Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Con. Res. 218 and join my colleagues and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus in recognizing the upcoming centennial celebration of sustained Filipino immigration to the United States. For over a century now, Filipino Americans have been a vibrant part of the American story, adding to our great diversity and contributing to the success of our country.

Since the first small group of Filipino immigrants arrived in 1906 to work in the sugar plantations of Hawaii, Filipino Americans have been an important part of our country's history. Indeed, their story of struggle and success is the story of America, whether as migrant laborers working in the fields of California, or as soldiers fighting for freedom and democracy in every major conflict of the past century. One hundred years later, the Filipino American community is now over 2 million strong and the second largest Asian Pacific Islander American community in our country.

In addition, this centennial also celebrates the strong bond and friendship that the United States and the Philippines have shared for over 100 years. From the period of American governance starting in 1898 and independence in 1946, the Philippines have proven to be one of our most enduring and important allies. Today, that bond has been strengthened through sustained immigration where the exchange of ideas and cultural experiences has added to our diverse landscape.

I cannot stress enough the enormous contributions of Filipino Americans, especially all those who have served with great distinction in our Armed Services. That is why, as we celebrate this centennial, it is so important to recognize and honor the service of those Filipino veterans who served honorably during World War II. The United States made a promise to these veterans and I will continue to fight to fully restore their benefits that are 6 decades overdue.

Filipino Americans are the second most populous Asian American community in my district of San Francisco, and I am proud to represent this vibrant and active community in Congress. I look forward to commemorating the contributions of Filipino Americans and advancing the issues of the community throughout the upcoming centennial year.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and a civil rights leader in his own right, for yielding me this time.

This is an unusual phrase I am going to use today, but I wish to associate myself with the eloquent remarks of the Speaker of the House, Mr. Hastert, in praise of the life and leadership of Coretta Scott King.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise here today to also join the Speaker in honoring Coretta Scott King. She was not only the keeper of the flame; she was one of our Nation's greatest civil rights leaders in her own right. For all of her life, Coretta Scott King was her own woman. She grew up in rural and segregated Alabama in a hardworking and ambitious Scott family. She followed her sister, who was the first African American ever to attend Antioch College in Ohio; and after, Coretta moved to Boston to pursue a music career. It was there that she met a young preacher through a friend.

We all know who that young preacher was to become, but what we do not know is who he might have been without Coretta by his side. The wise man that he was, Martin Luther King was not just looking for a wife, he said, but for a partner; and he was taken with her immediately.

It took Coretta a little longer, 6 months of deliberations before she accepted his marriage proposal. To the shock of Dr. King's father, but probably to no surprise of anyone who knew her, she asked that the phrase ``obey thy husband'' section be removed from their marriage vows.

Of their work together, Dr. King would later say, ``I wish I could say that I led her down this path. But I must say, we went down this path together because she is as actively involved and concerned when we met as she is now.''

A year after they were married, Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King had to decide where to move after Dr. King completed his studies in Boston, whether to stay in the North or move back to the South. The year was 1954 and the South was deeply divided by the issue of race.

The newlywed couple had both grown up in the segregated South. They knew the racial injustice that permeated the South, the indignities of sitting in the back of the bus and drinking from separate water fountains.

Yet they chose to return to the heart of what they wanted to change, and they accepted the pastorate at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, going straight to the heart of what was wrong, with the aim to make it right.

In the years that followed, Coretta Scott King marched alongside her husband, Dr. Reverend Martin Luther King, for that very cause. They marched together in Selma to demand voting rights for African Americans, and aren't we all proud to call Mr. John Lewis a colleague, who was also on that march, that very historic march so long ago. Dr. and Mrs. King marched together in Washington to demand a Federal law to protect the civil

rights of all Americans, and they marched together the night before Dr. King was killed. They marched together in Memphis for the sanitation workers facing entrenched discrimination.

In immediate days following the tragedy, Coretta Scott King kept marching, carrying the aspirations of the civil rights movement with her. She led the Poor People's March to Washington. That was the first time I saw her while I watched that march coming into Washington, and I have been a fan of hers ever since. She marched in South Africa standing against apartheid. And for nearly 40 years of her life that came after Dr. King's death, she marched for civil rights everywhere and to root out injustice anywhere it existed.

Because of her singularity of purpose and sheer tenacity, Coretta Scott King often triumphed. The Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Nonviolent Social Change and the Martin Luther King holiday both stand today as testament to her vision, her determination, her efforts, and indeed, her leadership. But her work is not yet completed.

On the day of her death and on the eve of Black History Month, we must recommit to finishing her work.

It is with great sadness and respect that I extend deepest condolences to Mrs. King's four children, Yolanda, Martin, Dexter, and Bernice; her family; and to the multitudes of her friends and supporters throughout the world. I hope it is a comfort to them that the entire Nation mourns their loss and is praying for them at this sad time.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to object to this one-month extension of the PATRIOT Act provision contained in this legislation. We would have preferred a three or six month extension to allow the American people a longer time to discuss the very serious impacts of these provisions on the civil liberties of the American people. But it appears we will only be given one month for that national debate.

