Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time. And I thank the chairman and the ranking member for bringing this resolution to the floor.

I was honored to stand many a time on the west wing of the Capitol of the United States as Mr. Conyers led the effort to ensure that America recognized the extraordinary contributions of one of America's greatest sons, Martin Luther King, Jr., and that we set a day aside to recognize not only his contributions but to recommit ourselves to the objectives that he lived for and died for. And I want to congratulate Mr. Conyers and thank him for the contributions that he has made to live out that commitment of Dr. King's.

Our Nation has lost a true hero. Coretta Scott King was one of the most eloquent and determined civil rights activists in our history, both as a partner to her husband, Dr. King, in the fight for equality and justice in the United States and as a keeper of his legacy after his assassination in Memphis on April 4.

Mrs. King's grace, of which Mr. Watt spoke and of which the resolution speaks, was experienced by all who met her. Her tenacity ensured that the civil rights movement that she helped to pioneer has continued to stay in the

forefront of America's consciousness. She worked closely with John Conyers and many others in this body and around the world.

A dedicated mother of four children, all of whom I have had the privilege of knowing for some period of time, Coretta Scott King became a symbol of peace and human rights and justice and equality not just here in the United States but around the world. After her husband's death, she devoted her energy to carrying on Dr. King's legacy of nonviolence and his work to create an America in which all people were judged not on the color of their skin but on the content of their character.

She inspired activists from South Africa to Latin America. And what is perhaps one of her greatest accomplishments, she worked with John Conyers and so many others to ensure that we set aside a day to recognize the contributions, recognize the message, and to recommit ourselves to living out the promises that America made but which Dr. King so eloquently told America we were not living out, that we had made the promises but we were not keeping them, in that extraordinary speech in August of 1963.

Each year this day serves as a reminder to Americans that we must keep working towards equality and justice for all citizens. That is what Coretta Scott King's life was about. It teaches younger Americans about the harrowed journey the country has traveled to fulfill the promise of civil rights.

In addition, she was the driving force in the founding of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change in Atlanta. Nonviolent social change. Ghandi changed a nation; Martin Luther King, Jr. changed the world. He and Nelson Mandela and others who believed that by peaceful demonstration, by peaceful action, they could change the world and move mountains.

In addition, Coretta was the driving force in making sure that Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was not a holiday, not a day off, but a day of focus, a day of commitment.

Coretta Scott King's poise and determination are qualities that we would all appreciate, admire, and remember each time we met her and talked to her. She carried on Dr. King's legacy, but she had a legacy, certainly, of her own: an extraordinarily accomplished musician; a wonderful and bright, intelligent woman; a leader of our country in her own right.

Today I want to join my colleagues, Mr. Conyers and Mr. Sensenbrenner and all of our colleagues, to express our heartfelt sympathies to Mrs. King's children, Yolanda, Martin Luther III, Dexter, and Bernice, as well as all of her family and friends.

Today a Nation mourns the loss of a great leader and recognizes her extraordinary contributions to making America a better place.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the University of Maryland Men's Soccer Team, the 2005 National Collegiate Athletic Association Champions. The Maryland Terrapins claimed the 2005 NCAA Championship, 1-0, over the University of New Mexico Lobos at SAS Complex in Cary, North Carolina, on December 11, 2005.

The University of Maryland Men's Soccer Team has had a very successful season of which we can all be proud. In addition to the National Collegiate Athletic Association Championship, the Terrapins won the 2005 Atlantic Coast Conference Regular Season Championship and had an overall record of 19-4-2. They also set a school record of 66 goals. Additionally, the Maryland Terrapins are the first team since 1992 to win the tournament as the number one seed.

The Terrapins' Men's Soccer Program has a history of successes. In just the past four seasons, the Terps have amassed 76 wins, the most in the NCAA during the 4-year span. In addition, the Terrapins won their first national soccer title in 1968, when it shared the title with Michigan State.

The coaches who have led the Terrapins to victory are Head Coach Sasho Cirovsky, Assistant Coach Russell Payne, and Assistant Coach Rob Vartughian. Also assisting the team were Associate Athletics Director Shawn Flynn, Trainer Terry Gee, and Adam Zundell with Sports Information. University of Maryland Athletics Director Debbie Yow was also essential to their success.

