Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Jewish community in the United States and around the world celebrated Rosh Hashanah and the start of the Jewish New Year. With the new year comes a new sense of hope and optimism that anti-Semitism and religious hatred will finally be overcome. October also is the start of the Ramadan and month of fasting for Muslims around the globe.

These events remind us that we need to be accepting and tolerant of all people and their religions. We need also to celebrate our religious diversity. It is essential that we encourage cooperation and dialogue between members of all religions. Interreligious respect is vitally important in the fight against religious bigotry.

Today, I introduced a resolution that commemorates the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, a hallmark declaration by the Catholic Church on religious tolerance and interfaith relations. My resolution also calls for the United States to continue to condemn and combat anti-Semitism and all forms of religious hatred and racial bigotry worldwide.

On October 28, 1965, after an overwhelming vote of 2221 to 88 by the bishops of the Catholic Church, Pope Paul VI issued Nostra Aetate, officially known as the Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. Nostra Aetate, for the first time in 2,000 years, was an authoritative declaration on Catholic-Jewish relations and also on Catholic-interfaith relations.

Nostra Aetate, ``In Our Time'' in English, opened the doors for interfaith dialogue and respect between Catholics and Non-Christian religions. It originally began as a declaration on solely Catholic- Jewish relations but was expanded to include Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and other traditional religions. The declaration that resulted revolutionized attitudes within the Christian world towards Jews and members of the world's other religions. It was Pope John XXIII who initiated the Second Vatican Council, the event which gave birth to the ``Nostra Aetate'' declaration, a document that highlighted the Jewish roots of Christianity, in an attempt to repair centuries of hostilities between the two religions.

The 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate is a time for all people to become reacquainted with its historic importance and to work for even greater religious tolerance and dialogue. In Nostra Aetate the Catholic Church for the first time condemned anti-Semitism and other

forms of religious bigotry. The declaration says that ``no foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned.'' It also deplored ``all hatreds, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism directed against Jews at any time or from any source.''

Over the past 40 years, there have been visible triumphs of the spirit and ideals of Nostra Aetate. Pope John Paul II took the message of Nostra Aetate to heart when he visited a synagogue in Rome in 1986, the first such visit by a Catholic Pope, and again when he visited Israel in 2000. But we need to ensure we carry this message of religious tolerance in our own hearts and in our own daily lives. We cannot sit idly by while anti-Semitic comments are made or other forms of religious bigotry and hate are spewed forth. We must continue to oppose these forms of hatred and support continued interreligious dialogue.

That is why I have introduced this resolution today. My resolution:

Commemorates the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate;

Celebrates the historic relationship between Jews, Catholics and other religions worldwide that has resulted;

Expresses the need for continued interreligious dialogue and cooperation between all people of all faiths; and

Condemns anti-Semitism and encourages the United States to be a leader in ending religious intolerance and discrimination worldwide.

Forty years after Nostra Aetate's adoption we have a wonderful opportunity to celebrate the progress that has occurred in religious cooperation and tolerance and remind ourselves of the work that remains to be done. We can, and we must, continue to strive to be a more tolerant people. Our common humanity deserves and demands nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, today we honor the life of Simon Wiesenthal, a man who dedicated his life to the search of fugitive Nazi war criminals. The ideals of truth and justice guided his effort to fight anti-Semitism and as we mourn, we are reminded of our commitment to these ideals as part of our duty to humanity. I am proud to be a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 248, which we are considering on the floor today.

Simon Wiesenthal was born on December 31, 1908 in Buczacz, Galicia, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and now part of Ukraine. He received a degree in architectural engineering in 1932 from the Technical University of Prague, and in 1936 he began working at an architectural office in Lvov; he did not, however, continue his career in architecture. Three years later, with the partition of Poland and the flood of the Red Army in Lvov, Simon Wiesenthal began losing family members to German brutality. After escaping several near-death situations himself, in 1945 Simon Wiesenthal was liberated by American forces from the concentration camp of Mauthausen in Austria.

After almost giving up, Simon Wiesenthal regained his strength and redefined his life's task as a quest for justice. He did not vow to fight for vengeance. Instead, the goal of his noble cause was to create a historical memory that would prevent any repetition of the horrible atrocities committed during the Holocaust.

He was instrumental in tracking down fugitive Nazis, and a significant component of his mission was to pressure governments around the world to continue their pursuit and persecution of war criminals. The Simon Wiesenthal

Center, an international Jewish human rights organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust carries on his legacy.

Simon Wiesenthal was committed to the remembrance of those who he feared would be forgotten, and today we become committed to remembering him. While in Vienna in 1993, Simon Wiesenthal said, ``To young people here, I am the last. I'm the one who can still speak. After me, it's history.'' To continue his mission, we must not forget this history. We must continue to fight for the same principles that defined Simon Wiesenthal's objective. It is troubling that even today one of the most notorious sentiments of the Second World War--anti-Semitism--has yet to be eradicated. It is our duty to combat anti-Semitism and all religious bigotry whenever and wherever it arises.

