Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Ossie Davis, a civil rights advocate, a celebrated actor, dedicated family man, upstanding resident of Westchester County, and my dear friend. I feel very fortunate to have known Ossie and to have represented him and his wife, Ruby Dee, for the last 16 years.

Ossie Davis will be remembered by millions of Americans as an outstanding actor. From his very first movie role in the 1950s ``No Way Out'' to roles in such classics as ``Raisin In The Sun,'' ``Roots: The Next Generation,'' ``Miss Evers' Boys,'' Ossie's accomplishments as an actor were truly amazing. He well deserved the many honors and awards he received, most recently as a Kennedy Center Honoree along with his wife, Ruby Dee.

But Ossie's legacy goes well beyond all that. His advocacy or civil rights is legendary. At a time when such activism would cost an actor his career, he refused to be silent in the face of injustice and he used his celebrity to draw attention to the plight of African Americans. From his eulogy at the funeral for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to his memorable voice-overs for the United Negro College Fund, uttering the now-famous words, ``A mind is a terrible thing to waste,'' Ossie continued throughout his life to fight for civil rights and he became one of the towering figures in that struggle.

I have so much admiration for all that Ossie Davis did for my community, for Westchester County and the Nation. I am proud to have represented him in the Congress.

I join my constituents, all his friends, his fans and the world in mourning his passing. Our thoughts and prayers are with Ruby and his entire family. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution to honor the legacy of Ossie Davis.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, which commends the Palestinian people for holding free and fair elections on January 9. I know we all hope it will be the end of the violence that has devastated so many families, and the beginning of the resumption of peaceful negotiations.

The State of Israel and many, many Palestinians want this. They want peace--to safeguard their children, to encourage economic growth, to move toward the future with optimism and a sense of purpose. The United States shares this hope, and must continue to actively support these efforts. I commend President Bush for his involvement, and I hope he will remain steadfast.

But we are not naive. We have been at such hopeful moments before. As President Bush said last summer, there are a number of concrete actions the Palestinians must take before they can be viewed as legitimate partners in the path to peace.

Free elections are one step. But now newly elected Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas must do more. He must disarm Palestinian terrorist groups--not just call on them to cease attacks on Israelis. Abbas must do the hard work of dismantling the terrorist organizations. He must control and consolidate the security forces that often collaborated with terror groups. He must push for true political and economic reform, and stop the rampant corruption. And finally, he must truly engage Arab leaders in supporting true peace in the region. If he does all these things, if Abbas can demonstrate by his action that he is a serious, earnest partner in the pursuit of peace, then there is truly cause for hope.

We have waited decades for a peace that will safeguard Israel's security, and will bring about regional stability and prosperity. For those who truly seek peace, who understand that there is no choice but peace to secure the future of the Middle East, the latest developments are encouraging.

The future of the Middle East--and the ultimate security and safety of Israel--is at stake. The United States will maintain its commitment to bringing the parties back to the negotiating table, but the ultimate choice of peace is theirs to make. Chairman Abbas must not squander the opportunity to bring peace and prosperity to his people. He must show his willingness to make the tough choices, and take the risky path, that separates those who truly seek peace from those who do not.

I urge unanimous adoption of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, which commends the Palestinian people for holding free and fair elections on January 9. I know we all hope it will be the end of the violence that has devastated so many families, and the beginning of the resumption of peaceful negotiations.

The State of Israel and many, many Palestinians want this. They want peace--to safeguard their children, to encourage economic growth, to move towards the future with optimism and a sense of purpose. The United States shares this hope, and must continue to actively support these efforts. I commend President Bush for his involvement, and I hope he will remain steadfast.

But we are not naive. We have been at such hopeful moments before. As President Bush said last summer, there are a number of concrete actions the Palestinians must take before they can be viewed as legitimate partners in the path to peace.

Free elections are one step. But now newly elected Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas must do more. He must disarm Palestinian terrorist groups--not just call on them to cease attacks on Israelis. Abbas must do the hard work of dismantling the terrorist organizations. He must control and consolidate the security forces that often collaborated with terror groups. He must push for true political and economic reform, and stop the rampant corruption. And finally, he must truly engage Arab leaders in supporting true peace in the region. If he does all these things, if Abbas can demonstrate by his action that he is a serious, earnest partner in the pursuit of peace, then there is truly cause for hope.

We have waited decades for a peace that will safeguard Israel's security, and will bring about regional stability and prosperity. For those who truly seek peace, who understand that there is no choice but peace to secure the future of the Middle East, the latest developments are encouraging.

The future of the Middle East--and the ultimate security and safety of Israel--is at stake. The United States will maintain its commitment to bringing the parties back to the negotiating table, but the ultimate choice of peace is theirs to make. Chairman Abbas must not squander the opportunity to bring peace and prosperity to his people. He must show his willingness to make the tough choices, and take the risky path, that separate those who truly seek peace from those who do not.

