Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the sixth annual World Elder Abuse Awareness Day.

In 2006, the International Foundation for the Prevention of Elder Abuse designated June 15 as World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, which recognizes elder abuse as a public health and human rights concern. Abusive acts toward the elderly can include physical and psychological abuse, physical restraint, deprivation of dignity and the choice of daily affairs, financial exploitation and neglect. The World Health Organization has reported that between four and six percent of elderly people worldwide have experienced some form of abuse in the home. Additionally, in the United States, thirty-six percent of nursing-home employees have witnessed at least one incident of physical abuse towards an elderly patient, while forty percent admitted to psychologically abusing patients.

The abuse and neglect of older persons is a global problem, and yet it remains largely unrecognized and untreated. I join with the International Foundation for the Prevention of Elder Abuse and encourage all countries, communities, neighborhoods, and organizations to take part in today's efforts to raise awareness of this serious issue, with the goal of bringing about recognition for and ultimately an end to elder abuse and neglect.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

At the outset, let me say I am proud to vote for this rule because it is an open rule, and I commend the Speaker for doing this. It's really an important step forward, I believe, in the history of this House.

Let me say also that, very reluctantly, in its current form, I will have to vote against final passage of this bill. I say this because we are at a stage now where the threat level, the homeland security threat level is the highest it's been since September 11. The killing of bin Laden has only made that worse. We know also from bin Laden's own records that he is aiming at maritime, he is aiming at mass transit, and he is aiming at our major cities. Yet we are cutting each of those programs by 50 percent, a fifty percent cut.

Now, I can speak for New York in that I can tell you we have a thousand police officers. We have a Lower Manhattan security initiative. We have radiation detection. I can go through a whole list of programs. Every dollar in those programs can be accounted for. And I just cannot see why, at a time when the threat level is the highest it's been since September 11, that we are reducing Homeland Security grants by 50 percent.

The Department was set up in the aftermath of September 11 to fight terror, yet those grants are being reduced. And I know there is anecdotal evidence that this program isn't working, that isn't working. I would say specify what's not working, but don't take a meat axe. Don't cut across the board the way it's being done here. We're talking about human life. We're talking about just a terrible threat to our cities, terrible threat to our ports, terrible threat to mass transit.

And for those--and I understand the need to cut. I understand that need tremendously. Having said that, even from my strictly budgetary point of view, you have one dirty bomb go off in one subway in Boston, New York, or Chicago, and apart from the tragic loss of human life, apart from the tragic loss of human life there will be incalculable economic devastation, which will also cost billions and billions of dollars of lost revenue and jobs and have a terrible impact.

I lived through September 11. I know what it did to New York. I know the impact it had then. I don't want any other city, any other area in the country to go through that again. And yet we're reducing our defenses at a time when they are most needed.

So with that, I would just ask all the Members to give Chairman Rogers the credit, give Chairman Aderholt the credit, but unfortunately I have to vote against this.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me just join all of you in welcoming Ms. Hochul to the House of Representatives.

Congresswoman, we look forward to working with you on behalf of our Nation and our State, and on behalf of all the Republicans in our delegation, we wish you the very best of luck.

I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding.

Let me just at the outset commend him for his professionalism and his courtesy throughout this entire process, and also for the effort that he made to preserve the Secure the Cities program in the Homeland Security bill. Having said that, I must reluctantly oppose the bill in its current form.

Mr. Chairman, the threat level is the highest in our country since 9/ 11. That has only been increased since the death of Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden specifically stated, we find in his documents, that he wanted to attack mass transit, wanted to attack maritime shipping. Yet we are reducing our mass transit security funding by 50 percent. We are reducing our port security funding by 50 percent. We are reducing overall aid for Homeland Security grants, which was the purpose for which the Department was created. We are reducing that by 50 percent. This, I believe, is putting us at risk.

I can speak, for instance, for New York. We have 5 million people, 5 million passengers every day on our subway system, hundreds of thousands on the commuter lines; yet we are cutting security by 50 percent. We have a thousand police officers working on counterterrorism, carrying out a Federal purpose, doing not what they were doing before September 11, but working entirely on counterterrorism and intelligence. Yet their funding will be significantly cut.