When asked why he chose to search for Nazi war criminals instead of continuing a career in architecture, Simon Wiesenthal responded: ``You're a religious man. You believe in God and life after death. I also believe. When we come to the other world and meet the millions of Jews who died in the camps and they ask us, `What have you done?' there will be many answers. You will say, `I became a jeweler.' Another will say, `I smuggled coffee and American cigarettes.' Still another will say, `I built houses,' but I will say, `I didn't forget you.' ''

And today, we must unite to say that we will not forget Simon Wiesenthal and we, as strong and responsible human beings, will carry forth his mission.

Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering the conference agreement on H.R. 2360, the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill for FY 2006. I am pleased by some of the provisions in this conference report, but I am also troubled by a number of other provisions.

We had several days to prepare before Hurricane Katrina ravaged the gulf coast--much longer than we will have before a potential terrorist attack. But the administration's incompetence meant that extra time was almost wasted and lives were lost. In April, we had a successful terrorism response exercise in New Jersey called TOPOFF 3, bringing together Federal, State and local authorities to respond to simulated terrorist attacks. What we need are more exercises like these, not fewer; more and better planning, not less. But this conference report cuts pre-disaster mitigation by $50 million over last year and by $100 million from even the administration's request. If we had spent money ahead of time--if we had pre-positioned assets in the gulf coast region before Katrina struck--we could have saved lives and billions of dollars. As our Nation faces a variety of threats, both manmade and natural, we need to think seriously about these cuts.

After watching the Federal Emergency Management Agency seriously mishandle their response to Hurricane Katrina there is a clear need to restructure the Agency. However, we will not be doing that today. This legislation does nothing to reform FEMA--it doesn't improve the leadership, it doesn't return staffing levels to the highs of the 1990s, it doesn't even require that FEMA report directly to the president. FEMA is the Federal Government's first line of defense and response to disasters, and it needs to be reformed. And this bill doesn't provide the money either. This conference report even cuts funding for FEMA by 12 percent from last year's funding level.

It also slashes funding for state and local preparedness grants by $585 million below FY 2005 levels. We know that New Jersey is a target for terrorists. In a bioterrorism attack just after September 11, 2001, postal workers in Hamilton were sickened with anthrax. Last year, the Prudential Plaza building in Newark was named as a target after an Al Qaeda laptop computer containing information on the building was found in Pakistan. And, of course, four of the 9/11 hijackers passed through Newark Liberty International Airport and 700 residents of the State were killed on that terrible day. Funds for State and local preparedness are crucial to keep New Jersey and our Nation safe. The police officers who notice something suspicious, the community leaders who develop evacuation plans, the first responders on the scene immediately after an attack--these people are local authorities, and we need to give them the tools they need to do their jobs.

There have been two major terrorist attacks in the West since September 11, and both have been aimed at mass transit--the March 11, 2004 Madrid bombings, and the July 2005 London bombings. But the President did not request any specific funds for mass transit. Fortunately, the conference agreement adds $150 million dollars for transit security. New Jersey Transit, the Nation's third largest transit authority, with 220 million riders a year, 40 percent inbound to New York City, runs several trains and buses through my district. Princeton Junction, located in my district, is the fourth busiest station in New Jersey Transit's system. We need more funding for mass transit, and this is a start.

This conference report also begins to address one of our greatest vulnerabilities to terrorism, one that the Bush administration continues to ignore. It allocates $30 million for initial programs for better screening of passenger stowed luggage on commercial flights. The conference report also provides for adequate independent oversight of Secure Flight, the next generation of the air passenger prescreening program. This will allow us to balance security and privacy.

It also provides $655 million for fire grants, $155 million more than President Bush requested. As we all know, our local fire departments are the backbone of our first responder network. Fire fighters are some of the first to arrive at disasters, be they natural or man-made. I am glad that the conference report provides much needed funds for fire grants.

New Jersey is home to what terrorism experts call the ``most dangerous two miles'' in America--the chemical plants, highways, and railroads that lie between Newark Liberty International Airport and the Port of Elizabeth. And in a 14-mile radius around the site, there are 12 million people living and working. The House earlier this year voted to increase funding to help secure these sites. But the conference report does not include this desperately needed funding increase. Rather, it contains only $95 million for the necessary chemical countermeasures that would help secure industrial materials, and provide safety and peace of mind to millions of New Jerseyans.

Mr. Speaker, this bill leaves too much undone. Cutting funding for local preparedness and first responders is more than enough justification for New Jerseyans to oppose this bill.

We can do better in planning for disasters, reforming FEMA, and assisting state and local governments. And though the conference report does more for transit and air cargo screening, these efforts are just down-payments on what will be a long-term project.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005. Despite the deceptive title of this bill, it is a measure designed to weaken the protections secured under the landmark Endangered Species Act (ESA).

While scientists are uncertain about the exact rate of extinction, they estimate that it is probably thousands of times greater than the rate prior to human civilization. In 1973 Congress enacted the ESA to address this problem of species extinction. The ESA is a comprehensive legal measure that is used to identify and protect species that are determined to be the most at risk. Under this law, once a species is designated as either ``endangered'' or ``threatened,'' powerful legal tools are available to aid in the recovery of the species and to protect its habitat. Without these strong federal protections hundreds of species including the bald eagle, grizzly bear, Florida panther, and the manatee would all be extinct.

