Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Democratic motion to support the Senate funding level of $3 billion for our global AIDS initiatives. The funding level includes $500 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.

Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommittee Ranking Member Nita Lowey and Chairman Jim Kolbe are to be commended for their leadership in the fight against the global AIDS pandemic. They are a model of bipartisan effectiveness and are leading the way in providing needed funding under tight budget constraints.

In 2003, President Bush and Congress took a bold step in authorizing $15 billion over five years toward AIDS prevention and treatment. The Senate funding levels in the Foreign Operations and Labor-HHS Appropriations bills would put the U.S. on track to meet this commitment in future years.

At this critical juncture in history, the U.S. has the opportunity and the responsibility to fully fund an ambitious global effort to combat AIDS. The statistics are staggering. Of the 40 million people currently living with HIV, 95 percent live in the developing world. This week, UNICEF released a report showing that 18 million children in Africa could be orphaned by AIDS by the end of 2010.

We know how to treat this devastating disease. Success stories can be found in every part of the world. In Uganda and Senegal, HIV rates have been brought down through effective prevention campaigns. In the past year alone, an estimated 350,000 African AIDS patients have received access to anti-retroviral drugs that will keep them alive to work and care for their families. Unfortunately, only 500,000 of the 4.7 million people in need of anti-retroviral drugs have them.

If we support what works, we can prevent nearly two-thirds of the 45 million new HIV infections projected by 2020. When we invest more resources, more people have access to life-saving drugs, more people learn how to protect themselves and their partners, more people have access to voluntary testing and counseling, and more pregnant women have services to prevent mother-to-child transmission. The longer we go without fully investing in stopping the AIDS pandemic, the further it will spread worldwide and the more expensive the bottom line will be.

The moral case is reason alone to fully fund our global AIDS initiatives, but it is also in our national security interest. As we have seen in the case of Afghanistan and Sudan, impoverished states can become incubators for terrorism and conflict. We must address the root causes of instability so that the ``fury of despair'' does not provoke more violence.

It is in this global context that I support the Senate funding levels for global AIDS. Let us all come together today to fully support our commitments to fight the global AIDS pandemic.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I congratulate him and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for their leadership in proposing this good Democratic substitute.

Mr. Chairman, here we go again. The madness continues. Once again, the Republicans must prove that they are the handmaidens of the special interests by putting this bill on the floor today. Just when we should be talking about creating good jobs for the American people, expanding access to quality health care, broadening opportunity in education, having a strong national defense and doing it all in a fiscally sound way, the Republicans are wasting the time of this Congress and testing the patience of the American people with legislation that is frivolous. It is something that is, again, another reflection of the culture of cronyism that exists under the Republican leadership in Washington, DC.

This legislation before us again seeks to protect their friends. The outrageous venue provisions in the Republican bill give defendant corporations special advantages by overriding State minimum-contact provisions and limiting the locations in which a suit can be brought and could render foreign corporations out of reach of the American justice system.

Today, we will take the opportunity to address the Republican culture of cronyism. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) will be offering a motion to recommit to make sure that politically connected cronies and no-bid contractors that defraud and cheat the government in providing goods and service after a natural disaster will never again be able to use these special bids. They should never be used by government contractors that specifically intend to profit excessively from the disaster.

Mr. Chairman, I really want to congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for putting together a really excellent substitute to get rid of loopholes in the Republican bill that favors big corporate interests and foreign corporations and to protect civil rights claims.

We all agree that if there are frivolous lawsuits, those who bring them should pay a price. That we will have three-strikes-you-are-out for doing that is a very important provision in the substitute. The substitute seeks to stop the madness that exists on the floor of this House when it is used as a venue to promote the special interests in our country.

We must stand up for the American people, not for the politically connected cronies who are getting a no-bid contract. Let us take a stand to end this culture of cronyism and corruption. Let us get back to the real issues that are affecting the American people.

We must vote for this substitute and send this bill back to ensure that no one who defrauds the American people during natural disasters is ever permitted to take undue advantage of our legal system.

We must, again, stop the madness by voting for the substitute that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) have proposed. It has very excellent provisions and is worthy of the support of our colleagues.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen from the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank and Mr. Oxley for working in a bipartisan way to build broad support for the GSE reform bill they bring to the Floor today. This bill was reported from the Committee by a vote of 65- 5.

But today that spirit of working together for common sense reforms and for the good of the people seems to have vanished.

The first order of business will be to consider a manager's amendment that will eviscerate a provision of the bill that is central to the broad support it enjoys--the Affordable Housing program funded through a small percentage of the profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If enacted, it will be the first affordable housing resource created without using Federal dollars since Congress established the Federal Home Loan Banks Affordable Housing Program in 1989.

Mr. Chairman, for too long many of America's low-income families have struggled to find affordable, safe, decent housing. Budget cuts and rising development costs mean that fewer units are built under existing programs each year. We are losing more affordable housing than we are building. Therefore it is vital that a new dedicated funding stream for affordable housing be created.