We have the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, which is going to provide a camera system of protection in the Lower Manhattan area. And I can go through program after program. Every penny is accounted for. And I would say that as we go forward, as we look to the future, it's important that cities and governments have some sense of continuity of where the funding will come from as they put their programs in place. To have a 50 percent cut this year is going to put us at a severe disadvantage.

And as we do approach the 10th anniversary of September 11, do we really want to cut our police departments, our counterterrorism units, our intelligence units, our mass transit security, our port security by 50 percent? To me, this is an invitation to an attack. We cannot put ourselves in that position. Because of that, despite my great regard for the chairman, I must reluctantly oppose this legislation.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act, which would provide free postal benefits to active duty soldiers' families.

While our soldiers do not have to pay for the letters they send home, their families often spend hundreds of dollars to send care packages and letters of their own. The program authorized by this amendment would provide soldiers serving active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan with one postal voucher every other month to transfer to their loved ones to send letters and packages to these soldiers at no cost.

I fully support this postal benefits program and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment. I would like to thank the Members and staff of the House Armed Services Committee for working with me and accepting this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today I was at Ground Zero in New York with the President and 9/11 families and therefore was unavailable for votes in Washington.

However, if I had been here this is how I would have voted: rollcall No. 293: ``yea''; rollcall No. 294: ``yea''; rollcall No. 295: ``no''; rollcall No. 296: ``no''; rollcall No. 297: ``no''; and rollcall No. 298: ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to tell the American people and especially the 9/11 family members that we have kept our promise. Today, the American people have seen justice. Osama bin Laden, the leader of the United States' top enemy, has gotten what he deserves for orchestrating the deaths of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans on September 11, 2001.

First, let me express my admiration and gratefulness to the brave men and women of our military and intelligence services who performed so valiantly during yesterday's operation. It makes me proud to know that we have so many dedicated individuals who risk their lives every day to keep us safe. These professionals succeeded in their mission to hunt down and execute al-Qaeda's leader, something we have been trying to do for the past ten years.

I want to commend President Obama for his resolve and his decision to keep the pressure on al-Qaeda and its leadership. He performed his duties as Commander in Chief brilliantly. I also want to give credit to President Bush for promising to bring the 9/11 terrorists to justice and doing so much to keep America safe in the years following the 9/11 attacks. Both these men deserve great credit for their actions.

Today is a great day for America. It is a great day for the men and women of our military and intelligence services. It's also a great day for the family members who lost loved ones on 9/11 and have been waiting for this day for so long.

We are safer today because Osama bin Laden is no longer on this earth. He and so many of his collaborators have been hunted down, captured or killed. And while this is another highly positive development in the global war on terrorism that we are winning, we realize it is not over. We must continue to be vigilant and counter the diabolical threat of Islamic extremism.

May God Bless America and all the brave men and women who protect us at home and overseas. And may the death of Osama bin Laden bring some peace and closure to those who lost loved ones on September 11th, 2001.

Mr. Speaker, March is Red Cross Month and I rise today to honor the American Red Cross, its chapters throughout the United States, and its affiliates around the world. Founded in 1881, the Red Cross is one of the most effective disaster relief organizations in the world, providing care and comfort to millions of people affected by disasters every year.

We need only look at the recent tragedy in Japan to witness the important work of the Red Cross. The Japanese Red Cross is supporting operations in 1800 shelters and has provided medical care and counseling and distributed blankets and other emergency supplies to those in need. The American Red Cross is also playing a vital role in the disaster relief effort in Japan, sending personnel and monetary support.

Earlier this year here at home, the American Red Cross provided assistance to individuals and families affected by the severe winter storms that impacted the Northeast and Midwest. More recently, the Red Cross provided shelter and meals in response to flooding, tornadoes, and wildfires around the United States.

In addition to its disaster relief efforts, the Red Cross provides training and preparedness information for individuals, families, and organizations. The Red Cross, its dedicated employees, and its many volunteers help to make a difference in American communities every day. Whenever there are people in need, the Red Cross is there.

This March, I honor the Red Cross, its employees, and its volunteers for their continued compassion and assistance in the United States and abroad.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. And I say that as one who has voted continually for reform at the U.N., has been critical of funding procedures involving the U.N.

But I'm here today to save lives. The fact is, contrary to what has been said, I don't want to get caught in an accounting debate. I don't want to get caught in a fight between Democrats and Republicans, between the Obama administration, the State Department, the U.N., between chairman and ranking members.