I also want it to be clear that this legislation involves only a small portion of the PATRIOT Act. Ninety percent of that Act is law and remains law, regardless of what we do here today.

The portion of the law in dispute is the very controversial section that affects the basic civil liberties of the American people. The rights of our citizens, as guaranteed by the Constitution, should not be shoehorned into a tight timeframe: we should have the time for a vigorous and thorough debate. In the meantime, the overwhelming majority of the PATRIOT Act is in place, and will remain in effect.

Mr. Speaker, there is a very crucial debate in this country today about the rights of American citizens to privacy, and about the proper role of the Congress and the courts in assuring that no one--not even the President--tramples on those basic privacy rights without complying with the law. In this atmosphere, it is appropriate to give additional time to examine the implications of these controversial provisions of the PATRIOT Act.

I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time and for her eloquent presentation of this rule against this terrible, terrible, as the Congresswoman from Florida said, shameful bill.

I want to also pay tribute to Mr. Spratt of South Carolina, our ranking member on the Budget Committee, as I rise in opposition to this rule and in opposition to this bill. Mr. Spratt, anybody in our country who cares about fairness, about opportunity, about responsibility, about community is enormously in your debt for the values budget that you put forth and the great and excellent work that you do on behalf of the American people. Thank you, Mr. Spratt.

Mr. Spratt called me earlier this evening and told me, well, actually it was earlier this morning, and he told me he had just received the budget bill, 700 pages. Now, we all know one thing for sure. No one in this Congress has read that bill. So later, in just a short while, we will be voting on a bill that no one has read. But we do know certain things about it that make it very objectionable, not just to us but to the religious community in America.

Mr. Speaker, ``Christmas is coming, the goose is getting fat, please to put a penny in the old man's hat. If you haven't got a penny, a ha'penny will do. If you haven't got a ha'penny, God bless you.''

With this budget bill, the special interest goose is getting very, very fat. Do we say God bless you with this budget when Congress leaves here without passing a budget which comes close to meeting the needs of America's families who are struggling to pay their home heating bills and pay the price at the pump? This same Congress gave obscene subsidies to oil companies that are making historic profits this year; yet we give a small token to America's families to help pay the bills to those oil companies.

Do we say God bless you with this budget when we leave here without extending the time that our seniors need to understand the befuddling prescription drug bill that has been handed to them with a time limit? Democrats have a better idea of extending the time for seniors and lowering the cost of prescription drugs. But, no, the pharmaceutical and health industry goose is getting fat off this Congress at the expense of America's seniors.

And, really, what is so sad about it is that when it comes to meeting the needs of our young people and opportunities for them, we do not say God bless you, we say to them we are adding $5,800 more to those who use student loans. How could that be right while at the same time we give tax cuts to those making over $1 million a year; and at the same, at the same time we are growing the deficit and heaping mountains of debt onto those same young people?

Mr. Obey calls this Scroogenomics. Scroogenomics. But, really, associating Scrooge with this Republican budget gives Scrooge a bad name. He saw the evil of his ways, Scrooge did. These Republicans are so blinded by the greed of their special interest friends that they are stuck in their cruel ways.

That is why leaders of every religious denomination have prayed in this rotunda, have prayed in churches across America, and as recently as a couple of days ago were arrested, over 100 of them and their representatives on the steps of the Cannon Building, to protest this budget.

Religious denominations prayed and lobbied Congress that Congress would do the right thing. They said that they were drawing a moral line in the sand against this budget. Democrats joined them in drawing that line in the sand between a Republican government of the privileged few instead of the government of the many, which is the American way.

Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the remarks of the gentlewoman from Florida when she says, shame on you. It is shameful that this Congress will adjourn passing this immoral budget, meeting the greeds of the special interest friends of the Republicans instead, again, as I said, of the needs of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, as we leave for this Christmas recess, let us say God bless you to the American people by voting against this Republican budget statement of injustice and immorality. And let us not let the special interest goose get fat at the expense of America's children.

The gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott) quoted the prophet Isaiah. My favorite saying from Isaiah is when he said: ``To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.''

Let us vote ``no'' on this budget as an act of worship and for America's children.

Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I rise to join my colleagues in recognizing the 103rd anniversary of Korean American immigration to the United States, and honoring the contributions of the Korean American community to our country.

On January 13, 1903, the S.S. Gaelic docked in Hawaii, carrying with it the first wave of immigrants from Korea, and ushering in a new chapter in our nation's heritage. These pioneering individuals--56 men, 21 women, and 25 children--would blaze a trail for more than two million Korean American immigrants and their descendents who live throughout our nation today.

