Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his leadership on this very important matter. When we talk about the cuts contained in this reconciliation bill, they sound like such large numbers. It is very hard to relate to. When we talk about cutting student loans $14 billion and Medicaid $11 billion, child support enforcement $4.9 billion, food stamps $844 million, it is very difficult to get your arms wrapped around those numbers because they seem so extraordinary that they become almost distant and nonnumbers.

But I can tell you for the people that I represent, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has been to Nevada, he has been to my congressional district, he knows what I am dealing with there. In real human terms, when you cut that much out of Medicaid over 200,000 Nevadans, poor Nevadans that depend on Medicaid so that they can have their basic health care needs met, they are going to be plum out of luck. And there are 18,000 students that are going to be affected by cuts in the student loan program. What does that mean?

I went through school on student loans. I am the first person in my family to go to college. My dad was a waiter when I was growing up and money was pretty scarce in our home. There is no way my parents could have afforded to put me through college and law school. So what did I do? I depended on those student loans. So as a Member of Congress I am going to cut the opportunity for middle-class Americans to send their kids to school? That would be the worst possible thing to do. And over the next 5 years funding in Nevada that we receive for child support collection is going to be cut by $60 million. What does that mean? That means that we will have a whole lot of deadbeat dads in Nevada that are not going to have to live up to their responsibilities to pay child support because there will be no way to force them to do that. And that would be horrible for the families that these people, that these men are leaving.

When we talk about the school lunch program, there are going to be 40,000 children who are going to be impacted if we cut that school lunch program. Now, I am sorry to say, but there are a lot of people in my congressional district that the only meal that these kids get, the only decent, warm meal they get is the one that they get when they go to school with the school lunch program. These cuts would have devastating consequences on ordinary Americans, people that elect us to come here to protect and defend them and to give them a helping hand.

This is not a helping hand. This is a slap in the face to all Americans. And I know from my own constituents, it is going to have devastating consequences.

But there is something that I really want to talk to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) about because I am not sure that I understand, so maybe I am wrong. As you know I have got the fastest- growing senior population in the United States. We have been told, not threatened by the doctors, but we have been told by doctors because of the decline in Medicare payments for treating older Americans, senior citizens, that many of the doctors are not going to be able to treat Medicare patients. So that means that I have a whole lot of senior citizens, 65 years and above, that depend on Medicare so that they can go see their doctor.

Now, if I have got doctors and we have got doctors across this country telling us, telling us they can no longer afford to treat Medicare patients. So the other body acted responsibly and they put the requisite amount of money that they needed in order to help the doctors so that the doctors can continue treating older Americans, treating our senior citizens and helping with their health care needs. This body, the Republican leadership here does not include this in our budget reconciliation because they want to get to that $50 billion magic number for whatever reason and they are going to do that on the backs of the doctors and the senior citizens in this country.

But here is the rub: my husband is a doctor. He is a nephrologist. He treats a lot of older Americans. He just received an alert from the American Medical Association saying that we need this desperately. We need the Medicare reimbursement fund so we can continue treating our senior patients, but the Republican leadership in the House says that they are not going to put this in the reconciliation bill. But do not worry, doctors, we are going to go ahead and we will put it in Labor

So what should we do about this? Is this not a bit dishonest for the Republican leadership?

Well, I find it absolutely fascinating, and I know being married to a doctor that doctors are about the worst politicians in the world. They do not understand this political process. But they have gravitated over to the Republican side of the aisle when they were talking about tort reform, although it is my opinion as a doctor's wife, the other side never had any intentions of passing meaningful tort reform for the doctors. They just kept them hanging on a string.

This, which is the AMA's number one priority, to make sure that the doctors are getting appropriately reimbursed for treating Medicare patients, senior patients, this is so much worse for the doctors. And they are still playing games with the doctors, playing games with the seniors, playing games with the American public by saying wink, wink, we will take care of you later.