Unfortunately, my Republican conservative colleagues hijacked this bill in an effort to strip away the bipartisan housing fund. When they were not able to completely get rid of it, they limited its use by blocking nonprofit organizations and faith-based groups, who engage in vote registration with their own funds, from even applying for grants to build affordable housing. There are no similar restrictions on ``for-profit'' organizations.

This is not fair. As Catholic Charities has pointed out, ``Encouraging citizens to exercise their right to vote is an integral part of the Catholic Church's religious and moral mission and reinforces individual responsibility for the common good . . . Catholic Charities agencies should not be forced to choose between affordable housing funds and fulfillment of their religious mission.''

It is unacceptable to force a poisoned choice on these entities: to help fill critical housing needs or to exercise their basic civic responsibilities. Most importantly, it is an unacceptable barrier to Americans' right to vote.

Our democracy depends on protecting the right of every American citizen to vote--and to register to vote--in every election. As the Supreme Court noted: ``No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the law, under which, as good citizens, we must live.''

We dare not, we must not create barriers on the right to vote and undermine 40 years of progress. It is a chilling precedent and a path we should refuse to walk. No church, no religious order, no faith-based group or non-profit organization should face the prospect of being deemed ineligible for money to help low-income, elderly, or disabled individuals find affordable homes simply because they offer a full range of services, including counseling, clothing, mentoring, and-- yes--helping people fulfill their right to participate in their government.

Mr. Chairman, today we honor the life of Rosa Parks. We must use the opportunity in this bill to recommit ourselves to the ideals of equality and opportunity that are both our hope and our future. We must defeat this cynical, political strategy to divide us once again. I urge my colleagues to support our effort to strip these mean-spirited restrictions from the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan for yielding. I commend the gentleman from Michigan for his great leadership, and I thank him for his great leadership on behalf of the American consumer and the American taxpayer.

The gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Virginia with their very wise substitute give a chance to help the consumer and declare energy independence. I also want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, for his extraordinary leadership on this and so many issues. Also, I salute the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chair of the Science Committee, for his recognition that this Democratic substitute is a better way to go.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican energy bill. It is anti-taxpayer. It is anti-consumer. And it is anti- environment. I encourage my colleagues to support the Stupak-Boucher substitute. This bill should be called, The Republican Gifts to Special Interests Bill. It is a perfect example of the Republican culture of cronyism and corruption. Using Hurricane Katrina as their excuse, the Republicans are once again pushing their special interest agenda at the expense of the American people.

Americans do not need legislation passed here today to enrich the oil industry. Americans need relief from high Georgia prices. This week, the average price at the pump was $2.92 a gallon. That is 99 cents more than a year ago and 30 cents higher than just pre-Katrina. It is also twice the cost per gallon than the first year when President Bush took office.

Winter is around the corner, and so are skyrocketing increases in home heating costs. Families who heat with natural gas could see their fuel costs increase more than 70 percent in some parts of the country. It is astounding. Families are expected to spend nearly three times as much for home heating oil again than they did 4 years ago, the first year President Bush took office. Let us get this straight. Price at the pump for the consumer, per gallon of gas, is twice as high as 4 years ago, the first year President Bush took office. For home heating oil, you are expected to pay three times as much as you did 4 years ago, the first year President Bush took office.

Yet for the second time in 1 month, the Republicans have brought a bill to the floor that fails to address price gouging, fails to bring down prices and fails to put us on the road to energy independence.

As with the energy bill passed this summer, this bill ignores the real need of the American people and rewards the greed of special interests. Need or greed, take your choice. The Republicans in this culture of corruption and cronyism came down on the side of greed. This bill includes all the special favors to the energy industry that were too extreme to be included in the energy bill passed by Congress less than 3 months ago.

Refinery companies have deliberately closed and consolidated their facilities to drive up profit margins. They are making enormous profits. Do the American people really believe the right response is to waive environmental laws, brush aside State and local authorities and open up Federal lands to new refineries? Of course not. But that is the Republican approach: Greed over need.

Republicans blame the Clean Air Act for our record energy costs. Even after removing its most extreme provisions, this bill still includes the so-called bump-up provision, which would expose millions of Americans to unhealthy levels of smog for years to come. Once again, greed over need.

Our Democratic substitute to this bill, introduced again by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the

gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) creates a strategic refinery initiative which would be able to produce 5 percent of the daily demand for gasoline when needed, real solutions to America's energy crisis. That is what this substitute contains. If you are able to produce 5 percent, bump that up to the daily demand, you can reduce the price of gasoline at the pump drastically.

For weeks, Democrats have demanded a new Federal law to crack down on price gouging by the energy industry. In fact, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has that very bill. Consumers are being cheated every time they fill up their cars or turn up their thermostat by an industry making record profits. But this bill does not come close to addressing the severe gouging of consumers.

Our Democratic substitute provides real protection from price gouging for the first time. We have been asking for it over and over. Here we have a bill on the floor that will do just that. The Stupak-Boucher bill gives the Federal Trade Commission broad authority to crack down on price gouging for a wide range of fuels, for businesses all along the supply chain.

