevention of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of war.

She supported researchers, policy activists, and scientists in the United States and overseas who were trying to change government policies and was a vital figure in shaping the anti-proliferation agenda during the Cold War. As of now, the fund has given away more than $50 million, mostly for startup research and is the largest grant- making foundation in the United States focused exclusively on peace and security issues.

Sally Ann Lowengart was 12 when her family moved to San Francisco. She graduated from Sarah Lawrence College and returned to San Francisco in 1940. During the 1950s, she studied sculpture at the San Francisco Art Institute. Elegant and artistic, she could have spent her life comfortably moving in San Francisco's art and social circles. Instead, she turned her attention and her might to the issues of war, peace, and social justice.

Together with her husband Philip Lilienthal she founded the Northern California Committee of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund in 1970. She served on the regional ACLU board. She co-founded Amnesty International Western Region and was an early supporter of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines that, while she was vice chair, resulted in a global treaty and a Nobel Peace Prize in 1977. In 1990, the United Nations Association bestowed to her its Eleanor Roosevelt Humanitarian Award.

In addition to her work for peace, for social justice, and the arts, Sally Lilienthal was an active member of our community supporting progressive policies and politicians. For 30 years I was blessed with her support, her advice, and her friendship.

I extend my deepest sympathy to her family; Laurie Cohen, Liza Pike, Thomas Cohen, Matthew Royce, Steven Cohen, Sukey Lilienthal, Andrea Lilienthal, and her 11 grandchildren. I hope it is a comfort to them that so many people mourn her passing and will hold Sally in their hearts forever.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay my final respects to William J. Whalen III, a great San Franciscan and a great American who died on September 28, 2006. Bill Whalen gave a lifetime of service to our National Parks and our Golden Gate National Recreation Area, GGNRA. Together with Congressman Phillip Burton and environmentalist Edgar Waybum, he preserved and enhanced an area of unsurpassed beauty, ecological benefit and recreation for present and future generations. The GGNRA is a monument to the tenacity of a handful of leaders and interested citizens who struggled to realize their dream.

Bill Whalen's career began as a youth counselor in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. He moved on to serve as deputy superintendent of Yosemite National Park where he implemented a pioneering mass transit program to reduce traffic congestion.

In 1972, only 32 years old, Bill Whalen became the first superintendent of Golden Gate National Recreation Area, where he embraced the daunting challenge of developing and expanding the GGNRA. He masterminded the immense task before him with extraordinary ability and innovative planning. He invited politicians, environmentalists and residents to collaborate in creating this world-class people's park. Bill created a Citizens Advisory Commission to encourage citizen participation and public-private partnerships, resulting in unprecedented public support and involvement. He transformed Fort Mason Center and launched the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy that raised over $100 million to implement the GGNRA's plans.

His great success led to an appointment by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 as the youngest director of the National Park Service. He believed that the American people should have a greater role and voice in managing our Nation's parks and directed emphasis on urban parks that had previously been ignored. Bill implemented the Alaska Native Lands Claims Settlement Act that created 44 national parks and doubled the size of national park lands nationwide.

God blessed San Francisco with a handful of extraordinary leaders and a troop of citizens whose teamwork produced the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Rarely do individuals of such caliber, intellect and determination converge in one place at one time. With the consummate political acumen of Congressman Phillip Burton, the vision of environmentalist Edgar Waybum, the executive genius of Bill Whalen, and the voice, vigilance and support of citizens led by Amy Meyer, the GGNRA flourished and today is the most visited National Park in America.

I offer my deepest sympathy to Mary, Bill Whalen's beloved wife of 47 years, his sons, William IV, Dennis, Timothy and Michael, and his five grandchildren as well as our deepest appreciation for sharing their magnificent husband, father and grandfather with us. As they have lost a loved one, so the San Francisco Bay Area has lost one of its distinguished sons. We will never forget the beauty and riches he brought to our lives as well as to future generations.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I rise in regard to a question of the privileges of the House and I send to the desk a privileged resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, 19 years ago, I came to Congress to fight AIDS, a disease that has taken nearly 18,000 lives in my city of San Francisco alone.

We have lost friends, family, and loved ones, but we have not lost our will to fight this terrible disease. This year, we mark the 25th anniversary of the first diagnosis of AIDS--a stark reminder that this epidemic is still among us, and that our work is not done.

Yet as we grieve for those we have lost, we are filled with hope as we see the strength of those who are fighting and living full lives with HIV and AIDS. This would not be possible without the help of the Federal Government through initiatives such as the Ryan White CARE Act. The act has been instrumental in our fight to defeat AIDS. It has greatly improved the quality and availability of health care services for people living with and affected by HIV and AIDS. I was proud to be a part of the creation of the Ryan White CARE Act.

Unfortunately, I must rise in opposition to this reauthorization.

There are a number of good provisions in this bill, including the recognition of emerging communities and the use of actual living AIDS counts rather than estimated living AIDS cases. That change will benefit many communities, including my constituents in San Francisco.

However, when it comes to meeting the needs of people living with AIDS, our mantra should be the same as the physicians who care for all patients: first, do no harm. The primary problem with this legislation is that it fails to provide adequate funding for the treatment of HIV/ AIDS patients.

Had this Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress made a priority of funding the Ryan White program over the last several years, I would be standing here in strong support of this bill. But they have not, and I cannot support this bill.

Yet funding in this bill simply won't be able to meet the current demand for HIV/AIDS care in the United States. Under this reauthorization, San Francisco, with the highest per capita caseload of people living with AIDS in the country, stands to lose almost $30 million over the next 5 years.

That is a far cry from the bipartisan consensus we were able to achieve on this issue between 1993 and 2001. During that time, funding--adjusted for both inflation and caseload growth--under the Ryan CARE Act increased by 70 percent.

Since 2001, funding has declined by 35 percent.

The problem is not that one part of the country gets too much money and some other parts of the country are left behind. Instead, people suffering from this disease--and those caring for them--are being forced to compete for pieces of an ever-shrinking pie.