I urge unanimous adoption of this resolution. .

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dobbs Ferry High School for winning the 2004 New York State Class C Football Championship.

Through hard work, commitment and by always keeping their eye on the ball, this team completed a perfect 13-0 season en route to the title.

This championship continues the rich tradition that Dobbs Ferry High School has established on and off the football field. By winning this title, Dobbs Ferry has now won the state title two of the last three years. Dobbs Ferry is only the fifth school ever to win a state title in multiple football classes.

By applying the principles of fair play, good sportsmanship and constructive competition to sports and all other walks of life, the school has become a shining example for others to follow.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Dobbs Ferry High School on their accomplishment and I wish them the best of luck in defending their title next season.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sorrow to join my colleagues in remembering and honoring our colleague, our dear friend, Bob Matsui.

Bob Matsui was a fine man. He loved his family, he loved his country and he loved this House, the institution he served for 26 years, and in return, we loved him.

He loved his family. He loved his country. We loved his gentle manner and incisive mind. We loved his tenacity and fair-mindedness, his policy expertise and political skill. He was a true leader of this caucus and the California delegation, a real hero to Japanese Americans and a true fighter for economic opportunity, fiscal accountability and social justice. Like so many, I cannot imagine debating the future of Social Security and many other issues without Bob.

While the Nation will suffer from his loss, the family's loss is deeper and greater than we could possibly imagine. My heart goes out to Doris, Brian, Amy and little Anna. He was so proud of Anna and was so happy to share pictures of her with all of us, and Doris, you were truly his partner, and he spoke so often of Brian and Amy and their joy at Anna's birth. I know he loved them and he was so proud of them.

I also want to extend my condolences to his wonderful, hardworking staff, both here on the Hill and at the DCCC, his close circle of former staff, as well as to the people of the Fifth District of California. Bob was a kind, principled man, a valued colleague and a very dear friend. I will miss him greatly.

We love you, Bob. You will always remain in our hearts and your outstanding work will always be an example to this House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dobbs Ferry High School for winning the 2004 New York State Class C Football Championship.

Through hard work, commitment and by always keeping their eye on the ball, this team completed a perfect 13-0 season en route to the title.

This championship continues the rich tradition that Dobbs Ferry High School has established on and off the football field. By winning this title, Dobbs Ferry has now won the state title two of the last three years. Dobbs Ferry is only the fifth school ever to win a state title in multiple football classes.

By applying the principles of fair play, good sportsmanship and constructive competition to sports and all other walks of life, the school has become a shining example for others to follow.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Dobbs Ferry High School on their accomplishment, and I wish them the best of luck in defending their title next season.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. I'd like to take a few moments to focus on the foreign operations section, which I strongly support and which I believe represents the very best of bipartisan cooperation in the pursuit of a sound and effective foreign policy.

Despite representing a cut of $1.9 billion below the President's request, the conference agreement will accomplish many good things. It increases the President's request for international HIV/AIDS programs by about $100 million, and by about $700 million over last year's level. It provides a total of $400 million for basic education, which is a $75 million increase above last year. Since Chairman Kolbe and I began working together, we have quadrupled funding for basic education, and I am pleased the Senate agreed to include the House-passed level for this valuable priority.

The Millennium Challenge Corporation will receive $1.5 billion, which is $500 million above last year. We have also restored cuts proposed by the President to USAID's core programs for health, the environment, democracy building, and economic growth. This is the second consecutive year that Congress has had to restore the administration's cuts, and I hope the administration will take notice. Congress has no intention of cutting our core programs in Africa and Latin America to make room for new initiatives.

The agreement fully funds our commitments to Israel and other Middle Eastern countries and provides increases for new programs designed to mitigate conflicts. I am pleased that we have extended the loan guarantee program for Israel by 2 years, which will enable Israel to take full advantage of the authority already granted by Congress. I am also pleased that the statement of managers expresses concern about the need for more vigorous oversight of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and requests a report on oversight measures from the State Department.

The agreement also provides significant funding for both Pakistan and Afghanistan as we continue our partnership in fighting the war on terrorism. As reconstruction proceeds in Afghanistan, it is increasingly clear that the $1 billion in this bill will have to be augmented by as much as an additional $1 billion in supplemental funds. I hope that we will have the opportunity to provide these funds after the New Year--we have a responsibility to our own national security, and to the people of Afghanistan, to get the reconstruction job done right.