Our substitute provides for tough civil penalties and allows attorneys general to enforce the Federal law without interfering with State price gouging laws. Mr. Speaker, it is time for our Nation to make a declaration of energy independence. This is an urgent issue of national security. Together, America can do better. We have the resources. We have the technology. We have the innovative ideas, and more of them are springing forth all the time. We can do it right and create millions of new jobs at the same time.

We have an enormous untapped potential in the area of energy efficiency and renewable energy. By implementing existing technologies and developing new ones in every sector of the economy and American life, we can take a giant step toward energy independence. This is not just about turning down the thermostat or driving less. Many Americans have had to do that for a long time now, they have already taken those steps; as much as this is about using our ingenuity to make our lives better and more comfortable.

Let us make progress. Let us set aside this back-to-the-future energy bill and turn our faces into the 21st Century, toward our Nation's true needs. I urge my colleagues to again reject this special interest Republican giveaway act and support the Democratic substitute. Together, Americans can do better.

Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is: Is it not bringing dishonor to the House of Representatives for this body to act in the shameful way that it is? Is it not part of the culture of corruption of the Republican Party to dishonor the wishes of the American people?

I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. THOMAS (during the vote). Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Based upon the statement of the gentleman from Maryland that everyone had voted and that therefore the vote should have been closed----

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a bipartisan resolution urging the United States Postal Service to act on a pending petition for an Alzheimer's Semi-Postal Stamp. I am proud to have partnered with my colleagues, Representatives Ed Markey, Chris Smith, and John Boozman in introducing this legislation that encourages a long-overdue opportunity for the public to make an investment in the research that could find a cure to Alzheimer's disease.

Nancy Reagan described the slow decline of her husband, President Reagan, to Alzheimer's disease as ``the long goodbye.'' Far too many Americans are enduring that same long goodbye today. More than 4 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease, a number that is expected to triple within the next 50 years. Nineteen million Americans are caring for someone with Alzheimer's. That is why I have fought so hard to increase federal funding for Alzheimer's disease research.

Scientists around the world, including some of our best minds at the National Institutes of Health, believe we are on the verge of breakthroughs in Alzheimer's detection, diagnosis, and prevention. With an annual cost of more than $100 billion to care for people with Alzheimer's, and an immeasurable amount of heartache, America must invest in hastening the day when Alzheimer's disease is no longer--we cannot afford not to.

That is why we are encouraging the Postal Service to act now on an Alzheimer's stamp. Semi-postal stamps are authorized by Congress as a tool for the Postal Service to raise funds and awareness of worthy causes. Tens of thousands of Americans, from across the country, have signed a petition of support for this stamp, yet its issue is still pending with the Postal Service after four years. There is no more worthy cause today than a fight against Alzheimer's disease, and time is of the essence. By allowing the public to directly contribute to research funds through a postal stamp, we could be one step closer to a treatment, or even a cure.

I hope that my colleagues will join me to encourage the Postal Service to allow Americans to invest in the fight against Alzheimer's disease through a semi-postal stamp.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to announce the reopening and dedication of the de Young Museum in San Francisco on October 15, 2005. I join with the Mayor and the people of San Francisco in celebrating the new de Young in our vibrant arts community.

Founded in 1895, the de Young Museum has been an integral part of San Francisco's Golden Gate Park for over 100 years. We have the de Young family to thank for establishing this vital center for the arts. M.H. de Young was the driving force behind establishing a permanent home for exhibits featured in the California Midwinter International Exposition of 1894. He set about establishing a diverse and fascinating permanent collection accessible to all San Franciscans that he hoped one day would become ``the pride of the Golden State.''

After sustaining extensive damage in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the de Young building was closed in 2000 to make way for a new and seismically stable home for the city's treasured art collections. Designed to complement its natural surroundings, the new de Young will allow museum guests and park visitors alike to travel effortlessly from the park's pathways to the museum's entryways and the sculpture and children's gardens surrounding the museum. The new de Young offers twice the exhibition space of the old building, doubles its arts education space and programming in the new Hamon Education Tower and allows access to a third of the museum free of charge.

In addition to showcasing the permanent collection, the new building will mean that the de Young is once again the Bay Area's premier venue for special exhibitions. The de Young will inaugurate its new special exhibition galleries with an ambitious exhibition showcasing objects from Egypt's Golden Age, Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh.

Over one hundred objects from this period will be on view, including treasures from these conquered territories, ornate royal possessions, and monumental sculptures and reliefs.

Its groundbreaking design will provide a spectacular art habitat for the extensive and diverse collections of the de Young, which will encompass American painting and decorative arts, and arts of the Americas, the Pacific Island, and Africa. The new de Young will present visitors with an exceptional view of the distinctions and connections among the art of different cultures and eras of creativity.