If funding for this Act had simply kept pace with the number of people with AIDS and inflation, my city and all other cities and States would be getting increases in funding instead of grappling with how they can stretch--and where they will have to sacrifice--in meeting the growing demand for services.

In fact, the impact of the cuts will be compounded, because in San Francisco, these funds form the basis for matching funds from the city.

Due in no small part to this Federal, State and local investment, more people are living with HIV and AIDS now than dying from it. That is remarkable.

As the epicenter of the epidemic, San Francisco has experienced terrible loss of life--but from that loss, my city has created a standard of care that has been a model for the Nation.

But our problem has not gone away. There are more people living with AIDS in the San Francisco's area than at any point in the epidemic's history.

This legislation has far-reaching implications for the stability of HIV/AIDS funding in our State and cities. The programs funded by the Ryan White CARE Act have literally been life-savers for people who live with HIV/AIDS.

It has provided critical support to the cities that have been the center of the epidemic, and to States that have been funding critical drug and support programs to treat the disease. This cut in funding to San Francisco means a loss in services for patients receiving primary medical care, a lack of access to counseling, support, outreach services, transitional and emergency housing and emergency payments for health care costs.

Where do these people go? What do we tell them when their ability to receive support to fight HIV/AIDS is cut off?

In prior reauthorizations of the Ryan White CARE Act, the changes that have been made were made at the margins in order to deal with emerging problems and developments; these changes did not, however, disrupt an initiative that was working.

Unlike those past reauthorizations, this bill would have a drastic destabilizing effect on many of the hardest-hit areas of the country, including California.

A basic goal of this reauthorization must be to ensure that the actions we take do not destabilize systems already in place. Unfortunately, the bill fails to meet this goal and jeopardizes the critical funding of areas throughout the country, in general, and the State and cities of California in particular.

In addition, the bill prematurely incorporates HIV reporting into the allocation formula, eliminates the hold harmless provision just when San Francisco and California need it the most, and allows the Administration to devise and implement a whole new funding formula without Congressional approval.

It is for these reasons, I must oppose this bill. And I will submit the entirety of my statement for the record.

The second major problem with this legislation is that there is simply no way to incorporate data on HIV cases into the funding formula on a consistent and comparable basis

across jurisdictions. The 2000 reauthorization of the Act included a requirement that HIV cases be incorporated into the funding distribution by no later than 2007. At that time, HIV reporting systems were in various stages of development across the country; although some states and cities had been reporting HIV cases by name since 1985, others had yet to implement an HIV-reporting system at all. Given this landscape, the drafters understood the need to provide sufficient time to allow states and cities to begin collecting HIV cases. At the time, they believed seven years to be adequate for such a transition. As it turns out, it was not.

As HIV reporting systems were developed, variations among these systems across jurisdictions emerged. Some areas reported HIV by the individual's name along with other identifying information. Others, like California, as a means of protecting the individual's confidentiality, opted not to report the person's name at all, and instead included only a unique code identifying the individual. The 2000 reauthorization of the Ryan White Act did not specify which type of reporting system jurisdictions were required to use and nothing in the law prohibited this kind of variation. So long as the Secretary found that the data on HIV cases was ``sufficiently accurate and reliable,'' jurisdictions were free to report cases by name or by code. Thus, whether an area began collecting HIV by name or by code, they were on equally solid ground under the law.

It was not until December 2005, that CDC first gave a clear indication that it would deem only cases reported by name to be ``sufficiently accurate and reliable.'' In a letter to all code-based States, CDC set forth its strong recommendation that those States convert their systems to names-based--it did not, however, establish any sort of legal requirement. At that point, 13 States used some form of a code-based reporting system. In response to CDC's announcement, almost all code-based States began the process of converting. their HIV reporting systems to names-based systems.

The reported bill would rely exclusively on names-based HIV and AIDS cases in making funding allocations starting in fiscal year 2011. In order to meet this deadline, and have all of their names-based HIV cases counted for funding purposes, code-based jurisdictions will be required to have completely converted to names-based systems in less than 3 years.

For large and diverse code-based States with several very large cities, like California, this is simply not enough time to make this change. California essentially has to start from scratch. In its code- based system, California currently has approximately 40,000 cases of HIV (non-AIDS). Under California law, these cases cannot simply be re- tallied under the new names-based system. In order to incorporate these cases into the new system, the State must contact each of these 40,000 individuals, and ask them to come in to a testing site to be re-tested. Some of these individuals are homeless. Some are drug-abusers. Many don't speak English. When personnel and resources are already strained, California will simply not be able to get all of these individuals entered into the names-based system in 3 years.

The experience of other large code-based systems provides a sense of the difficulty of this task. New York, for example, converted to a names-based system in 2000 and is now considered by CDC to be mature. However, it is widely acknowledged that New York's current names-based HIV count severely undercounts the true burden of HIV in the State simply because it has not had enough time to find and report all of its HIV cases.

I cannot support legislation that would disadvantage my State and city and take large amounts of dollars away simply because the data system is incomplete. The number of persons with HIV and with need for services remains. They should not lose needed services because of an unrealistic data requirement.

Under the language of the proposal, it is also unclear on what basis the funds will be allocated. GAO and the State of California, both of which have modeled the bill, have quite different case counts for the same State and city. The proposed language says code-based numbers are used to determine funding allocations. HRSA numbers used by GAO in their estimates are not code-based numbers. Those numbers purport to show need--not any scientific way of counting cases and a method which surely varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction depending on how much the grantee estimated. What assurance is there that the GAO numbers will be used to allocate funds in fiscal year 2007 and the out years? This does not pass the test of good government.

Under the proposed language, the case count used in 2010 and 2011 in making the allocation to San Francisco will be substantially less than the actual number of HIV positive individuals who currently live in San Francisco. That simply is unfair and is not good policy.

Because HIV reporting systems across the country remain in a state of flux, it is critical that this reauthorization protect against severe losses in funding when the bill requires that the funding be based on HIV cases. The most effective way to accomplish this protection is to incorporate a hold-harmless provision for the entire life of the bill. Unfortunately, the current bill protects a jurisdiction's funding for only the first 3 years. This is not enough.