I am here because of the fact that this is not something that started 3 months ago or 4 months ago or 5 months ago. This has been an ongoing matter between the New York City Police Department and the U.N. and the State Department.

The results of an attack in this area would be catastrophic. I am not going to go into details. But anyone who wants to check the series of correspondence going back long before this became an issue here in Congress about how vital it was to have this $100 million in construction changes and hardening made, whether we are talking about First Avenue or FDR Drive or the perimeter, the fact is, this is a disaster waiting to happen.

And I would say to Members on both sides, if there is an attack, if there is a vehicle bomb, if there is an attack in these areas that have been designated by Commissioner Kelly, and we see hundreds of lives lost or thousands of lives lost, we're going to come back and say well, that could have been taken care of, but it was in this account rather than that account; it was authorized but not appropriated, or it was spent by the U.N. at the direction of the State Department and Congress didn't have time to act in time.

The fact is, this is a matter of life and death. This is a serious matter. I was on the phone late last night at midnight with the highest-ranking people in the New York City Police Department, and how vital this is to them.

We can have our debate back and forth. We can go back and forth as to when it should have been done, who was hiding what. The fact is, I'm concerned with saving lives, not just for New Yorkers, but all the tourists that visit there, the impact this would have.

And if people are concerned about saving money, put it in very harsh economic terms what this would do to our economy if a car bomb went off in the vicinity specified by Commissioner Kelly and we saw lives being lost, people being burned to death, we saw buildings coming down because we felt the money wasn't done exactly the appropriate way as far as which part of the balance sheet it came off.

So I am urging my colleagues to save lives, to do what has to be done for security, put partisan politics aside. And it's not just important to know the cost of something. It's important to know the value of something and the damage that can be caused if that value is impaired.

So I urge the defeat of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following.

Rules of the Committee on Homeland Security Adopted January 26, 2011

rule i.--general provisions.

(A) Applicability of the Rules of the U.S. House of

Representatives.--The Rules of the U.S. House of

Representatives (the ``House'') are the rules of the

Committee on Homeland Security (the ``Committee'') and its

subcommittees insofar as applicable.

(B) Applicability to Subcommittees.--Except where the terms

``Full Committee'' and ``subcommittee'' are specifically

mentioned, the following rules shall apply to the Committee's

subcommittees and their respective

Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members to the same extent as

they apply to the Full Committee and its Chairman and Ranking

Minority Member.

(C) Appointments by the Chairman.--Clause 2(d) of Rule XI

of the House shall govern the designation of a Vice Chairman

of the Full Committee.

(D) Recommendation of Conferees.--Whenever the Speaker of

the House is to appoint a conference committee on a matter

within the jurisdiction of the Full Committee, the Chairman

shall recommend to the Speaker of the House conferees from

the Full Committee. In making recommendations of Minority

Members as conferees, the Chairman shall do so with the

concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee.

(E) Motions to Disagree.--The Chairman is directed to offer

a motion under clause 1 of Rule XXII of the Rules of the

House whenever the Chairman considers it appropriate.

(F) Committee Website.--The Chairman shall maintain an

official Committee web site for the purposes of furthering

the Committee's legislative and oversight responsibilities,

including communicating information about the Committee's

activities to Committee Members, other Members, and the

public at large. The Ranking Minority Member may maintain a

similar web site for the same purposes. The official

Committee web site shall display a link on its home page to

the web site maintained by the Ranking Minority Member.

(G) Activity Report.--Not later than the 30th day after

June 1 and December 1, the Committee shall submit to the

House a semiannual report on the activities of the Committee.

After adjournment sine die of a regular session of Congress,

or after December 15, whichever occurs first, the Chair may

file the second or fourth semiannual report with the Clerk at

any time and without approval of the Committee provided that

a copy of the report has been available to each Member of the

Committee for at least seven calendar days and the report

includes any supplemental, minority, or additional views

submitted by a Member of the Committee.

rule ii.--time of meetings.

(A) Regular Meeting Date.--The regular meeting date and

time for the transaction of business of the Full Committee

shall be at 10:00 a.m. on the first Wednesday that the House

is in Session each month, unless otherwise directed by the

Chairman.