Let us take care of the docs and the senior citizens now when we should, in front of full view, in the daytime, in the light of day; and let us stop this nonsense of trying to sneak money in through the back door. It is disgusting and shameful.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for being so gracious in yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation's eminent domain laws exist to help our communities, not to deprive Americans of their businesses and homes. For 11 years, Harry Pappas and his family battled to win back property taken from them in downtown Las Vegas, property which they rightfully owned and that was home to seven shops the family leased to other businesses for more than 40 years. This was a 40-year holding of one family in Las Vegas.

In 1994, the Las Vegas Redevelopment Agency notified Mrs. Pappas that they were condemning her property. At a hearing only 7 days later, it was decided that the agency would take immediate possession of the property, and the family business promptly demolished.

The Pappases' dreams were torn down with the building they lost that day, and their dignity was taken from them as they were forced to watch as a for-profit parking garage was built on their family property.

The Pappas family took their case all the way to the United States Supreme Court, hoping that the justices would recognize their fundamental rights under our Constitution. But they were turned away by the Supreme Court, and their case seeking justice was dismissed.

So now it is up to us, the United States Congress, to protect other families against the injustice that has been done to the Pappases as a result of the ever-growing expansion of eminent domain. Voting to limit the use of eminent domain for economic development will restore the rightful limits on this power that have been eroded by time. It is time to protect the Harry Pappases of the world.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I am not part of the 30-something Group, but I was about 20 years ago.

I thank the gentleman. I have to tell my colleagues here that I have been watching them speak up about the things that I care very passionately about, and I thought it was about time that I came down here and lent my support and my voice because they should not be carrying the burden for the rest of us.

When they talk about student loans, I went through college and law school on student loans. My dad was a waiter when I was growing up, and there was not very much money, and no one had gone to college in my family until I went to college. And without those student loans, I guarantee I would not be standing here today. So I put myself in the place of thousands and thousands of Nevadans and millions of Americans that are depending on those student loans to make a difference in their lives. And getting that college education does not change only one's life. It changes the entire direction of one's family. It is an investment in our future.

And I wanted to share with my colleagues that a couple of days ago when Senator Reid took to the floor of the United States Senate, as a fellow Nevadan, I do not think I have ever been as proud of him as I was a couple of days ago, and I have been pretty proud of that man for a number of years. But I think he gave us all a voice. And what he said was that we wanted to give this government back to the American people. The American people are entitled to know what went on in the decision- making process to take this country to war.

I sit on the Committee on International Relations, and I went to every classified briefing and every confidential briefing because I am the mother of two sons who are 20-somethings, and I knew that I would be sending other mothers' sons and daughters into a theater of war, and I wanted to make sure that I had my facts straight. And when they told me that there were weapons of mass destruction and they located the location, they showed us on the map where these weapons were located in Iraq, and when they talked about nuclear capacity within 6 months to a year and shared with us the strong al Qaeda ties to Iraq and assured us that there was an imminent threat, I supported the President based on those issues.

But I bring that up because that is so much a part of what we are seeing now. There is deception, there is deceit.

Remember when they said it would only take about 100,000, 150,000 troops to go in? There was one general that said we would need half a million troops. What did they do? They retired him.

When the Budget Director, Mr. Lindsey, said it would cost $200 billion, and we are there now, they said, no, no, no, it is not going to cost us anything. It is going to be the oil revenue coming out of Iraq that is going to pay for this war. We went ahead with that based on their justification and what they said.

I want to know and I want to have an investigation. Because when I voted, I voted on a certain set of circumstances, and the American people are entitled to know why their sons and daughters are dying in a foreign land.

Did we have to do this? If we did, where are we going? And I want to tie this in to the budget, because we are standing here today and knowing that next week we are going to be voting on a budget that is an embarrassment to me.

When I was growing up, I always wanted to serve and be a public servant and be in this great body. I never believed I would be taking student loans away from youngsters who are just like I was. I never dreamed I would be taking poor children and keeping them from getting the health care that this Nation should be providing for them so that they can grow up to be strong adults. I never dreamed that women that depended on child support for their children, that we would be taking away the money to find the deadbeat dads.

This, to me, is absolutely an affront to what it is to be an American. We have an obligation to our fellow citizens, and I am afraid and I am embarrassed that we are not living up to our obligations.

But we are in the minority. We cannot get anything done in this body. It is the leadership of this body in particular that has to do what is right by the American people.