California faces the most drastic cuts at the very time the hold harmless under the bill comes to an end. By California's estimates, the State stands to lose nearly 25 percent of its total Ryan White Care Act funding during the 5th year of the bill alone. Our State simply cannot sustain these kinds of losses.

In year 5, when transition to names-based reporting becomes mandatory, California (and all other jurisdictions moving to names- based reporting) will lose substantially. The amount of loss is difficult to ascertain, because it will depend entirely upon how quickly California and other jurisdictions can transition to names- based reporting.

The elimination of the hold harmless will have a devastating impact on the provision of HIV/AIDS services in San Francisco. The hold harmless was adopted to protect the epicenters of this disease from experiencing drastic reductions in CARE funding from year to year that would disrupt the systems of care in place, and eliminating it now would cause this very consequence. As you may know, the city of San Francisco consistently has invested local funds into the fight against this disease and the care of those living with HIV/AIDS. San Francisco has been conscientiously preparing to absorb cuts as a result of the eventual loss of the hold harmless, but the more than one-third cut in funding proposed is punitive and will eliminate critical care for thousands of people living with HIV/AIDS.

Finally, I cannot support the bill's inclusion of the so-called ``severity of need index'' (SONI). The bill requires the Secretary to develop a SONI to measure the relative needs of individuals living with HIV/AIDS, but fails to specify the factors that should be incorporated into this index, leaving it entirely up to the Secretary. Further, the bill then permits the Secretary to completely discard the current funding formula and distribute funding on the basis of this SONI beginning as early as FY 2011 without Congressional action. This is unacceptable. Congress--not the Administration--should be solely responsible for making such a drastic shift in the way funds are distributed under the Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I thank her for her leadership and her clarity on this very important issue. And clarity indeed is needed here.

Mr. Speaker, each of us wants the President to have all of the intelligence necessary to protect our country and to protect the American people. We spend billions of dollars every year to make sure that the most reliable intelligence possible is available in a timely fashion to the President and our military commanders.

We know that intelligence collection can involve highly intrusive methods. That is the reality of intelligence gathering. But when those methods are employed against people within the United States, it is imperative that they comply with the Constitution and they be subjected to regular and thorough congressional and judicial oversight.

For 28 years, the statutory basis for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes has been FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The reason FISA exists was because in 1975 the Church Committee found numerous instances of warrantless electronic surveillance and physical searches of United States citizens who were not spies, but who advocated unpopular political views.

FISA was a compromise designed to prevent overreaches unrelated to our national security while clarifying when warrantless surveillance could be used for domestic security purposes. The FISA process has worked well for nearly three decades, and that success is due in part to the fact that we have been able to modify it as the needs and technologies change. In fact, FISA has been modified 51 times since 1978.

FISA can be changed. It can be updated. It can be broadened or amended, but it should not be circumvented. And that is what this bill does tonight. It tries to circumvent FISA law and our Constitution.

Last December, President Bush confirmed press reports that he had permitted warrantless surveillance to occur outside the FISA process, and that he had both inherent and statutory authority to do so. FISA is and must remain the exclusive means for authorizing warrantless surveillance of people in the United States for intelligence purposes.

This exclusivity provision is what allows for judicial and congressional oversight and protects all of us from abuse. Unfortunately, the bill now under consideration eliminates that protection. Instead, it accepts the President's argument that there are circumstances in which he needs to be able to order surveillance without using the FISA process and then provides him with the authority to do so.

If this bill passes, rather than being the exclusive means for authorizing surveillance, FISA would be just one option. The result would be less oversight and fewer checks and balances and more abuses of executive power.

I heard our colleagues on the other side say things as ridiculous as this, and they know better. In fact they know what they are saying could not possibly be true. They are saying that if we pick up the phone and we hear a terrorist on the line, Democrats want us to hang up.

You have to really be very kind not to attribute some very sinister motivation to anyone who would say such a thing. Of course, that is not the case. And that is what is so important about the FISA, because it does allow our collectors to listen in on those conversations while they get a FISA, while they can be brought under the law through FISA.

That is the beauty of the motion to recommit that Mr. Schiff, Mr. Flake, Ms. Harman, and others will be putting forth later this evening. It simply says that the vote to go into Afghanistan did not give the President the authority to avoid the law, and undermines the Constitution.

It says that FISA can be updated. It provides funds, more funding for the implementation of FISA. It extends the number of days under which collection may be done without a FISA warrant. It, in fact, modernizes FISA in a way that is appropriate, but maintains the exclusivity which is central, central to the President operating under the law.

The combination of the military commission bill passed yesterday and this bill would be an unprecedented expansion of executive authority into some of the most fundamental liberties enshrined in our Constitution: the right to privacy and the right to due process of law.

These are not merely academic, legal, or technical matters. These are rights. These rights are at the heart of what makes us unique as a Nation, and I believe they will be diminished by the passage of these bills.

The President claims that inherent in his office is all of the authority needed to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance. Rather than enshrine in law powers the President claims he already holds, we should await the conclusion of judicial review of the President's domestic surveillance program.

At that point, we can determine if additional adjustments to FISA are necessary. We do not need to pass this diminishment of privacy in our country tonight.

Of course, that would require something that the administration has thus far been unwilling to allow, congressional hearings on the domestic surveillance program.

Congress needs answers to questions that remain unresolved to the unsatisfactory and sterile briefings provided thus far by the administration. Until that happens, we should be reaffirming the exclusivity of FISA and our commitment to providing whatever additional resources and procedural enhancements might be necessary to facilitate its operation.

That is exactly what the bipartisan Schiff, Flake, Harman, Inglis amendment would do. The Republican leadership should have ensured that the House had a chance to consider the amendment today. That would have been the fair thing to do. Instead, we have had to force the issue through a motion to recommit. That motion is the only, only initiative that stands between us and a vote on a bad bill.

I urge the adoption of that motion in the spirit of protecting the American people, of expanding the time allowed to collect without a FISA warrant, and to do so with exclusivity and under the law to honor our oath of office that we take to uphold the Constitution.

Anyone who says that we want to hang up on Osama bin Laden demeans the debate, cannot possibly be serious and owes the American people better.