I would also like to recognize the work of Dede Wilsey, President of the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco's Board of Trustees. Mrs. Wilsey has served as Chairman of the de Young's capital campaign since 1995 and President of the Board of Trustees since 1998. As Chairman of the capital campaign, she has successfully led the museum in securing over $190 million in funding from nearly 7,000 private donors, making the new de Young the largest privately funded cultural gift ever amassed for the City of San Francisco. Mrs. Wilsey mobilized a broad spectrum of support from trustees, museum members, community leaders and elected officials to support and contribute to the new de Young.

Harry S. Parker III, Director for the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, has spearheaded the design and collections to be housed in the new de Young. His critical eye, his unwavering commitment, and his distinct understanding of art have brought the de Young to its stature in the world.

The de Young and its sister museum, the Legion of Honor, make up the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco--the largest public arts institution in the City of San Francisco and one of the largest and most celebrated arts museums in the United States. The Museums remain committed to presenting stellar art collections for San Franciscans and visitors to San Francisco. Today we have a world-class museum, and a national treasure, in our community to share with the world.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his extraordinary leadership on behalf of the American people in terms of the air they breathe, the water they drink, in protecting God's beautiful gift to us, this beautiful legacy that we have in our environment, and I commend the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), for his leadership as well. He has been a champion as well in this area.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation which would critically undermine protections for our Nation's endangered species. I support the bipartisan substitute that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) is putting forth with the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and commend them for this good proposal because it provides common sense proposals to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, and yet give a common sense enforcement to it.

I rise as House Democratic leader, of course, in support of the substitute, but I also rise as a mother and as a grandmother; mother of five and grandmother of five. My husband always says I just like to know how long into a speech it is before you start talking about your grandchildren. But we teach our grandchildren, and I did teach my children when they were little, that everything in nature is connected and that there is a reason, a balance to it all, this beautiful web of life that is nature. Today's bill of course in this debate points out what value we place on that.

With the passage of the first Endangered Species law in 1966 and the modern Endangered Species Act in 1973, Congress made a commitment to future generations of Americans, at that time that would be our children, my grandchildren. We made a commitment to maintain the web of life and preserve the myriad species that form an essential part of our natural heritage. We must keep that commitment for the sake of our children and our grandchildren.

The Endangered Species Act is a safety net for wildlife, fish and plants that are on the brink of extinction. When other environmental laws have not provided enough protection, the Endangered Species Act is there to give endangered species one last chance to survive. Of the 1,800 species protected by the law, only nine species have been declared extinct. An impressive achievement.

Earlier in the debate, I heard the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) speaking, and I see he is still in the Chamber, and I thank him for his very enlightening presentation about how many species have been saved during the life of this law. That was very inspiring and encouraging. The safety net saved our majestic national symbol, the bald eagle, and the peregrine falcon. It saved the Florida manatee, the grizzly bear, the southern sea otter, sea turtles, and many other animals and plants, all important in the balance of nature.

On the floor of the House, week after week, month after month, the Republican leadership pushes through legislation shredding the safety net for children, for veterans, for the elderly, for the poor, for the sick and the disabled, so it comes as no surprise today that they bring a bill that will shred the safety net for the endangered plants and animals. This is really unfortunate, because, again, it all relates to the balance of nature.

We find these words from the psalms: ``How many are your works, O Lord! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number, living things both large and small.'' In wisdom God has made them all ``living both things both large and small,'' and in wisdom we should preserve and protect them.

We have yet to learn the roles that many creatures play in the web of life, and we are yet to discover the practical effects many species may bring to humankind. One example in California is the Pacific forest yew. Once considered virtually useless, a trash tree, became extremely valuable as the source for the anti-cancer drug Taxol. Many of us have dear friends or family members whose chances of survival have been increased by the use of Taxol.

The bill we consider today is loaded with provisions that will make it harder to preserve endangered species. It undermines sound science by directing the Secretary of the Interior, a political appointee, to issue regulations

locking in a static definition of specific acceptable scientific data. It repeals all protections from pesticides, it drops the requirement for other Federal agencies to consult with wildlife experts at the Fish and Wildlife Service or the fisheries experts at the National Marine Fisheries Service. It establishes an extraordinarily new entitlement program for developers and speculators that requires taxpayers to pay them unlimited amounts of money, and the list goes on and on.

Reasonable people agree that there are ways to improve the Endangered Species Act. Many people who care very, very much about the environment, about the balance of nature, about the web of life have concerns about the enforcement. I think that is why it is important for Congress to be very clear what our intent is, so that intention of Congress and that clarity of our voices here will give guidance to those who enforce the law so that is the implementation and the execution of it is not in a way that is so risk averse as to be counterproductive.

We can do better than the current law, but it is hard to do worse than the legislation being proposed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo). That is why my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), joined by a group of Members and also the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), taking the lead on the Republican side, have developed a substitute to this bill that gives landowners assistance and incentives to protect endangered species, strengthens the science behind the Endangered Species Act, and requires improved coordination with the States.

I urge my colleagues to strengthen the Endangered Species Act by voting for a bipartisan substitute and opposing the underlying bill, and in doing so, to truly, as Members of Congress, show our children that we mean it when we say that we all know that everything in nature is connected and it is important to maintain the balance, the web of life.