As the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) said, why would we be giving more tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country

and taking it from the backs of people that cannot possibly afford to pay for these things? Why would we take student loans away from youngsters? Why would we take quality health care away from children? Why would we take the opportunity to get your deadbeat father to give you the money, to pay their child support, why would you take that away from people?

This is foolish and shortsighted, and it is desperate, and the reason we are desperate is because of that war and the mistakes that we made going in to it. This administration had better come clean. We owe it to the American people. This stonewalling truly has to end. It is an embarrassment, but it is bad for this county.

That is the main reason why I am standing here today, because I care enough about the American people, I care enough about my constituents. My constituents are going to be hurt very badly. Two hundred thousand of my fellow Nevadans are going to be without health care if they cut that Medicaid. I have got 18,000 students that are going to be cut away from that student loan program. Over the next 5 years, funding for that child support collection is going to be cut by $60 million. We should not be doing that.

I am here to share these statistics with you so you know how devastated the State of Nevada would be if this Republican reconciliation plan goes through.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I think the gentlewoman is being overly gracious in her compliments. I appreciate it, and I want to return them by telling you how very proud I have been of the three of you standing here every night in the well of the House telling the American people the truth. That, unfortunately, has become a rare commodity in this House.

If the gentleman will yield further, if I could chime in a minute, I think what hurts me and offends me the most is I took this information, I went back to the people I represent. I was on every television show, I was on every radio program, and I shared with them the information that I received, and I defended my position. Not only did I defend it, I was an advocate for it. If it was wrong and based on faulty information, I owe it to my constituents to let them know that.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve to know if the Bush administration hyped faulty intelligence to win approval to go to war in Iraq. This Republican-led House refuses to even explore these issues. At least the Senate conducted an investigation last year. It concluded the intelligence was suspicious and outdated. The second part of that investigation was supposed to examine why this faulty intelligence was presented to the world as a slam-dunk.

It has now been exactly 1 year since the investigation was scheduled to begin, and the Senate Republicans have refused to move forward. What are they afraid of?

Fed up with Republican stall tactics, the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, moved for the Senate to go into a rare closed-door session to demand the investigation proceed. Thanks to Nevada's Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Republicans were shamed into restarting this investigation. Let us hope it now moves forward so the American people can finally determine if the Bush administration knowingly misled this country into war.

Mr. Speaker, the indictment of Scooter Libby shows that the Bush administration was willing to go to any length possible to silence its critics and cover up the intelligence that contradicted its claims for the war in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, the Bush administration has systematically abused its power by appointing political allies rather than qualified people to positions that have a direct effect on the safety and well-being of the American people.

This dangerous practice became painfully evident in the devastating aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when the incompetence and inexperience of FEMA Director Michael Brown led to a terribly inadequate response to natural disaster. We now know that President Bush appointed Brown as a favor to a friend, not on his ability to do the job.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated example. A recent Time Magazine inquiry found that in filling positions at vital government agencies, the Bush administration has put connections ahead of credentials. Time notes in a September 25 article that ``connections, not qualifications, have helped an unusually high number of Bush appointees land vitally important jobs in the Federal Government.''

Madam Speaker, this cronyism must end. Our tax dollars should pay for government that works for everyone, not just the President's friends. The American people deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, when Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast, homes and businesses were destroyed and people were left with nothing. To help those in Louisiana and Mississippi return home and go back to work, the gulf coast region must be rebuilt. The gaming industry will invest billions of dollars as it rebuilds the gulf region, making it an essential part of restoring employment, economic growth and tax revenue. Congress must not withhold incentives to rebuild from any employer that provides good jobs and tax revenue if we want to revive the economy of this region.

There is a movement in Congress led by the self-righteous anti-gaming police to single out the gaming industry and prohibit it from receiving needed tax incentives to rebuild. I did not see any Members of Congress, and certainly not FEMA officials, handing out paychecks to out-of-work employees in the gulf coast region. I did see CEOs of gaming companies standing there in the muck up to their ankles handing out checks to their employees.