We have increased funds for both Sudan and Haiti because of the serious humanitarian crises in both countries. For Haiti, we have provided $85 million, which is $58 million above the request. For Sudan, the bill contains the $311 million included in the House-passed bill plus an additional $93 million specifically for the Darfur emergency. This funding, which should have come in the form of a mandatory transfer from the billions of unspent Iraq reconstruction funds, will instead be provided as new, emergency funding. I am simply baffled that, despite bipartisan support for this transfer, the administration has fought tooth and nail against it. While I am pleased the funds have been provided, I am surprised that we have not taken advantage of the authority to use already-appropriated funds for this clearly important purpose.

Once again, I am disappointed with the disposition of the outstanding issues surrounding international family planning. While I am pleased that the conference agreement provides $441 million for our bilateral family planning programs, these programs are still subject to the senseless global gag rule policy.

We have also failed to rationalize restrictions on funding the United Nations Population Fund, which as received no U.S. support since 2001.

I am pleased that we have clearly stipulated that any fiscal year 2005 funds blocked from UNFPA will go to bolster our bilateral family planning programs. I am deeply disappointed that the administration has only allowed us to provide half of the fiscal year 2004 funds meant for UNFPA for family planning. I support anti-trafficking initiatives, but urge the President to actually request them for the upcoming fiscal year, instead of simply announcing that he will take them from other programs.

One last issue I feel compelled to address is the potential cut-off of economic assistance to a number of countries based on their failure to sign so-called Article 98 agreements. The House bill contained language extending the reach of current law by cutting off Economic Support Fund assistance to the government of countries that have not signed agreements exempting U.S. troops from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Current law cuts off military assistance to countries with no signed Article 98 agreements, but also gives the President broad waiver authority.

The conference agreement contains a narrow waiver for non-NATO allies, but no waiver for the remainder of the world. The ultimate result is the potential cutoff of economic assistance to Jordan, Cyprus, Lebanon, Ecuador, Kenya, South Africa, Angola, and other countries.

I understand and share the concerns many of my colleagues have about the International Criminal Court. But I also do not believe that these concerns should be the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.

Jordan is not only our most reliable partner in the Arab world, the country now serves as the primary staging point for much of our Iraq reconstruction effort. The new Iraqi police force upon which so much depends is now being trained in Jordan. Threatening a cutoff of economic assistance simply flies in the face of common sense. Our program in Cyprus has been in place for many years and funds efforts to help end the conflict there--a key U.S. foreign policy goal. In other countries, our efforts include a wide range of programs relating to drug trafficking, dealing with environmental problems, and providing economic advisors. It seems shortsighted to discard these goals because of concerns over the poorly organized and ineffective ICC.

Personally, I believe this provision should have been dropped--I opposed it when it was offered during House consideration of the bill. However, if a waiver must be included, it should have included all countries and not simply NATO and major non-NATO allies. This would allow the administration to let aid flow unimpeded to key countries in Latin America and Africa that might otherwise be forgotten. As it stands now, many of these programs are likely to be curtailed or halted.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to express my concern with the Weldon refusal clause provision included in the LHHS section of the bill. For over 30 years, there have been Federal laws that allow doctors, nurses, and hospitals to refuse to provide abortion services because of their religious beliefs.

However, just as the law protects religious or moral objections, it protects the rights of patients--ensuring that women have access to accurate and complete medical information when making decisions about their own health. The Weldon provision would unravel these protections--gutting the patient protections included in the Title X family planning program, which require that all legal options are presented to a woman; denying rape and incest survivors access to legal abortion services, which is a longstanding provision in current law, and overriding State constitutional patient protections.

I am very disappointed that my and my colleagues' efforts to strip this provision from the final bill did not prevail. This will hurt women all around our country, and it is shameful.

In closing, I want to thank Chairman Kolbe for his hard work on this bill, and express my deep appreciation of this close working relationship we have enjoyed. I think it is clear from the bipartisan way in which this bill was written--from the very first day--that we both share a strong commitment to our Nation's foreign assistance programs, and that we both understand that foreign assistance, along with diplomacy and defense, is a pillar of U.S. national security strategy. Chairman Kolbe and his staff--John Shank, Alice Grant, Rodney Bent, Rob Blair, Lori Maes, and Sean Mulvancy--have been wonderful partners in this process.

And I would like to thank the minority staff--Mark Murray and Beth Tritter--for their work as well.

Mr. Chairman, 3 months ago, the bipartisan September 11 Commission provided Congress with 41 recommendations to help keep our Nation secure and our people safe in the face of rising dangers and threats throughout the world.

These recommendations were targeted at eliminating terrorist organizations, at preventing the continued growth of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism, and at protecting against and preparing for future attacks.

In my judgment, the 9/11 Commission report should have made our job easy. But instead, we find ourselves faced with a bill that dangerously ignores some of the Commission's most important recommendations, and adds hundreds of pages of extraneous and controversial provisions that may do little or nothing to better secure our nation.

Let me be clear. I do support the bill's provisions that identify the target terrorist sanctuaries; that focus U.S. efforts on some of the most critical parts of the world in the war on terrorism, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia; and that reform the homeland security grant process to ensure that higher threat cities receive more funds.