Following World War II and the Korean War, a second wave of thousands of Korean immigrants came to the United States. Like all immigrants, they sacrificed everything they knew to answer the calls of freedom and new opportunity, with the hopes of building brighter futures for themselves in America.

Over the course of one hundred years of immigration, Korean Americans have worked hard to achieve the American dream through their resolve, determination, and an abiding belief in the greatness of this country that we love. While well known and celebrated for its entrepreneurial spirit, the contributions made by the Korean American community to our society extends to all areas of the American fabric and have profoundly enriched our national heritage. Korean Americans have broken down language and social barriers, and fought back against the obstacles of racism and discrimination to succeed in and contribute to all aspects of American life--all.

As Representative of California's 8th Congressional District, it is my privilege to represent a diverse Asian American and Pacific Islander community, including a vibrant and active Korean American community.

In marking the 100 year anniversary of Korean American immigration, the Centennial Committee on Korean Immigration designated January 13 of each year as Korean American Day. By honoring this day, we celebrate the extraordinary contributions of this unique community to our country, and rededicate ourselves to making the American dream a reality for all.

This legislation has my strong support, and I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring this vibrant community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), our ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee, for his leadership to make our country safer, our military stronger, and to bring stability to the region. While we may not always agree on the approach to take, Mr. Lantos strove very hard for a bipartisan resolution, and I want to just read from the resolution that he would put forth in the spirit of congratulating the people of Iraq.

He said: ``Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates the people of Iraq on the three national elections conducted in Iraq in 2005.'' Imagine, in January, in October, and now in December, three times courageously they went to the polls, and his resolution spells that out.

His resolution would encourage ``all Americans to express support for the people of Iraq in their efforts to achieve a free, open, and democratic society,'' and again, throughout his resolution he makes that point.

And he expresses ``thanks and admiration to the members of the United States Armed Forces and the armed forces of other nations in Iraq, including the members of the security forces of Iraq, whose heroism permitted the Iraqi people to vote safely.''

That is the spirit of the resolution that we should be voting on today, one that brings us together, that is clear to the Iraqi people that their courage is an example to the world.

But, sadly, this Congress is not an example of democracy to the world when instead of using an occasion to unify, once again, the Republican majority brings to the floor a resolution rejecting the good offers of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) to come together in a bipartisan way and uses what should be a cause for celebration as instead a means to denounce those who disagree, not very democratic, and also to insist that if you want to congratulate the people of Iraq, you must support the status quo.

More of the same in Iraq is not making the American people safer. More of the same in Iraq is not making our military stronger. More of the same in Iraq is not bringing stability to the region.

So I think you will see Democrats united in congratulating the people of Iraq, commending our men and women in the armed services, and supporting

that in a democracy we will have different views and that we will respect them. I have said it before and I will say it again, Senator Taft, who would become the Republican leader of the Senate during World War II, he said disagreement in time of war is essential to a governing democracy, and this was during World War II. Why do the Republicans think that we cannot have disagreement in time of war?

So as we go into this holiday season, I know that we can come together and say to our men and women in harm's way that we honor them for their service; we are grateful to them for their patriotism, their courage and the sacrifice they are willing to make for our country; and in this holiday season, we strive for peace on Earth and goodwill toward man, which would not be possible without our men and women in the armed services.

That should be the spirit in which we go forward, not in the divisive manner the Republicans have put forward. That is really quite sad, but I hope that in the vote that we have today that the Iraqi people will know that on both sides of the aisle we all see them as an example of democracy and hope that they will not be discouraged by this suppression of dissent in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, this marks the second time in a month that House Republicans have gone to extreme lengths to avoid a fair and open debate on the war in Iraq. Last month, after being stung by a resolution introduced by Mr. Murtha calling for the redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq, Republicans brought to the floor a measure that was an act of deception and an attempt to mischaracterize the Murtha legislation.

Today, under the guise of commending the people of Iraq for yesterday's election, the Republicans present a resolution that spends more time trying to justify the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq than congratulating the Iraqis.

If the majority wants to debate the President's Iraq policy then let us do that. A war that is now more than 1,000 days old, has cost the lives of more than 2,150 Americans, and has not made the American people safer or the Middle East more secure, certainly merits debate in this House. But let us do so in a way that does not insult the intelligence of the American people or trivialize an issue of the utmost importance.

We should debate the war in Iraq thoroughly, with full consideration of the points of view of all Members. Sadly, the Republican leadership did not permit that debate today.

Millions of Iraqis voted in Iraq's three national elections this year, and all Americans should salute that fact. They should salute as well the courage of the 160,000 American troops and the courage of the thousands of soldiers from other nations and from Iraq itself, who made the safe conduct of these elections possible. It should appropriately be acknowledged that the elections are hopeful steps toward a more stable Iraq.