The bill we are debating today is flawed in many ways, but I am particularly concerned with its removal of habitat protection from the Endangered Species Act. Habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation is the most significant cause of species extinction. This legislation blatantly ignores the integral role habitat plays in the survival of a species by eliminating the designation of ``critical habitat.'' Without this special designation, our government's ability to recover species will be severely undermined.

It is disconcerting that some of my colleagues do not value saving our unique natural treasures, but it is appalling that they refuse to acknowledge that the Endangered Species Act is about much more than saving a unique species. It is undeniable that the world in which we live is an intricately connected environment that is suffering from human abuse and neglect. The loss of a species interrupts the life cycle of the ecosystem it was part of and alters our environment in ways far beyond this isolated event. The Endangered Species Act is a vital tool in preventing and reversing these life cycle disruptions before they ripple out and cause further damage to our natural communities.

We all agree that this law should be revisited and improvements to the law should be implemented. I understand the concerns of my colleagues that this law has been abused at the detriment of their constituents' rights. However, I believe there are ways to balance the needs of development and property rights with the need to protect the health of the environment which we all share. Instead of working towards a true compromise, we are considering legislation that is based on the fallacious premise that environmental protection requires a trade-off with private interests. It takes a very short-sighted, short term view of our world and our economy. It ignores the long term damage catering to these private interests will have on our future.

The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005 severely hampers the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation that will result in far reaching and detrimental impacts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res 66, which recognizes the fifth annual celebration of Lights on Afterschool! on October 20 and honors the contributions of after-school programs to our communities.

As a former educator, I understand the importance of after-school programs. These programs enrich children's lives with artistic, athletic, and educational activities. They support working parents who want to know that their children are in safe, nurturing environments. After-school programs reduce crime by giving young people positive outlets for the energy. Schools, community members, volunteers and families come together every school day to make these programs successful.

Over six million students across the country benefit from after- school programs, and in New Jersey, there are 28,000 students attending these programs. Many after-school programs are federally funded including the 21st Century Community Learning Centers.

My district is fortunate to have several of these centers. The Trenton Public Schools have partnered with several organizations, including the Boy Scouts, Imani Community Center and Passage Theatre Company, to integrate after-school, summer and adult education programs to better serve students. The Middlesex County Educational Services Commission provides educational and social activities for students with multiple disabilities, including autism. And the Princeton Regional Schools' after-school program benefits from its designation as a 21st Century Community Learning Center.

These programs, and others in my district, strengthen our communities and improve our children's lives. But we can do better. If the No Child Left Behind Act were fully funded, another 64,000 students in New Jersey alone would have a safe place to go after school.

I applaud the staff and volunteers of after-school programs, and I am glad to join the one million Americans expected to celebrate Lights on Afterschool! on October 20th.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 209 recognizing October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. I would like to thank my colleague from Texas for offering this important resolution.

In 2002, family members were responsible for 43 percent of murders of females. Twenty-two percent of murders in 2002 were by family members. The average age for a child killed by a parent is 7 years old and four out of five victims killed by a parent were younger than 13 years old. I could go on for hours with alarming and truly sad statistics similar to these. As a Member of Congress, I believe it is my duty to stand here on the House floor and draw attention to these startling statistics. It is important to keep reiterating these numbers because they aren't just statistics--they are women, men, and children. They are our mothers, sisters, daughters, aunts, cousins and nieces. In some cases they are our fathers, brothers and sons.

Across the country, day in and day out, individuals work tirelessly to eradicate domestic violence by not only participating in domestic violence help and support groups but by educating those on domestic abuse prevention. In central New Jersey, there are many exemplary organizations that provide valuable services to victims of domestic violence.

One organization in Monmouth County, New Jersey is 180 Turning Lives Around which provides training and education to both victims and offenders of domestic violence. Some of the many services provided by the group are a School-Based Abuse Prevention Program designed to raise the awareness of abuse among adolescents and provide tools to reduce the risk of teens entering into abusive relationships, a temporary Safe House for women and children who are forced out of their homes because of violence and a 180's Families in Transition Program aimed at providing longer term housing for women and children who face economic instability if they leave their abusive relationship permanently. At these homes, counseling services and training is provided to get women who have been abused on their feet again.

Womanspace is a similar organization aimed at serving all victims of domestic and sexual assault in Mercer Country, New Jersey. Womanspace provides counseling and support services, emergency services designed to assist victims immediately following the initial crisis through hotlines, Domestic Violence Victim Response Teams and a confidential and secure short term shelter.

Since we passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994 the number of reported incidences of domestic violence has decreased. In New Jersey the cases of reported domestic violence decreased by 2 percent from 2004. Although these figures are encouraging, we cannot reduce our attention to this problem. We must continue to support organizations that work day in and day out to educate others on the dangers of domestic violence and counsel those who are already victims. We can do this by reauthorizing full funding for the VAWA which should come to the House floor soon.