Contrary to the biased view of some, the gaming industry should be fairly and equally like any other business when Congress develops legislation to help rebuild this region. The gaming companies remain committed to the communities and the people in the affected regions.

Mr. Speaker, I watched the testimony of former FEMA Director Michael Brown yesterday. By any measure, it was a shameful and disgraceful performance. More disgraceful is the revelation that after being appointed to a position for which he was completely unqualified, after doing a horrific disservice to his fellow citizens in Louisiana and Mississippi, after embarrassing our country in the eyes of the world, he is still on the payroll of FEMA.

But after hearing Michael Brown's hearing yesterday, the need for an independent commission is even more glaringly obvious. The American people are demanding it. And why are they demanding it? Because we have seen that the Department of Homeland Security is fundamentally flawed. It is not working, and we need to know why and we need to know what to do to fix it. Just the scale of the disaster alone, it is important to never repeat that again in our country. The amount of money alone justifies that we do an independent investigation. $200 billion of our taxpayers' money is going down South, and we have no idea what it is being used for or how it is being spent. And the issue of cronyism needs to be explored. Eighty percent of the contracts for Katrina and Rita are nonbid contracts for no reason. Let us not be shamed as we were to the 9/11 Commission. Let us make this independent commission a reality now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Buyer, ranking member Evans, and subcommittee chairman Miller as well as Senator Craig and Senator Akaka on the Senate side for moving forward on this bill.

As a result of our mutual cooperation, the men and women currently serving in the military will be able to retain insurance coverage of $400,000 on October 1 of 2005.

H.R. 3200, as amended, would make permanent the increase in maximum Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, SGLI, to $400,000 passed earlier this year. That increase was provided as the gentleman from Florida has stated by Public Law 109-13, but is set to expire on September 30, 2005. Immediate passage of this legislation is necessary in order to prevent any gaps in coverage under the SGLI program.

I truly appreciate the cooperation of the gentleman from Florida as well as that of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs in addressing my concerns that spousal consent not be a part of this SGLI program.

We have heard time and time again from estranged spouses throughout the country that they were upset that under current law they must seek to obtain the consent of an estranged spouse before selecting less than the maximum amount of life insurance. I am also pleased that the compromise bill recognizes the importance of allowing service men and women to name a child as a beneficiary of their SGLI policy without notification of a present spouse. I believe we need to allow service men and women to make such decisions without any pressure to ignore the financial responsibility to their children of prior marriages.

The bill under consideration today strikes the right balance, in my opinion, for notification to spouses who would potentially be affected by the servicemembers' coverage and beneficiary decisions. This bill is urgently needed to provide continuous coverage to our service men and women. It will benefit the Nevadans that I represent as well as all Americans who are currently serving in the Armed Forces and their families.

I urge all Members to support H.R. 3200.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the wonderful ranking Democratic member on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) for his extraordinary cooperation on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as millions of people lost their homes and their jobs, the casino and gaming industry in the Gulf Coast region is helping them in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

I applaud the American Gaming Association for setting up the Gaming Industry Katrina Relief Fund to raise money to provide disaster relief and assistance to gaming employees in Mississippi and Louisiana.

Gaming companies have created programs to help their employees after the devastation of the hurricane. Among other relief efforts, Harrah's Entertainment has established a $1 million Employee Recovery Fund and is paying employee wages for 90 days, Boyd Gaming is paying employees for 8 weeks, and the MGM Mirage has established a call center and paycheck distribution center in Biloxi.

The gaming industry is taking care of their employees in the areas ravaged by the hurricane. As usual, the industry has stepped up to the plate to help their employees weather the storm and

their communities to rebuild. I applaud the gaming industry for all they do.

Mr. Speaker, I am voting against this legislation. It does absolutely nothing to lower the outrageous price of gasoline at the pump. It provides precious little for research and development of renewable energy sources.

What it does do is give huge subsidies to the oil and gas industries that are making record profits. But the main reason I am voting against this dog of a piece of legislation is because it gives major megasubsidies to the nuclear industry so that they can build more nuclear power plants.