Mr. Speaker, as I always remind my colleagues, I am a mother of five children and I have five grandchildren going on six in October. Their personal safety is of paramount importance to me, as it is to every parent of their children and grandchildren in our country.

As elected officials, our primary responsibility is to protect and defend our country, to provide for the common defense. It is in the Constitution of the United States.

So to come to this floor on this very important debate and to hear the Representative from Georgia, to imply that this issue of punishing those who do harm or could do harm to our country is not a priority for every Member of this body is a disservice to this debate and dishonors our Constitution.

How dare you come to this floor and imply that we think that these people are being tried for chewing gum. They have committed the most heinous acts that we have witnessed in our lives. Every American wants them prosecuted and punished. Every American wants them prosecuted and punished.

I will not yield. You had your time. You demeaned this debate by implying that we think they were being tried for chewing gum. That is what you said. The Record will show it.

But it isn't just you. It isn't just you. It is the condescension and the disrespect for something that we should expect every Member of this body on both sides of the aisle to take very, very seriously: To provide for the common defense.

We have that officially as our responsibility. It is our first responsibility because, unless our people are safe, nothing else really matters. And as a mother, as a parent, as a mother of five and a grandmother of five going on six, as I constantly remind you all, I identify with the concerns of all of America's families for safety in their neighborhoods while these Republicans are cutting the Community Policing program, Cops on the Beat program. So it just is very pervasive.

But, again, we all want a safe home, a safe community, a safe neighborhood, homeland security, and to be able to protect our country wherever our interests are threatened in the world. And the ability to anticipate what those dangers may be is a very important one as well.

It is 5 years since 9/11. Not one person who has been directly responsible for 9/11 has been prosecuted and punished. There is something wrong with this picture. And this bill that is here today, because it does violence to the Constitution of the United States, also, as Mr. Skelton said, will produce convictions that may well be overturned because the bill does not heed the instructions from the Supreme Court, a Supreme Court friendly to this administration, which has directed it to go back to the drawing board.

Democrats bring to this debate an unshakeable commitment, as do Republicans, to the proposition that terrorists who attack Americans must be caught, convicted, and punished in a judicial process that will withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court. We want them in jail. We want them punished, whatever that punishment is. We don't want it overturned. And that is what this debate is about today.

The American people want those who perpetrated and are responsible for 9/11 to be prosecuted without further delay. It is 5 years later, and they want convictions to stick so that justice will not be further postponed. It is inexplicable. How do you explain to people that 5 years later this has not happened, and not one single planner has even been brought to trial?

The bill does not help us achieve the goal of bringing anyone to trial. It is badly flawed. It threatens the safety of our troops, our ability to prosecute terrorists effectively, our ability to protect the American people, and to honor our oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. Rather than welcoming suggestions for improvements, Republicans refuse to hear them at all.

The only one recourse that we have is to defeat this rule so that we can offer amendments to address some of the bill's most glaring deficiencies in the areas of, one, habeas corpus; two, Geneva Conventions standards; and the appeals process. If we do not, I believe, as I have said, that we will be headed for a repeat of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a Supreme Court defeat for the President and a decision that sends us back to square one in terms of bringing those responsible for 9/11 to trial.

By seeking to strip Federal courts of habeas corpus review, this bill is practically begging to be overturned by the courts. Habeas corpus is one of the hallmarks of our legal system and our democracy. It is the last line of defense against arbitrary executive power. And on that subject, we had a rule that was proposed by Mr. Meehan. It was rejected by the Rules Committee. Hopefully, we can reject the previous question so that we can bring that up.

Then, permitting indefinite detention under conditions that cannot be challenged in court is so contrary to our history and our values that it should raise all sorts of red flags. Yet this bill rushes us headlong into a court-stripping misadventure that will have disastrous consequences for our efforts to combat terrorism. Let us not go there. That is habeas corpus.

In addition, the bill establishes an appeals process, and it is interesting, Mr. Speaker. The appeals process in this bill ignores the existing highly respected appellate military system that provides a direct route to the Supreme Court, expedited. Rather than deferring to the military justice system that is very respected by the military and that is now in place, the bill creates a new appeals court with no track record and a longer, longer path to the Supreme Court review, which will delay justice.

Perhaps most distressing, this bill could very well boomerang on us, putting American troops in danger.

Redefining the Geneva Conventions in ways that lower the treatment standards the Conventions create poses a real risk to American forces.

This is a time when the Golden Rule really should be in effect. Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto your troops, your CIA agents, your people in the field.

And God bless our military personnel, our men and women in uniform, our intelligence officers who are out there for their patriotic service to our country. They are best protected by an international commitment to the highest possible standards for the treatment of prisoners. Why would we want to do something that at the same time jeopardizes the safety of our troops and weakens the moral basis for our efforts against terrorists? And experts have testified over and over again that that kind of treatment does not produce intelligence that is of value and reliability that we need to protect the American people and to bring these terrorists to justice.

Democrats have proposed amendments on these issues, habeas corpus, Geneva Conventions, the appeals process, but the rule, as drafted, will not let us consider them. This House once again is shutting us down on debate. As yesterday, this House said ``no'' to the resolution that said we want all Members of Congress to see the National Intelligence Estimate so that we can stipulate, all of us together, to a set of facts of how the war in Iraq is having a negative impact on the war on terror. Yesterday they said ``no.'' Today the Republicans said ``no.'' It is just a constant chant.

These subjects are just too important to allow those results to stand. If we defeat the previous question, the opposition to which is being led by Congresswoman Slaughter--and I thank you, Congresswoman Slaughter, for your leadership on this important issue on the Rules Committee. Under your leadership, if we win, we can thoroughly debate all of the matters raised by this legislation.

Let us do the job that we were elected to do on this, one of the pivotal issues of our time. Let us honor our oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution and our responsibility to protect the American people and to prosecute and punish those who would do harm to them.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 9 of rule XVII, I offer a privileged motion calling for a secret session on the reported intelligence assessment that the war in Iraq is hindering our global efforts against terrorism.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank you, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Meek from Florida and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, the cochairs of our 30-something Working Group, for the boundless energy that you have expended, the tremendous intellect and the great commitment to a new direction and a better future.