I'd like to emphasize that last point.

As I travel through my District and New York State, what I hear most from police officers and firefighters is that we need to change the funding formula to ensure that areas facing the highest threats--like New York--will get the increased funding need to face those threats head-on. We don't have another 3 years to get this done--it needs to get done now. As long as a State like Wyoming gets seven times the amount of funding that New York receives, changing the funding formula must be this Congress's priority.

I believe this bill makes important changes to the funding formula and I am proud to have helped to craft a number of these provisions and to serve on the committee that guided the bill through the legislative process.

But, unfortunately, I have serious objections to many other provisions included in this bill that do not have anything to do with intelligence reform and other 9/11 Commission recommendations.

In my judgment, there are more effective and efficient ways of protecting our national security without infringing on the rights or civil liberties of our Nation's citizens and immigrants.

While the 9/11 Commission report made several recommendations regarding border security and immigration policy, it did not call for the undermining of the due process rights of many immigrants by significantly expending expedited deportation laws; raising the bar substantially for a grant of asylum; or authorizing the government to deport foreign nationals to countries that lack a functioning government--or worse--condone and permit torture.

And, while the 9/11 Commission report recommended that we improve FBI counterintelligence capabilities, it did not recommend that Congress allow the government to secretly investigate an individual suspected of terrorism without having to prove that person is connected to a foreign power.

And finally, while the 9/11 Commission Report called for federal standards for identification documents, including drivers' licenses, it did not recommend that immigrants should be denied a driver's license.

While I do believe that the Federal Government should have a role in helping States to coordinate efforts to strengthen the security of

drivers' licenses, this bill would unnecessarily take away the power of States to set eligibility and documentation criteria for drivers' licenses.

My colleagues, the focus on immigrants and the expansion of federal powers of surveillance since September 11 has diverted attention from other critical security lapses that should be addressed in this bill, such as unfunded State and local homeland security needs, lack of adequate security at our nation's airport, intelligence gathering failures, and the substantial evidence of incompetence and lack of coordination at the Department of Homeland Security.

However, at the end of the day, I believe that Congress has an obligation to act as expeditiously as possible to make this country, and indeed the world, a safer place. I don't believe that this should be done on the backs of immigrants and law-abiding American citizens, and I'm going to work to make sure that doesn't happen.

But I don't want a single New Yorker, or American, to lose sleep at night because Congress failed to accomplish what we all agree is our highest priority--protecting America. We are 3 years after the attacks of September 11 and 3 months after the Commission issued its recommendations. We simply cannot wait any longer to move forward on these critical reforms.

So, my vote today is only a vote to protect the changed funding formula that prioritizes high-risk areas like New York, my home state, and to move this measure to conference with the Senate, which has passed a bill that more closely embodies the 9/11 Commission recommendations. And I can assure you that if the conference report that comes before our House is not significantly improved from what we have today, I will vote against it.

But for today, we must move this process forward to ultimately try to enact legislation that will truly and comprehensively improve our national intelligence structure.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in appreciation for the work of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey) in responding to the crisis in Florida, but I rise with concerns about what is not included in this bill.

We continue to receive daily reports of the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Despite commitments from the White House to do so, the Sudanese government has not taken steps to reduce the violence and reign in military forces. While the United States and the United Nations continue to put pressure on Khartoum, the situation on the ground in Darfur gets worse, and prospects increase for a rapid escalation of violence.

The only chance we have in the immediate future to end the killing and prevent future violence is to enable the deployment of more African Union monitors to Darfur. Incredibly, while the State Department has clearly identified the need for additional funds to support such a force, the administration has not requested these funds.

The African Union has reached consensus on the deployment of a force of between 3,200 and 3,600 troops to Darfur. The government of Sudan has agreed to this. Several African nationals have committed to send troops. The cost to support this force for 1 year has been estimated by the State Department to be $220 million and, at the moment, the United States has contributed $20 million from existing sources, and other donors are being sought to share the cost.

However, no other donors have yet come forward. The State Department needs at least $33 million immediately to get this force mobilized and deployed. Prospects of getting additional

funding to meet the need for the full $220 million cost are uncertain.

We can take immediate action to secure these funds. As this supplemental goes to conference, I will work to ensure that we include the transfer of $93 million from Iraq reconstruction funds for this African Union force or to meet unforeseen needs for humanitarian relief.

The Secretary of State has clearly indicated to a number of Members that these funds are necessary and that there are no other sources from existing accounts. Congress has already provided the administration with the authority to transfer up to .5 percent of Iraq construction funds to meet unforeseen needs in Sudan. The President could exercise this authority today if he chose to, but we have been told that the White House is not inclined to do so. Adding language mandating the transfer will not add to the cost of the bill, as we are transferring funds already available, and it would not set a precedent for future transfers from Iraq reconstruction; it is a one-time authority only.