Mr. Lantos brought a resolution to the Rules Committee, which would have done those things, but the majority refused to allow it to be considered. It can only be that the majority does not want to let commending the Iraqis get in the way of a tightly controlled tribute to the President's war policies. As we lecture the Iraqis about the need to accommodate differing points of view, let us hope that they do not devote too much attention to the example provided by this Republican House.

The Lantos resolution provides well-deserved recognition to all of the Iraqis who have taken part in their country's political development this year. It recognizes the heroism of the soldiers who strive each day to bring security to Iraq.

Commending them should be our focus today, but Mr. Lantos was not allowed to offer his resolution. It would be unfortunate if the message we sent to the Iraqi people and our troops was that scoring political points is more important in this House than acknowledging their achievements this year.

Mr. Speaker, today, nine days before Christmas, I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct on the spending reconciliation bill. This motion to instruct would eliminate the most egregious aspects of the House reconciliation bill and would reduce the Republican cuts to less than $20 billion.

This Congress must not go home for the holidays, leaving a lump of coal in the stockings of the most vulnerable children in this country. That is contrary to the spirit of this holiday season and contrary to the values of

this nation. If we adopt this motion, we will send the conferees on this bill a strong message that this should not be the season of ``suffer little children.''

This motion eliminates the cuts from the House bill that would affect the most vulnerable children in this country: It says no to cuts to our child support enforcement program: so that parents have to fulfill their responsibilities to their children. It says no to slashing food stamps: so that low-income children can be properly fed. It says no to cutting health benefits for low-income children: because we want all children to have access to health care in this country.

How can we possibly leave here and as one of our last legislative actions in this Christmas season to be accused of being scrooges to the least among us--poor children?

This motion stops the Republican raid on student aid: It would help make college more affordable, reducing interest rates and fees relating to student loans and increasing Pell Grants.

This motion eliminates the so-called ``mining reform'' in the bill, which is really a massive give-away of public lands to special interests: Selling public lands at fire sale prices. That is why sportsmen and women, environmentalists, and Western governors oppose this outrageous proposal.

This motion ensures that seniors and individuals with disabilities can continue to receive physician services under Medicare: Eliminating the reimbursement cut physicians would receive when treating Medicare recipients.

Two days ago, hundreds of faithful Americans descended on Capitol Hill in peaceful protest to stand up for working Americans, our children, the poor, those still hurting from Hurricane Katrina, and our elderly. In the freezing cold, in prayer and song, they called the Republican budget what it is--a moral failure, devoid of spiritual hope and nourishing resources.

This mean-spirited Republican budget takes food from the mouths of hungry children, cuts housing for Katrina evacuees, reduces support for our veterans, and fails to adequately provide health care for our elderly; all to provide tax cuts for millionaires.

I commend Reverend Jim Wallis and the pastors and church workers from across our country who marched on our Capitol. By adopting this motion to instruct, we would stand with them in the struggle for a budget that lives up to our American values of fairness and opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride to recognize Scott Tucker for his leadership and extraordinary service to the City of San Francisco as he prepares to step down as District Manager of Customer Service and Sales of the San Francisco District of the U.S. Postal Service. Throughout his distinguished career with the Postal Service, he proved the San Francisco District leads the nation in postal quality control systems and customer service.

Scott joined the Postal Service in 1968 as a letter carrier in Hanford, California, and will bring his career to a close in January 2006. He was appointed District Manager in 1992, and has since earned the Postmaster General Award, the second highest award given to postal executives.

A business administration student at College of Sequoias, Sonoma State, Fresno State and Dartmouth College in Massachusetts, Scott used his education everyday supervising a workforce of 10,400 employees. Scott's career is a shining example of excellence in commitment and service.

Throughout his 23 years as District Manager, Scott worked to raise awareness of the multi-cultural groups within our District by establishing a Women's Council, an African American Council, an Asian American/Pacific Island Council and a Hispanic Council. These efforts earned him the Diversity Achievement Award from the Bay Area Federal Executive Board.

With the daunting responsibility of delivering 10 million pieces of mail to three million customers daily throughout northwest California, Scott was largely responsible for our City's reputation as having one of the best on-time mail services of any metropolitan area in the nation. Scott was generous with his time and expertise to assist my District Office staff with constituent concerns.

Scott was instrumental in making the Lunar New Year commemorative stamp series a reality. His close partnership with San Francisco's Asian American community helped produce a spectacular series of stamps for our City to take pride in, and for the rest of the nation to admire and enjoy. As Executive Chair of United Way's Combined Federal Campaign in the Bay Area for two years, Scott was honored for his leadership and tremendous success.

Scott's leadership and dedication remain an inspiration to all who knew and admired him. I join his friends and colleagues in sending best wishes for a well-deserved retirement and many years of health and happiness.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I want to commend her for her tremendous leadership on keeping our borders safe and strong and secure and for moving toward a comprehensive immigration policy.