Our 30-something Working Group has been an inspiration to Congress and invigoration to us all, and I join as a mother of 30-somethings, and in thanking you for what you have done.

It is appropriate that the 30-something Group is advocating advancing in a new direction because this new direction is absolutely essential for young people in our country. Our 30-somethings are committed to a better future for all Americans. So is our new direction, a new direction for all Americans, not just the privileged few.

We can begin with our Six for `06, to make America safer. We will begin by passing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We have just observed the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Here we are 5 years after 9/11. The Commission is giving the Federal Government Ds and Fs and incompletes for implementation of their recommendations. The first day of Congress we will pass the 9/11 Commission recommendations and make America safer.

We will make our economy fairer, and we will begin by passing the minimum wage. We can do it next week. The bill is in the hopper. To make our economy fair, we can pass the minimum wage, and certainly not have Congress have any increase in its salary until there is an increase and unless there is an increase in the minimum wage.

We can also remove the incentives for companies to send jobs overseas. Imagine taxpayers are giving incentives for companies to send job overseas. We will end that.

We will make colleges more affordable. It is important to broaden the opportunity for a college education, and we will begin by making college tuition tax deductible and cutting in half the interest on student loans.

We will make health care more affordable, and we will begin by allowing the government to negotiate for lower prices for prescription drugs.

And we will promote stem cell research. That is better for a healthy America.

We will move towards energy independence that our colleagues were talking about here. We will begin by repealing the subsidies that have been given to big oil and big energy companies, and instead use that $18 billion for research in alternative energy resources.

Every day that we are here, we will work for a dignified retirement by preserving Social Security, protecting pensions and encouraging savings for America's seniors. This we will do within the first 100 hours of a new Congress, given the opportunity. But we could do it now even before Congress leaves. Instead, we have a do-nothing, rubber- stamp Congress.

I see the rubber stamp here. Here we are just a few days from the end of the fiscal year, and this Congress has still not passed the budget for this fiscal year. How could it be, a week before the end of the fiscal year, and this do-nothing Congress has not even passed the budget?

In addition, we have a crying need in our country for comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform. We certainly are not moving in any direction to make that possible.

The list goes on. We haven't finished our appropriations bills. We shouldn't leave here until we have an increase in the minimum wage.

But when we return, and hopefully with a verdict from the American people, we will get about the people's business, the issues that are relevant to the lives of the American people, their jobs, their health care, their economic security, the health care for their families, the education of their children,

safe America, safe neighborhoods and a secure America with energy independence.

We will do all of this from the very first day with integrity. Our first rule that Members will vote on will be for integrity, to sever the link between special interests and legislation so that we are here for the people's interest instead. With civility, with bipartisan administration of the House so that every voice in the country is heard, not only the voices of those who happen to have their Member be in the majority; and we will do it with fiscal discipline. No more deficit spending. Pay as you go, audit the books, account for the money to the American people.

All of this is possible because of the energy and enthusiasm of our 30-somethings, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Meek, and Ms. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and all of the other 30-something members who have participated here on the floor of the House and throughout the country to talk about a new direction.

The American people are an optimistic, confident, hopeful lot, and we build on that spirit, American spirit, as we go forth with an optimism into these elections, an optimism about a better future. We owe it to our troops who work to protect us. We owe it to our Founders and the vision they had for America, and we owe it to our children.

With that, I yield back with all of the compliments in the world to these two distinguished gentlemen for bringing the idea of a rubber- stamp Congress to the floor here. It is a fact of life on the floor of Congress, and they are pointing that out to the American people, but not without a spirit of optimism about change. Change is necessary, change is possible, and it will happen because of the leadership of the Congressman Tim Ryan and Congressman Kendrick Meek. Thank you so much.

I think the American people are way ahead of this Congress, and they are waiting for us to catch up. We look forward to that with your full participation. Thank you very much.

I thank you again for your leadership in the fight to preserve Social Security, to stop the privatization, to stop the raid on the trust fund, and to stop the reduction in benefits. Without the participation of the 30-somethings, we would not have been as successful as we were.

But the threat still looms. The President and the leadership of this House talks about it, and the leadership of the Republican Party nationally talks about it, and the President's staff also talks about it. This is something that is an ongoing fight. With you in the forefront, with you as a voice for your generation, and as a voice for our country, that we will prevail. Thank you.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

``This cannot be.'' With those words, State Judge Jackson Bedford yesterday struck down the infamous Georgia photo ID law. Let me repeat. ``This cannot be.'' Let these words guide us here, because right here in this House of Representatives we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution guarantees all American citizens the right to vote and the right for their vote to be counted.

I want to thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California, the ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee, for her leadership on this issue. She has been an important force in protecting the integrity of elections. And that is why it is so sad to see this bill come here to the floor today, especially named the Federal Election Integrity Act.

Integrity? It is not about integrity. It is about a tawdry attempt by Republicans to suppress the votes of millions of Americans. That is not integrity.

America is a beacon of democracy to the world. We must continue to send a message to the world that we honor the oath of office that we take to protect and defend the Constitution. Every eligible citizen must be able to vote, to exercise his or her right to vote, and those votes must be counted.

Only a short month ago, many of us stood here, stood proudly on the White

House lawn as the Voting Rights Act reauthorization was signed into law. We overcame many obstacles even for the reauthorization of that legislation to affirm the most precious right of our democracy, the right to vote.

Today, however, we are undermining that right to vote, and we are undermining the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, and, in doing so, we are undermining our democracy. Though the right to vote is the foundation of our democracy, the bill we debate today is indeed a disenfranchisement of millions of American voters, the elderly, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans, and, get this, Native Americans. Native Americans, people here longer than any of our families, unless we can proudly boast of being Native American. People with disabilities. The list goes on.

As the NAACP has said, this bill would disenfranchise many of the very citizens that the Voting Rights Act is designed to protect. And the Republicans call that integrity. I don't think so.