The latest report on Iraq indicated that only $1.2 billion of the $18 billion we provided has been spent; only $7.1 billion has been obligated. Surely, we can respond to this genocide in Sudan, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will work with me to make this happen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I am opposed to a constitutional amendment that would discriminate against any American. In more than 200 years of American history, the U.S. Constitution has been amended only 17 times since the Bill of Rights--and in each instance, it was to extend the rights and liberties of the American people, not restrict them.

The Federal Marriage Amendment could deny gay and lesbian couples and their children basic rights, protections, and benefits like hospital visitations and inheritance. It could also overturn civil unions and domestic partnership rights already enacted by some state and local governments. This amendment runs counter to my strong belief that all people should be entitled to equal protection under the law, regardless of ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.

I urge my colleagues to let this debate unfold where it should: in our homes, in our synagogues and churches, in our courts, and in our hearts. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express some concerns about the provisions in the continuing resolution allowing for the reprogramming of $3.46 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds.

I would first like to take a moment to express my appreciation and respect for all military, civilian, and contractor personnel stationed in Iraq today. They are working to bring democracy and stability to Iraq in an atmosphere of extreme danger, and I have great admiration for their courage. We owe them a great deal for their sacrifices.

This bill addresses the administration's request to shift $3.46 billion within the $18 billion Congress approved for the reconstruction of Iraq. This shift moves funds away from essential rebuilding efforts in the water and electricity sectors to deal with the deteriorating security situation in Iraq and the upcoming elections. The bill specifies new amounts for the various sectors of reconstruction assistance while retaining the underlying set of requirements for congressional notification and reporting.

I have great respect for General Petraeus and his staff who have put together this new plan. I am hopeful that the reprogramming will help address the dire security situation that has hindered much of our reconstruction work. But if we examine the facts, we find that since the start of combat operations in Iraq, 1,050 soldiers have been killed, 7,532 wounded; and since the end of major combat operations which the President declared on May 1, 2003, 909 have been killed and 6,990 wounded.

The statistics on the security situation are equally as staggering. In March of this year there were an average of 20 insurgent engagements per day. By September that number had increased more than fourfold, to 87 per day.

President Bush said earlier this month, and I quote, ``What is critical is that the President of the United States speak clearly and consistently at this time of great threat in our world, and not change positions because of expediency or pressure.'' We have given the President what he requested because we need to move aggressively to address the security situation. However, the administration must be honest with the American people.

Before the war, we had the distinct impression from both the President and Vice President that the length of U.S. deployment and the cost of reconstruction would be minimal. Their assessments were hopelessly naive and ignored the lessons of history. Today, 1 year after Congress provided the $18 billion in reconstruction funds, only slightly more than $1 billion has been spent. The insecure environment has

slowed the pace of reconstruction to a crawl. It has become crystal clear that we have no coherent plan to win the peace.

The administration claims that there are 100,000 Iraqi security forces trained and operating in Iraq today and that 145,000 will be trained by January. The facts are that 22,700 security personnel have received enough basic training to make them minimally effective at their tasks. Only 8,200 police have even received a basic 8-week training course. At the current pace of training, we will not have the current 90,000-man force trained until February 2006. Today, only 4,800 Iraqi Army personnel have been trained and equipped. By mid-October we may reach 8,000. Only eight of the 45 existing Iraqi National Guard battalions have reached initial operating capability. No border enforcement personnel have received centralized training.

Despite administration claims to the contrary, Iraq is becoming less secure. The difficulties in training and recruiting Iraqi security forces means even these modest goals will be difficult to attain. Holding elections in January has become a cornerstone of the President's plan to democratize Iraq and has been a critical factor in gaining support across Iraqi society for the interim government.

However, a stalemate between the Electoral Commission and the Ministry of Finance has meant that the commission has received only $7 million of the $232 million in Iraqi funds set aside for them. Many of the critical elements for conduct of the elections, such as procurement of vehicles, voting equipment and ballots are incomplete and voter lists have not even been created yet. No actual parties have formed. There is no process in place for that to happen. The U.N. has yet to deploy enough people to Iraq to supervise the process. We all know of the necessity of these promised elections, but many obstacles remain.

Beneath these numbers is the sad fact that overhead costs on all reconstruction activities in Iraq are now ranging between 30 and 50 percent. This means that for every dollar we appropriate for reconstruction, we only get 50 cents' worth.

We need to get this right. The battle for global stability and security is larger than Iraq. If American strategists cannot outsmart the terrorist insurgents, if we let them derail the bright future we have promised the Iraqi people, there will be serious consequences for U.S. national security objectives.