In Isaiah in the Old Testament, we are told that to minister to the needs of God's creation, and that includes our beautiful environment, is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.

Let us minister to the needs of God's creation. Let us support the substitute and oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, this evening I rise to express my deep disdain and disgust for comments made yesterday on his radio show by former Secretary of Education William Bennett.

He said, and I quote, ``You could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.''

These are shameful words, Mr. Speaker. I am appalled to have to say them on the floor of the House of Representatives. Secretary Bennett's words reflect a narrow-minded spirit that has no place within American discourse. These words do not reflect the values of hope and opportunity for the future, they do not reflect the values of the American people, Democrat or Republican. Secretary Bennett does not reflect American mainstream values; he did not when he was Secretary of Education and he does not now. Leaders are called to higher standards than Secretary Bennett has demonstrated. We have a responsibility to lead, to be an example.

As Americans feel the pain of two hurricanes, as Americans still reel from questions about the role that race and poverty played in the government response to these devastating hurricanes, we must stand sentry against any hint of racism, any indication of injustice, any moment of intolerance. Now is not the time for divisive comments, now is the time for coming together, now is the time for healing.

What could possibly have possessed Secretary Bennett to say those words, especially at this time? What could he possibly have been thinking? This is what is so alarming about his words.

I urge President Bush to renounce his statement, and I call on Secretary Bennett to apologize. I encourage my Republican colleagues to join me on the House floor to reject these words and to speak for a future of tolerance and equality. I invite Secretary Bennett and other Republicans to join Democrats in creating solutions to national problems and meeting national needs. It is very sad, because children do study the words that are said on the floor of the House of Representatives, and these words are very shameful.

But words are shameful, too, that deny children the education they need, the health care they deserve, economic security for their families, a clean environment where they have clean air and clean water and safe food to eat; and when we deprive them of that we are insulting them, but these words are a direct hit at them. Secretary Bennett is a writer. He knows that words have

power. He knows how powerful these particular words are. An apology is definitely in order, and a rejection of these remarks also is in order from the President of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, for 10 years, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has strengthened communities and provided critical, life- saving support to victims of violence. VAWA has meant that no victim of violence has to suffer in silence. This legislation has been a tremendous success in addressing an appalling problem: since VAWA was enacted in 1994, states have passed more than 660 laws to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. The National Domestic Violence Hotline has answered more than 1 million calls. VAWA has strengthened communities across the country and saved countless lives. But we can and must do more.

Women should feel safe whether in public or private: In their workplace, in their homes, and walking on the street. Yet many women continue to live in fear. One in three American women report being physically or sexually abused by a partner at some point in their lives, and more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. We cannot tolerate the violence, abuse, and sexual assault that pervade our communities. As a nation, we must fight this epidemic in every way possible.

Today, the House reauthorized VAWA, making dramatic improvements to the existing law by establishing new rape crisis centers and increasing grants for community organizations that work to prevent and eliminate domestic violence. The reauthorization of VAWA is a critical step and a national commitment to keep future generations of women and children safe.

Unfortunately, the spirit of VAWA came under attack today by the House Republicans. Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner offered an amendment that eliminated carefully crafted provisions of the bipartisan bill that recognized that racial and ethnic minorities face unique challenges in reporting and getting help for domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking and stalking. With this change, domestic violence prevention and treatment services specifically targeting women of color and immigrant victims of domestic violence and sexual assault will continue to be shortchanged.

VAWA is one of the crowning achievements of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues and a truly bipartisan success. I urge the Senate to reject the Sensenbrenner amendment and return the bill to its original, bipartisan version.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, and the gentlewoman from South Dakota, Ms. Herseth, for their extraordinary leadership in fighting price gouging at the gas pump.

Despite the American people's demand for action, the Bush administration and the Republican Congress are doing absolutely nothing.

Three weeks ago, the Bush administration even claimed that price gouging was not a Federal concern. Pressure from Democrats finally caused the Federal Trade Commission to start an investigation, an investigation that in true Bush cronyism style is led by a former ChevronTexaco lawyer. And in the House Energy Committee today, in a party-line vote, Republican committee Members voted unanimously against Mr. Stupak's bill.

Instead of the bold action that the American people deserve, what we have seen from Republicans is more of the same: a culture of corruption, incompetence, and cronyism.

In contrast, Democrats have been working for months, long before Hurricane Katrina, to bring down the price of gas at the pump and home heating oil. Today, Democrats again stand ready to do something about price gouging. The Stupak-Herseth motion to recommit will give the Federal Government the tools to crack down on price gouging by the big oil and gas companies.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have long been the handmaidens and apologists for big oil companies. It is long past time for the Republicans to act in the interests of the American people, not against them.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the Stupak-Herseth motion to recommit, so we can end price gouging and so we can lower oil prices. Our Nation is watching and expecting action now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor an extraordinary woman who dedicated her life to the service of San Francisco's most needy individuals. Barbara Jean Brown, known to those who loved her as ``Mother Brown,'' passed away on August 9 after a year-long struggle with leukemia.