A few weeks ago President Bush spoke before the NAACP in the first time in his Presidency. He quoted President Lyndon Johnson in saying that voting rights are the lifeblood of a democracy. And yet, here today, after making that great statement, quoting that great civil rights and voting rights President, President Bush is here today in a transparent, it is obvious to all, attempt to suppress the votes of millions of American citizens, cutting off the lifeblood of democracy. Is that integrity? I don't think so.

Supporters of this Republican voter suppression bill would claim that this bill is about preventing noncitizens from voting. It is just the opposite; it is a bill designed to prevent citizens from voting. Noncitizens are strictly prohibited under law from voting and face tough penalties for breaking these laws. And that is right. No one condones fraud. There is little evidence anywhere in the country of a significant problem with noncitizen voters. As our distinguished ranking member pointed out, if you want to make a case, document it, just don't claim it and then come through with a clear and transparent attempt to cut off the votes of those who do not share your political point of view. You didn't take an oath of office to do that.

This bill is not about noncitizens as its supporters claim. Rather, it affects all American citizens by making them prove that they are, in fact, citizens even if they have voted for years. By forcing voters to undergo time-consuming, burdensome, and expensive attempts to secure documents, this Republican voter suppression bill is a modern-day poll tax. It would especially impact our elderly citizens and low-income citizens, and disproportionately affect minority individuals and individuals with disabilities, many of whom do not drive and cannot afford passports. This bill suspiciously appears to target and disenfranchise American voters who might not be sympathetic to Republican policy goals. Again, a modern-day poll tax. And the Republicans call this modern-day poll tax integrity. I don't think so.

We have a responsibility to remove all obstacles to participation to the right of all American citizens to participate in the electoral process. And yet, the AARP has said that the obstacles this bill throws up to voting, that they are particularly concerned about that such rules will prevent many eligible older voters from exercising their right to vote. That is why they join the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, and this long list of over 110 organizations, civil liberties, civil rights groups opposing this legislation.

It even goes into health, United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, United States Steelworkers, United States Student Association. How about this. The list goes on. But it even talks about some of the groups that deal with the disabilities community in our country. The Navajo Nation. I will put it in the Record for all to see. The League of Women Voters, the NAACP, AARP. The list goes on.

Groups Opposed to Voter ID Bill--September 20, 2006

African American Ministers in Action

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, how many times can people say, ``Never again,'' and then proceed to observe the systematic elimination of a people, of genocide? When it happened in Rwanda, we were shocked, horrified. While it was happening and after it happened, we all examined our consciences and said, how could we have let that happen? Never again. That had been said after Bosnia; of course, after the Holocaust, which was the ultimate, of course, genocide.

So here we are with a very well-documented genocide where the people of the world are appalled by it. There is great sadness about the loss of life and displacement of people, much dismay about the fact that the humanitarian assistance cannot be delivered. In fact, some of the humanitarian deliverers of that aid are being killed in the Sudan and Darfur region now. And yet, for some reason, as a country, as a world, we seem incapable of taking the necessary action.

I want to commend Donald Payne for his tremendous leadership on this important issue. With that leadership, some of us went to the Darfur region earlier in the spring of this year. We saw the children. The little ones still sort of had a bright spark in their eyes, the little babies, but as the children got a little bit older, you could see that pall come over them. They had seen too much, pillaging of villages, kidnapping of their fathers, and murder perhaps of their parents, the raping of their mothers; just unthinkable, unimaginable horrible acts of violence right in front of the children. And in their cases, some of them, too, were victims of the same atrocities that I just named.

We had a great delegation. Congresswoman Barbara Lee was a very important part of it, and she brought her significant knowledge of Africa and of poverty and of divestment in her initiative to lead the divestment movement in this country, and I hope that in the Senate version of the Darfur Accountability Act that the divestment language will be as written by Congresswoman Barbara Lee.

The chair of our Congressional Black Cause, Congressman Mel Watt, was on our trip. The chair of our caucus, Chairman Clyburn, Maxine Waters. It was a very distinguished delegation, and we went there with the idea that we would make a difference, that our voices would be heard with much greater authority when we came home.

When we came home, we went to the United Nations and we met with Kofi Annan and said how urgent the situation was and that something had to be done, and we had hoped that it would be just a matter of weeks, that was in March, that something would be done. We met with the President of the United States and offered to work together on the issue of the resolving this terrible, terrible genocide in the Sudan.

But the time has gone by. And we said at the time, we can't wait 6 months. They said, well, we probably can't get a U.N. force in there until 6 months. And we said, no, we can't wait 6 months. These children will be gone by then.

We were in a camp that had 100,000 people. These children, these beautiful little children, were living in huts that were made of just discarded materials. And I couldn't help but think that when we send our aid, whether it is grain or rice or whatever foodstuffs we send in those bags that say ``Made in the U.S.A.,'' you wouldn't have thought that you would see those same bags as huts. That is what people lived in, these bags draped over sticks.

The conditions were unhealthy, contributed to the health problems and the loss of life. The situation was desperate. And still, 6 months later, we are still looking for the answer.

Everybody bears a responsibility for this. The American people certainly care, and they have voiced their concern. College campuses across the country are the scene of rallies for Darfur. Central Park on Sunday and other places throughout the country, people turned out for Darfur. Here in Washington a few months ago, an incredible record- breaking crowd came out. The Jewish community, God bless them, has taken the lead. Rabbi David Sapperstein and others have come together, brought the Jewish community to be a major part of this because they knew and they know what ``never again'' means.

So let us, in making these statements that we are making tonight, be part of a resolve that this is a top priority for our country. Last week our delegation, we come together regularly to see how we are doing, where we can make a difference, where we go from here, we met with many of the humanitarian groups that minister to the needs of the people in the Darfur region. They told us that 14 humanitarian deliverers of aid had been killed, as I mentioned. They told us about the horrendous conditions and how it all worsened and how difficult it was to deliver the aid. And we promised them that we would make an even more concerted effort.

So we wrote to the President, talked about the deteriorating situation in Darfur, and we did ask him to appoint a special envoy, and we are very pleased that he made that announcement at the U.N. this week and that there would be an extension, a request to the African Union to renew its mandate until a U.N. force can take over. And that seems to be the course of action that will be taken.