I also want to thank the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers; and the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Bennie Thompson, for their outstanding work in keeping America secure.

Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker said in his opening remarks, When are we going to take this issue seriously, the issue of borders and the issue of immigration?

That is exactly what I would like to know. For a long time now, there have been Members on both sides of the aisle, led by Mr. Kolbe on the Republican side, who have called for comprehensive immigration reform. That would be taking this issue seriously.

We ask the same question of the President. When, Mr. President, are we going to take this issue seriously? And instead of having one bad bill after another come to the floor, we can have comprehensive bipartisan reform. It does exist now in the Kolbe-Gutierrez legislation that is also sponsored in the Senate by Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy. I want to commend Mr. Gutierrez on our side of the aisle for his leadership as well.

Broken borders, that is an oxymoron, something we cannot tolerate. Borders, by their nature, are our definition as a Nation and our protection as a country. Broken borders, they do not exist. We cannot tolerate them.

So let us say from the start that we all in this body, and I know I can speak very firmly for the Democrats, support strong border control, and it must be part and the first part of any comprehensive immigration reform. Our obligation as elected officials is to keep the American people safe, and our borders are one of our early lines of defense to do that. It used to be our first and only line of defense, but in this age of technology, more is possible.

In our caucus, we have a true expert on the issue of border security, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Reyes, who just recently spoke on the floor. He is ready to further these efforts. Over and over, Democratic initiatives to make our borders more secure have been soundly rejected by the majority of the Republicans and the Republican leadership.

Democrats also support enforcing laws, current laws, against those who came here illegally and those who hire illegal immigrants; yet the Bush administration has refused to do just this. There is all of this talk about illegal immigration to the United States and going after those workers who are working here illegally, and we should, but we also must have employer sanctions. Where are these people working? Why are we not enforcing the law against employers who hire illegal, undocumented people here?

The Bush administration has prosecuted only three employer sanctioned cases in the last fiscal year; only three cases. When, yes, when, are we going to take this issue seriously? That is my question, my colleagues.

The point employer clarification provision in this bill, however, would have a big percentage of error built into it because it is so unwise and would put enormous financial burdens on American businesses, again unwisely. It would be discriminatory in questioning the legal status of not only every newcomer to our country but anyone who looked like a newcomer to our country.

Democrats have led the way to meet our urgent homeland security needs as well, not only at our borders but in all aspects identified by the 9/11 Commission; at our ports, at our nuclear facilities, at our chemical plants and rail yards. But Republicans have not done so, even 4 years after 9/11. So if we want to talk about broken borders, as I said earlier, those borders as they define our country geographically, we can also be invaded in ways that go well beyond our borders, and that is why the 9/11 Commission has given the President and the Republican Congress a failing grade.

For the first time in our history, this bill would make it a Federal crime instead of a civil offense to be in the United States in violation of immigration laws or regulations. This provision would turn millions of immigrants currently here into criminals, hindering their ability to acquire any legal status, and would effectively frustrate the proposals that would provide real immigration reform.

Under the guise of an expansive definition of smuggling, it could make criminals out of Catholic priests and nuns, ministers, rabbis and social service workers who provide assistance and acts of charity to those in need. It would impose prison sentences of up to 5 years on those who answer God's call and provide assistance to those in need. This is from the party who claims to promote religious and family values.

I will submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, a list of organizations that are opposing this bill. From the Jewish community, from the Methodist community, from the Presbyterian community, from the Catholic community, from the Lutheran community, from the Arab community, from almost every denomination that you can name; the list goes on and on of religious people of faith who are opposing this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, it simply does not take the immigration and broken borders issue seriously. It does not. It misses the mark completely by its arbitrary provisions, and, again, it misses an opportunity for comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. Chairman, we all know what we must do. Democrats have long called for strong border security, effective law enforcement and for comprehensive immigration reform, not this punitive, mean-spirited legislation that does nothing to weed out terrorists.

This Republican bill before us is an attempt to belatedly address some border security needs but fails to provide real security, as I said, as envisioned by the 9/11 Commission. It is not comprehensive immigration reform, and that is what we need. Instead, Republicans have proposed a bill that is an abomination of the worst kind. It calls upon the worst political and most craven impulses. It is a failure of leadership. It is a failure of moral leadership.

All in all, what we must do as elected officials, we have the responsibility to make the American people safer and to make America stronger. We can make America stronger, not only at our borders but in upholding our values and our principles.

I want to commend, again, Mr. Kolbe and others who have worked with Mr. Gutierrez and others on our side of the aisle to make America safe and strong, because I know that, together, America can do better.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the list of organizations opposing this legislation.