I hope that this shift in funds helps to win the peace in Iraq and that this plan will succeed where others have failed. I remain firmly committed to bringing stability to Iraq and fighting terror. American lives are at stake. But we must be honest with each other about the pace at which progress can occur and stop the deliberate distortions.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Texas for his leadership on this committee. He worked so hard and helped us put together a really outstanding plan. It is unfortunate that because of various interactivities of the Republican leadership that we have not been able to take this plan to the finish line, but I personally want to thank him for his important contributions in helping us work towards a plan that would help keep America safe. So I thank him so very much for his important leadership.

Mr. Speaker, it really amazes me that more than 3 years after September 11, we are still talking about gaps in our Nation's strategy to protect against and prepare for another terrorist attack.

Several of my colleagues from the Select Committee on Homeland Security have already highlighted ways in which we can improve port and rail security; how can we better prepare public health communities to deal with a biological attack; and how to protect and secure our borders. We all agree that more needs to be done and must be done and that Congress should not go home without addressing each of these critical issues.

In my judgment, this administration and this Congress need to beef up their efforts to provide for first responders. Local police, firefighters, EMS technicians need information. They need training. They need the life-saving equipment necessary to protect them from the dangers they face every day.

I was appalled when I read in yesterday's New York Times that more than 120,000 hours of potentially valuable terrorism-related recordings had not yet been translated by linguists at the FBI. This is outrageous and particularly dangerous, especially for the residents of my home State of New York, which is referenced in intelligence reports time and time again.

How can we expect first responders to be able to adequately prepare for an attack when the Federal Government does not even have the capability to analyze and share with them the intelligence information it has collected? We can and we must do better.

As I travel throughout my district and speak with first responders, like Chief John Kapica from the town of Greenburgh, Chief Robert Breen from the town of New Castle, Chief Robert D'Angelo from the town of North Castle and all the other chiefs with whom I have been working closely, they all tell me that implementing an interoperable communications system is one of their highest priorities and that they have not received nearly enough guidance, support or resources to achieve this goal.

The 9/11 Commission report confirms that, despite the heroic efforts and experience of first responders, communications deficiency and lack of interoperable systems among police, firefighters and other rescue agencies hindered their response at the World Trade Center.

Eight years ago, let me repeat, 8 years ago, the final report of the Federal Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee concluded that, ``unless immediate measures are taken to promote interoperability, public safety agencies will not be able to adequately discharge their obligation to protect life and property in a safe, efficient and cost- effective manner.''

Now, forgive me if I sound impatient or even extraordinarily angry, but I am. With nearly every major study and report on homeland security concluding that lack of interoperability remains one of the most serious issues facing first responders in this country, I just simply cannot understand why this administration has done little more than pay lip service to the seriousness of this issue.

With estimates for implementing a nationwide interoperable communications infrastructure ranging anywhere from $7 billion to $18 billion, local governments and first-responder agencies cannot be expected to pick up the tab without significant help from the Federal Government.

Some of my colleagues may argue that current homeland security grants can be used to upgrade communications systems. While this may be true, the costs are so enormous, there simply is not enough money to go around. In my judgment, we are forcing our communities to make impossible decisions on how to use these funds.

That is why I joined with my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), to introduce the CONNECT First Responders Act. This legislation establishes a Federal interoperability office and creates a new $5 billion DHS grant program dedicated to helping States and localities achieve communications interoperability.

I understand that Secretary Tom Ridge recently announced the creation of an Office of Interoperability and Compatibility, with similar goals to the office that we propose in the legislation. I am pleased that the Department has taken this important step, and I am glad that our legislation may have encouraged those efforts.

We have learned the hard way that, at best, gaps in communications hamper rescue efforts; and at worst, they can lead to the loss of life for emergency personnel and victims. Our communities should not have to wait 2 years or 5 years from now until another disaster strikes to get the help they need to close this glaring and unnecessary gap in our Nation's security. Our first responders served us with honor and distinction on September 11 and every day before and since, and they deserve better.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I want to once again thank my good colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), and my other colleagues on the committee, as well as the staff for all their work in putting together a plan that really can win the war on terror.

We are, in America, at risk. As the mother of three and the grandmother of six, I worry every day about the future of my community and about the future of this great country of ours. We are talking about a complete overhaul of our intelligence system. Yes, they may be part of it, but there are specific actions that we can take right now. Shame on us if we do not move forward on the recommendations that can be implemented as we speak.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas again for his leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2005 Labor-HHS bill, and I first want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey). They are men of principle, great fairness and determination. It is a pleasure serving with them.

I also want to take a moment to convey my admiration for the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young). After years of leading the Committee on Appropriations in a fair, bipartisan manner, my good friend is leaving the chairmanship at the end of the year, and while I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) in the future, I want him to know how much his leadership will be missed.

I also want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle who continue to be so very helpful.