I also hope that we will have the opportunity to consider other important legislative measures that will combat this problem. For example, Rep. Capps, offered in the 108th Congress the Domestic Violence Screening, and Treatment Act of 2003 that gave States the option to cover domestic violence screening and treatment services under Medicaid. One hundred and twenty two of our colleagues supported this bill, yet it was never brought to the House floor for consideration. Rep. Rothman offered in the 108th Congress the Domestic Violence Victim Protection Act that among other things would allow States that authorize law enforcement to confiscate guns in certain domestic violence to receive Federal grants. As legislators, we must be leaders and take sensible and needed actions to renew our commitment to eliminate domestic violence.

Recognizing October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month is an important first step but it should not be only action in the 109th Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this necessary resolution and by supporting this resolution today make, a commitment to taking even more steps to eliminating domestic violence.

Mr. Chairman, today on the floor we have what is increasingly rare these days, a bipartisan bill, a bill that would help thousands of Head Start children and their families. Head Start has worked well for 40 years. It has changed lives for the better. It is one of the great successes of our government. That is documented.

Now, this bill is not perfect, but it makes some positive changes. I am pleased that the bill avoids the proposed use of State block grants. It improves the academic content and requirements. It requires coordination between Head Start and State-run kindergarten programs. It improves the prospect for children of migrant and seasonal workers, of service men and women, of Native Americans. The legislation strengthens accountability.

We still have a long way to go to give all eligible children the benefits of Head Start, but basically this is a good bill. It is a good bipartisan bill that is about to be destroyed by an insidious amendment. It is an amendment that would allow American tax dollars, tax dollars of ordinary Americans, all Americans, to be used for religious discrimination. We cannot allow that. The nondiscrimination provision of Head Start has been reauthorized in 1984, 1986, 1990, 1994, and 1998. No changes were proposed or made in the civil rights provision during those reauthorizations, but now the nondiscrimination provision would be thrown out.

Let us remember why we have this nondiscrimination provision. It is to protect freedom of religion, of religious belief and practice. It is to protect religious belief and practice. That is why it is so important not to mix that up in here.

It is a good bill. We would like to keep this as a bipartisan bill. We do not want to go back to the days where one would say Catholics need not apply, Jews need not apply. If Members do not want to go back to those days, vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, as we face the concern about the United States' ability to sustain its scientific and technological superiority throughout this decade and beyond, when we are losing jobs to more technologically literate nations, and when our science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education is in need of serious attention and renovation, it is important that we consider this resolution recognizing the importance of chemistry in our everyday lives, and in particular with the toys that we, or our children, grandchildren, or family members play with today. That is why today I am introducing along with Representative Vernon Ehlers a resolution recognizing the importance and positive contributions of chemistry to our everyday lives and supporting the goals and ideals of National Chemistry Week.

We have all seen the joy and wonder of children at play, and we can certainly all recall our favorite childhood toys, such as Silly Putty, the Slinky, and the Etch-a-Sketch. In fact, the astronauts on the Apollo 8 mission carried Silly Putty with them to alleviate boredom and to help fasten down tools during periods of weightlessness. Silly Putty came to us as a product of chemistry; Silly Putty is a polymer of isoprene.

BusinessWeek Online ran an article with the subtitle ``Toymakers are pushing the boundaries in artificial intelligence, wireless communications, and virtual realities. And the benefits are flowing to other industries as well.'' The military, the medical field, gamers, chemists, and material scientists all connect to the toy industry. Chemists and material scientists have created such materials as self- healing plastics, giving toys and many other consumer goods a longer lifetime.

The curiosity that toys ignite through the ``why did it do that?'' and ``how did that happen?'' invigorate the exploration and discovery of the world around us. Many scientists and engineers turn to toys for moments of respite and of inspiration. Innovations in technology, at times can be traced back to moments with toys. That is why this year's's theme of National Chemistry Week, ``The Joy of Toys'', is relevant. What better ways to inspire and educate the potential chemists and engineers of tomorrow but through the loved experiences of playing with toys and learning what has made all the fun possible?

Toys spark imagination, imagination fuels innovation. The celebration of chemistry, a science which is the backbone to the health of many industries including pharmaceuticals, electronics, automotive, and aerospace, through the chemistry of toys is worthy of our wholehearted support. It is in the best interest of our Nation to create both a curiosity and a desire to understand our world to fuel a technological and scientifically literate, critical thinking population to carry us forward in the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, today we mourn the passing of Simon Wiesenthal, a man who dedicated his life to the search of fugitive Nazi war criminals. The ideals of truth and justice guided his effort to fight anti-Semitism and as we mourn, we are reminded of our commitment to these ideals as part of our duty to humanity.

Simon Wiesenthal was born on December 31, 1908 in Buczacz, Galicia, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and now part of Ukraine. He received a degree in architectural engineering in 1932 from the Technical University of Prague, and in 1936 he began working at an architectural office in Lvov; he did not, however, continue his career in architecture. Three years later, with the partition of Poland and the flood of the Red Army in Lvov, Simon Wiesenthal began losing family members to German brutality. After escaping several near-death situations himself, in 1945 Simon Wiesenthal was liberated by American forces from the concentration camp of Mauthausen in Austria.