It is not enough. The African Union force is doing a good job for the resources that they have, but they have no mobility, they have no charge to really keep the peace. But they are a presence and a respected one, and I admire the work that they are doing. But they can't do the job without funds, without mobility, the trucks, whatever, to move around quickly, because they are covering an area the size of Texas. This small band is covering an area the size of Texas. Mr. Green knows a lot about the size of Texas and the size of Darfur.

We also want to be able to bring our delegation, our delegation was a bipartisan group, together hopefully to meet with the President to set some goals, state the resolve, get the job done.

But this behavior that we saw in Darfur, the treatment of these people, was outside the circle of civilized human behavior.

What we saw from the authorities in the Sudan was denial of what was happening in Darfur. So that makes the challenge even greater. But if our word is to mean anything and our credibility is to be intact, we can't really say never again when we see the horrors of a genocide and the look in the eyes of the children to whom we owe more.

Many of us are very committed to our faith, whatever religion we espouse, and we are taught that we are all God's children and every person is made in the image and likeness of God and that we all carry a spark, a spark of divinity within us; and every person, therefore, is worthy of respect. I believe that is the case.

So what is the justice in these children and their families being at the mercy of the brutality that is being exacted upon them, without the whole world not only saying it but acting upon the words ``never again.''

So in that spirit I express my appreciation to Mr. Payne for his leadership. Nobody knows more on the subject, has

more dedication, and has been more courageous in going into places that have been a danger to him personally in order to represent the American people with great distinction and effectiveness. I thank you, Mr. Payne, and look to you for your ongoing leadership on this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H. Res. 622, to, provide recognition to the Filipino veterans who fought to defend democracy and freedom during World War II. Their heroic efforts played a vital role in the outcome of the war and helped lead the allied forces to, victory.

It was more than 60 years ago, when Filipino, soldiers answered a call from President Roosevelt asking them to fight alongside American troops. Countless Filipino and American soldiers sacrificed their lives to protect the democratic principles they shared. It was estimated that 10,000 Filipino, soldiers and 1,200 American soldiers died as prisoners of war during the Bataan Death March alone.

Upon taking the pledge to serve, the Filipino, troops were promised the same benefits and pensions as their American brethren. They suffered the same torture and witnessed the same horrors. They shared the same patriotic duty to preserve liberty around the world. But in 1946 Congress passed the Recission Act, which revoked the full eligibility rights of Filipino soldiers and broke the commitment our nation made to, them.

As we stand together today acknowledging the contributions that the Filipino, soldiers sacrificed for our country, we must pledge to continue their fight for full recognition. This resolution is the first step in correcting the past. As Americans, we make a simple yet sacred promise to those who serve our country in uniform: `You have taken care of us, so we will take care of you.'

Today, fewer than 70,000 Filipino, veterans are still alive. We remember World War II hero Magdaleno Duenas, a brave soldier who moved to my district in San Francisco and continued the fight from the battlefield to the frontlines in effort to ensure equity for Filipino veterans. We cannot forget the sacrifices that these veterans have made. We must dedicate ourselves as a nation to ensure that America fulfills its moral obligation to those who pay the high price for our freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to our San Francisco Japantown and celebrate with them on their 100th anniversary as a community. Affectionately called J-town, San Francisco Japantown is the oldest and joins San Jose and Los Angeles as the only remaining Japantowns in the continental United States. A century ago, there were more than 50 in California, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Utah. Japantown is more than just a physical location where Japanese people migrated after the Great San Francisco Earthquake of 1906, a distinctive area where Japanese culture is on display, or a tourist destination. Japantown represents more than 100 years of a unique immigrant experience, which started with the arrival of the first generation--the Issei.

Prior to 1906, Japanese immigrants gravitated to ethnic enclaves where rents were affordable and they felt accepted. The arrival of picture brides through Angel Island Immigration Station in San Francisco Bay after 1906, many of them meeting their future husbands for the first time, was the genesis of the second generation--the Nisei. The 100 years included the emergence of the activist third generation the Sansei--who are now ``baby boomers'' and the parents and grandparents of the fourth and fifth generations--the Yonsei and Gosei.

As the younger generation makes their mark on our global society, I hope they will recognize the critical role of family and community in their successes. I was recently made aware of an example of what is possible. NASA Astronaut Daniel Tani represents the next generation of Japanese Americans in space, following the tradition of Astronaut Ellison Onizuka, who tragically lost his life on the same mission as teacher Christa McAuliffe in 1986. Astronaut Tani flew the 2001 Endeavour mission. He is a shining example of the boundless possibilities of the immigrant experience. His family has roots in J- town.

The road was not always easy: in fact, Japanese Americans often persevered under great hardship to overcome prejudice. In its 100 years in San Francisco's Western Addition, the community suffered segregation in local schools, a racially motivated exclusionist immigration policy, and a shrinking community with each redevelopment. During World War II, eligible Nisei men volunteered for military duty while their families remained behind barbed wire without due process, many of them United States citizens. Our government under the guise of war forced Japanese Americans from their homes and escorted them under armed guard to internment camps throughout the United States. Most of the San Francisco Japantown community was interned in Topaz, Utah. It took three generations until redress was made in the form of monetary reparations and our government's apology, though no amount of compensation or apology could ever adequately replace or repair what Japanese Americans lost. The lessons that we learned during the internment should serve as a reminder of how we must continue to fight for our freedoms today. Protecting civil liberties must be a constant priority of our government.

As San Francisco's Representative in Congress, and House Democratic Leader, I am grateful that I can count on the steadfast strength of our San Francisco Japantown community and its extraordinary leaders, too many to name individually.

Congratulations Japantown for more than 100 years in San Francisco.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago on Monday, on the day the terrorists attacked our Nation, Members of Congress gathered on the steps of the Capitol and sang God Bless America. Many speakers today have referenced that moment, because I think it had a profound effect on all of us. We really did need God's blessing. We put aside partisanship to respond with one voice that we would do everything in our power to ensure that our Nation would be fully healed and fully safe, and that the American people would know that we were working hard to bring those who were responsible for 9/11 to justice.