List of Groups Opposed to Border Security Bill

Lead National Organizations

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Mexican

American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF),

National Council of La Raza--NCLR, National Immigration

Forum, American Civil Liberties Union, National Asian Pacific

American Legal Consortium, National League of Cities, People

For the American Way, NALEO--National Association of Latino,

Elected and Appointed Officials, American Jewish Committee,

Anti-Defamation League, Catholic Charities USA, Episcopal

Church, Episcopal Migration Ministries, Leadership Conference

for Civil Rights, American Jewish Community, National

Immigration Forum, ACORN, and US Action.

Faith Groups

American Jewish Committee (AJC), Amnesty International USA,

Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services,

Arizona Interfaith Network (AIN), Episcopal Migration

Ministries, FaithAction, Jesuit Refugee Services, Jesuit

Conference of the United States, Jewish Federation of Greater

Philadelphia, Justice for Immigrants--Catholic Coalition,

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS), Presbyterian

Church USA, National Catholic Association of Diocesan, U.S.

Conference of Catholic Bishops, Church World Service/

Immigration, Refugee Program, Catholic Charities of Dallas,

Inc., Catholic Charities of Des Moines--Iowa, Catholic

Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa, and Catholic

Charities of the Diocese of Stockton.

Labor

AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union, American

Federation of Teachers, and United-Here.

Minority Groups

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Polish

American Association, Asian American Justice Center (AAJC),

Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Asian

Pacific American Legal Resource Center, Asian Pacific

American Community, and Organization of Chinese Americans.

Business Groups

Alliance for Worker Freedom, American Council on

International Personnel and Society for Human Resource

Management (Joint Letter), American Hotel & Lodging

Association, American Nursery & Landscape Association,

American Road and Transportation Builders Association,

American Trucking Associations, Americans for Tax Reform,

Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General

Contractors, Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC),

HR Policy Association, International Foodservice Distributors

Association, International Franchise Association, National

Association of Home Builders, National Association of

Manufacturers, National Club Association, National Council of

Chain Restaurants, National Restaurant Association, National

Retail Federation, National Roofing Contractors Association,

National Utility Contractors Association, Plumbing-Heating-

Cooling Contractors--National Association, Retail Industry

Leaders Association, Small Business & Entrepreneurship

Council, Society of American Florists, The Associated General

Contractors of America, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S.

Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, U.S. African American Chamber

of Commerce, and US-Mexico Chamber of Commerce.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and thank you, Mr. Conyers, our ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, for being such an outstanding leader in protecting our civil liberties and also the national security of our country. I also extend that to the Democrats on the committee.

First, let us be clear about what we are voting on today, Madam Speaker. We are not voting for the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act in general. More than 90 percent of the PATRIOT Act is permanent law and includes many noncontroversial provisions that give law enforcement the tools they need. What is before us on the floor today is the extension of certain provisions which are controversial and have the potential for abuse.

Madam Speaker, all of us support providing law enforcement officers with the tools they need to combat terrorism. In doing so, we must also preserve the balance between security and civil liberties and to recognize that not all of the tools law enforcement officers want are tools that they legitimately need.

I cannot support the PATRIOT Act extension conference report because it does not secure the right balance between security and liberty. Our Founding Fathers knew well the importance of the balance between security and liberty. They led a revolution to secure liberty against an arbitrary power. They knew that you cannot have security without liberty and liberty without security in a democracy.

As we consider this conference report, I ask every Member of Congress, indeed, every American, do you know if a National Security Letter has been issued about you, a letter to your phone company, your Internet provider, your bank, for wholesale collection of records that may include your personal information? This letter does not even have to specify that the specific records sought are connected to terrorism, and the recipients, you do not know if such a letter has been issued. You cannot know. You will never know.

This is the same for every American, and any information, including your most sensitive personal data, along with that of thousands of American citizens gathered by these National Security Letter requests, will be held in perpetuity by law enforcement.

The recipients, the bank, the phone company, the Internet provider, are not allowed to tell anyone they have received this letter about you. These are searches without any warrant and without any judicial supervision.

Just think of it: You do not know, the recipient of the letter who is in possession of your information cannot tell you. You do not know, so you cannot challenge it, and the letter can be sent without demonstrating any relationship between the specific records sought and a connection to terrorism. This is a massive invasion of the privacy of the American people.

This is not just some idle threat. The Washington Post reported last month that the FBI hands out more than 30,000 National Security Letters per year, a reported hundredfold increase over historic norms.

How did this happen? When originally enacted, the PATRIOT Act was intended to be accompanied by Congressional oversight so that the implementation did not violate our civil liberties. Unfortunately, the Bush administration and the Republican Congress have been delinquent in the oversight of the PATRIOT Act. As we have seen with this massive and unprecedented scope of National Security Letters, the implications of the Republican failure of oversight are glaring and have a direct impact on every American. It is long past time for Congress to have real oversight.

This conference has missed an opportunity to address the revelation of the widespread use of National Security Letters. We must have standards that clarify that there must be a connection to terrorism or to a suspected spy.