Mother Brown distinguished herself through her generous and untiring efforts feeding the poor and homeless of our city through Mother Brown's Dining Room. By offering a haven to countless individuals for more than 20 years, her spirit and kindness touched all those to whom she tended. I offer my deepest sympathy to her sons, Frederick and Jaamel; her brother, Arthur; and her sisters, Alice, Fanny, and Dennie Marie.

Mother Brown served San Francisco with dignity and love. The beginning of her public ministry consisted of parking an old, oversized Cadillac and serving hot meals out of her trunk that she had cooked in her own kitchen. Sharon Williams, the operations manager of Mother Brown's Dining Hall, said of her colleague, ``She knew there was a need. She believed no one should ever go to bed hungry.'' Mother Brown never turned anyone away.

Her work did not go unnoticed. Government agencies, community organizations, and private corporations donated funds to allow Mother Brown to set up the Bayview Hope Homeless Resource Center and Mother Brown's Dining Room in a converted warehouse. With this new facility, Mother Brown was able to serve more people with additional resources and services. Beyond her work with the Center and Dining Room, she threw an annual Christmas party at the Bayview Opera

House for those without a home during the holidays and donated 1,200 toys to children last year alone.

Barbara Jean Brown was born in Shreveport, LA, and moved to the bay area at the age of 5. After marrying, she had three children and lived in San Francisco's Bayview district, where she headquartered her community efforts. In addition to her life of public service, she supported herself through clerical and administrative work, including a term working in advertising for San Francisco's major newspapers, the Chronicle and the Examiner.

She began her charity work partnering with her eldest son, J.J. When he died at age 34, she invested the little money he left her into what would become the Bayview Hope Homeless Resource Center. Every dollar she later received from sponsorships and gifts went directly to her projects. Mother Brown demonstrated extraordinary generosity and selflessness.

San Francisco was fortunate to have this remarkable woman in our midst. Those whom she helped, served, cared for, and inspired will sorely miss her. However, her legacy continues as she leaves behind the Bayview Hope Homeless Resource Center and Mother Brown's Dining Room to carry on the mission she started so long ago.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), for yielding me this time and commend the members of the Committee on Rules for their important work on this subject, particularly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) who is the author of the legislation, along with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the chairman of our caucus, on legislation which will bring truth to this situation, an independent commission, modeled after 9/11, respected by the American people.

Following the tragedy of 9/11, the American people expected and deserved

the truth. People of New York and New Jersey were strong advocates for such a commission. The people in Louisiana and Mississippi and the gulf region are displaced. They are trying to put their lives back together. They have lost their homes, their jobs, their livelihoods, their communities. They really do not have time to lobby Congress for an independent commission.

But our country is grateful to the 9/11 families because they not only gave us that commission to review that terrible tragedy that befell our country, they gave us a tradition of transparency and finding the truth and holding people accountable and hoping to do so in a way that prevents future loss of life.

We endanger the American people when we ignore the truth. So on behalf of the people in the region, I plead with my colleagues in this body to reject any sham committee. Supposedly bipartisan; not so. Supposedly bicameral; not so. One thing we know, it is a vehicle to whitewash, to whitewash, and not have a true look into what went wrong.

There was a natural disaster, a terrible natural disaster in the gulf coast States. It was compounded by a manmade disaster because the Federal response of FEMA fell so very, very short. And FEMA, now its Director has resigned, but FEMA is fraught with problems systemically throughout it.

That does not mean that many, many people who work for FEMA and many people, our first responders, police and fire, health care providers in the area and volunteers from every walk of life did not rise to the occasion. They certainly did, and we commend them for the sacrifice they were willing to make to rescue others in the time of the immediate recovery. But there are so many unanswered questions; and instead of having a sham, why can we not have a real commission to look into this?

So the choice on the floor today, we have heard all of this discussion over and over. The fact is that we should be spending our time figuring out how we are going to help the people of the region rebuild their communities, to create jobs, to educate their children, to rid themselves of the toxic, literally toxic, environment, and that is the situation that they are in there. Instead, we are wasting the public's time on a subject that is unworthy of this tragedy, and it did not have to be.

I certainly respect the congressional role of oversight. We have called for it over and over again, whether it was the war in Iraq or the price gouging at the pump of gasoline for America's consumers, whether it is Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. Name it. There are so many subjects that this Congress has been delinquent in its duty in doing oversight. So I fully support congressional oversight by the committees of jurisdiction.

In order to expedite help to the region, I suggested to the Speaker that we have a truly bipartisan committee that could streamline how we would go forward. At the time, I intended it just to be on the positive side, and that was early, when Katrina was just hitting, and then when we saw things go wrong, we added the charge that we would see what went wrong. So the idea of this Congress having a role in terms of oversight in a bipartisan special committee is one that I supported. I suggested it.