The gifted athletes include the following University of Maryland students: Spencer Allen, Matt Beckman, Kenney Bertz, Marc Burch, Robbie C'deBaca, Kwame Darko, A.J. Delagarza, Michael DelIo-Russo, Maurice Edu, Jason Garey, David Glaudemans, A.J. Godbolt, Aki Kadotani, Stephen King, Chris Lancos, Michael Marchiano, Kevin Reiman, Doug Rodkey, Robbie Rogers, Craig Salvati, Chris Seitz, Kevin Tangney, Michael Vallie, Pat Wilson, and Graham Zusi.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to promoting discipline and health, collegiate athletics provide a wonderful training ground for future leaders and I expect that we will see great things come from these young men in the future. I applaud the University of Maryland's 2005 Men's Soccer Team on its success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the outstanding 2005 National Championship Women's Field Hockey team at the University of Maryland. On Sunday, November 20 in Louisville, Kentucky, the Terrapins defeated Duke University 1-0 to capture the 2005 National Collegiate Athletic Association Championship crown. This year marks the Terrapins' fourth NCAA title overall and their first NCAA title in 6 years.

The University of Maryland Women's Field Hockey Program has achieved several significant honors this year. The Terps earned a No. 1 final ranking by the National Field Hockey Coaches Association. Five Terrapins were named All-Americans, while three were also named All- ACC. Nine team members were named to the Mid-Atlantic All-Region team. The Terrapin defense was ranked second in the Nation and the offense was among the top 15. Finally, the University of Maryland ended the season with a 23-2 record, the most wins since 1999, and recorded its fifth 20-win season in program history.

The coaches who have led the Field Hockey team to victory are Head Coach Missy Meharg, Assistant Coach Tjerk (T.J) van Herwaarden, Assistant Coach Marybeth Freeman, Assistant Coach Clemens Arnold, Trainer Sandy Worth, Assistant Trainer Joey Sierzega, and Strength & Conditioning Coach Barry Kagan. Also deserving recognition are Jim Knight with Equipment, Natalia Ciccone with Media, and Supervisor Troy Tucker.

These talented young athletes include the following University of Maryland students: Emily Beach, Kendall Beveridge, Jackie Ciconte, Kristina Edmonds, Megan Fox, Alica Grater, Paula Infante, Linzi Jones, Danielle Keeley, Meredith Long, Tiffany Marsh, Kathryn Masson, Katie Mockus, Ellen Ott, Louisa Powell, Lauren Powley, Christina Restivo, Susie Rowe, Sarah Scholl, Emily Trycinski, Janneke van Leeuwen, and Kim Ziegler. University of Maryland Athletics Director Debbie Yow was also essential to their success.

Mr. Speaker, collegiate athletics promote camaraderie, leadership, responsibility, and good health. They are a vibrant and essential component of American culture. I commend the University of Maryland's 2005 Field Hockey team and wish each of its members great success.

Mr. Speaker, Lewis Carroll continues to write their material. Mr. Pence, your Republican leadership has taken us $1.5 trillion into deficit over the last 60 months. That is the so-called revolution. Seventeen years you have controlled the presidency. You have taken us $4 trillion into debt. Bill Clinton was President of the United States for 8 years, $62.5 billion surplus. This time you cut $50 billion. But when we cut $250 billion not one of you had the guts to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I do not know that I have ever voted against this bill, and I am not sure I am going to tonight, but I share the view of the ranking Democrat on our committee (Mr. Obey) that this bill has been misused. This bill, as Mr. Young has said so correctly, is not controversial as it relates to the defense of our Nation and the support of our troops. This bill has been held hostage to the issue of the abuse of detainees for some 3 months. Finally, that was resolved, in my opinion correctly. It has been burdened now with very controversial issues, and it has been subjected to a cut of the very defense that it seeks to support. I know that is not what either the chairman of the committee or the chairman of the subcommittee or indeed the ranking member wanted to see happen, but it is a sad handling of this bill.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, Ruth Marcus, a reporter for the Washington Post, wrote the other day that those who forget history are condemned to be spun by it. I remember history. I have been here for a quarter of a century, and I have heard the representations made by Republicans in the administration and on this floor over those years, telling me how their policies were going to lead to fiscal responsibility, reduction of deficits, elimination of debt. It hasn't happened. Not

in one of the 17 years has that happened.

In fact, when Washington is under the total control, absolute control of Republicans over the last 5 years, we have had the worst deficit performance in our history, and we have had much larger spending than we had under Bill Clinton.

There is only one person that can stop spending in America. You have heard me say this before. It is the President of the United States. He can veto a bill, and we have never in the 25 years I have served here overridden a President's veto that said we were spending too much.