Section 505 that covers the National Security Letters must now include a sunset. That is why I strongly support the request of Mr. Conyers for a 3-month extension so that conferees can reconvene, adopt the Senate bill, fix the National Security Letters and get it right. Our democracy requires no less.

Another part of this legislation that requires the government to show some connection between the records sought is under the library provision and an individual suspected of being a terrorist or spy. Such a standard is needed to assure that fishing expeditions do not take place. Yet this standard is missing from the Republican conference report.

The list of failures goes on. That is why I think it is important that we support the motion to recommit to adopt the Senate bill. If not that, then to follow Mr. Conyers' lead and take 3 months to do this right. Nothing less is at stake than the privacy, the civil liberties, really the essence of our democracy.

We must always remember as we protect and defend the American people, we must honor the oath of office we take here when we are sworn in to protect and defend the Constitution and the civil liberties that it contains. We have an obligation to do that for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, today at long last, because of Congressman John Murtha's leadership and persistence, the House finally has the chance to go on record in favor of clear procedures for dealing with prisoners and against torture.

In September, 29 retired military officers including General Joseph Hoar, General John Shalikashvili, and our former colleague Ambassador Pete Peterson, sent a letter to Senator McCain in support of the amendment that is the subject of Mr. Murtha's motion to instruct.

The officers state the case against mistreatment of prisoners succinctly: ``The abuse of

prisoners hurts America's cause in the war on terror, endangers U.S. service members who might be captured by the enemy, and is anathema to the values Americans have held dear for generations.''

The Senate responded by adopting the McCain amendment by a vote of 90 to 9. I hope the House will vote in equally strong numbers.

Our troops were sent to war in Iraq without many of the essentials needed for their effectiveness and their safety, including a standard of conduct for the treatment of detainees.

We have seen, to our great shame and regret, the consequences of this lack of clarity. At Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq, at Guantanamo, and in Afghanistan, allegations and evidence of detainee abuse have damaged the standing of the United States in the world.

Congress should have made it a priority to get to the bottom of the prisoner abuse scandals so that those responsible, regardless of their place in the chain of command, were held accountable and corrective actions taken. That has not been done.

We must heed the requests for assistance from our soldiers in the field who, in the absence of clear limits on permissible treatment are left in an impossible position, are forced to assume all of the risks and shoulder all of the blame.

The United States has long been bound by international agreements prohibiting torture. That we even find it necessary to make the prohibition against torture more explicit is the result of the Bush administration's legal interpretation that these long-standing prohibitions apply only to persons on U.S. soil.

Torture should not be employed as an interrogation technique by the United States for two simple reasons: it doesn't work and it is wrong. We can not rely on information obtained through torture, and even if we could, the cost is too high.

The values that define our country--the values that our men and women in uniform are called upon to defend sometimes at the cost of their lives--are antithetical to the use of torture. The American people are much better than that. Our struggle with the forces of international terrorism is as much a battle of ideas as a battle of arms. We weaken ourselves when we compromise our ideals. Standing against torture helps define the differences between the United States and those who offer no message other than hatred and violence.

Adopting this motion to instruct is in the best traditions, and the best interests, of our country. I urge my colleagues to approve it overwhelmingly.

Mr. Speaker, on January 3, 2006, Raymond J. Mapa, Senior Property Manager of the Phillip Burton Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco, will retire after an extraordinary 41-year career in federal service. Ray epitomizes professionalism, community outreach and the American Dream.

Ray came to San Francisco from the Philippines at a young age, and was naturalized at the Federal Building and Courthouse he would later manage.

Ray attended the University of San Francisco and, in 1964, began his civil service career with the U.S. Post Office Department. After one year the General Services Administration's Federal Supply Service selected him for a ``trainee'' program in Inventory Management. Ultimately, Ray advanced to the position of Director of the Inventory Management Division.

After holding several positions in the Federal Supply Service, Ray moved to the field of property management. He left a rich legacy. Managing the Phillip Burton Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, particularly in the post-September 11 era, presents significant challenges. Ray's focus on building security led to close cooperation with the U.S. Marshals Service, the Department of Homeland Security and local law enforcement. This collaboration contributes to the safety of all building tenants and visitors.

As tenants of the Phillip Burton Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, my staff and I appreciate Ray's steadfast commitment to customer service. He instilled these high standards in his employees and it has resulted in a superior level of customer satisfaction.

As Ray's career draws to a close, I wish him, his wife Emma, and his children Christopher, Penny, Renee and Angela--the best life has to offer. Finally, to Raymond's grandchildren, Raymond and Emma, and his future grandchildren, I offer my wishes for the brightest of futures, guided by the stars of your grandfather's great accomplishments.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am proud to join you in co-sponsoring this resolution honoring the 50th anniversary of the Honorable John D. Dingell's service in the House of Representatives. As we celebrated at the National Building Museum before, I am pleased to join you once again in congratulating John Dingell. It is impossible to acknowledge his service and congratulate him for his great leadership without also acknowledging Debbie Dingell, who has been his partner in so much of his life's work.