My colleagues, the programs funded in the Labor-HHS bill are critical, as we heard discussed by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). We provide the children of working parents with safe places to go after school. We lead the world in biomedical research. We recruit young professionals into nursing, a profession with a looming shortage that will affect all Americans who seek health services.

We allocate resources to State and local health departments, as well as hospitals, so they are equipped to respond to a mass incident, for which most are only modestly better prepared than they were on September 11.

We prevent our most vulnerable from having to choose between food and heat. We help put kids through college, a pinnacle of the American dream.

These activities benefit every member of our society. However, because of the limited allocation provided by the Committee on the Budget, many important needs will remain underfunded.

For example, last year Congress did not fulfill its obligation to fully fund the Title I program which serves the poorest children in America, and because of that, more than half our Nation's school districts from Kansas to Minnesota, North Dakota to Pennsylvania, Missouri to Yonkers, New York, in my district, received less Title I from one year to the next. We can expect similar funding cuts for schools across the country in fiscal year 2005 because the bill falls $7.2 billion short on the amount authorized under the No Child Left Behind Act.

Despite a 26 percent tuition increase in the last 2 years, the bill freezes the maximum Pell grant for low-income college students for the second year in a row and cuts Perkins loans by $99 million below last year's level.

Even though every school administrator and teacher I talked to pleads for additional special education funding to meet the growing demands, the bill falls $2.5 billion below the Republican promise made last year in the IDEA reauthorization bill.

At a time when our Nation is desperate for additional nurses and schools of nursing cannot accommodate the increased number of applicants, an additional $5 million for nurse education and training will help only a fraction of the 18,000 candidates denied admission last year because there are not enough instructors to teach them.

Earlier this year this administration circulated a memorandum indicating that the 2006 spending cuts outlined in this year's budget will be implemented. That means huge reductions in spending on health, education, and labor are just around the corner.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I also want to express my continued concern with the Weldon refusal clause provision. For over 30 years, there have been Federal laws that allow doctors, nurses and hospitals to refuse to provide abortion services because of their religious beliefs, as it should be. However, just as the law protects religious or moral objections, it protects the rights of patients, ensuring that women have access to accurate and complete medical information when making decisions about their own health. The Weldon provision would unravel these protections, gutting the patient protections included in the Title X family planning program, which require that all legal options are presented to a woman. It is my hope that this provision will be stripped from the final Labor-HHS spending bill.

Mr. Speaker, although I did discuss some significant flaws, I will support final passage, and I have said many times that I am truly honored to be a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies. I believe that we have tried to work as a team and make the most of the inadequate allocation provided to us by the leadership.

I also continue to hope that through floor consideration today, Senate consideration and during conference we will continue to work together as a team to make additional improvements to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

First of all, I would like to thank our distinguished chairman because he has worked with us and understands the importance of this very critical issue in so many Members' districts across the country. I rise in strong support of the amendment, and I am appreciative for all of us who have been working together. Just a few words on it, and again I thank our chairman.

Last year CMS decided to change and reinstate the patient rehabilitation facilities 75 percent rule, a rule which was enforced inconsistently and intermittently until it was fully suspended in 2002 because rehabilitation care had evolved so far beyond the original rule's scope.

In an effort to ensure that the rule would be updated appropriately, Congress asked CMS to commission an independent study on the status of rehabilitative care and use the findings to rewrite the rule. As my colleagues know, we had more than 300 Members of Congress supporting this request and the inclusion of similar directives in the fiscal year 2004 omnibus spending bill and the Prescription Drug Act.

CMS issued the final 75 percent rule without the benefit of a study, leaving the list of qualifying conditions practically the same as those imposed two decades ago. Considering the impact of these rehabilitation policies on the health and well-being of our constituents, we could not stand by and let our call for a study go unfulfilled. So again with the support of the Committee on Ways and Means chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the LoBiondo-Lowey-Wamp amendment will ensure that an independent study of the issue is conducted and the findings used to rewrite the 75 percent rule.

I am very appreciative, Mr. Chairman, of both committees, and particularly the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula). We have worked together in a bipartisan way to bring this amendment to the floor, and I want to thank the staff of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), Joel White and Deb Williams, for carefully working out the details of this amendment late last night and early this morning. I am delighted we have been able to work this out.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, during an absence on July 22, 2004, I regrettably missed rollcall votes 407-412 and other votes. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall No. 407: ``yea''; rollcall No. 408: ``yea''; rollcall No. 409: ``yea''; rollcall No. 410: ``no''; rollcall No. 411: ``yea''; rollcall No. 412: ``yea''.