As a matter of fact, the only veto override that I remember in the Reagan years was when we overrode a veto where President Reagan said we did not spend enough money. In that instance it was on defense; $4 trillion of deficits under Republican Presidents, $62.5 billion surplus under a Democratic President. That is the experience of the 25 years.

My friends, if we were responsible people, we would say we will cut spending, and then we will cut revenues. Because if we have the courage to cut spending, then we do not need to pay for the things that we cut. But if we do not have the courage to pay for what we buy, we are misserving the American public and, even more deeply, our children and our grandchildren. That is the consequence of your policy.

You come here cutting revenues. That is an honest policy, but you do not have the courage to cut the spending. You cut $50 billion, you say, in this bill, but you then cut $56 billion in revenue. You don't have to be much of a math expert to know that that is a $6 billion addition to the deficit.

Ladies and gentlemen, America expects better of us. America expects honest leadership. America deserves honest policies. The absence of honest policies has led to us incurring $1.5 trillion of deficits in less than 60 months. We can do better. We ought to do better. We must do better. Reject this irresponsible bill.

The chairman of the Budget Committee came to this floor and put a bag over his head because he was ashamed of serving in this House. He was ashamed.

Not yet.

I did reference you and I may do it again, but I will not yield yet.

He came to this floor, and he said he was ashamed. He was ashamed because of a bank scandal. It wasn't handled very well but there were no tax dollars involved, nobody lost anything and the account at Riggs Bank was never overdrawn. But, my friends, under his administration over the last 5 years, $1.5 trillion in deficits.

Now, let me tell you something. Economic performance, these are facts. This is not Dickens or Chaucer or Shakespeare or anybody else. These are facts from your budget book. Average weekly earnings, Bush I, minus 1.1 percent; Bush II, minus three-tenths of 1 percent; Bill Clinton, plus eight-tenths of 1 percent; Median household income, Bush I, minus eight-tenths of 1 percent; Bush II, minus nine-tenths of 1 percent; Clinton, plus 1.6 percent.

Poverty, Bush I, went up 1.8 percent. Bush II it has gone up 1.4 percent; Clinton, down 3.5 percent. Jobs, you talked about jobs. Bush I, plus-2.13 million; Bush II, now about 4 million; Clinton, 21 million new jobs average. Now, let me give you the averages. Bush I, 44,500 per month; Bush II, 34,678 per month; Clinton, 228,464 per month. Real GDP. Bush I, up 2.1; Clinton, plus-3.6 percent; Bush II, plus-2.6 percent.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, we like a lot of polls. The Dow Jones, that is sort of a poll on economic security, growth, confidence in our economy, Dow Jones under Bush I, up 46.7 percent. Under Bush II, now it has gone up a little bit the last few days, about 1 percent, from the time he took over to now.

Now, listen to this, my friends. This is a poll that counts about people who think our economy is doing well. Up under Clinton, remember it was 46 percent under Bush I, 1 percent under this President, under Bill Clinton, 255 percent increase in those 8 years.

So in conclusion, my friend, I will tell you that on every statistic, the representations you have made have been wrong. I will tell you the last 2 months, the last 2 months, ladies and gentlemen, the deficit in America went up $130 billion of deficit spending in just the last 2 months. That is the fiscal management that presents this program on the floor today. America ought to reject it, and we surely should on their behalf.

Mr. Leader, obviously the Members as we all know on both sides have been here for some period of time today and are very obviously desirous of knowing what our schedule is.

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Reclaiming my time, would it be safe, therefore, for Members to conclude that they need not be here before 5? If we went in at 1, you gave 2 hours' notice, the first vote would be 3, but am I correct that the Defense appropriations conference has not convened because the chairman sadly lost his mother, and it is my understanding he is coming back sometime, maybe he came back this afternoon, but would I be reasonably correct in saying that the chances of the Defense appropriations bill being ready to report prior to 5 would be very slim?

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, what I think then the message, correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Leader, is that Members can be assured that they will not have votes prior to 5 p.m. tomorrow, and presumably, notice would go out at 3 o'clock if votes were to be at 5 o'clock; would that be accurate?