What is the problem with this? When you have nuclear energy it produces a deadly by-product. That deadly by-product is nuclear waste. This Nation has never figured out what to do with the nuclear waste. We cannot safely store it. Our solution is to put it in a hole in the Nevada desert where we have ground water problems, seismic activity, volcanic activity. Why would we be spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to produce more nuclear waste that has a radioactive life of 300,000 years?

Before we waste taxpayers' money on nuclear energy, let us figure out how to deal with the nuclear waste. This is a slap in the face and an insult to the people I represent.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me this very precious time.

Mr. Speaker, I am a doctor's wife. There is nobody in this body that wants medical malpractice reform more than I. My husband's medical malpractice has gone up exponentially every single year for absolutely no reason, and if I thought for a minute that this legislation would cure that problem and provide relief for the doctors of this country, I would be all over this legislation.

Unfortunately, this piece of legislation will not do what the Republican side of the aisle says it will. And if the Republican leadership really wanted to provide relief for the doctors, we would have legislation on the floor that the bipartisan Congress could vote on and support and pass and put before the President for signature.

This is a bill not to help the doctors. This bill contains and limits claims against negligent hospitals, drug companies, medical device manufacturers, nursing homes, HMOs, and insurance companies. This bill is not for doctors. This bill is a gift to the insurance companies. There is no provision, there is not one line, one sentence in a 26-page bill, that would ensure that the savings that was realized by the insurance companies would be passed on to the doctors. The doctors will continue to suffer while the insurance companies will get happier and richer.

There is a medical crisis in this country. There is a crisis in access to health care. This is not the legislation that is going to cure that. And for those people who talk lovingly and glowingly of the insurance companies and the marketplace and competition will lower the cost for the doctors, let us have another thought about that. Since when, since when, can the doctors put their faith in the insurance companies when it is the insurance companies that are messing up the doctors? I do not like to see the doctors being used by the insurance companies to do the insurance companies' dirty work.

Let us get a reality check here. Let us not pass this dog of a piece of legislation. Let us work together and pass legislation that is truly going to provide medical malpractice reform and

lower premiums for the doctors. They need it, and they deserve it.

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

I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) for bringing this bill to the floor before the August recess.

H.R. 3200 would make the maximum amount of $400,000 in the Servicemembers Group Life Insurance program permanent. In May of this year, Congress acted to increase the maximum amount of SGLI available to the men and women who are currently serving in the Armed Forces from $250,000 to $400,000. However, without passage of H.R. 3200, the increase in SGLI benefits will expire on September 30, 2005, prior to the time we return from our recess. This legislation is necessary in order to prevent any gaps in servicemembers' coverage under the SGLI program.

I appreciate the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Miller's) cooperation in addressing my concerns that spousal consent not be a part of this SGLI program. The VA is already hearing from servicemembers who are upset that they must seek to obtain the consent of an estranged spouse before selecting less than the maximum amount of life insurance. We on the subcommittee have worked together in a bipartisan way on this matter.

I support the provision to eliminate the spousal consent requirement contained in Public Law 109-13. I also support the provision to eliminate the requirement that notice be sent to a current spouse if a servicemember elects to name a child or children as beneficiaries of their SGLI.

I believe we need to allow servicemembers to make decisions on the beneficiaries of their life insurance without any pressure to ignore their financial responsibility to their children, particularly from a prior marriage.

This bill is urgently needed to provide continuous coverage to our servicemen and women. I know that the men and women from Nevada who are currently serving will benefit from this bill. I urge all Members to support H.R. 3200.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would also like to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) for his leadership on this issue.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), a former Marine, a true warrior on behalf of our Nation's veterans, and the ranking Democratic member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 3200. I am absolutely delighted we were able to do this prior to the August recess so that we can assure continuity for our veterans.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to begin by thanking the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and my dear friend, the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for helping with this amendment.

Since the 1993 Oslo Accord, the United States has given more than $1.8 billion to the Palestinians. In that same time we have given over $130 million directly to the Palestinian Authority. We have given this assistance despite no accountability, no modern financial controls, no transparency, and no actual knowledge of where our taxpayers' dollars are going.

The amendment I have introduced, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), would force the Palestinian Authority to be accountable, finally, for the money given by the United States. It would also provide Congress with the ability to end the aid if the certification requirements of this bill are not met.