(B) Additional Meetings.--At the discretion of the

Chairman, additional meetings of the Committee may be

scheduled for the consideration of any legislation or other

matters pending before the Committee or to conduct other

Committee business. The Committee shall meet for such

purposes pursuant to the call of the Chairman.

(C) Consideration.--Except in the case of a special meeting

held under clause 2(c)(2) of House Rule XI, the determination

of the business to be considered at each meeting of the

Committee shall be made by the Chairman.

rule iii.--notice and publication.

(A) Notice.--

(1) Hearings.--Pursuant to clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI of the

Rules of the House of Representatives, the Chairman of the

Committee shall make public announcement of the date, place,

and subject matter of any hearing before the Full Committee

or subcommittee, which may not commence earlier than one week

after such notice. However, if the Chairman of the Committee,

with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member,

determines that there is good cause to begin the hearing

sooner, or if the Committee so determines by majority vote, a

quorum being present for the transaction of business, the

Chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest possible

date. The names of all witnesses scheduled to appear at such

hearing shall be provided to Members no later than 48 hours

prior to the commencement of such hearing.

(2) Meetings.--The date, time, place and subject matter of

any meeting, other than a hearing or a regularly scheduled

meeting, may not commence earlier than the third day on which

Members have notice thereof except in the case of a special

meeting called under clause 2(c)(2) of House Rule XI. These

notice requirements may be waived if the Chairman with the

concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member, determines that

there is good cause to begin the meeting sooner or if the

Committee so determines by majority vote, a quorum being

present for the transaction of business.

(a) Copies of any measure or matter to be considered for

approval by the Committee at any meeting, including any mark,

print or amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be

provided to the Members at least 24 hours in advance.

(b) At least 24 hours prior to the commencement of a

meeting for the markup of a measure or matter, the text of

such measure or matter, including any mark, print or

amendment in the nature of a substitute, shall be made

publicly available in electronic form and, to the extent

practicable, posted on the official Committee web site.

(c) Not later than 24 hours after concluding a meeting to

consider a measure or matter, the text of such measure or

matter as ordered forwarded or reported, including any

adopted amendments, shall be made publicly available in

electronic form and, to the extent practicable, posted on the

official Committee web site.

(3) Publication.--The meeting or hearing announcement shall

be promptly published in the Daily Digest portion of the

Congressional Record. To the greatest extent practicable,

meeting announcements shall be entered into the Committee

scheduling service of the House Information Resources.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will keep my remarks very brief.

I thank the Congress of the United States for what it is going to do today. Especially I want to thank Carolyn Maloney and Jerry Nadler for the tremendous work they have done on this bill over the years from the very start. I want to thank Congressman Vito Fossella, who was also an original cosponsor of this. I want to thank the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, for doing so much to bring this bill forward, and also the Republican leader, who this summer managed to have this bill come up in a way that was not going to be disruptive at all.

I want to thank all the members of the New York delegation. Most importantly, I want to thank the firefighters, the police officers, the construction workers, and all of those who came forward to answer the Nation's call on September 11. This is a great victory for the American people. It's a great victory for the Congress of the United States. And it sends a signal that we stand by those who come to our Nation's defense in time of trouble and, indeed, in time of war, because this was the first battle of the great war of the 21st century.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my sincerest condolences to the family of J. Eugene Quinn following his untimely passing on December 7th, 2010. Gene was a beloved brother of Thomas, Paul and Francis, a devoted husband to Marguerite, loving father to Tara and proud grandfather of Andrew and Fiona.

A veteran of the United States Army, Gene had a long career in the Federal Government beginning with a position in the Reagan administration. Gene was a patron of the arts and founding member of the Anacostia Gracious Arts Program, an urban after-school arts program for underprivileged youth in Washington. I was always proud to call him my friend. In short, his commitment to public service was truly remarkable. His life and contributions will certainly be missed by many.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1751, a resolution expressing condolences to the families affected by the tragic forest fire in Israel that began on December 2nd, 2010.

This was the worst fire in Israel's history-42 people were killed, more than 17,000 have been displaced and over 4 million trees have been destroyed. As we mourn this tragic loss of life, I would like to extend my condolences to the families affected by these fires.