Reclaiming my time, we do understand that the Defense appropriations committee conference report would probably be on the agenda. Can you tell us whether we expect the Defense authorization and/or the budget reconciliation bill also might be under consideration tomorrow?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that information. Can you tell us, can Members be relatively assured that they will be able to plan at least at

some point in time Sunday or early Monday morning that that would be the end of the session, at least for the period of time prior to Christmas?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that information.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope on behalf of my side, and I have talked to my friend from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) on the other side, I know both of us want to bring this session to a close. Members had hoped to be home certainly this weekend. Christmas is a week from tomorrow. I am hopeful that we can conclude tomorrow, and I would hope that we would all work towards that end.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot agree with the previous speaker. I think the tone of this debate is good, but the process is terrible. Mr. Lantos, the ranking member of the committee, attempted to participate in making this a truly bipartisan resolution.

Now, I am one of those who has consistently supported the policies of our government and who supports success in our efforts in Iraq. I think that is in the best interests of America, certainly in the best interests of the Iraqi citizenry and the best interests of civility in the Middle East. However, I am saddened by the continued partisanship with which this issue is handled.

Mr. Lantos and I and Ms. Pelosi offered a resolution which congratulated the Iraqi people, noted their courage, noted their determination to reach for democracy. That is what this effort is about. There was no attempt at bipartisanship. That was rejected out of hand, not even allowed as an amendment. That is not the way we bring our country together. That is not the way we strengthen our resolve. That is not the way we show the world that we are of, if not exactly one mind, of one objective.

I thank my friend for yielding me time. I thank him for his efforts. I generally agree with the propositions set forth in the resolution, but I am not sure I am going to vote for it because I am deeply grieved by the continuing failure to try to bring this House together on this issue and to bring this country together on this issue and to ensure that together we go forward to achieve success.

Mr. Chairman, let us set the record straight. This legislation is not real. It is a cynical political ploy.

Do not take my word for it. Grover Norquist, one of your heroes, said this, this morning: ``The good news is that the legislation that is being voted on, even with amendments that would improve it and make it less problematic, is not a piece of legislation that is going to pass the Senate and be signed by the President.'' So we are making political points, not policy.

This bill, even if it did become law, would not solve the real issue that confronts our Nation: the Federal Government's failure to ensure that our borders are secure. Who says that? George Bush, President of the United States, says that.

Let no one be mistaken. Our Nation has a border security problem. And it has an immigration problem. These problems were not created overnight, and they will not be remedied with a misguided, mean- spirited proposal that the majority has put on the floor today. The fact is, Republican inaction has left the United States ill-prepared to prevent or respond to another terrorist attack on our soil. Do not take my word for it. Tom Kean, former Republican Governor, and the 9/11 Commission gave Congress and the White House grades of D and F on the implementation of 17 of the commission's recommendations. This legislation would do little to prevent would-be terrorists from entering our country.

Democrats are for the rule of law. We want to get border security right. But this bill is not about solving problems. It is all about harsh, punitive measures that will not work.

Oppose this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, let's set the record straight: This legislation is a cynical, political charade.

But don't take my word for it. Just listen to Grover Norquist, the President of Americans for Tax Reform and a White House confidante.

This morning he is quoted as saying: ``The good news is that the legislation that is being voted on, even with amendments that would improve it and make it less problematic, is not a piece of legislation that is going to pass the Senate and be signed by the President.''

This bill, even if it did become law, would not solve the real issue that confronts our Nation--the Federal Government's failure to ensure that our borders are secure.

Let no one be mistaken: Our Nation has a border security problem. And, it has an immigration problem.

These problems were not created overnight. And they will not be remedied with the misguided, mean-spirited proposal that the majority has put on this floor today.

The fact is, Republican inaction has left the United States ill- prepared to prevent or respond to another terrorist attack on our soil.

The 9/11 commission just issued a report card that gave Congress and the White House grades of D or F on the implementation of 17 of the Commission's recommendations.

This legislation would do little to prevent would-be terrorists from entering our country.

Democrats are for the rule of law, we want to get border security right.

But this bill is not about solving problems. It is all about harsh, punitive measures that will not work.

This Republican Congress has simply failed to provide the resources that our Federal law enforcement agencies need to get the job done.

And, we certainly do not have the detention space necessary to keep all the undocumented migrants we detain--much less the millions of people that this bill would force us to incarcerate.

So, after allowing this situation to become a crisis, Republicans today offer a purely political proposal that promises a quick-fix, a magic bullet: Make them all criminals--the workers, their neighbors, and their employers.

And, make local and State law enforcement officials do the job of the Federal Government.

Democrats have a different approach. We want to take on this challenge in a comprehensive fashion.