My amendment mandates only 25 percent of direct aid to the Palestinian Authority can be spent in any one calendar quarter, instead of all the money being obligated at the beginning of the year. Each quarter the Palestinian Authority can spend another 25 percent of the total aid package as long as they meet the certification requirements. The overall aid package remains unchanged.

The amendment contains a declaration of policy that the United States should promote the emergence of a democratic Palestinian government that denounces and combats terrorism; that works to eliminate terrorist incitement; that has agreed to respect the boundaries and sovereignty of all of its neighbors; and that respects the human rights of all people.

If at some point during the year Congress is unsatisfied with how the money is being spent or if the Palestinian Authority fails to meet their certification requirements; if the PA has not taken concrete steps to end terrorism; if the Palestinian Authority has not made demonstrable progress towards democracy; if the PA has not dismantled the terrorist infrastructure and ended incitement, Congress can stop the flow of money.

If the Palestinian Authority lives up to its responsibility and honors its commitment, then our aid to the Palestinians will flow unfettered, and in the exact same amount. However, if the Palestinian Authority fails to live up to its responsibility and violence consumes the region, if another intifada begins, if it turns out that our aid is used to fund Hamas, Islamic jihad, or other terrorist organizations,

then Congress should discontinue the aid. This amendment gives us that option.

To be clear, the amendment would not end humanitarian aid and assistance within the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority. It would not affect the overall amount of aid provided to the Palestinian Authority. It requires the accountability that should be a necessary component of foreign aid and that Congress should expect from all of those entities that accept foreign aid from the United States and our taxpayers. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I am delighted the gentleman from Massachusetts agrees with the declaration, but I would like to point out to those of us who are voting here that these are American taxpayer dollars and Congress has a responsibility to have some accountability and ensure some transparency before we give money away.

The United States Congress has no apology to make to the Palestinian Authority. Since 1993, we have given over $1.8 billion to the Palestinian Authority. We have yet to get an accounting for a single one of those dollars. And also included in this amendment is a waiver, a Presidential waiver. If he is unsatisfied or wants to waive our restriction, he has the ability to do so. This gives the President an additional tool.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The problem the Palestinian Authority has has nothing to do with money. They have had millions. As a matter of fact, Arafat has stolen millions and millions of American taxpayer dollars over the last several years.

This amendment denounces and combats terrorism, works to eliminate terrorist incitement, and states that the Palestinians agree to respect the boundaries and sovereignty of all of its neighbors and respect human rights. That is not asking a lot. This Congress has a responsibility to ensure that is something the Palestinians can do for this money.

Mr. Speaker, on this day in 1848, one of the first public appeals for women's suffrage was made when Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton called a women's rights convention in Seneca Falls, New York. For over 70 years, women organized, marched picket lines, and chained themselves to the White House fence until women won the right to vote with the 19th amendment in 1920.

Suffragettes should be remembered, and last week I introduced a resolution to establish a day to commemorate America's suffragettes. It was not long ago that women in this country did not have the right to vote, and we ought not take that right for granted. Women have a responsibility to exercise that right and make a difference in this country.

We women do have this responsibility to show our patriotism, demonstrate good citizenship by setting an example for our children by participating in the political process and by casting our vote in this country to elect our representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined today on the House floor by two exceptional soon-to-be fourth graders from Southern Nevada, Hannah Low and Destiny Carroll.

These young women were inspired after reading about the women's suffrage movement and began a petition drive seeking to create a holiday honoring America's suffragists.

Hannah and Destiny presented this petition to me with hundreds of signatures that they obtained in my Las Vegas office. I am so proud of Hannah and Destiny, and I am honored to introduce a resolution to establish a day to commemorate America's suffragists. While it may seem unbelievable today, it was not very long ago that women were not able to vote in this country. I hope that by creating a holiday honoring the suffragists, we will keep alive the memory of the struggle to win this important right for women.

I thank Hannah and Destiny for serving as an inspiration for my resolution, and for being here on this very important day. I hope it is a moment that they will long remember, and I hope that they continue working to make a difference in their community and make a difference in our world and make it a better place to be.