After almost giving up, Simon Wiesenthal regained his strength and redefined his life's task as a quest for justice. He did not vow to fight for vengeance. Instead, the goal of his noble cause was to create a historical memory that would prevent any repetition of the horrible atrocities committed during the Holocaust.

He was instrumental in tracking down fugitive Nazis, and a significant component of his mission was to pressure governments around the world to continue their pursuit and persecution of war criminals. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish human rights organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust carries on his legacy.

Simon Wiesenthal was committed to the remembrance of those who he feared would be forgotten, and today we become committed to remembering him. While in Vienna in 1993, Simon Wiesenthal said, ``To young people here, I am the last. I'm the one who can still speak. After me, it's history.'' To continue his mission, we must not forget this history. We must continue to fight for the same principles that defined Simon Wiesenthal's objective. It is troubling that even today one of the most notorious sentiments of the Second World War--anti-Semitism--has yet to be eradicated. It is our duty to combat anti-Semitism and all religious bigotry whenever and wherever it arises.

When asked why he chose to search for Nazi war criminals instead of continuing a career in architecture, Simon Wiesenthal responded: ``You're a religious man. You believe in God and life after death. I also believe. When we come to the other world and meet the millions of Jews who died in the camps and they ask us, `What have you done?' there will be many answers. You will say, `I became a jeweler.' Another will say, `I smuggled coffee and American cigarettes.' Still another will say, `I built houses,' but I will say, `I didn't forget you.' ''

And today, we must unite to say that we will not forget Simon Wiesenthal and we, as strong and responsible human beings, will carry forth his mission.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Gary Mount on being named the 2005 Apple Grower of the Year by American/Western Fruit Grower magazine, sponsored by Cerexagri. This award recognizes the progressive approaches, hard work, and dedication to learning of a leading apple grower. New Jersey can be proud to have a native son singled out from among all the apple growers around the Nation.

Mount, a resident of Lawrenceville, New Jersey, has honed his growing skills along with his wife Pam, co-owner of Terhune Orchards in Princeton. Although Mount had grown up on his father's 300-acre apple farm, he did not originally plan on a farming career. Instead, Mount graduated from Princeton University with a degree in physiological psychology and had planned on pursing his Ph.D. It was only after his experience of joining the Peace Corps and serving in the Central Pacific islands of Micronesia that Mount decided to dedicate his life to farming.

For the past 30 years, Mount has continually pursued his quest to discover the best and most innovative farming techniques. Mount has demonstrated this commitment by attending industry meetings including serving as a member of the International Dwarf Fruit Tree Association, IDFTA for more than 25 years and on the board of directors for 11 years. Additionally, Mount has been treasurer of the New Jersey State Hort Society for about 12 years, former president of the New Jersey State Board of Agriculture, a New Jersey water commissioner for many years, and currently, a soil conservation district supervisor. Active also in New Jersey Farmland Preservation, Mount's efforts have helped growers pass on their land without fear of it being developed.

Throughout his farming career, Mount has also considered it a top priority to have an environmentally sound approach to farming. Particularly on pest management issues, Mount has worked with Extension agents from Rutgers University to develop an integrated pest management, IPM program at Terhune Orchards. By informing his neighbors about his approach to pest management, and then, creating a poster with specialists at Rutgers explaining the practices and benefits of IPM that is displayed at farm markets, Mount has developed a trusting relationship with consumers who feel confident that the fruit they purchase has not been fertilized with hazardous chemicals.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the entire 12th district of New Jersey, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating Gary Mount on his 2005 Apple Grower of the Year award.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an original cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 208, a resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of Rosa Louise Parks' refusal to give up her seat on a city bus in Montgomery, Alabama. On December 1, 1955, Ms. Parks challenged decades of social injustice and inequality; she opposed a racist authority; she initiated a movement of change. It was on that day 50 years ago, that a woman spoke up for not only herself, but for the freedoms of all people, everywhere when she refused to give up her seat.

Ms. Parks' service to the civil rights movement began long before that fateful December day. Born and raised in Alabama, Rosa Louise McCauley attended the Alabama State Teachers College before marrying Raymond Parks in 1932. Together, they worked for the Montgomery branch chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Ms. Parks took on leadership roles in the organization, serving as a secretary and then as an advisor to the NAACP Youth Council. These efforts to improve the lives of those in segregated societies grew into a movement to end segregation outright. That movement found a voice in Rosa Parks.

On December 1, 1955, Ms. Parks boarded a Montgomery city bus through the rear entrance. She sat in the section designated for ``colored.'' She obeyed the ludicrous segregation laws until a white man, wanting a seat, demanded hers. It was then that Ms. Parks decided that her compliance would end.