We would do what's necessary to protect our borders, give law enforcement the tools that they need, ensure that our businesses have the workers they require, allow families to stay united, and honor the principles of inclusion and freedom that have always been our hallmark.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, it is our constitutional responsibility to exercise oversight, and I want to say to the gentleman who just spoke, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, this side of the aisle believes that you have been more bipartisan and are trying to include both sides in the deliberations, and we believe that is the correct way to do it, and we congratulate you for that.

This issue, of course, came up after your bill passed, so it could not have been offered in your bill because the issue was not known. It asked for a report to the Defense Committee as well. That is the bill that we are discussing. It is, I think, very relevant. I would hope that every Member would vote for this motion.

Quite simply, this motion would instruct conferees to agree to a Senate provision, passed 82-9, that requires the director of the National Intelligence Agency to provide members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees with a detailed report of any clandestine prison or detention facility where detainees in the global war on terrorism are or were being held.

This Congress ought to know that information. The Intelligence Committee ought to know that information. Indeed, in my opinion, perhaps all America ought to know that.

I say to my colleagues, whether you are troubled by recent revelations that the United States operates a clandestine prison or prisons on foreign soil or not, and I am one who is troubled by it, you should not quarrel with the proposition that the Members of this Congress have a constitutional obligation to conduct oversight on the administration's conduct of this war. That is what makes America different.

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from New York, had I more time.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman is correct, that it would not be shared with the whole House as a public disclosure. My understanding, and I stand to be corrected, is that every Member of the House, however, has the opportunity to go to the Intelligence Committee and see that information for themselves. I think I am correct on that. The gentleman may know more about that than I do.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the reason for that is for the same reason that overwhelmingly in the Senate they asked, because they wanted to assure that the information on the publicly disclosed conduct is in fact available to the Intelligence Committees of both Houses and to the Defense Committees.

Now, the gentleman who chairs that committee has said, we have that information. We do not have the information on our side of the aisle that in fact we have information from the National Intelligence Director as it relates to the publicly disclosed facilities and the use of those facilities and the countries which are receptors for those facilities.

Are you asking me whether Ms. Harman has it? I have not had a conversation with Ms. Harman, so I cannot respond.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was a cosponsor of this resolution. Obviously, it was his conclusion the Intelligence Committees did not have it.

Regrettably, very frankly, I tell my friend from New York, this Congress has shown little inclination for oversight. I am not going to go into the number of incidents that I think we should have had oversight on that we have not, particularly in the House as opposed to the Senate, which has had some more but not much. In my judgment, the revelations of clandestine CIA interrogation centers are serious and disconcerting, and this Congress, on behalf of the American people, needs to get at the bottom of it. The contention is that we have. Perhaps so. But apparently, again, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee does not think that is the case.

These revelations, if true, and the administration has not denied them, threaten to undermine our standing as the world's leading advocate for basic human rights and the rule of law. That concerns me. I presume it concerns every Member of this body. They threaten to underline our alliance.

Following in the footsteps of the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, which I think seriously undermined our position, Guantanamo Bay and Bagram Air Base, this story is yet another example of the administration's

attitude toward adherence to domestic and international law. That concerns me. It ought to concern the Congress. That is what separation of powers is about.

When we abandon the moral standards upon which our country was founded in the conduct of the war on terror, which I have supported, we not only diminish our standing in the world, we foment resentment against the United States and embolden those with whom we are engaged in a daily struggle.

I have supported that struggle. I intend to continue to support that struggle. But I think our moral standing needs to be as strong, frankly, as our military standing. Both will stand this country and Nation in good stead, as they have through history.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and urge support of the gentleman's motion.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

I understand the gentleman from Hawaii, and I checked to make sure I understood him correctly and the facts correctly, is that the Senate has offered an amendment which is included in the Defense bill which is being conferenced, the very bill to which this motion is being directed, that we take the Senate language that is in the Defense bill. So, obviously, it is absolutely relevant on the bill that is going to conference. In fact, it would not be relevant in any other piece of legislation.

I suggest to my friend that the gentleman is correct, it ought to be offered in a relevant time, and now is the relevant time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary efforts of Joe St. Clair, Tom Jarboe, and Donald Cropp, founders of the St. Mary's Hurricane Relief Fund. That is the county in which I live.

Following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, these three men organized the St. Mary's Hurricane Relief Fund to help the victims of the storm in the small town of D'Iberville, Mississippi, located in the district of my friend, Congressman Gene Taylor.

This October, Joe, Tom and Don drove two tractor trailers stocked with needed school supplies, book bags and other goods the entire way to D'Iberville. These items were collected with the assistance of countless St. Mary's County businesses and volunteers. Literally, tens of thousands of dollars of contributions.