But what the Republicans came back with was really a slap in the face to the people who were affected in the region. We owe them the truth. Why is this Congress afraid of the truth? Over and over again, Iraq, name it, price at the pump, why is this Congress afraid of the truth? Sometimes it is really important, as we try to find our common ground, we stand our ground where we cannot find that common ground, but we always have to come down in favor of the people, to yield on points. Because we are here to get a job done. Maybe not exactly the way we would want to get it done, but get a job done. So now, today, the Republicans are putting up an obstacle to doing just that.

So I urge my colleagues to honor the sacrifice, the situation, that has affected the people in the region by at least telling them the truth and vote against this committee today, to vote against this committee, to say come back to the drawing board when they want to have honesty in what we are doing. But, first and foremost, we must have a truly independent commission, again, in the manner of the 9/11 Commission that took testimony, that issued a report, that gave transparency and openness to the process and gave some level of truth to the American people.

Because the people in the gulf States, many of them affected are poor and economically disadvantaged and not as sophisticated, perhaps, as some of the people stricken with grief in the New York/New Jersey area at the time of 9/11, and in Pennsylvania and in the Pentagon. Because these people are of a different economic status and because they are living in shelters and the rest and not really able to speak for themselves to the Congress of the United States, we, the House Democrats, will speak for them in asking for the truth and appealing to our Republican colleagues for us to work together in a completely nonpartisan way to help meet their needs.

I know that some Members have visited the region, certainly those affected. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) spoke with such eloquence on the floor yesterday. Senator Landrieu, in the Senate last week, brought the Nation to tears with her presentation on what she saw in her beloved State of Louisiana. And the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) has told us firsthand of what he has seen there. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), our ranking member on the Committee on Homeland Security, spoke from authority in standing on the committee but experience as a Mississippian. They know because they see firsthand.

I could only see secondhand, joining the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), going to Houston to meet with the victims of Katrina in the Astrodome and also in the George R. Brown Convention Center. We saw children, little children, adorable little babies that we could hold in our arms, and 90-year-old great grannies, all of them, not the little babies, they did not speak for themselves, but their older siblings said, ``We want to go home.''

They praised the hospitality, the warmth, the generosity of the people of Houston. And they are to be commended. As I said when I was in Houston, I do not know of any city in America that could have risen to the occasion so quickly and so compassionately as Houston. Mayor White, Judge Eckels, the Commissioner of Harris County; Representative Noriega, so many people in the community came together to help the victims of Katrina. But still, with all of the respect that they extended to their guests, with all the health care, with all the care and feeding, still, of course, there is no place like home.

So let us find out how we can bring these people home. And a good way to have them come home and have confidence in the future that, should another hurricane strike, and we know that it will, that the precautions will have been taken, the accountability will be assigned, and that the people will be protected. We can do that by finding the truth. We can find the truth with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from New Jersey's (Mr. Menendez) commission, Senator Clinton leading the way in the Senate on this important issue, and we can do it by rejecting this committee.

I stand open and welcome to any cooperation with the Republicans when the Speaker is ready to cooperate on true bipartisanship, true openness, and true accountability to the American people.

With that, I just close again to say that our hopes and prayers are always with the people of the region. It is our resolve that they will be made whole as soon as possible, and that has to be a bipartisan commitment.

Mr. Chairman, as the House considers the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act, we have the opportunity to commend the men and women of the Coast Guard for their extraordinary achievements in response to Hurricane Katrina.

On Sunday, August 28, as soon as the hurricane passed over the Gulf of Mexico, the Coast Guard launched into action. Battling winds that were still blowing at gale force, Coast Guard aircraft immediately began rescuing desperate survivors clinging to rooftops in flooded Gulf Coast coastal communities.

After the Hurricane hit the Gulf Coast and as the enormity of the disaster became apparent, every Coast Guard air station in the country began sending help--aircraft or crews or both--to the devastated areas to conduct search and rescue missions. The numbers speak for themselves: across the region, the Coast Guard saved or evacuated 33,500 people; one helicopter crew rescued 150 during a single shift on duty; another crew rescued 110.

In New Orleans alone, working day and night for seven days, Coast Guard helicopters saved close to 6,500 lives, 4,700 of them by hoisting people from their perilous perches up into helicopters. Coast Guard crews dodged debris, hacked through roofs and windows, and waded in filthy water to reach survivors.

Although Coast Guard facilities in the disaster area had been damaged by the storm and floods, and many Coast Guard men and women had lost their own homes, they pushed past all obstacles to carry out their mission.

It was not just the members of the air and rescue teams that made this extraordinary effort possible: mechanics worked tirelessly to service aircraft and send them back into the field as quickly as possible. Supply and logistics personnel worked around the clock to restore hurricane-damaged facilities to use. Auxiliary volunteers rallied to the call of duty. As the storm receded, assessments of oil spills and critical infrastructure began.

The Coast Guard's accomplishments shine all the brighter in contrast to FEMA's lethally slow response. There are many good men and women working for FEMA too, but they were hampered by weak, inexperienced, and ineffective leadership, and by the exodus over the past several years of many seasoned disaster relief experts who could no longer tolerate the disintegration of the agency.