H.R. 4842--United States-Morocco Free Trade Implementation Act: ``yea''; H.R. 4837--Military Construction Appropriations Act for FY05: ``yea''; Conference Report on H.R. 4613--DOD Appropriations Act for FY05: ``yea''; H. Con. Res. 436--Celebrating 10 years of majority rule in S. Africa: ``yea''; H. Con. Res. 418--Diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Japan: ``yea''; H. Con. Res. 468--Condemning the attack on the AMIA Center: ``yea''; H. Con. Res. 467--Declaring genocide in Darfur, Sudan: ``yea''; Stenholm Motion to Instruct on H.R. 1308: ``yea''.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of S. 741, the Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act of 2004. The bill, known as MUMS, will make an important contribution to animal health.

This legislation is very similar to H.R. 2079 sponsored by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering); and although we are taking up the Senate bill, they, along with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), deserve credit for leadership on this issue.

The bill is supported by the MUMS Coalition and the Keep Antibiotics Working Coalition. The MUMS coalition includes the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Animal Health Institute, the National Fisheries Institute, and many other organizations. The Keep Antibiotics Working Coalition includes the Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Defense, and the Center For Science in the Public Interest. In sum, the proverbial delicate balance has been found.

Mr. Speaker, I am also greatly pleased that MUMS includes the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act, Title II of S. 741. I authored the food allergy bill 4 years ago; and since the bill's inception, everyone, from food-allergic consumers to members of the food industry, has rallied behind the bill.

However, we would not be here today without the backing of the gentleman from Michigan (Ranking Member Dingell), the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), Secretary Thompson, and Commissioner Crawford. I am truly grateful to them for their involvement and support.

I also owe the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and Senators Kennedy and Gregg special thanks for being my partners in this effort. We spent a few years and many hours hashing out the bill before us, committed to crafting a noncontroversial, bipartisan product. And I believe we accomplished our goal.

Yesterday, I was surprised to learn that my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), will be retiring at the end of the year. While I am disappointed to be losing such a tremendous colleague, one I have worked with on so many issues of importance for so many years, I know that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) will continue to lead

and be a strong advocate for great causes. Good luck in all your future endeavors. And please know, Jim, that your fair, bipartisan manner will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, the 11 million Americans with food allergies face a daily struggle. Because there is no cure for allergies, the only way to stay healthy is to avoid certain foods. But maintaining an allergen- free diet is incredibly difficult. Food ingredient statements use scientific jargon commonly used by only those wearing lab coats, not average citizens.

Take, for example, a recent study which found that fewer than one in ten parents restricting milk from their allergic children's diet were actually able to correctly recognize terms for milk on a label. Statistics like this make you think if adults cannot easily determine terms like whey, casein, lactose, how can you expect food-allergic children to remember so many complicated terms? The answer is, we cannot and we should not.

Today up to 200 allergic reactions to foods result in death each year, and 30,000 require life-saving emergency treatments. Moreover, within just the last five years, the number of children with a peanut allergy has doubled. If we do not take action to improve food labels, the number of deaths and incidents will rise.

Navigating insufficient labels is much more than an irritation for the millions with food allergies. It is a matter of life and death. Unfortunately, the situation is the same for those with celiac disease, a lifelong digestive disorder that damages the small intestine and interferes with absorption of nutrients from food. Although celiac sufferers do not go into anaphylactic shock if they consume gluten, the consequences of leaving the disease undiagnosed or untreated can be just as grave and deadly, potentially leading to additional autoimmune disorders, infertility, osteoporosis or cancer.

With no treatment for this disease, the only alternative is to follow a strict gluten-free diet, which means not eating wheat, rye or barley. However, it is a regimen difficult to adhere to, because food ingredient statements are written more for scientists than consumers.

The bill before us provides a common-sense solution for those with food allergies and celiac disease. It will require that food ingredient statements list in everyday language the eight major food allergens: milk, egg, peanuts, tree nuts, fish, crustacean shellfish, soy and wheat. It will also give those with celiac disease the green light to consume foods without hesitation by establishing and setting guidelines for the use of the term ``gluten-free.''

Simply put, the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act requires minimal but life-saving changes to food ingredient statements. Upon its implementation, millions of Americans will finally be able to let out a collective sigh of relief, something we can all be proud of.

Before I close, I hope the Speaker and my colleagues will indulge me for just a moment. This bill has been a work in progress for 4-plus years. There are many people who worked diligently behind the scenes to craft it and secure its implementation. I would be remiss if I did not personally thank some key staffers, including John Ford, Ed Walz, Ryan Long, Alan Eisenberg, David Dorsey and Kate Winkler.

Additionally, we would not be standing here without the expertise of Tina Harper, Bob Lake and Felicia Satchell from the Food and Drug Administration.

The Food Allergy Initiative, American Celiac Task Force, Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network and so many others also deserve thanks for their continued dedicated advocacy.

I urge my colleagues to support S. 741 so that those with food allergies and celiac disease will have the dietary information they need at their fingerprints.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.