The Hurricane Relief Fund's work to help D'Iberville did not stop when they returned to St. Mary's County. Since their initial trip, the St. Mary's Hurricane Relief Fund has organized an Adopt A Kid Campaign to ensure that the children of D'Iberville had the resources that they needed, facilitated stationing a medical team in D'Iberville, sent educational supplies to Sacred Heart Catholic School, sent 80 first-aid kits to D'Iberville Health Care Clinic and worked to fulfill the needs of the community as requested by D'Iberville officials.

This December, Joe, Tom and Don organized another massive donation drive, Operation Mississippi Christmas, this time to ensure that no child in D'Iberville went without a present.

Last Friday, I visited with the organizers and a group of volunteers at a warehouse as they loaded two additional tractor trailers bound for D'Iberville. That is four tractor trailers for these young people. I am proud I was able to participate in this noble effort by donating hundreds of duffle bags filled with gifts.

When the trucks left for the gulf coast on Saturday morning, they were loaded with more than just presents, and included among their cargo were 200 book bags loaded with school supplies, 50 additional first-aid kits, cases of needed medical supplies for the D'Iberville clinic, quilts donated by the local Amish community, bicycles, hundreds of duffle bags, 35 complete computer systems with printers, cables, et cetera, all donated by SmartCo, defibrillator batteries and a charger donated by St. Mary's Hospital, a critical item for the medical clinic, and 1,160 Wal-Mart gift cards for the upper middle and high school students.

On Sunday afternoon, the trucks rolled into D'Iberville, completing the approximately 16 hours and 1,000 mile journey.

On Monday, D'Iberville Elementary School held a pizza party as the presents were handed out and the goods distributed to the grateful community. At the end of the day, I received a call from the group indicating they had accomplished their mission of handing something to every school child, every school child in D'Iberville.

St. Mary's Hurricane Relief Fund has organized an amazingly successful relief effort, and I applaud its hard work. I would like to personally and publicly thank you, Joe St. Clair, Joe Cropp, Tom Jarboe, Guy Curley, Reggie Townsend, Ann Raley, Vince Whittles, the St. Mary's Chamber of Commerce, Father John Ball and the St. Mary's Trinity Episcopal Parish, Technology Security Associates, Larry Wise and the folks at BAE Systems, Bo Bailey and his son Tony for driving the trucks, and the hundreds of additional contributors, volunteers and businesses that contributed St. Mary's Hurricane Relief Fund's drive to help D'Iberville, Mississippi.

I am proud that my constituents, realizing that they are part of a community bigger than St. Mary's County, have sought to help our neighbors in Mississippi during their time of need. Their efforts surely for us all symbolize the true meaning of compassion, and I think it sets a great example of giving in this holiday season.

Joe St. Clair and Don tell the story of the children and their eyes gleaming as they received these gifts. Joe St. Clair, a crusty businessman about 55 years of age, telling me the story had tears flowing down his cheeks.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of acrimony on this floor too often, and too often we forget to remember our neighbors and our friends. This is an example of the best that is America.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this very important bipartisan resolution calling on member states of the United Nations to stop unfairly criticizing Israel and to promote a more balanced approach to the challenges in the Middle East.

In June of this year, the House overwhelmingly adopted a resolution condemning anti-semitic statements made at U.N. meetings and by U.N. member states. It was proper and appropriate that we publicly and vocally condemn some of the outrageous statements made by U.N. officials and member states.

However, there also is a more subtle form of anti-semitism that has been taking place at the United Nations for far too long--the alarming rate at which the U.N. General Assembly has considered and adopted anti-Israel resolutions.

As noted in the text of Mr. Rothman's measure, 21 of the 71 resolutions adopted by rollcall votes during the 59th session of the General Assembly dealt with Israel, and in recent years, the General Assembly and Security Council have introduced and approved hundreds of measures and resolutions that unfairly criticize and condemn Israel.

At a time when the international community is confronted with crises such as the ongoing terror campaign being waged by AI Qaeda against democracies in every corner of the world, the tragic genocide in Darfur, Sudan, and the continued spread of HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria, the U.N. General Assembly has seen fit to devote nearly a third of its time to castigating the state of Israel.