Ms. Parks was arrested for her civil disobedience. The arrest incited a reaction. Ms. Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., and others channeled that reaction to form one of the most powerful and positive movements in world history. The following day, civil rights advocates organized a boycott of the bus system that lasted for 381 days. On November 13, 1956, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation on the transportation system was unconstitutional and this provided one of the first victories for desegregation. We recognize the many people responsible for the effective boycott and the tremendous support of civil rights leadership. But, today, we celebrate the woman who imbued the movement with such dedication, dignity, and courage.

Rosa Parks' commitment to civil rights continued with her work in the office of my colleagues, Representative John Conyers, Jr., from 1965- 1988. In 1987, she established the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development to motivate youths. She has been honored for her contributions to society with the NAACP's Springarn Medal in 1979, the Martin Luther King, Jr., Nonviolent Peace Prize in 1980, the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1996, and the Congressional Gold Medal in 1999.

Let us honor the 50th anniversary of Ms. Parks' refusal to give up her seat. Let us celebrate the lifetime achievements of a truly incredible woman. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 208.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the so-called Child Safety Act, H.R. 3132, because it forsakes meaningful crime reduction in favor of ineffective solutions that will only create a false illusion that our children are better protected from sexual abuse.

We have all read with heartbreak and anger the horrible, the terrible stories of sexual abuse, abduction, and murder of children. It is clear that we need to protect children from sexual predators and pedophiles through stronger laws and better enforcement. I realize that voting against a bill with a title as attractive as this is easily misunderstood and mischaracterized. But I have never been one to vote for form over substance, nor to shy away from standing up for what is right regardless of the political slings and arrows. Unfortunately, this bill will do more harm than good, and in the balance will do precious little to make our children safer. I hope the Senate will do better.

We need a real system that gives parents peace of mind and enables them to be aware of the presence of pedophiles in their neighborhood. A National Sex Offender Registry, that is maintained by the United States Department of Justice is a very good idea that I support. Members of every local community would be able to access this registry online, and be able to keep tabs on those who may pose harm to our children. States would notify each other when sex offenders move between States, and reporting requirements would be uniform so that it's easier to keep the lists current and accurate. This is a sensible thing that we should be doing to protect our children. I would be proud to support it and I hope it will be addressed on the floor in a more rational way.

That leads me to my overriding criticism of this bill: Its flaws are so troubling and fundamental that it compels me to oppose passage despite my support of one component part.

This bill creates 36 new mandatory minimum penalties. Mandatory minimum penalties do not work. They discount mitigating factors in crimes, prevent judges from meting out punishments that are tailored to the criminal, and have been proven discriminatory to people of color. They do not work. They may make legislators feel good but they have been shown not to reduce crime rates. Even the Judicial Conference, the group that represents Federal judges, has said that mandatory minimums violate common sense. Let me explain how just one of the new minimums will make us less safe, instead of more. If a previously convicted but released sex offender commits a technical violation of the reporting requirements--for example, they miss the registration deadline by a day or a week--they would receive a mandatory 5-year sentence. There is no discussion, and there can be no evaluation by a Federal judge.

The result is that sex offenders who miss the deadline or commit other technical violations will only be driven underground. Instead of turning themselves in, they will go under the radar and into unsuspecting communities. This is exactly the opposite of what needs to happen.

Also troubling is the fact that this legislation creates two additional death penalties. Yet, research has shown that capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime. Let me repeat, the death penalty simply does not reduce crime.

Those who commit the most heinous and terrible crimes against our children should have to face being locked away for the rest of their lives, where they must contemplate their crimes until the end of their days, without posing harm to society. But expanding the already ineffective death penalty to crimes where the victim's death is not even intentional is not only illogical, it is immoral. The government's job is to prevent crime and punish criminals, often severely. But killing citizens in order to exact retribution is inappropriate for a government that seeks to be moral.

We do need a Child Safety Act, but it should be a real one. We need sensible punishments and preventative measures that will actually reduce sexual predation, not just talk tough.

I am very disappointed that this bill weakens sound registration requirements and penalties by stacking them on fundamentally flawed provisions. It is my hope that sensible actions to protect our children are considered at the earliest possible date.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), for yielding me time, and I thank the sponsor of this bill for introducing it.

We all rise today to honor the passengers and the crew of United Airlines Flight 93. They gave their lives so that others might live, and I strongly support S. Con. Res. 26, which commemorates the courageous actions of these 40 passengers and crew. The passengers thwarted a potentially dangerous attack on a target here in Washington. Without their sacrifice, it is possible that many of us would not be here today. This building in which we stand perhaps would not be here, and almost certainly many innocent civilians would have died.

Eighteen of those brave men and women on board Flight 93 were from New Jersey. One of those brave souls lived in Cranberry, New Jersey. He is one of the people on board we recognize. He has become something of a symbol.

Todd Beamer was a respected businessman who stood out in a national company. He was a man of deep religious faith. He was involved with his family, a loving father who looked forward to the upcoming birth of his third child. He was a caring and devoted husband to his wife, Lisa, whom I would also like to recognize and honor here today. It was his famous phrase, ``Let's roll,'' that helped inspire our Nation to meet his high standard of shared sacrifice and to remind Americans in those dark days following September 11 that America would not just survive but America would thrive.