The United States has provided Israel with technical assistance, including 110 metric tons of fire suppressant, 3,800 gallons of fire retardant concentrate and other supplies. An additional 23 nationals provided or offered assistance to Israel as well. It is important to commend the United States and these other nations for providing timely aid to Israel when it was most necessary.

We are grateful that global coordination and rapid response resulted in the speedy extermination of the fire. I would like to once again applaud the response of the United States and others as well as reaffirm the United States' support for the people and State of Israel.

I urge adoption of the resolution.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me express my profound respect for Chairperson Lofgren, Ranking Member Bonner, my friends Mr. Hastings and Mr. McCaul, and all the members of the Ethics Committee for their dedicated efforts in this very, very painful matter. Having said that, I will vote against this censure resolution because I do not believe the findings warrant the severe penalty of censure. I reached this conclusion after reading and studying hundreds of pages of committee documents, including the subcommittee findings, the minority views of Congressman Scott, the report of the full committee, and myriad exhibits and correspondence.

Mr. Speaker, censure is an extremely severe penalty. In the more than 200-year history of this body, only 22 Members have been subjected to censure. None in more than a quarter century.

If expulsion is the equivalent of the death penalty, then censure is life imprisonment.

Mr. Speaker, I have found no cases where charges similar to or analogous to those against Congressman Rangel resulted in censure. Thus far, this penalty has been reserved for such violations as supporting armed insurrection against the United States and sexual abuse of minors. In Congressman Rangel's case, as Mr. Scott pointed out, the committee chief council said he found no evidence of corruption, and the committee report itself said there was no ``direct personal gain'' to Congressman Rangel.

Mr. Speaker, my religious faith is based on Scripture and tradition. My

training as a lawyer has taught me to respect precedent. Why, today, are we being asked to reverse more than 200 years of tradition and precedent?

There is no doubt that Congressman Rangel has violated rules of this House, but these violations are malum prohibitum, not malum in se. There is no evidence or finding of criminal intent, no mens rea. As Congressman Scott pointed out, it was public record that Charlie Rangel was living in a rent-stabilized apartment. That was hidden from nobody. It was public record that his campaign headquarters was in a rent- stabilized building. It was hidden from nobody. It was also public record that Charlie Rangel had a home in the Dominican Republic. It was public record that Charlie Rangel was trying to obtain funding for a public university in his district. Nothing was hidden. So where is the criminal intent? That is why I strongly believe the appropriate penalty is a reprimand.

Why are we departing so significantly from tradition and precedent in the case of Charlie Rangel? Certainly it can't be because of who he is or what he has achieved in his life--a kid from the inner city who emerged from very troubled surroundings to be a combat soldier and an authentic war hero who left his blood in Korea, who worked his way through law school, who became a distinguished prosecutor in the United States Attorney's Office, who was elected to the New York State Legislature and to the United States Congress, where he has served with distinction 40 years.

Now, lest my Republican friends get nervous, let me make it clear; while Charlie Rangel is a friend and colleague, we disagree on virtually every issue. I can't begin to tell you how many times Charlie and I have gone at it and debated over the years on local news shows back in New York--maybe not as bad as my debates with Anthony Weiner, but they were very significant debates. During that entire time, I have never heard anyone question Charlie Rangel's integrity nor have I ever seen Charlie Rangel treat anyone with disrespect--which is very unusual for somebody in his high position, as many of us know--whether it be flight attendants, cab drivers, staff members, or the guy on the street corner on 125th Street.

My colleagues, I know we can get caught up in the zeitgeist of media attacks and political storms, but I am imploring you today to pause for a moment and step back, to reflect upon not just the lifetime of Charlie Rangel, but more importantly the 220-year history of tradition and precedent of this body. Let us apply the same standard of justice to Charlie Rangel that has been applied to everyone else and which all of us would want applied to ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully urge a vote against censure.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleagues in expressing condolences on the death of Steve Solarz, who served with distinction in the New York State Legislature and for many years here in Congress, earning a bipartisan reputation for his expertise in foreign affairs.

In an age of partisanship, I will bring out that, in a bipartisan nature, he worked very closely with President Bush 41 in cosponsoring the resolution for Operation Desert Storm, and he was also a principal adviser to President Bill Clinton in his campaign for President in 1992. He transcended party politics. He was a true foreign policy expert, and all of New York mourns his passing.