Today, we should have embraced that same spirit of 5 years ago on the steps of the Capitol. The United States Senate did. This week, they passed a resolution which mourned the innocent victims of the attacks, consoled their families, praised our troops for their valor, underscored our resolve to find all of those responsible for the attacks and bring them to justice, and emphasized our commitment to stopping terrorists who would harm the American people. Democrats and Republicans alike in the Senate came together in support of that resolution.

I would have hoped that that could have come to the floor here. We were prepared to support that, Democrats were, but the Republican leadership refused.

Instead, the Republican leadership gave us a resolution here this evening which is self-congratulatory. It praises Congress, for some reason. Instead of having the focus on the innocent victims of 9/11, it talks about the accomplishments of this Congress. I can't even imagine why they thought that was a good idea. But since they opened the door to what they have done, they have opened the door to what they have not done.

Two years ago, the bipartisan, independent 9/11 Commission concluded that the American people were failed by their government on 9/11. To prevent future similar incidents and failures, the Commission made 41 recommendations. Last December, the same independent Commission issued a report card on the implementation of those recommendations. Sixteen grades that were awarded were either D's and F's, and others were incompletes. In May of this year, the Commissioners reviewed the record on implementation once again; their conclusion on the poor grades, no progress.

Two days ago, the Commission's chairman and vice chairman, Democrat and Republican or Republican and Democrat, wrote about the December report card in an op ed in the Boston Globe, and I quote: ``What we argued then is still true now; Americans are safer, but they are not yet safe.'' And concluded, ``Our sense of national urgency is lacking.''

Mr. Speaker, we have lost our focus on terrorism since the invasion of Iraq, and that is one of the chief reasons that the 9/11 Commission's report card reflected so poorly on the Bush administration and on the Republican Congress.

Our focus should have continued to be on Afghanistan. The war in Iraq is the wrong war. No matter how many times the President wants to say it, the war in Iraq is not the war on terror. The war in Afghanistan was. We had the opportunity to destroy al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and we missed the opportunity because we lost our focus. Instead, 5 years later, the Taliban is on the resurgence, violence

has increased, the poppy crop, the opium crop is all pervasive.

Think of this. Afghanistan now supplies 90 percent of the opium supply to the world. 90 percent. The increase in just the last couple of years is 50 percent. They went from 4,000 metric tons to 6,100 metric tons of cultivation. This is what is happening in Afghanistan

A missed opportunity to crush al Qaeda, an increase in violence, a rising resurgence in the Taliban, and the increase in the poppy crop.

Mr. Speaker, let us use the occasion that we have as we consider this flawed resolution to resolve to do better. Let us honor the memories of the innocent victims of 9/11 attacks and their families by doing the unfinished business of the 9/11 Commission. We have heard about it all day, it is in the public domain, it was in their best selling book a couple of years ago, and we still haven't gotten it done.

Isn't it hard to believe and to know that 5 years after 9/11 we still do not have real-time, that means immediate communication, among police, fire, and other first responders. We paid a price for this with Hurricane Katrina. Five years later, we still do not have the screening at our ports that we should have; we are at 5 percent, we should be at 100 percent of screening. That is possible, it is affordable, and it is technologically available to us.

Five years after 9/11, we still do not have our borders secure. We have not mandated, because this Congress refuses to do so and this administration does, too, we still have not mandated the private sector to protect our nuclear and chemical power plants.

The list goes on of shortcomings. The 9/11 Commission said we should increase the pace of reform at the FBI. There are so many things that are lacking in what we are doing to protect the American people. The biggest threat to the security and safety of the American people is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the unsafeguarded radioactive material that is out there. For about $10 billion, about a month in Iraq, we could buy up all of the known radioactive material that is out there that could fall into the hands of the terrorists. It is a lot of money. It is a small price to pay for the safety of the American people. And yet, for reasons that are hard to explain to anyone, we have refused over and over again to pass legislation that would appropriate the resources to do that.

Taking the actions to correct the unfinished business of the 9/11 Commission and others recommended by the Commission other than what I mentioned is consistent with the sacrifices of the people in New York and Virginia and Pennsylvania on 9/11, and the sacrifices made since then by the men and women serving in our Armed Forces. And God bless them. They have done a magnificent job for our country. We have to do better by them. We owe it to each and every one of them to do everything we can as quickly as we can to make America safe.

Mr. Speaker, it all comes down to the personal, now. Doesn't it? As we think back 5 years, we think about those families. Nearly 3,000 people were killed that day. Two thousand children lost their parents. The emotional toll is just incalculable. And yet, as our colleague Congresswoman Maloney has pointed out, from New York, the heroes and heroines of 9/11, Congressman Nadler as well, are not having their needs met. It is the responsibility of government to meet the health care needs of the people who risked their lives, who went in there without even a thought of whether they would help save a life or not. And now, without a thought, their needs are ignored. We have an opportunity to do better by them. We owe them that obligation, because with all the talk that we can do about initiatives and proclamations and honoring and the rest, it all comes down to the people, to the personal, to the impact on their lives.

Of course we will vote for this flawed resolution. It could be better. But just because the Republicans decided that they wanted to praise themselves instead of focusing on the business at hand doesn't mean that we won't support it.

But as we vote for it, I call upon the Speaker of the House to bring to this floor before we adjourn for the elections legislation to enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We have all the time in the world to do it. Nothing is more important than the safety of the American people. We have no greater responsibility as elected officials than to provide for that public safety and the national security of our country, because nothing else matters if we don't protect the American people. Instead, we have ignored those needs. We are cutting the COPS programs so the neighborhoods are not safer. We are making matters worse. We have the opportunity to make matters better. If we do pass them, only then will we truly be honoring the memory of those who died. Only then will we truly be keeping our promise to their families that we will make America as safe as we can be.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution today, but join me in bipartisanship. We can do this in a bipartisan way without controversy. The list is clear. The support is there. The need is urgent. I urge the Speaker once again to bring the 9/11 Commission's recommendations to the floor to make America safer, to bring some peace to the families of 9/11, and to bring to justice those who are responsible for those heinous acts 5 years ago.