These unbalanced and discriminatory anti-Israel resolutions have been adopted by overwhelming margins. Meanwhile, there has been a disturbing lack of condemnation of Palestinian terror attacks against Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to not only support this resolution, but also to carry its message to the ambassadors, foreign ministers and heads of state with whom they meet on a daily basis: The mistreatment of Israel at the hands of the United Nations has not gone unnoticed, and it is no longer acceptable.

Furthermore, this obsessive and inappropriate focus on Israel at the United Nations only serves to harm that institution's credibility and to undermine the U.N.'s ability to serve as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time.

This is not Mr. Regula's bill. I do not really believe it is Mr. Lewis' bill. It is the bill that is the result of the fiscal policies we have been pursuing for the last 5 years, however.

And let us be clear. The so-called new and improved Labor-HHS bill is virtually identical to the conference report that the House rejected on November 17 in a bipartisan way. There is no reason for any Member to vote for it today, in my opinion. It is just like the flawed first version. This conference report betrays our Nation's values and, I think, investment in our future.

Last week, this House majority passed more than $94 billion in additional tax cuts, the benefits of which go mostly to the wealthiest in America. This week with this bill, we are slashing discretionary spending for education, health care programs, worker training, and assistance to the most vulnerable of Americans. That is just half of it. If the Republican leadership gets its way, it will impose an across-the-board cut that nearly doubles the cuts in this bill to some $3 billion.

Let no one be mistaken. When push comes to shove, this majority without fail puts its friends ahead of our Nation's future. I do not refer to the chairman of the committee or the chairman of the subcommittee.

Now, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can claim there is little they can do to improve the funding levels in this bill, because the fiscal policies they have pursued have put them

in a position where we have insufficient funds to fund the priorities of this Nation.

They say they have no options, no alternatives. They say they are only complying with funding levels dictated by the Republican budget resolution. One of my Republican predecessors, Mr. Regula's Republican predecessor, refused to vote for the budget simply for that reason a number of years ago. He said, I cannot do this bill within the context of the budget that is presented.

Now they want to conveniently ignore the undeniable truth. They voted for that budget resolution, which put them in the straits they now find themselves. They want to vote for draconian cuts in April and proclaim that they are getting tough on spending and then 8 months later they want to disclaim responsibility when those cuts are enacted.

The inappropriate funding levels in this conference report are the inevitable consequence of the most irresponsible fiscal policies in the history of our Nation that we are pursuing, of policies that have spawned record deficits. This administration started with a $5.6 trillion surplus. It is now confronted with a $4 trillion deficit. There are no fiscal conservatives on that side of the aisle, I tell my friends, of policies that this Republican majority and the administration have enacted to deliberately deprive our government of the resources that it needs and that our people know our country needs.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am particularly incensed that at a time of record heating costs, the subcommittee defeated Mr. Obey's amendment to provide an additional $2 billion for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

I predict to you today, just as when we rejected funding for the veterans that we said was necessary and their health care, you are going to be back here with a supplemental funding additional energy costs for seniors.

And, by the way, let me also say Mr. Obey had an amendment which was going to give to seniors an additional 6 months to make a determination to figure out this incredibly complex prescription drug bill that we have put on their doorstep, and that was rejected unanimously by Republicans while it was unanimously supported by Democrats.

The message here, Mr. Speaker, is unmistakable and sad. While the wealthy have money to burn, the poor get to shiver in silence. I simply do not understand why the majority refused to adopt a second amendment, as I said, to extend time for seniors. We all know the reality. The Republican prescription drug plan is so complicated and confusing that millions of seniors need and deserve more time to weigh their options.

I urge my colleagues to vote against their conference report. I regrettably say that, but I think the failures contained in it compel that conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle: Support this critically important motion to instruct.

It is identical to the amendment offered by Senator McCain--and passed 90-9 and by voice vote in the Senate--on the defense appropriations and defense authorization bills.

This motion would do two things. First, it would establish the Army field manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of department of defense detainees.

There is still much confusion about which interrogation techniques are permissible--and this confusion has been fomented by a White House that believed the Geneva Conventions were outmoded and inapplicable.

Secondly, this motion would prohibit ``cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment'' of detainees. Thus, it is consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture.

Sadly, this prohibition on torture is necessitated by the administration's own actions: its endorsement of interrogation tactics that border on torture, anything short of ``organ failure'', and a large number of documented cases of abuse, torture and homicide in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While the President stated in November that ``We do not torture,'' his own Vice President has worked against this motion and sought legal language that would allegedly allow the CIA to utilize torture tactics against foreign prisoners it is holding overseas.