This body authorized the naming of the United States Post Office in Cranberry after Todd Beamer. And each time I see the Todd Beamer Post Office, I am reminded that individual Americans can and do extraordinary things.

Americans are willing to sacrifice in the name of accomplishing something greater than one person. This country has always depended on this unique character, and it was always my hope that people would use this post office with an understanding of this American characteristic and that they would pause to reflect on the sacrifice of the individual but also on their roles, what they can do in small and large acts of bravery.

Todd Beamer was not alone. With him were other New Jerseyans and Americans who shared his values and commitment to save others. Richard Guadagno was another outstanding passenger of Flight 93. Raised in Trenton, Richard was the manager of the Humbolt Bay National Wildlife Refuge in California, and was on his way back to Eureka, California, after visiting his family in New Jersey and attending his grandmother's 100th birthday party. He too made the sacrifice. I had an opportunity to talk with his parents, and I was struck by how remarkable and compassionate Richard Guadagno was. Today we honor him and all the other passengers and crew members.

Recalling the legacy of the passengers and crew of Flight 93 reminds Americans that we need heroes every day. Lisa and Todd Beamer's children can grow up knowing that their father acted bravely at a time when others

were in need; and he will always be remembered as a hero, along with his fellow passengers.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to support this resolution, and I thank the sponsors for introducing it. As it is said in Jewish tradition, whoever saves a single life is honored as though he saved an entire world.

I honor those on Flight 93 whose brave acts saved the lives of so many Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan for the time.

As we look at repairs of levees and improving public health mechanisms and so forth, many Americans might not realize that there are other things we must tend to. I applaud the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) for recognizing that we need to help those who are in the midst of their education. This legislation is a good first step on the floor.

I think that the legislation offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and others of us that deals with readjusting what families are expected to pay for college for the current term and making it more than optional for a university to recalculate families contributions and providing deferment of 6 months for student borrowers, those additional steps I think would be very important. I particularly commend to this body the legislation that is offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and others of us, and I hope that those provisions can be added.

I nevertheless want to strongly support what the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) has done. It will help many students who are disrupted, whose education would otherwise be disrupted by these activities.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to read into the Record an insightful article by Dr. Uwe Reinhardt, one of the Nation's leading authorities on health care economics and a distinguished resident of central New Jersey. Dr. Reinhardt is known for his health care economics, but here he articulates the danger of what economists call the ``moral hazard'' we are currently facing with regard to Iraq.

Economists refer to moral hazard when people, insensitive to the costs of their actions, increase the costs to others. With regard to Iraq, we have a situation in which the vast majority of policymakers and the general public are utterly insulated from the human and financial costs of the war.

Dr. Reinhardt, as the father of a U.S. Marine, personally understands the angst that families feel every day about loved ones serving in harm's way. President Bush has taken to analogizing the war in Iraq to the American Revolution and, most recently, the Second World War. What follows is an opinion article written by Dr. Reinhardt that appeared in the Washington Post last month, in August, entitled ``Who is Paying For Our Patriotism?'' I will insert the entire article for the Record.

Dr. Reinhardt writes, ``President Bush assures us that the ongoing twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are worth the sacrifices they entail. Editorialists around the Nation agree and say that a steadfast American public was willing to stay the course.

``Should anyone be surprised by this national resolve, given that these wars visit no sacrifice of any sort, neither blood nor angst nor taxes, on well over 95 percent of the American people? At most, 500,000 American troops are at risk of being deployed to these war theaters at some time. Assume that for each one of them, some 20 members of the wider family sweat with fear when they hear that a helicopter crashed in Afghanistan, or that X number of soldiers or Marines were killed or seriously wounded in Iraq. It implies that no more than 10 million Americans have any real emotional connection to these wars.

``The administration and Congress have gone to extraordinary lengths to insulate voters from the money costs of the wars to the point even of excluding outlays for them from the regular budget process. Furthermore, they financed the wars not with taxes, but by borrowing abroad.''

Dr. Reinhardt continues, ``The strategic shielding of most voters from any emotional or financial sacrifice for these wars cannot but trigger the analogue of what is called `moral hazard' in the context of health insurance, a field in which,'' Dr. Reinhardt says, ``I have done a lot of scholarly work. There, moral hazard refers to the tendency of well-insured patients to use health care with complete indifference to the costs they visit on others. It has prompted President Bush to advocate health insurance with very high deductibles. But if all but a handful of Americans are completely insulated against the emotional and financial cost of war, is it not natural to suspect moral hazard will be at work in that context as well?

``A policymaking elite whose families and purses are shielded from the sacrifices war entails may rush into it hastily and ill-prepared, as surely was the case of the Iraq war. Moral hazard in this context can explain why a nation that once built a Liberty ship every 2 weeks and thousands of newly designed airplanes in the span of a few years now takes years merely to properly arm and armor its troops with conventional equipment.

``Moral hazard can explain why, in wartime, the TV anchors of the morning and evening shows barely make time to report on the wars, lest the reports displace the silly banter with which they seek to humor their viewers. Do they ever wonder how military families with loved ones in the fray might feel after hearing ever so briefly of mayhem in Iraq and Afghanistan.