With this legislation, we are building upon the strengths and successes of the Coast Guard. Thank you to Vice Admiral Thad W. Allen for taking over relief operations in the disaster area. Thank you to the men and women of the Coast Guard who responded to this disaster from all around the country, from Florida to Seattle, from Boston to my own city of San Francisco. With all our hearts, we thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the hate crimes prevention amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary, and I thank him for his strong leadership on this subject.

I disagree with the distinguished chairman of the committee. This is not a poison pill. This amendment does nothing to weaken the underlying bill. We all agree we must take strong measures to protect our children from sexual predators. As a mother of five and grandmother of five, I appreciate fully the underlying bill and intend to vote for it.

This is, Mr. Chairman, another issue; and it relates to hate crimes. This vehicle is one that gives Congress the opportunity to go on record, and hopefully in the majority, to reject hate crimes in our country. Hate crimes prevention is long overdue. Hate crimes have no place in America. All Americans have a fundamental right to feel safe in their communities. Federal hate crimes prevention legislation is the right thing to do, and we must do it now. We have waited far too long.

A year ago, a majority of this House voted to support including hate crimes prevention legislation in the Department of Defense authorization bill, on the heels of a strong vote in the Senate. Similarly, the House acted in September of 2000. Twice, the Republican leadership defied the will of the majority of the House and stripped these essential provisions out in conference. Today, we should not be denied. We will have a vote that counts.

Our Nation was founded on the principle that all are created equal, all are entitled to the protections of the laws, and all are entitled to justice. It violates this principle to have individuals in our country targeted for violence because of who they are, the color of their skin, how they worship, and who they love. The perpetrators of violence intend to send a message to certain members of our community that they are not welcome.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is based on H.R. 2662, the Local Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005, introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and joined by 142 Members as cosponsors, of which I am proud to be one. It will help prevent violence visited upon individuals because of their race, sexual orientation, sexual identity, religion, national origin, gender, or disability.

As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) explained, these protections are necessary and must be enacted into law. Who can ever forget the brutal murders of James Byrd in Texas, Matthew Shepard in Wyoming, Waqar Hasan in Texas, Gwen Araujo in California, and so many others who have died because of ignorance and intolerance. This legislation would increase the ability of local, State and Federal law enforcement agencies to solve and prevent a wide range of violent hate crimes.

Mr. Chairman, I call this very specifically to your attention and to that of our colleagues, that numerous law enforcement organizations, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police support the need for Federal hate crimes legislation.

Mr. Chairman, as we deal with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we must remember that we are one America, a Nation that must be united not just in common purpose but in common effort and common community. We must work to end false distinctions among us.

In the words of my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who I consider to be the conscience of this House, we must strive towards our ``Beloved Community.'' ``We must move our resources to build and not to tear down, to reconcile and not to divide, to love and not to hate.''

Let that be our call. Let us live up to the ideals of equality and opportunity that are both our hope and our future. Let us pass this amendment to secure justice for all. We must continue to vote for justice, for hope, and for freedom by ensuring that hate crimes prevention provisions are enacted into law. I urge my colleagues to vote for this important amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman that we passed this legislation, as I mentioned, at least two times on the floor with Republican votes. As the gentleman knows, we do not have the majority on the Democratic side, so it was with Republican votes that we passed it before.

I, too, hope those votes will be here today because we do have an historic opportunity to pass the underlying bill but, more importantly in terms of this historical opportunity that is presented to us, to pass this amendment as well.

Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago, our Nation suffered the worst attack in our history, and Americans were forever transformed. What happened on September 11 was not simply an attack against America, it was an assault on our democracy. In the immediate aftermath, we saw Americans overcome grief and devastation to demonstrate that the values that unite us are greater and more enduring than anything that divides us.

That is what we do again today. This week, we come together in the spirit of unity and accord to memorialize the people lost and the families shattered on 9/11, in public ceremonies and private remembrances. I hope that it offers a small sense of comfort to those who lost loved ones and those who were injured in the attacks, that so many people in our country and throughout the world remember their loss and their suffering and continue to pray for them.

But the best memorial we can offer to the victims of 9/11 is not words, but deeds. We must bring a laser-like focus to our responsibility to make America safer. The threat that we did not recognize clearly enough 4 years ago confronts us still. The need to be prepared, as Hurricane Katrina so clearly showed, is one of our most critical responsibilities.

Four years after the attacks, Americans have to ask: has enough progress been made? The answer, sadly, is no. Security at our ports, on commercial airliners, on our transit systems, and along our borders has not been a priority. Our first responders still do not have the ability to communicate quickly and effectively.

September 11 is hallowed ground, and the actions of this Congress must be guided by that recognition. Our debates, our votes, our laws, must be worthy of the sacrifice that was made on that day. And so, in the name of the victims, we pledge again today: united as a country, we will seek to keep alive the indomitable American spirit that was displayed on September 11, and keep Americans safe from harm.