As Senator McCain, himself a victim of torture at the hands of North Vietnamese, recently stated: The administration's position ``means that America is the only country in the world that asserts a legal right to engage in cruel and inhumane treatment.''

The administration's position on this matter is simply not defensible.

It undermines our credibility in the world. It harms our efforts in the war on terror. It makes more likely the exposure of our own troops to torture. And, it completely betrays our cherished American values.

This is not a question of whether we must combat--and defeat-- terrorists.

We must.

This is an issue of who we are as a people.

And we must never let it be said that when this generation of Americans was forced to confront evil that we succumbed to the tactics of the tyrant; that we stooped to the depths of the dictator.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress has the responsibility under article I, section 8 of our Constitution to make ``rules concerning captures on land and water.'' That is a responsibility that we must embrace today, and not delegate to a zealous executive branch.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion.

Our friend, Mr. Dingell. Mr. Speaker, tonight there will only be unanimous bipartisan agreement on this House floor. Tonight, the Members of this body, both Democrats and Republicans, our Speaker and our Democratic leader join together to recognize the extraordinary and many accomplishments of a great Member of this House. And to honor that service to our Nation we honor an American giant: The Dean of the House, our colleague from the State of Michigan, Congressman John Dingell, Jr.

This day, December 13, 2005, marks Chairman Dingell's 50th anniversary as a Member of this great body, the people's House. The people are proud of John Dingell and rightfully so. He is the third longest serving Member in the history of this institution. That means he has survived a long time. And, frankly, 50 years of service is itself something that ought to be honored, but John Dingell is deserving of honor for much more than longevity.

As I can attest, Congressman Dingell shows no signs of slowing down. Only Jamie Whitten of Michigan, with whom I served on the Appropriations Committee, with 53 years and 10 months of service, and Carl Vinson, the great Representative of Georgia, with 50 years and 2 months of service have served longer. John Dingell will surpass, God willing, both of those.

Just consider that during the last half century Congressman Dingell has searched under 10 presidents. No, that is wrong. John Dingell serves under no one. John Dingell has served with 10 Presidents. He has cast nearly 22,000 rollcall votes. In fact, one-fourth of the Members who serve here today, 107 Members to be precise, were born after John Dingell came to the Congress of the United States.

However, no one should be mistaken. As notable as the length of Congressman Dingell's tenure is, it is eclipsed by his truly remarkable record of substantive legislation over the last five decades on behalf of his people, on behalf of the people of Michigan, on behalf of the people of this country.

John Dingell, my constituents, are proud of your service and thankful for your contributions. You have made their lives better. You have made the Chesapeake Bay better. You have made Maryland better. In serving Michigan, you have served us all.

Many of the most important pieces of legislation, on health care, as Leader Pelosi pointed out and as Speaker Hastert pointed out, on the environment and on workers and consumers rights bear John Dingell's strong imprint, and a significant number of these bills were written by him.

Examples: The 1990 Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Children's Health Insurance Program, the Mammography Quality Standards Act. And he is still fighting for a real Patients Bill of Rights. We should have passed and enacted John Dingell's Patients Bill of Rights a few years ago. That would have indeed been a testimonial that would have been worthy of his service.

In addition, Congressman Dingell halls helped craft legislation on issues ranging from telecommunications to drinking water quality, and blocked proposals such as electric utility deregulation that he opposed. Said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, ``he has a role in almost every major legislative effort to help average families,'' working Americans, and his fellow citizens.

And when it comes to effective, tenacious congressional oversight Congressman Dingell has demonstrated that he has few peers. He has fought to ensure that the intent of the laws were carried out and that tax dollars were spent properly. He wanted to invest, but he wanted that investment to be honest, he wanted that investment to be effective, and he wanted that investment to be carefully husbanded.

The work of his Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations led to the firing of the Superfund administrator, the discovery of a defense contractor who charged the Pentagon for boarding a dog, and improper billing practices by universities for research expenses.

I had a 15-minute interview with a reporter from USA Today and, unfortunately, she took two words that I said. I said, yes, John Dingell is a wonderful man. She said, well, I hear he's pretty tough. I said, he can be sometimes gruff and intimidating. He has intimidated me sometimes. But the vast majority of my comments were about his caring for his fellow human beings, his love for Debbie, and indeed the love and respect and honor that he gives to every one of his colleagues, realizing that they too have been chosen by their constituents to serve in this people's House. The people's House is a greater place, this country is a greater country, the people are a richer people because of the service of John Dingell.

God bless you, John Dingell, and thank you.