``Moral hazard,'' he says, ``also can explain why the general public is also so noticeably indifferent to the plight of our troops and their families. To be sure, we paste cheap magnetic ribbons on our cars to proclaim our support for the troops.''

But at the same time we allow families of Reservists and National Guard members to slide into deep financial distress as their loved ones stand tall for us on lethal battle fields and the family is deprived of these troops' typically higher civilian salaries. We offer a pittance in disability pay to seriously wounded soldiers who have not served the full 20 years that entitles them to a regular pension. And our legislative representatives make a disgraceful spectacle of themselves bickering over a mere $1 billion or so in added health care spending by the Department of Veterans Affairs in a Nation with a $13 trillion economy.

When our son, says Dr. Reinhardt, then a Princeton graduate, decided to join the Marine Corps in 2001, I advised him, do what you must. But be advised

that, flourishing rhetoric notwithstanding, this Nation will never truly honor your service, and it will condemn you to the bottom of the economic scrap heap should you ever get seriously wounded.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the full article of Dr. Uwe Reinhardt, ``Who's Paying for Our Patriotism?'' appear at this point in the Record.

President Bush assures us that the ongoing twin wars in

Iraq and Afghanistan are worth the sacrifices they entail.

Editorialists around the nation agree and say that a

steadfast American public was willing to stay the course.

Should anyone be surprised by this national resolve, given

that these wars visit no sacrifice of any sort--neither blood

nor angst nor taxes--on well over 95 percent of the American

people?

At most, 500,000 American troops are at risk of being

deployed to these war theaters at some time. Assume that for

each of them some 20 members of the wider family sweat with

fear when they hear that a helicopter crashed in Afghanistan

or that X number of soldiers or Marines were killed or

seriously wounded in Iraq. It implies that no more than 10

million Americans have any real emotional connection to these

wars.

The administration and Congress have gone to extraordinary

lengths to insulate voters from the money cost of the wars--

to the point even of excluding outlays for them from the

regular budget process. Furthermore, they have financed the

wars not with taxes but by borrowing abroad.

Dr. Reinhardt continues:

The strategic shielding of most voters from any emotional

or financial sacrifice for these wars cannot but trigger the

analogue of what is called ``moral hazard'' in the context of

health insurance, a field in which I've done a lot of

scholarly work. There, moral hazard refers to the tendency of

well-insured patients to use health care with complete

indifference to the cost they visit on others. It has

prompted President Bush to advocate health insurance with

very high deductibles. But if all but a handful of Americans

are completely insulated against the emotional--and

financial--cost of war, is it not natural to suspect moral

hazard will be at work in that context as well?

A policymaking elite whose families and purses are shielded

from the sacrifices war entails may rush into it hastily and

ill prepared, as surely was the case of the Iraq war. Moral

hazard in this context can explain why a nation that once

built a Liberty Ship every two weeks and thousands of newly

designed airplanes in the span of a few years now takes years

merely to properly arm and armor its troops with conventional

equipment. Moral hazard can explain why, in wartime, the TV

anchors on the morning and evening shows barely make time to

report on the wars, lest the reports displace the silly

banter with which they seek to humor their viewers. Do they

ever wonder how military families with loved ones in the fray

might feel after hearing ever so briefly of mayhem in Iraq or

Afghanistan?

Moral hazard also can explain why the general public is so

noticeably indifferent to the plight of our troops and their

families. To be sure, we paste cheap magnetic ribbons on our

cars to proclaim our support for the troops. But at the same

time, we allow families of reservists and National Guard

members to slide into deep financial distress as their loved

ones stand tall for us on lethal battlefields and the family

is deprived of these troops' typically higher civilian

salaries. We offer a pittance in disability pay to seriously

wounded soldiers who have not served the full 20 years that

entitles them to a regular pension. And our legislative

representatives make a disgraceful spectacle of themselves

bickering over a mere $1 billion or so in added health care

spending by the Department of Veterans Affairs--in a nation

with a $13 trillion economy!

Last year kind-hearted folks in New Jersey collected

$12,000 at a pancake feed to help stock pantries for

financially hard-pressed families of the National Guard. Food

pantries for American military families? The state of

Illinois now allows taxpayers to donate their tax refunds to

such families. For the entire year 2004, slightly more than

$400,000 was collected in this way, or 3 cents per capita. It

is the equivalent of about 100,000 cups of Starbucks coffee.

With a similar program Rhode Island collected about 1 cent

per capita. Is this what we mean by ``supporting our

troops''?

When our son, then a recent Princeton graduate, decided to

join the Marine Corps in 2001, I advised him thus: ``Do what

you must, but be advised that, flourishing rhetoric

notwithstanding, this nation will never truly honor your

service, and it will condemn you to the bottom of the

economic scrap heap should you ever get seriously wounded.''

The intervening years have not changed my views; they have

reaffirmed them.

Unlike the editors of the nation's newspapers, I am not at

all impressed by people who resolve to have others stay the

course in Iraq and in Afghanistan. At zero sacrifice, who

would not have that resolve?