As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, you and I had the privilege of celebrating this milestone with Congressman Dingell at an extraordinary event at the National Building Museum on October 26. Something phenomenal happened that night when Republicans and Democrats came together in unity to praise this great man. Everyone in the bipartisan group, President Clinton, Vice President Cheney, Governor Granholm of Michigan, and so many of John's colleagues in the House and Senate, including his chairman, Joe Barton, who regaled us with Dingell stories that night, agreed that John Dingell is an American statesman of the highest order.

President Kennedy could have been describing John Dingell when he said: ``No government is better than the people who serve it. We want the best, we need the best, and we deserve the best.'' For 50 years in John Dingell we have had the best.

To the pages in the room, I want to say tonight we could really be celebrating his 54th anniversary in the House because from age 12 to 16, he served here as a page, the longest-serving page in history. It was as a page in 1941 that John Dingell was standing on the House floor when President Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war on Japan. It was World War II that would ultimately call him to service.

He served in the Army with distinction, rising to the rank of second lieutenant. John would later say of his service, ``It taught me the meaning of discipline and respect, two qualities which I believe are key to success in the United States.'' It also began a public life dedicated to making America strong both at home and abroad.

A member of the Greatest Generation, John Dingell applied his brilliant mind, his great judgment, and his broad vision to making the future better for generations to come. John always made clear that a strong America had to be a healthy America. Continuing a tradition his father began, in every Congress he has introduced a bill for universal national health insurance. Because of his tireless work in securing health care for the elderly, John presided in the House in 1965 when Medicare was passed into law. The gavel he used that day still sits on his desk. He was a very young man at the time, still is.

As part of his focus on future generations, John was one of the first elected officials to link public health with environmental health, and he has had a hand in almost every major environmental legislation of the past 40 years. He has done as much to clean up government as he has to clean up the environment. For the last 50 years, Federal agencies have checked their mail with one eye squinted open hoping they have not received what became known as ``Dingell-grams.''

In the 1980s, the EPA even had an employee whose sole responsibility was responding to Chairman Dingell's inquires, and it was recognized that her job was not an easy one. To work alongside John Dingell is to be inspired by the history of our institution and humbled by the seriousness of our work. John is a giant in Congress and a symbol of continuity.

Fifty years ago on December 13, 1955, John Dingell took over the seat that had been opened by his father. After hearing his father's colleagues eulogize John, Sr., John stepped up and said, ``My father loved and respected the House and all of its Members. If I can be half the man that my father was, I shall feel that I am a great success.''

On this 50th anniversary, we say that we love and respect John Dingell and by any measure his leadership and his success have been unsurpassed. I am sure that John Dingell, Sr., is very, very proud. We may call John Dingell the Dean of the House, as the Speaker has done; but for many of us here tonight he has also been a teacher.

I know I speak for all of the Members of the House when I say we are proud to call John Dingell colleague.

We are all so glad that your lifetime of service continues. The best is yet to come. Thank you, John Dingell.

Mr. Speaker, as we enter what may be the last week of this session of Congress, I rise to once again state the need for this Congress not to adjourn until we have addressed some of the pressing needs of the American people. Three of them loom large.

One is as we go into this holiday season, America's families across the country are receiving high bills for their home heating oil. I believe that this Congress should not adjourn until we reverse some of the huge subsidies that this Congress gave to oil companies at a time when they are receiving record and historic profits. These bills will hit home at a time when families can least afford it. Congress should act before we leave.

Secondly, as seniors are bewildered and befuddled by the prescription drug bill that has been foisted upon them by this Congress, I urge Congress not to leave until we extend the time needed for seniors to fully address that bill, also to address in it the prospect of giving the U.S. Government negotiating power for lower prices, and address the reimportation issue as well to lower the cost of prescription drugs for America's seniors. It is clear that this legislation has done nothing to lower the cost of prescription drugs for America's middle-income seniors.

Third, all of America mourned the loss of life in the gulf States. We have seen destruction in that area of biblical magnitude. And here we are over 100 days since Katrina and there are so many emergency needs unmet, housing needs unmet, education needs unmet, I do not believe that it is fair for this Congress to adjourn until we address some of the immediate needs of the victims of Katrina, most particularly the housing needs of the survivors of Katrina.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge the Speaker of the House to keep us here in session until we address the issue of home heating oil for America's families, until we address the needs of

America's seniors in the prescription drug bill, and until we address the needs of the victims of Katrina.

It is made even more urgent, this staying in session, by the fact that rumor has it that Congress will not be coming back until January 31. That would be six down weeks of no action on the part of this Congress at a time when America's families are feeling severe pain.

Again, I urge this Congress to stay in session until we get our job done for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 8 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, December 13, 2005, at 12:30 p.m., for morning hour debate.